Guest Opinion: Les Gara on Medicaid

Walker Is Right: We Need Medicaid Expansion

guest opinion, by Rep. Les Gara (D-Anchorage)

Governor Walker, like other Republican and Democratic governors who have hopped on board, is right that accepting Medicaid expansion will save Alaska money and cut our budget deficit. Turning away an opportunity to get ill people medical care and cut the budget at the same time would be an opportunity wasted.

Here’s a reality check as we look at budget cutting options. Given the fall in oil prices, the budget deficit is so large that you could fire EVERY state employee, and still have a roughly $1.5 billion deficit. Cutting government waste alone won’t fix the budget gap. We need to take advantage of smart opportunities like this, too.

I agree with the governor that we can’t afford to turn up our noses at $28 million in budget savings over the next four years. Yet, under Medicaid expansion we can provide treatment to people who are ill and can’t afford  it, and bring over $130,000,000/year in federal funds to Alaska that will ripple through our economy. Turning away the 4,000 new Alaska jobs that would be created when Alaska is facing potentially serious economic hardship, makes little sense if you are looking to protect the economy.

How does Medicaid expansion save Alaska money? 

First, until 2017 the federal government pays 100 percent of the cost of expansion, and after 2020 it becomes a permanent ninety percent federal match to cover these costs. That’s all instead of the normal, much smaller fifty percent federal Medicaid match. Even at ninety percent federal funding it will continue to cut our budget gap.

It would be a classic political bungle to delay, and miss the early years of 100 percent federal Medicaid coverage.

How will this cut Alaska’s budget deficit? Accepting Medicaid expansion will bring federal funding to cover medical care for which the state now pays 100 percent to cover. For example, current Medicaid generally doesn’t cover you unless you are pregnant or have children. Expansion brings coverage to adults with no children. This will reduce alcohol and substance abuse treatment costs the state currently pays with state dollars, prisoner medical costs we currently pay with state dollars, and other costs the state fully foots to cover adults without children.

And Medicaid expansion requires mental health coverage parity—so we will receive needed alcoholism, drug, and mental health treatment funds the state now covers. That saves us money, saves families agony, puts fewer children into expensive and potentially damaging foster care, and makes our streets and homes safer.

When Alaska receives federal road funding with a ninety percent federal match all legislators jump at it because road maintenance—and the infusion of federal funds—creates jobs and provides better roads. Turning away 90–100 percent federal funding to get people medical care, create jobs, and qualify more people for federally funded private insurance subsidies just doesn't make sense.

And there’s a cost-saving bonus for people with private insurance. Alaskans with private insurance will benefit when hospitals no longer have to pass the high costs of uninsured patients to the rest of us.

Let’s be smart. As a Democrat I’m happy to work across party lines with the governor. I hope some of the undecided or recalcitrant members of the governor’s own party will also agree, so we can work together and do the right thing for Alaska and our budget woes.

—Representative Gara is a member of the House Finance Committee.

(Editor's Note: See also The Lewin Group analysis of the impact of Medicaid Expansion in Alaska.)

At the Food Policy Conference: Neighborhood to Nation in Portland

I'm in Portland, Oregon, attending the Neighborhood to Nation Food Policy Conference, sponsored by the Community Food Security Coalition. A few Alaskans are here: Bob Mikol (TA for Craig Gerlach's Comparative Farming and Sustainable Food Systems class, among other things), Danny Consenstein (Alaska Farm Service Agency), Alli Harvey (with the Alaska Center for the Environment's Local Food project), Diane Peck (Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Obesity Prevention and Chronic Disease Prevention), Rachel Garcia (intern with the Alaska Community Agriculture Association), Eleanor Wirts (UAF RAP grad student and musher), Johanna Herron (Alaska Farm to School), Mark Carper (UAA and the Alaska Food Policy Council), Kelsey Bearden (fellow student from Comparative Farming), Lisa Sadler-Hart (Sitka Local Foods Network), and myself (UAF School of Natural Resources & Agricultural Sciences, Ester Republic reporter and publisher, librarian, gardener, AK Food Policy Council member, Ester Community Association member, et cetera). I'm down here in large measure because of Gerlach, SNRAS dean Carol Lewis, and Diane Peck. There were others from Alaska, too (Danielle Giles, Nikos Pastos, and Ryan Zinn, but I didn't meet them--Zinn was a presenter, from the Fair World Project).

And I'm having a blast. This is a great group of people, a good 640 strong, from 46 states and DC, plus Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec. I attended a short course (Food Policy Advocacy 101) this morning and the plenary gathering this afternoon. The plenary speakers were great, talking about poverty, food deserts, exploited food service and other food industry workers (did you know that the federal minimum wage is only $2.13 an hour? ridiculous!), community gardens, community organizing. Talk about inspiring people.

After the plenary session, we broke out into networking groups, and Eleanor and I went with the Canadians while the rest of the Alaskans networked with the Northwest region. THAT was interesting. We told them we were crashing their party, and they accepted us with good grace and not a few jokes ("I can see Alaska from my house!"). The stereotype of the polite Canadian was not actually blown, despite a not-very-serious attempt to dispel it ("Fuck off!" from one speaker and apparently frequent Facebook poster (not sure if this was a joke, actually) at an opportune and humorous moment of self-teasing about being all polite--I guess you had to be there, but the whole group laughed). There was much emphasis on relationships between people, talking about developing mutual trust and respect between food producers and others in the food system. I was struck by the quiet, polite, and respectful discourse, along with the deep level of political savvy and pronounced opinon concerning the recent majority government positioning of Steven Harper and his party in the Canadian federal government. Very different in approach and delivery than US types, but lots of zing and pow (quite politely phrased, though)!

I've met a lot of fascinating people with great projects and amazing accomplishments. One man, Raymond Figueroa, from New York City, is working with a community gardening project (Friends of Brook Park) taking on abandoned spaces and turning them into a way to give locals control over their food and a way to make a difference in their own lives, to bring dignity back.

Corporations have more rights than you

The Supreme Court's decision (PDF) in Citizens United v. the Federal Elections Commission is one of the biggest farces in American history, overturning 150 years of court precedent and rendering moot much of the campaign finance reform law in the United States, at both state and national level. (My February Ester Republic editorial was about this ruling—I strongly recommend reading Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion for some entertaining and commonsense treatment of the matter)

Fortunately, several states are fighting back, and Alaska is one of them. Unfortunately, the bills that would clarify in no uncertain terms that corporations are not to be treated as persons for the purposes of elections have been sat on in committee, and here we are, two days from the end of the session, and they still haven't been released for an up-or-down vote. This is OUTRAGEOUS!

The House bill is stuck in the State Affairs Committee, which is under the aegis of Rep. Bob Lynn. I urge everyone to e-mail and call his office at 465-4958.

Not only that, but a companion bill that makes sure that campaign donations by corporations must be reported, although the Senate bill passed (19-0), is also stuck in committee in the House. From Mudflats:

The State limits on private citizen campaign contributions are the same after the Supreme Court ruling. Those limits include the $500 annual limit on individual donations to candidates and a disclosure requirement. Unless legislative action is taken, corporations will have more rights than the citizens of Alaska.

But why should we be surprised? Large corporations already get massive subsidies and don't even have to pay income tax, even if they make tens of billions of dollars in profit. They're subsidized with our tax dollars, after all. Why should they have to deal with the limitations to their political activiities involving money like the rest of us?

Remember: we're the peons, they are the beneficent aristrocrats. We don't count, so we give up our money and our rights (through our elected representatives), so they can rob us blind. Don't believe it? Exxon not only didn't have to pay taxes for 2009, they got a $156 million tax refund. How much did you pay in taxes this year?

Mike Musick meet and greet

Your intrepid blogger is here at the Golden Eagle, blogging live from the scene of a political fundraiser/gathering for Mike Musick, who is running for re-election to borough assembly. (The election is October 6.) Mike arrived a few minutes ago and is looking cheerful, chatting with Joe Thomas (that's state senator Joe) and Maggie Billington. I'm not close enough to eavesdrop, but I can step away from the computer and butt in on the conversation, I think. Northern River is tuning up for their next song--wait, they've started. Hoo! Great stuff. Beth is going to town on the fiddle.

Spoke briefly with Joe Thomas about the Ester library plans (new and improved).

So: who's here? Don DeWitt, Ray & Jill Cameron, JD Ragan, Nancy Burnham, Bob Grove, Charley Gray, Bob Siftar, Kate Billington, Jeff Stepp, Pete Bowers...Mike is out there mingling.

Aha. Mike Musick has just come over and I plan to query him on a few items (seeing as I didn't get to this for the Republic).

(Don DeWitt) Q. Have you heard about the plastic bag that dissolves in sunlight?

A. No. I'm not setting policy. I'm just working on setting up a recycling commission; I'm sure they'll they'll be happy to look into that.

(DeWitt and Musick discussed the relative merits of photodegradable plastic bags, on whether the degraded product--a powder after four months, according to DeWitt--is toxic or not)

This question related to the one I planned to ask him, as a Facebook user was curious about how he had voted on the plastic bag fee/tax ordinance and why.

Musick: I really wanted a grassroots, bottom-up recycling movement so I voted [against the ordinance] because I understand this community and that this would create a divisive situation...

[Musick said that he wanted to address the questioner directly about this (the bag ordinance and the fee). Mike has been instrumental in reviving the recycling commission (not yet officially voted on). I spoke with Layne St. John, a former assemblyman and chair of the Solid Waste Committee about this earlier--Hans and I ran into him and Janice at the Blue Loon earlier tonight where we had gone out to dinner. Layne described how the recycling commission/program idea has resurfaced over the years again and again but has never been able to stick. We talked about land fills, municipal composting, and methane gas reclamation from landfills, and the economics of recycling in such a small population base. I believe we need to get this thing in gear; shipping raw materials outside ends up being too expensive, but perhaps we can do the ol' value-added product thing.]

Okay, time to do a little mingling of my own. Will be back shortly.

A worthwhile proposal

Nadine Winters introduced this ordinance on the 20th of August. It would provide for a voluntary program by retailers (of large size) in the borough to charge a small amount for "disposable" plastic bags which would then be used to support borough recycling programs. Just in case you didn't know, those plastic shopping bags are the source of a serious and deadly type of pollution/litter. Plastic refuse of all types is a big big problem these days--ever hear of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch? Los Angeles has enacted a ban on the bags which will take effect in 2010. Cities around the world--entire provinces and countries, even--are banning or penalizing the use of disposable bags.

The Fairbanks North Star Borough should follow through with this mild ordinance. It's a step in the right direction, and, while voluntary, will raise money to reduce litter and borough landfill expenses. PUblic commentary (and I think the vote on it) is on September 10. Contact the borough assembly to support it!

ORDINANCE NO. 2009 - 40

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8 OF THE FNSB CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ESTABLISH A VOLUNTARY PROGRAM DESIGNED TO REDUCE THE USE OF PLASTIC BAGS, IMPOSE A FEE FOR CERTAIN PLASTIC BAGS PROVIDED TO CUSTOMERS BY LARGE RETAILERS AND ESTABLISH A LOCAL RECYCLING PROGRAM SPECIAL REVENUE FUND

WHEREAS, Fairbanks North Star Borough voters approved in 1993 a policy to encourage recycling, reuse and reduction of solid wastes generated in the Borough; and

WHEREAS, Americans use over 14 billion plastic bags a year; and

WHEREAS, Plastic bags do not biodegrade in landfills and reducing their use would provide available space at the landfill; and

WHEREAS; Collection and disposal have been estimated in some municipalities to cost up to 17 cents per plastic bag; and

WHEREAS, the Borough expends over $30,000 annually in litter pickup efforts, a third of which is estimated to be plastic bags; and

WHEREAS, regulation that discourages and decreases the use of disposable plastic bags in the Borough is in the best interests of the Borough; and

WHEREAS, the successful reduction of the number of disposable plastic bags entering the Borough’s solid waste stream, along with the integration of reusable bags and the increase in recycling of plastic bags, will help the Borough achieve the policy goal approved by voters.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH ASSEMBLY;

Section 1. This ordinance is of a general and permanent nature and shall be codified.

Section 2. Chapter 8.12 of the FNSB Code of Ordinances is amended to add the following chapters:

8.12.037 Voluntary Program for Participating Retailers

A. Sellers using disposable plastic bags, that fall outside the definition of retail sellers, may on a voluntary basis, charge the disposable plastic bag fee imposed in this chapter. If the seller chooses to participate then the seller is subject to the requirements of this chapter.

B. Sellers of goods using disposable plastic bags who choose not to participate in charging the disposable plastic bag fee may also participate in the program by:

1. Making available recycling bins/canisters for plastic shopping bags.
2. Developing messages placed in highly visible areas that encourages and reminds shoppers to use reusable bags.
3. Making reusable bags available at a reasonable price.

8.12.038 Disposable plastic Bag Fee

A. Effective January 1, 2010, all retail sellers, as defined in this chapter, shall charge and collect a five cent ($0.05) fee for each disposable plastic bag provided to customers. The amount of the fee shall be stated separately on a sales receipt, invoice, or other record of sale. It shall be a violation of this section for any store subject to the requirements of this section to pay or otherwise reimburse a customer for any portion of this fee.

B. The retail store shall keep a record of the number of disposable plastic bags the retail seller has purchased, been provided with, or otherwise acquired, and a record of the amount paid for disposable bags subject to this section that are provided to, or sold to, retail consumers on a monthly basis.

C. The purpose of the fee established in this chapter is to regulate the generation of waste from disposable plastic bags by creating an economic incentive for customers to use reusable shopping bags.

D. On a monthly basis and as otherwise may be required by the Chief Financial Officer, all retail sellers required to collect the disposable plastic bag fee shall report and remit the total fees due to the Borough. Payments and receipts shall be reported on forms prescribed by the Borough’s Chief Financial Officer. The Chief Financial Officer is authorized to adopt rules for the administration, payment, collection and enforcement of the fee imposed in this chapter.

E. If a report or payment of any amounts due under this section are not received by the Chief Financial Officer on or before the due date, the Chief Financial Officer shall add a penalty calculated in the same manner as the penalty imposed under FNSB 3.58.090 as it now exists or as it may be amended except that it shall be calculated on the amount of fees due. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to deem any fees required under this chapter to be a tax.

8.12.039 Local recycling program special revenue fund

The local recycling program special revenue fund is hereby established. All funds received from the payment of the plastic bag fee shall be deposited into the local recycling program special revenue fund. Money in this account may be appropriated only to support Borough recycling efforts. Authorized expenditures from this fund, which may be expended by the Borough Mayor without further appropriation, are amounts used to support the voluntary program to reduce the use of disposable plastic bags and funds to make available to the public, for a reduced fee or free-of-charge, reusable shopping bags to the extent the Mayor determines that such programs will significantly reduce the costs associated with the recycling and disposal of plastic bags.

Section 3. Section 8.12. 021 Definitions is amended to add the following definitions (which shall be added by the clerk in alphabetical order).

“Retail seller” means any person or entity engaged in the business of offering and/or selling goods directly to a customer and that has annual gross sales of one million dollars or more in the Fairbanks North Star Borough.

“Disposable plastic bag” means a bag made of plastic to carry customer purchases from a store. It does not include: a compostable plastic bag; a bag used only to contain ice; bags used by customers inside stores to package bulk items such as fruit, vegetables, nuts, candy or small hardware items; bags used to contain or wrap frozen foods, meat or fish or flowers, or other items where dampness may be a problem; bags used to protect prepared foods or bakery goods; bags provided by pharmacists to contain prescription drugs; newspaper bags, door-hanger bags, laundry-dry cleaning bags, or bags sold in packages containing multiple bags intended for use as garbage, pet waste, or yard waste bags.

“Chief Financial Officer” means the Finance Director or any officer, agent or employee of the Borough designated to act on the Chief Financial Officer’s behalf.

Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective at 5:00 p.m. of the first Borough business day following its adoption.

Even the American Library Association wants single-payer health care

Congress, and in particular the Blue Dog Democrats (which I am increasingly suspecting are actually DINOs, or Democrats In Name Only), need to PAY ATTENTION! Here's what the ALA said in their press release:

ALA Calls for ‘Public Option’ in Health Care Reform
August 19th, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Jenni Terry

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The American Library Association (ALA) today sent a letter [PDF] to all members of Congress, voicing its support for including a “public option” in health care reform legislation.

The association, which represents over 65,000 members, also supports a “single-payer” option and believes removing public options, including potential cooperative arrangements, from the final legislation would not accomplish the strong reform needed.

“Without a ‘single-payer’ provision, ALA is even more committed to retaining a ‘public option’ as reform legislation moves forward,” Emily Sheketoff, executive director of the ALA Washington Office, said. “Like every segment of our society, our nation’s library budgets are being outpaced and even consumed with increasing costs of health care. With the vast majority of librarians and library workers employed in the public sector, the rising cost of providing health insurance has placed enormous burdens on state and local governments. This makes it increasingly difficult for them to adequately fund libraries – and threatens our ability to serve the public.”

Sheketoff said the association has previously informed Congress of its support of health care reforms and is calling upon Congress again to pass significant legislation that will ensure health care is available to all.

An ALA resolution passed at the association’s July 2009 Annual Conference in Chicago states, “The ever-increasing expense of health care benefits continues to inhibit the ability of libraries to create career opportunities for librarians and library workers, stunts improvements in wages and thereby threatens the future of our profession and our libraries.”

“Libraries must be able to offer affordable and comprehensive health care insurance to assure healthy employees, to manage library budgets and to promote healthy communities that our libraries serve. We need a public option to make this happen,” Sheketoff said.

I mean, good god, other countries have been doing this quite successfully at less cost and with better health care delivery for decades! so why can't we?

Or maybe the question should be, why won't we?

The Politics of Food

I plan on going to this lecture tonight, and thought I'd spread the word:

Politics of FOOD - Personal Responsibility vs. Social Responsibility

A FREE lecture by noted author and educator

Marion Nestle, Ph.D.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009
7:00 p.m., Schaible Auditorium

Marion Nestle is the author of three prize-winning books on nutrition including Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health (2002); Safe Food: Bacteria, Biotechnology, and Bioterrorism (2003), and What to Eat (2006). Her most recent book (published in 2008) is Pet Food Politics: the Chihuahua in the Coal Mine. She writes the ‘Food Matters’ column for the San Francisco Chronicle and co-writes a food and nutrition column for The Bark magazine.

She is the Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University. She also holds appointments as Professor of Sociology at NYU and Visiting Professor of Nutritional Sciences at Cornell University. She is a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley with a Ph.D. in molecular biology and an M.P.H. in public health nutrition. She is the recipient of a Lifetime Achievement Award from the James Beard Foundation, the food world’s highest honor.

For more information, please call 474-7021 or e-mail summer@uaf.edu

Sex with Ducks

The California Supreme Court, if you haven't noticed, has decided that unequal treatment under the law and oppression of a minority by the majority are just ducky. So to speak.

This musical commentary and video by Garfunkel and Oates puts this stupid attitude in the right perspective. Not sure how to embed it, but believe me, it's worth a look-see.

Hat tip to Monique Musick!

Senator Baucus: bought and paid for?

Well, this is one possible answer to my question on why, if Senator Baucus thinks we have such a terrible health care crisis in this country, he isn't (as chair of the hearings) allowing single-payer advocates a seat at the table:

One of the Baucus 13, Kevin Zeese, recently summarized Baucus’ career campaign contributions:

“From the insurance industry: $1,170,313;
health professionals: $1,016,276;
pharmaceuticals/health-products industry: $734,605;
hospitals/nursing homes: $541,891;
health services/HMOs: $439,700.”

In other words: his campaigns have been financed by the for-profit health industry.

Interesting, wouldn't you say?

Let's just take a look at WHY single-payer reduces expenses so dramatically. Here's the United States' system as it currently stands:



Rather messy, no? Convoluted, even.

And here's Canada's single-payer system:



Much simpler. It's the complexity of the US system that breeds an expensive wastefulness, and the profit motive that creates an incentive to whittle away people's coverage and endurance through (again wasteful) quantities of paperwork, etc.

These graphic representations of health care systems are from Neil Davis' book, Mired in the Health Care Morass, which I published last year. Reading that book made it very very clear just why Congress' and the White House's approach on this is so wrong-headed, and doomed to failure--from a health care standpoint. It will work beautifully from an investor's profit-making standpoint, so long as you don't care that people will be dying and sickly and going broke as a result.

Congress & Obama in cahoots with the insurance companies

I've been listening to the news about the latest blah-blah in Congress and from the White House about the supposed health care "reform" they plan to foist on the public. "We'll have a great new plan by July!" gushes Speaker Pelosi. "Coverage for everyone!" promises Obama.

Well, who gives a flying fuck, huh, really?

"Congressional leaders on health care have taken single payer off the table as politically impractical." Um, yeah, the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry might not fund their campaigns next time. "Coverage" and "insurance plans" just arent' going to cut it. The proposals seem to be headed straight to a private-profit, public-cost type of plan. Single-payer advocates have to disrupt the hearings to even get the phrase mentioned in Baucus' hearing rooms, although that isn't helping it get addressed, exactly.

Last time, says Catherine Arnt of Business Week, the Clinton adminstration botched health care reform because they didn't engage all the players:

The Administration apparently learned its lesson from the Clinton experience, which hammered out its bill behind closed doors, with little to no industry input. By bringing the insurance and hospital executives to the table, it makes it that much harder for them to derail the effort altogether. At a White House press conference, Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters: "Let's not minimize the impact of the difference between being at the table working constructively for comprehensive health-care reform that cuts costs for the American people, vs. campaign-style ads to derail it. I think today represents, in many ways, a big shift in the ground underneath people that have been working on health-care reform for decades."

So, apparently the Obama administration plans to botch this attempt too, by excluding the single-payer players, which represent better than 60% of the public. John Conyers bill, HR 676, is ALREADY prepared and ready to go.

So really, it's quite clear that they JUST DON'T CARE. Obama might possibly care, but he's not listening to the science, or the facts, or the people who could tell him the facts. Nope. It's 'politically inexpedient.'

This is really, really, foul. Senator Baucus knows there's a problem, but if it's the crisis he says it is, why isn't he willing to even consider a possible solution, one that is working in almost every other industrialized nation? Why is he supporting a model like Massachusetts' plan, which, as Neil Davis points out in his upcoming Dose of Reality, is failing miserably?

The fundraiser phenomenon

This year, I've noticed far more fundraisers to pay medical expenses than ever before. Three fundraisers for kids with cancer (no insurance or not enough) right around the beginning of March. Then a couple more. The latest one is for Evan Phillips of the Whipsaws, who is having surgery for an old injury that damaged his hip years ago and lately has been causing him so much pain that he couldn't participate in the planned tour this winter of Tim Easton, Leeroy Stagger, and him.

So now there's a fundraiser in Anchorage, featuring all kinds of musical types. He travels in musical circles, and has friends who are great at graphic design and publicity, so he's likely to be able to raise enough to pay a good bit of the bill.

Doesn't something strike you as horribly wrong with this picture?

While Obama and the Democrats in Congress are moving together on supposed health care "reform," the Republicans are plotting To-Hell-With-The-People obstructionism. But that obstructionism may just save the public's bacon--all the Democrats seem to be talking about is health insurance. Story after story talks about "coverage", "benefits packages," and "insurance". THIS ISN'T HEALTH CARE, you BOZOS!

The REAL health care reform proposal, HR 676, sponsored by John Conyers, is barely mentioned, even in articles that propose things like an expansion of Medicare. Hell, Conyers barely got into the roundtable Obama held earlier this year on the subject of health care reform, and it was only after an e-mail barrage and deluge of protests that they let him in the doors.

So Congress is talking about health insurance and Obama is talking about providing "health insurance to every American that they can afford and that provides them high quality." That's still not the same thing as health care, Mr. President, and I think your route is a mistake.

In the meantime, sick people get to rely on the charity of their friends. Again and again, until their friends and neighbors are tapped out.

What a stupid way to run a country.

Applause from the half of the state Palin hasn't noticed yet

From the Alaska Federation of Natives:

The Alaska Federation of Natives applauds the 26th Alaska State Legislature’s refusal to confirm Wayne Anthony Ross as the next Attorney General of the State of Alaska. We extend our thanks and appreciation to the members of the 26th Alaska State Legislature for making the right decision.

Hear, hear!

There's sanity in Alaska politics after all

Old news on the blogosphere by now, but I'm doing a little happy dance anyway: Mr. Wayne Anthony Ross's nomination for attorney general by Ms. Sarah Palin was soundly rejected today (35 agin, 23 fer). I am, however, utterly astounded that as many as twenty-three members of the legislature thought Ross was sufficiently sober and appropriate to be confirmed. They would be:

John Cohill, R-North Pole (of course!)

Nancy Dahlstrom, R-Anchorage

Anna Fairclough, R-Eagle River (are you surprised?)

Carl Gatto, R-Palmer (nah--not him!)

John Harris, R-Valdez

Mike Hawker, R-Anchorage

Carl Johnson, R-Anchorage

Wes Keller, R-Wasilla (ah, yes, Mr. Wingnut. No surprises there.)

Mike Kelly, R-Fairbanks (I recall some real silliness from Kelly, but I would have thought he'd have more respect for the law. Well, maybe not.)

Bob Lynn, R-Anchorage

Charisse Millett, R-Anchorage

Cathy Munoz, R-Juneau

Mark Neuman, R-Wasilla

Kurt Olson, R-Soldotna

Jay Ramras, R-Fairbanks (Jay! Come ON! I thought you had more sense!)

Bill Stoltze, R-Eagle River

Con Bunde, R-Anchorage (This man's reputation extends statewide, which is too bad.)

Fred Dyson, R-Eagle River

Charlie Huggins, R-Wasilla

Lesil McGuire, R-Anchorage

Linda Menard, R-Wasilla

Kevin Meyer, R-Anchorage

Gene Therriault, R-North Pole (Another one who shows sense from time to time, but still, I remain unshocked that he voted this way.)

So there you have it. The list of people who don't seem to get that when a nominee starts out with an agenda, this is bad; that when the nominee isn't too concerned about what's legal, this is bad; that when the nominee is blatantly bigoted against a group of citizens, that this is bad; that when the nominee has no concern for the needs and legal issues of half the state, this is also bad; that when the nominee is not just colorful, he's insensitive and rude, that's bad. These are politicians who don't have good judgement, I'd say. Apparently the overriding factor for them was that they felt they Must Show Party Loyalty. This seems to be the general pattern for Republicans in recent years: Party Solidarity Above All, and to hell with the country or what's good for the state or the people or the Rule of Law.

Go figure.

Watch them carefully. Look at their records. Decide for yourself. I intend to keep a sharper eye on them than I have been.

Voting rights in Alaska

Most of the rest of the Alaska blogosphere seems to be talking about Wayne "Agenda" Ross, and I don't blame them (the guy's freaking scary), but there's yet another little item that needs Alaska bloggers' attention: Senate Bill 68, An Act Relating to the Voting Rights of Felons. This bill would liberalize the voting rights of people convicted of felonies in Alaska; right now, Alaska prevents felons from voting until they have served time, and are done with probation and/or parole. The bill would restrict voting rights only while a felon was actually incarcerated.

Two states, Maine and Vermont, allow prisoners the vote. Every other state and the District of Columbia all restrict felons' voting rights to some degree, and two states, Kentucky and Virginia, deny voting rights for life to anybody with a felony conviction and never mind whether they've paid their debt to society--they still have to pay, and can never have a vote again. This is draconian. Alaska is on the more restrictive end of the spectrum, although not in with the most restrictive states. Overall, the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world (although perhaps China may be higher--it's hard to tell).

SB 68 is a bill that should be passed. The Sentencing Project has some interesting statistics on incarceration and felony disenfranchisement (although, curiously, it doesn't provide statistics for Alaska Natives). There's a somewhat old site specifically on Alaska's prisoners that claims (as of November 2006) that "Alaska has one of the highest incarceration rates in the country." SitNews reported this February that

the number of inmates in Alaska's prisons will likely double by 2030 unless the state significantly increases its prevention, intervention, education and treatment programs soon…. The study showed that Alaska's prison population is among the fastest growing in the US, with 5 times more inmates in 2007 than in 1981.

It's expensive, too.

ISER's research summary is here. (PDF)

All Fools up here in Alaska

Hoo, boy what a hilarious week we've had. Just when I thought Alaska politics couldn't get any more ridiculous, BAM!

• Wayne Anthony Ross gets appointed as attorney general not because he's good at law, but because he's got an agenda! From the Gov's own press release:

As Attorney General, Ross will work with the governor on issues surrounding development of Alaska’s rich natural resources as the state continues its efforts to provide energy security for America and lower energy costs for Alaskans. As Attorney General, Ross also will help the governor protect Alaskans’ right to bear arms, and he will work tirelessly to manage Alaska’s fish and game resources for abundance through science and not politics.

• Recently-Republican Democrat Grussendorf gets chosen (by Sarah), then rejected (by the legislature)
• Mike Doogan makes an idiotic move and unveils a pseudonymous political blogger's real name
• a volcano goes off and Chevron decides to follow Exxon's wise example and leave 6 million gallons of oil in tanks on the side of said volcano--with no response plan ready! More here.
• Three years after the fact, the state sues BP for some oil spills and back royalties.
• Ted gets off scot-free because the prosecution screwed up their big case with a capital S

Sheesh. Can it get any worse?

Hah. Better not bet against it--in this state, it can always get worse...

Doogan: champion of the First Amendment. Not.

And from the other editorial cartoonist on staff at The Ester Republic:

A little bysplash from an outing

Just one of many cartoons that will be generated by this brouhaha, I'm sure.

If you can't argue with the facts, legislate against them

I Eat Gravel found this lovely little tidbit, courtesy the Oklahoma legislature and Representative Todd Thomsen: bills to ban Richard Dawkins from speaking on the University of Oklahoma campus AND to contest the validity of the theory of evolution. The bits that get me are these (emphasis mine):

WHEREAS, the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma has, as evidenced on the departmental homepage, been framing the Darwinian theory of evolution as doctrinal dogmatism rather than a hypothetical construction within the disciplines of the sciences; and

WHEREAS, not only has the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma been engaged in one-sided indoctrination of an unproven and unpopular theory but has made an effort to brand all thinking in dissent of this theory as anti-intellectual and backward rather than nurturing such free thinking and allowing a free discussion of all ideas which is the primary purpose of a university;...

Americans United for Separation of Church and State describes Thomsen as "stark raving mad," and adds,

As several critics have pointed out, the resolution contradicts itself. Thomsen wants an open debate on Darwinism – but doesn’t want Dawkins to speak on campus.

I think the only folks faming evolution as doctrinal dogmatism have been the religious folks who want their religious beliefs foisted on the rest of us through legislation.

If she keeps this up, she's got an award-winning book

Cabin Dweller has posted part two of An Alaskan Political Primer. Part One was an award-winner, part two gets Joe Vogler (he for whom the roadside-shrub-whacking Voglerizer is named) into the act. Must read.

An oil industry bias

I've been rather busy the last week due to the upcoming John Trigg Ester Library Lallapalooza and the Perennial Problem of Paper Production (which ALWAYS takes far longer than I anticipate), so I haven't been posting here of late, despite the fascinating news stories abounding. So I'll try to make up for that in the next couple of days.

First up: after all the brouhaha with certain saurian Republican legislators chastising UA President Hamilton for the supposed 'anti-development attitude' of University of Alaska students who dared to come down to Juneau and (gasp!) express doubts about particular mining projects, I received an interesting press release from PEER about Professor Rick Steiner, who is getting his NOAA grant yanked by Sea Grant.

It seems that last year, Dr. Steiner, a marine scientist, protested a pro-oil industry bias that he saw in Sea Grant programs.

Hmmm.

Here's an excerpt from the release:

Professor Rick Steiner, a noted marine scientist and environmentalist with the University of Alaska Marine Advisory Program, incurred the wrath of NOAA officials by protesting a pro-industry slant in Sea Grant programs to promote oil drilling in Alaska’s Bristol Bay. Shortly after Steiner’s March 18, 2008 letter [PDF] and press conference, his dean was approached by National Sea Grant Deputy Director Jim Murray, who according to an e-mail from Dean Denis Wiesenburg recounting the conversation, indicated that NOAA had “an issue with Rick Steiner” because “he was acting as an advocate and asked if he was being paid with Sea Grant funds”, adding that “one agent can cause problems nationally”.

As the basis for urging that Prof. Steiner “not be paid with Sea Grant funds” NOAA’s Murray cited manual guidance that Sea Grant extension agents should strive to be “neutral brokers of information”. Ironically, Prof. Steiner, a tenured professor, had been publicly protesting that the Sea Grant program was violating its own principle of neutrality by stacking a program to favor offshore oil development and improperly minimizing potential resource damage to Bristol Bay fisheries and marine life.

“Under Bush, NOAA programs, including Sea Grant, were ordered to lubricate oil company initiatives,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch whose organization is urging incoming NOAA Administrator-designate Jane Lubchenco to strengthen the Sea Grant role in ocean protection. “The Sea Grant program needs a thorough housecleaning starting with its leadership.”

As a result of the NOAA threat, Dean Wiesenburg recommended in December that Professor Steiner’s Sea Grant funding be terminated because Steiner “has chosen to be a maverick and work independently,” noting that “Mr. Steiner has devoted some of his energy during the review period to publicly attacking the Alaska Sea Grant program,” and that “Steiner regularly takes strong public positions on issues of public debate.” Significantly, the dean did not mention the quality or quantity of Prof. Steiner’s award-winning marine conservation extension efforts.

“The present crisis in our nation’s marine and coastal ecosystems requires a clear and urgent national response,” said Prof. Steiner. “But instead of responding to the ocean crisis, this new de facto gag order from NOAA Sea Grant will have a chilling effect on scientists who want to advocate for greater ocean protection and restoration.”