Minneapolis Star Tribune, Sept. 8
Remaining Obamacare repeal bill still offers the wrong prescription
Minnesota has a huge stake in the congressional obsession with repealing the Affordable Care Act finally coming to an end. Even the last-gasp, supposedly improved health reform package now pushed by leading Republicans - a measure that would have to pass by Sept. 30 - would threaten many Minnesota families’ health coverage and create a big budget hole for state taxpayers to fill.
It’s unfortunate that Republican efforts to scrap former President Barack Obama’s health reform law didn’t sputter out in late July with Sen. John McCain’s dramatic “no” vote to kill the Senate’s main repeal bill. Alternative legislation known as “Graham-Cassidy” for its lead authors - Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana - remains a viable, though long-shot, option.
Because of procedural rules, Senate Republicans have until the month’s end to pass Graham-Cassidy with 50 votes instead of the traditional 60 a bill needs to clear the upper chamber. The GOP has only a 52-vote majority in the Senate. It’s unlikely that enough Democratic senators could be persuaded to vote for this latest repeal effort beyond Sept. 30, so the window to pass it narrows each day. The bill also would need to clear the House before October.
But previous Republican efforts to repeal the ACA survived near-death experiences, with the once-moribund House bill passing narrowly on a floor vote. Cassidy’s and Graham’s clout adds to our unwillingness to sign the legislation’s death certificate at this point.
So does the new space cleared on the congressional calendar, thanks to the surprising short-term deal President Donald Trump struck Wednesday with Democrats on raising the debt ceiling, preventing a federal government shutdown and providing Hurricane Harvey aid. These three policy heavy-lifts, now pushed to December, were expected to leave time for little else this month.
Although The Washington Post reports that Graham-Cassidy has “yet to gain significant traction,” Trump reportedly wants another vote. On Thursday, the two senators said they will introduce an updated version of their bill next week.
Repeated analyses by the Congressional Budget Office showed that the various GOP plans would all result in millions of Americans losing coverage. Graham-Cassidy contains the same warmed-over toxic stew that would lead to coverage losses - reduced subsidies to buy private insurance, weakened consumer protections and radical federal funding cuts for the Medicaid program. Generally, the only thing that is new is that it would shift federal dollars from states with bigger populations to smaller, more rural states - a sneaky maneuver that potentially could pick up more congressional votes.
Minnesota would take a unique hit from Graham-Cassidy. The state took advantage of a provision within the ACA to boost federal funding for its popular MinnesotaCare program for working families. But Graham-Cassidy would shut down this new flow of federal support.
That would leave the state with a major budget headache, which in turn could undermine the coverage 90,000 Minnesotans depend on. In 2015, that new flow of federal dollars to MinnesotaCare amounted to $91.2 million. The program’s total cost that year: $510 million, according to the Minnesota House Research Office. This federal support was estimated to reach $328.6 million in 2016.
Graham-Cassidy would cut federal dollars as well for the Medicaid program, which serves the poor and elderly, leading the Minnesota Department of Human Services to sound the alarm Thursday about the legislation. Officials warned of $30 billion in lost revenue over 10 years and lost health coverage for thousands of Minnesotans if it passes.
The Star Tribune Editorial Board has consistently argued that the ACA is flawed but that repair rather than repeal would create less economic upheaval and better long-term results for consumers. Instead, Graham-Cassidy puts political needs before constituents’ well-being. Let it die a quiet death - one that marks the end of the GOP’s long disingenuous campaign against Obamacare.
___
St. Paul Pioneer Press, Sept. 10
The U of M’s major campaign, and context
- The University of Minnesota’s annual operating budget this year is $3.8 billion. Of that, 17.3 percent comes from state funding.
- The University’s influence is broad, including on health, business and job growth. One example: The U’s Venture Center - formed to connect its research and technology to the public through new-business development - has fostered the growth of 119 startups since 2006, with 18 forming in fiscal year 2017 alone.
- It matters that its graduates number a half-million system-wide and that about 63 percent of them remain in Minnesota after graduation. They are a key to the educated workforce that sets the state apart and keeps us competitive.
On Friday, the university launched the public phase of a 10-year philanthropic campaign with a goal of $4 billion. It’s an impressive number that requires context.
The campaign doesn’t replace state support, explains Matt Kramer, vice president of university relations. “The state pays for the base,” he told the editorial board. “Philanthropy provides a margin of excellence.”
It’s also important as higher education competes with other expensive state priorities, including spending on health and human services and K-12 education, which together account for about 70 percent of the state budget.
Restrictions on nearly all the donated dollars make them an investment in the university’s next generation of students. Contributions - whether for cancer research, a scholarship for a female athlete on the Crookston campus or an endowed professorship in a particular field of study - typically come with “strings” attached.
The university estimates that it will be able to recognize just more than $2 billion during the 10 years of the campaign and the remainder will “come in over time as pledges are paid and deferred gifts are realized.”
Such donations, Kramer said, represent commitments to give as part of donors’ estate plans, for example, that will benefit today’s youngest Minnesotans when they’re ready for college.
The campaign entered its public phase with $2.5 billion already committed, including eight gifts of $25 million or more and gifts from 192,000 donors, 80,000 of them making first-time donations.
The giving represents deep commitment to the institution that means so much to Minnesota.
Against that backdrop, it’s unfortunate to see the campaign used as a bargaining-table strategy, with unions representing university workers engaged in protests.
A Facebook post announced a rally last week to make the point to the Board of Regents that “the university cries poverty and we don’t buy it!” It notes that the campaign is taking place “while programs are cut and staff are offered pennies for raises.”
A protest also is planned at a Sept. 23 campaign gala to draw attention to “the existence of two universities: one that cries poverty and one that raises billions of dollars.”
Our point is that there’s an expectation that this university operate as a frugal steward of all its dollars, whether from public or private sources.
And the more that can come from private sources, the better.
Higher education has its well-earned critics, but at the same time there’s much to confound them at the U, including the demand for four-year degrees the system demonstrates as it welcomes students this fall. The incoming class on the five campuses - Crookston, Duluth, Morris, Rochester and the Twin Cities - is the largest in nearly 30 years, with the new class on the Twin Cities campus the largest in 50 years.
A video at twin-cities.umn.edu/land-grant makes clear how the university’s teaching, research and outreach is changing lives. Philanthropic support that supplements - not supplants - public dollars will build on that legacy at the university that proudly claims it’s “Driven to discover.”
___
Mankato Free Press, Sept. 9
State budget dispute: Court sensible with mediation order
The Minnesota Supreme Court acted in the interests of Minnesotans where the governor and Legislature could not when it ordered mediation in a dispute that threatened to make Minnesota government dysfunctional.
The court gave the Legislature and the governor a reprieve of sorts to come to compromise Minnesotans expected five months ago.
The court ruled that Gov. Mark Dayton’s veto of the Legislature’s budget was constitutional, but it stopped short of giving Dayton any kind of clear victory. Instead, it ordered Dayton and the Legislature to set up mediation to resolve their differences in state finances and funding the Legislature.
There was no dissenting opinion on the court of four Democratic appointees and two Republican appointees.
Dayton vetoed funding for the Legislature at the end of the session in May after the GOP majority implanted a poison pill by stealth in a tax bill that linked funding for the Department of Revenue to Dayton signing the tax bill. He signed the bill, but then used his line-item veto power to cut the Legislature’s funding.
The Legislature also adjourned quickly so even if Dayton had the inclination to object to the provision and negotiate then and there, he would have no opportunity to do so.
The GOP brought suit arguing the move violated the separation of powers clause in the constitution, and it won a district court ruling in its favor. Dayton appealed and the Supreme Court gave him and his team the opportunity to renegotiate with Republicans without striking down the district court ruling.
In fact, the Supreme Court Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea, appointed by GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty, stated that “constitutional powers may not be used to accomplish an unconstitutional result.”
She also noted that without a resolution Minnesota may be denied their constitutional rights of three branches of government.
Minnesotans see through the chicanery of last-minute legislative game playing and they’re sick of it. Republicans and Dayton need to resolve this issue and they need to resolve it quickly keeping in mind the interests of all Minnesotans.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.