Krusin' the Capitol
By Nebraska State Senator Lowen Kruse
Special Session 02
Second Week
August 11, 2002
Hi
We kicked up a lot of dust this week, but few decisions. We are closer,
agree with the governor on 85% of the cuts. Higher Education is the big
sticking point, with by far the most $$$.
The governor's list of other remaining cuts he "requires" is most
interesting: 1. the blind 2. selected aging 3. foster care kids who would
like to go to college 4. those who ride buses and 5. student nurses.
Those least likely to defend themselves. Nothing more of interest, so I will
go philosophical.
ON BEING A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE
A small by noisy group of earnest citizens claim that the definition of
fiscal conservatives is those legislators who are willing to cut all budgets.
Not. Or those who can say "cut, cut, cut" the fastest in a speech. Not.
Or any tightwad. Not.
I am a certified tightwad. My father and grandfather were Republican office
holders in the county. Neither was stingy, but both were very creative
tightwads. My Dad set his price on Sears best bike, which my Sis and I could
ride tandem to school, and 3 hours later, with side trips to Wards and Coast
to Coast, came out with the bicycle.
I maintained my standard cap on lunch, when I was buying, at $2 until two
weeks ago, when the cafeteria raised prices 60%. Admittedly, that was a bit
extravagant in the 70s, when I started it. I bought a new car once.
Negotiated a good price and ordered it. Months later, when it came, the
dealer offered me $1,500 in cash NOT to take it. O my. I took it as proof
that I obviously had a price under cost, so did take the car. Never got the
same deal again, so no more new cars. Put 80,000 miles on one car over a ten
year period, and sold it for more than I paid.
I know all about tightwads. But most do not qualify as fiscal conservatives,
a title I also would claim. So what is the difference? A fis con has clear
standards:
-- can distinguish between an expense and an investment.
-- will pay a fair price for a guaranteed-quality product
-- would rather repair a roof than repair water damage
-- works continuously to spot expenses which have no production
-- gets a special kick out of honestly cutting a budget
Also, a fis con is conservative with words. So I will comment only on the
first one. (I have my stomach full of senators who take the floor to rave on
about how much they care for the poor taxpayers and then vote against a
reasonable cut in their business, town or interest.)
The big gap in thinking is the ability to distinguish between an expense and
an investment. Air conditioning is an expense, unless it helps someone be
more productive. You pay the bill on something that is gone forever.
Running the a. c. when you will be opening the windows in the evening is
clearly an expense. Obviously, people with extra money pay it cheerfully and
more power to them. I hope they know it is luxury.
Fixing a leaking roof is an investment, albeit a negative one. It reduces
future large expense. Renovating a house is nice, but mostly expense. The
city renovating the exterior of a house that is the poorest in the
neighborhood is an investment. It raises the property value up and down the
street and produces more taxes.
This week we will refuse to cut the blind. We get a 1:9 match on what we put
up. The feds pay 90%. I know fed $$ once were our taxes, but now they go to
another state if we do not claim them. So for Nebraska, it is a well-paying
investment. PLUS the point of the whole program is to help the blind with
employment. A clear investment.
All that is easy. How about Medicaid, the real reason for this modest essay?
On this good people can debate with each other. They are.
If Medicaid simply relieves pain and suffering it is an expense. Caring
people will want to do it for others, but fiscally it is a luxury. If it
gives comfort to a retarded child or a senior citizen it is an expense. We
decide if it is warranted expense, but there is no production except the
increased economic activity of the caretaker $$$, circulating in the
community. Ironically, if the care helps them live longer, taxes go up. (We
have a 5% increase in senior eligibility each year!)
This is where it gets quite tricky. A community may decide to take the $$
going into mediocre care and invest in a community facility which will
enhance the small town, bring more people to live there, raise the spirits of
spenders and maybe bring a new business to town.
This week we will decide the level of eligibility for medical care for
"children's caregivers." Most are single parents, but some have a disabled
spouse. Presently we give medical coverage to low income caregivers of
Medicaid recipients. This week we will cut thousands of them off of
benefits, to balance the budget. The present safety net is to provide med
care for those who are under 40% of the poverty guideline. With the end of
"stacking," which is mostly to help low income persons in tough situations,
we will raise the safety net figure to 50% of poverty.
I know of several examples of those being cut off of medical care, all single
mothers. One quit her job to go from welfare to work, goes to school half
heartedly, has no stated goals except to keep qualifying for payments. She
is an expense. Another has a job, is eager to improve her situation and is
worried that if she becomes ill the whole plan will collapse. Assuring
medical care for her is an investment.
Both will be cut off this week. How can you provide for the investment and
not the expense, when in rules and regs they both look the same? Another
curious point: they both will continue to receive medical care through
emergency rooms, so compassion is not the question. You and I will pay,
through taxes or our health insurance costs, for this parent to rack up $300
to treat a deep chest cough which frightens her. Federal law requires a
hospital to treat any person who walks in and we pay for the "free" care.
Another point: neither will receive preventive health care of any kind,
which is generally considered an investment. If the diagnosis is depression,
the hospital will bill the county, which is required by federal law to pay
the bills for mental health. Comes from property taxes. If we cover this
under Medicaid, we pay 40% of a reduced fee and the feds pay 60%. Now we
will be paying 100% through the county, but senators will cut state expense,
making folks think we are good planners. We are actually adding cost.
One more, if you are still following this sad trail. The first mother above
is a drug addict. We will not pay for her treatment, but we will pay for her
care in prison, which she cannot avoid without help, and for her kids in
foster care, and for our loss of income from a person who is not being
emotionally prepared for employment. I hear talk of added taxes because of
increased crime. It is drug addiction that is increasing the corrections
cost, which is the fastest growing pressure on taxes -- even beyond Medicaid
and health insurance premiums.
Know what I would like? That we start talking about drug addiction and its
huge future costs. We could change some attitudes and make a real investment
to reduce taxes -- AND make fis con types rejoice. Which we do not do often.
Cheers,
Lowen
Back to Top
Krusin the Capitol Index
Home Page
|
