Because of my point of view about the massively inappropriate nature of lobbyist influence over policy makers, I have closely observed the mind set of those who benefit from lobbyist funding. I have come to believe there are a sizable number of elected officials who use a special type of situational ethics logic to excuse their acceptance of this money.
If you have ever attended a political forum where a politician was forced to field questions about the influence of lobbyists, you may have made these same observations. The politicians usually defend the status-quo by talking about the important role the lobbyist play in "educating" policy makers. Rarely will the lawmaker talk about the involvement of the lobbyist's checkbook in funding his/her campaigns for office, and it is especially interesting to observe the lawmaker's defense of the very inappropriate practice of accepting personal gifts from the special interests.
In recent days, the US Congress has been debating taking steps that I believe will inappropriately involve the federal government in matters that should be left to the free market. This recent economic turmoil has reminded me of a recently released book (a fascinating read) by hedge fund manager David Einhorn entitled, Fooling Some of the People All of the Time.
Einhorn described how his fund has focused on in-depth research of the reports of various publicly traded companies. He explains how they discovered the various discrepancies in these reports and strategically timed valuation of assets that seemed to paint a clear picture of ongoing stock price manipulation lasting for years. When he reported these issues to the governing authorities, instead of having the claims seriously investigated, it appears that little action was taken. Einhorn quickly became a target for those wishing to defend the companies making these reports. One such company even went so far as to hire a public relations "spin doctor" who had represented the Clinton Administration in an effort to put the situation in the best light possible.
Einhorn described how these entities would also invest in the elected officials in an obvious attempt to maximize influence over the regulators.
It is my belief that these types of issues have been systematic and ongoing for years. Those who benefited off the high stock prices were more than able to invest in the highly paid lobbyists that appear to hold such a strong influence over the elected officials.
As as result, even when reform-minded legislation was presented to Congress in order to address items such as risky lending practices, there were simply no reforms.
Now it appears as if the taxpayers will be forced to take on the risk that these entities incurred over the years. I suspect this bailout is also heavily influenced by the presence of powerful lobbyists representing entities who will certainly benefit by writing the bad debt off their books.
I believe the solution to this problem is for the people to insist that their legislators divorce themselves from the practice of taking money from special interests.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
School Choice for Students with Special Needs
Let's suppose you are one of the growing number of parents whose child has been affected by autism. Imagine having the sensation that each and every one of your waking moments is dedicated to coping with this tremendous challenge as you provide your child with the necessary support in order to get through the day. And all the while, you hold out hope that through the proper therapy your child will be able to one day lead a normal life.
Now imagine that you are the superintendent of a small school district. As the steward of the taxpayers' resources, you are required to provide an education to all children, but because your school district is small in size and because there is an overwhelming number of state and federal mandates, it is very challenging to provide a quality education to the general population and it is extremely difficult to provide the type of education that children with special needs, such as autism, require.
This was the challenge recently faced by the parents and one of the school districts in Logan County.
Due to the various federal requirements, small school systems have an enormous burden to provide care to special needs students. However, because of the demands placed on the local educational system, it may be nearly impossible for them to have the resources to provide this care in a manner that takes advantage of the latest therapy methods and really helps those students on the road to recovery.
I feel this is unfair to the parents of the special needs children because their tax dollars are being taken by an education system that is challenged to provide a quality product. It can also be unfair to the other students in the school system because the lack of focused resources can take away from their education.
I believe this is a problem that should be solved by school choice. Let's refund the tax dollars of those parents with special needs so they can invest that money in the very specialized treatment that their children need. Instead of forcing them to attend a school system that simply cannot meet their needs, they should be allowed to take advantage of the resources offered by those who are experts in the necessary treatment. Because of the increased efficiency of the private education market, I suspect that the result would be a lower cost to the taxpayers.
Last week I wrote an article explaining how "one size fits all" does not work in the health insurance industry. After writing that article, an individual who is experienced in working with special needs children responded by making the point that neither does "one size fits all" work when it comes time to provide education services. She is exactly right. Children with special needs should be treated by those who understand those needs.
Another constituent contact I have benefited from has been an individual whose family has been affected by autism. Instead of letting that experience discourage them, they are working hard to open a clinic to treat autism using the latest treatment methods. These types of private sector solutions can provide an enormous service to children with special needs, while relieving the public school system of a tremendous challenge.
Now imagine that you are the superintendent of a small school district. As the steward of the taxpayers' resources, you are required to provide an education to all children, but because your school district is small in size and because there is an overwhelming number of state and federal mandates, it is very challenging to provide a quality education to the general population and it is extremely difficult to provide the type of education that children with special needs, such as autism, require.
This was the challenge recently faced by the parents and one of the school districts in Logan County.
Due to the various federal requirements, small school systems have an enormous burden to provide care to special needs students. However, because of the demands placed on the local educational system, it may be nearly impossible for them to have the resources to provide this care in a manner that takes advantage of the latest therapy methods and really helps those students on the road to recovery.
I feel this is unfair to the parents of the special needs children because their tax dollars are being taken by an education system that is challenged to provide a quality product. It can also be unfair to the other students in the school system because the lack of focused resources can take away from their education.
I believe this is a problem that should be solved by school choice. Let's refund the tax dollars of those parents with special needs so they can invest that money in the very specialized treatment that their children need. Instead of forcing them to attend a school system that simply cannot meet their needs, they should be allowed to take advantage of the resources offered by those who are experts in the necessary treatment. Because of the increased efficiency of the private education market, I suspect that the result would be a lower cost to the taxpayers.
Last week I wrote an article explaining how "one size fits all" does not work in the health insurance industry. After writing that article, an individual who is experienced in working with special needs children responded by making the point that neither does "one size fits all" work when it comes time to provide education services. She is exactly right. Children with special needs should be treated by those who understand those needs.
Another constituent contact I have benefited from has been an individual whose family has been affected by autism. Instead of letting that experience discourage them, they are working hard to open a clinic to treat autism using the latest treatment methods. These types of private sector solutions can provide an enormous service to children with special needs, while relieving the public school system of a tremendous challenge.
Monday, September 15, 2008
"One Size Fits All" Does Not Work
What if you had a pressing need for a new car? And what if, when you went to buy a new car, the only vehicle you were allowed to purchase was a luxury vehicle with all options pre-installed? Can you imagine how many Oklahomans would be unable to afford transportation if this scenario were a reality?
One of the most pressing topics the Legislature deals with each year is health care. The issue is of added importance because Oklahoma has the fourth highest population of uninsured people. The most obvious reason for this lack of coverage is the high price of purchasing insurance in Oklahoma.
The average price of a job-based health insurance policy in Oklahoma is $4,088. The national average is $3,991. Oklahoma's median income is significantly lower than the national average, which means that Oklahomans pay higher health insurance costs with a lower average income.
One of the reasons for high insurance fees in Oklahoma is because the Legislature has driven up the cost over the years by mandating a "one size fits all" approach to coverage.
Policies become even more expensive when the Legislature approves new laws to mandate the coverage of any number of heartbreaking medical situations that have not traditionally been covered by health insurance policies. Over time, the number of mandates adds up to create a very expensive insurance policy. And there is no shortage of medical issues currently not covered that will no doubt be mandated in the coming years.
A State House panel heard testimony recently which indicated that across the nation mandated benefits that will increase the cost of basic health coverage from about 20 percent to more than 50 percent, depending on the state and its mandates.
While elected officials understandably wish to expand coverage to include as many medical conditions as possible, the long-term effect can be detrimental, because fewer people will be able to afford coverage. This is why it is important that Oklahoma allow insurance companies to provide basic insurance coverage without all the attached mandates.
One of the exciting developments of the latest legislative year was the passage of a law in Florida that allows the uninsured to purchase these types of policies. Now, instead of being forced to buy the equivalent of a luxury car, prospective insurance customers can buy a product that better fits their financial needs.
I believe it is important for Oklahoma to follow Florida's lead and enact this common-sense legislation. Further, Oklahoma should enact legislation that will allow the customers of this product to choose additional specific coverages that would fit their needs. For instance, senior citizens would not wish to pay for medical coverage for issues that affect only children or young people, and young people have no need for medical coverage that only senior citizens need.
Simply put, the "one size fits all" approach does not work.
One of the most pressing topics the Legislature deals with each year is health care. The issue is of added importance because Oklahoma has the fourth highest population of uninsured people. The most obvious reason for this lack of coverage is the high price of purchasing insurance in Oklahoma.
The average price of a job-based health insurance policy in Oklahoma is $4,088. The national average is $3,991. Oklahoma's median income is significantly lower than the national average, which means that Oklahomans pay higher health insurance costs with a lower average income.
One of the reasons for high insurance fees in Oklahoma is because the Legislature has driven up the cost over the years by mandating a "one size fits all" approach to coverage.
Policies become even more expensive when the Legislature approves new laws to mandate the coverage of any number of heartbreaking medical situations that have not traditionally been covered by health insurance policies. Over time, the number of mandates adds up to create a very expensive insurance policy. And there is no shortage of medical issues currently not covered that will no doubt be mandated in the coming years.
A State House panel heard testimony recently which indicated that across the nation mandated benefits that will increase the cost of basic health coverage from about 20 percent to more than 50 percent, depending on the state and its mandates.
While elected officials understandably wish to expand coverage to include as many medical conditions as possible, the long-term effect can be detrimental, because fewer people will be able to afford coverage. This is why it is important that Oklahoma allow insurance companies to provide basic insurance coverage without all the attached mandates.
One of the exciting developments of the latest legislative year was the passage of a law in Florida that allows the uninsured to purchase these types of policies. Now, instead of being forced to buy the equivalent of a luxury car, prospective insurance customers can buy a product that better fits their financial needs.
I believe it is important for Oklahoma to follow Florida's lead and enact this common-sense legislation. Further, Oklahoma should enact legislation that will allow the customers of this product to choose additional specific coverages that would fit their needs. For instance, senior citizens would not wish to pay for medical coverage for issues that affect only children or young people, and young people have no need for medical coverage that only senior citizens need.
Simply put, the "one size fits all" approach does not work.
Monday, September 8, 2008
The Change That The People Really Want
Almost exactly one year ago, I was privileged to visit the US Senate and watch Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn at work. I watched as Coburn worked the Senate floor in an attempt to defeat a pork expenditure for an organization in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania's two senators (one a Republican and one a Democrat) successfully saved their precious pork appropriation, but not before Coburn made his point and rallied a substantial number of senators to his point of view.
Coburn impressed me with his classy manner of exposing the pork, but doing so in a way that did not alienate or engender unnecessary hard feelings. His style of doing the right thing in a nice manner was a strong example to me of how elected officials should conduct themselves.
Shortly after he arrived in Washington, DC, Coburn embarked on what looked like a one-man fight. Being that one man takes an enormous amount of character and many probably believed that Coburn would be ostracized and left on his own. That did not stop Coburn from taking the Senate floor to denounce the "Bridge to Nowhere," making that term a phrase that would define pork politics for years to come. Coburn's effort came at great risk, as it meant opposing a very powerful Republican Committee Chairman, who viewed Coburn's effort in a very negative light.
Now, a few years later, the tables have turned. While Coburn remains a very popular spokesperson for the people, that powerful Chairman is under federal indictment. It is now clear that Coburn's example has encouraged a nationwide movement and paved the way for a new generation of elected officials who are willing to reject the adage that all legislators must support pork politics.
I think Coburn's one-man effort officially became a nationwide movement when Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin announced her opposition to the "Bridge to Nowhere" and that type of federal spending, and when she accepted her selection as a Vice-Presidential candidate.
Since last Saturday, as I have gone door to door visiting with my constituents, I have seen a new excitement in the eyes of the people as they are once again hopeful that maybe, just maybe, with Palin's help, there might actually be a chance for substantive change in our government.
The people are once again excited about voting and the prospect of change. I have not seen this type of excitement since I went door to door in 2004 when Coburn was on the ballot.
Everyone seems to want to talk about Palin and the change that she represents and I believe much of this energy can trace its origin to years ago when Coburn was willing to take to the floor of the Senate and be the one man who started a new national revolution against big spending.
Coburn's example makes it much easier for those of us in elected office to work to follow his example and do the right thing for the people.
Coburn impressed me with his classy manner of exposing the pork, but doing so in a way that did not alienate or engender unnecessary hard feelings. His style of doing the right thing in a nice manner was a strong example to me of how elected officials should conduct themselves.
Shortly after he arrived in Washington, DC, Coburn embarked on what looked like a one-man fight. Being that one man takes an enormous amount of character and many probably believed that Coburn would be ostracized and left on his own. That did not stop Coburn from taking the Senate floor to denounce the "Bridge to Nowhere," making that term a phrase that would define pork politics for years to come. Coburn's effort came at great risk, as it meant opposing a very powerful Republican Committee Chairman, who viewed Coburn's effort in a very negative light.
Now, a few years later, the tables have turned. While Coburn remains a very popular spokesperson for the people, that powerful Chairman is under federal indictment. It is now clear that Coburn's example has encouraged a nationwide movement and paved the way for a new generation of elected officials who are willing to reject the adage that all legislators must support pork politics.
I think Coburn's one-man effort officially became a nationwide movement when Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin announced her opposition to the "Bridge to Nowhere" and that type of federal spending, and when she accepted her selection as a Vice-Presidential candidate.
Since last Saturday, as I have gone door to door visiting with my constituents, I have seen a new excitement in the eyes of the people as they are once again hopeful that maybe, just maybe, with Palin's help, there might actually be a chance for substantive change in our government.
The people are once again excited about voting and the prospect of change. I have not seen this type of excitement since I went door to door in 2004 when Coburn was on the ballot.
Everyone seems to want to talk about Palin and the change that she represents and I believe much of this energy can trace its origin to years ago when Coburn was willing to take to the floor of the Senate and be the one man who started a new national revolution against big spending.
Coburn's example makes it much easier for those of us in elected office to work to follow his example and do the right thing for the people.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
The People Are Excited
Since last Saturday, as I have gone door to door visiting with my constituents, I have seen a new excitement in the eyes of the people as they are once again hopeful that maybe, just maybe, with Governor Sarah Palin's help there might actually be a chance of substantive changes in our government. The people are once again excited about voting and about the prospects for change. I have not seen this type of excitement since I went door to door in 2004 when Dr. Coburn was on the ballot.
I received this email from a constituent who has historically not been very politically involved but was willing to write me a very well written email about how excited she is at Palin's nomination.
------- ----- ------
In a nutshell? If McCain wins, it'll be because of the votes she brings. Even if she isn't all that the hype says she is, she has singlehandedly energized the entire Republican party. That's pretty amazing for a previously lackluster campaign.
I received this email from a constituent who has historically not been very politically involved but was willing to write me a very well written email about how excited she is at Palin's nomination.
------- ----- ------
In a nutshell? If McCain wins, it'll be because of the votes she brings. Even if she isn't all that the hype says she is, she has singlehandedly energized the entire Republican party. That's pretty amazing for a previously lackluster campaign.
As a woman? In spite of the fact that I KNOW they're going after the woman's vote ... she is a woman's woman. Strong. Capable. Intelligent. Attractive. Knowledgeable. Do all these things matter individually? Nope. But they make for an excellent package. She is the embodiment, if you will, of what my ideal American woman should be. The unsung heroes. The moms that make everything happen. And I know that's reverse feminism ... but I don't care. I think it's true anyway. :-)
As a single mom I actually swallowed hard a few times last night.
Me. Unbelievable. Even when I knew I was being courted as a woman, I succumbed anyway (grin)
She has a pregnant daughter. That calls to me. She has a special needs kid ... MY favorite line (total and female emotions, I know) MY favorite line was when she spoke directly to the parents of special needs kids and said, "You will have an advocate in the White House." Her sister owns a small business. Her parents were school teachers. I like the fact that (nothing personal) she didn't take her kids out of school, she went to the school and tried to change the system.
To me, that "advocate in the White House" principle applies to everything. To the common people. To the small business owners. To struggling parents. To people who have no use for politics or empty promises of hope and change. Direct. Practical. She KNOWS about the pipelines. What I don't know, she does. I loved her courage. Her humor. Her very intelligent digs at Obama. Humor mixed with honesty was devastating. I loved that she didn't whine and cry about anything at all. Not about the way the media has gone after her. Not about femi-nazis. Not about her child. Not about her daughter. She just said, "We're a normal family like everyone else." Yowza.
She mildly spanked Obama and sent him to the corner. You just gotta love it. I remember watching Obama in the DNC and waiting and waiting and WAITING for the real substance she presented in the first five minutes. If I weren't already leaning, I would change my vote to Republican immediately.
My respect for McCain grew just because he picked her. Huh. I would get involved in politics if she asked me today (maybe not tomorrow when the hype wears off ... but for today? Yep). She gave back a jet and a limo. She doesn't deal with lobbyists. She balanced the budget and she believes in lower taxes. What's not to like?
No doubt we will discover skeletons in her closet. Fortunately I don't expect politicians or movie stars to be perfect. I think everyone's human. And if I'm going to be absolutely honest? She gets an automatic "pass" for the little stuff just for that speech last night. I know someone else wrote it. But if her history proves to be true ... that tells the story of character. I still don't know Obama's history. That was overwhelmingly demonstrated yesterday by the simple telling of hers.
But I think she's great for the job ... and if she's looking for a future and I had to vote today, I would vote for her as President for two terms. Here's hoping she does well on the debates. Too bad they don't have her lined up for a national speech November 3.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Convincing the People to Pay More (Part II)
Last week, I explained how hard government officials will work to meet their funding needs by trying to convince people to pay higher taxes, instead of working hard to make ends meet without passing on the higher bill. Many times, this is accomplished by claiming that any number of Armageddon-type scenarios will most certainly occur if people do not agree to increase taxes.
I also explained how that in my years of watching local, state and federal government activities, I have never felt that any of the many proposed increase have been needed.
This year, for instance, the Oklahoma Senate passed an amendment to a House bill that would increase your driver's license fee by several dollars. The fee increase was to be used to support the funding of driver examination stations all across Oklahoma. The rumor circulated that if the fee increase did not pass, many rural examinations would be closed and prospective drivers from all across the state would be forced to drive many miles and wait in very long lines in order to receive their driver's licenses.
A television station did a report in which they interviewed a driver who indicated that compared to paying the high price of fuel in order to commute to the examination station, surely it would be better to just pay a few dollars more for his driver's license. With a little media attention, the proponents of higher fees appeared set to convince the public that the fee increase was in fact a good deal for people.
I have observed that this is one of the oldest tricks in the book for politicians who want to tax us more. Instead of focusing the debate on funding necessary government services with existing money, those who want higher fees make voters choose between terminating the necessary service or raising taxes/fees.
But in all their efforts to raise our driver's license fees, the proponents of bigger government made one small mistake. They failed to take into account the identity of the Representative who controlled the bill in the House of Representatives. As author of the House Bill in question, I had the power to remove the bill from consideration. I was happy to keep the bill from being considered until the fee increase was removed. And just days later, appropriations officials "found" another way to finance the drivers examination stations without an increase in taxes or fees.
Going to whatever ends necessary to convince people to pay more money is a trap that too many public officials quickly fall into. In today's world of high taxes and fees at all levels of government, I believe the first test for any public official seeking election should be if that official has met funding needs with existing resources, or if he/she has given in to the pressure to take more of the people's hard earned money.
I also explained how that in my years of watching local, state and federal government activities, I have never felt that any of the many proposed increase have been needed.
This year, for instance, the Oklahoma Senate passed an amendment to a House bill that would increase your driver's license fee by several dollars. The fee increase was to be used to support the funding of driver examination stations all across Oklahoma. The rumor circulated that if the fee increase did not pass, many rural examinations would be closed and prospective drivers from all across the state would be forced to drive many miles and wait in very long lines in order to receive their driver's licenses.
A television station did a report in which they interviewed a driver who indicated that compared to paying the high price of fuel in order to commute to the examination station, surely it would be better to just pay a few dollars more for his driver's license. With a little media attention, the proponents of higher fees appeared set to convince the public that the fee increase was in fact a good deal for people.
I have observed that this is one of the oldest tricks in the book for politicians who want to tax us more. Instead of focusing the debate on funding necessary government services with existing money, those who want higher fees make voters choose between terminating the necessary service or raising taxes/fees.
But in all their efforts to raise our driver's license fees, the proponents of bigger government made one small mistake. They failed to take into account the identity of the Representative who controlled the bill in the House of Representatives. As author of the House Bill in question, I had the power to remove the bill from consideration. I was happy to keep the bill from being considered until the fee increase was removed. And just days later, appropriations officials "found" another way to finance the drivers examination stations without an increase in taxes or fees.
Going to whatever ends necessary to convince people to pay more money is a trap that too many public officials quickly fall into. In today's world of high taxes and fees at all levels of government, I believe the first test for any public official seeking election should be if that official has met funding needs with existing resources, or if he/she has given in to the pressure to take more of the people's hard earned money.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)