Peggy for Congress

No Stimulus Funds for 3rd District

2010-02-21T10:18:00.000-08:00

Yesterday morning, there on the front page of the Connecticut Post, above the fold, was a headline telling me that the application for stimulus funds for the Moses Wheeler Bridge rebuilding was turned down. Further down in the story, I learned that the Q-bridge project and the New Haven-Hartford bus line met the same fate. In fact, from what I gleaned from the article Connecticut, or at least the 3rd District, was pretty much passed over for this round of stimulus funds.

Now, I admit, that I was not in favor of passing the stimulus bill. I thought it was a colossal boondoggle, but...it was passed, and my opposition to it does not exempt my tax dollars for paying for it, so it would be nice if we in Connecticut got something out of this package other than the bill. More to the point, not only did our U.S. Representative, Rosa DeLauro, vote for it, she was one of its cheerleaders. Rahm Emmanuel lived in her house for a time. She is a faithful and reliable ally to Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, and she seems conspicuously present in nearly every photo op Congress has with President Obama. Yet, despite all her apparent connections and her seniority, she apparently could not secure any stimulus funds for her district.

This is not her first failure to take care of her district. There is also Sikorsky's loss of Marine One, where both Senators and Rep. DeLauro expressed surprise and amazement that there was even a possibility that Sikorsky's would not prevail and much gnashing of teeth and challenges to the bidding process promised and that the contract would be challenged. Of course, none of that happened, but it's all going to be good because the other (partially foreign held) company messed up the helicopter, so it's going to be re-bid and this time, we're told, Sikorsky's will win the bid.

In her hometown, Rep. DeLauro continually failed to secure the necessary (and I have heard, promised) funds to complete the Route 34 connector from downtown New Haven (remember, that's what the Air Rights Garage was all about) for so long that now that, much to the dismay of Valley Residents, New Haven has allowed development to begin in the corridor that was reserved for the highway and many, if not most of us, have forgotten that the Downtown Connector was actually supposed to connect the Valley with New Haven, not Long Wharf!

Even last year, when Rep. DeLauro made such a big deal about securing funds for Yale (an extremely well-endowed private university who, arguably, might not even really need public funds), it was really only a small portion of a grant that was going, predominantly, to UConn.

My point is this: One of the biggest arguments for keeping an incumbent is that because of their seniority and connections they can do much more for the district than a newbie can do. Honestly, from her record, it seems more likely that I could hardly do less.

Locally Held Terror Trial?

2010-02-03T03:52:00.000-08:00

The good news is that the Obama Administration appears to be waffling on their decision to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in New York City. There are even signs that they may be backing off from their decision to try this guy as a civilian, but in the meantime, they are throwing small cities around New York and now, Connecticut, as possible venues for the trial of the 9/11 mastermind.

I join the chorus of those who insist that this person and others accused (or, actually caught) of trying to attack America should be tried by a military tribunal, not civilian court. It is a false dichotomy that insists that the choice is a civilian trial for these terrorists or a total abrogation of the American way of doing things. Although the rules are different, a military tribunal still has laws and rules of evidence that must be followed.

I am not a lawyer, but I watch a lot of Law and Order. One of the things we've all learned is a coerced confession is not admissible in a criminal court. KSM was waterboarded many, many times. Any information that is gleaned from that confession is the "fruit of the poisonous tree" and also inadmissible unless the prosecutor can prove "inevitable discovery". From the Bill of Rights, I read that the accused has a right to a "speedy trial". Now, while I am sure that this is often left open to liberal interpretation, it seems that, after seven or eight years, that ship has surely sailed. These are not problems that can be addressed with an instruction to the jury. The remedy for these "problems" is generally, dismissal of the charges. If the judge does not dismiss the charges (and, politically, it would be nearly impossible, throwing the entire procedure into a kangaroo court mode), the accused, of course, has the right to confront all the evidence and cross-examine all witnesses against him -- regardless of national security issues. Criminal court cases, by their nature are open to the public. That is the point -- to provide open and accessible trials without "secret" evidence that makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the public to follow what's going on and reassure itself that citizens are not railroaded.

But -- and it's a huge 'but" -- criminal trials rarely concern national security. Standard criminals generally do not have the intention of using their trial as a bully pulpit for their ideology. Perhaps one of the biggest buts (at least in my mind), is that standard criminals who admit their guilt, generally plead guilty and avoid a trial completely. They don't brag about their criminal deeds and then demand a trial to prove them.

This guy should not be tried in a civilian court!

Mayor Bloomberg of New York City, after initially being on board with hosting this trial, has given it second thoughts and has recently stated that he doesn't believe that NYC can afford the security necessary to hold the trials. The reaction of the administration to consider White Plains, Newburgh or New Haven is inexplicable. You've got the one of the biggest cities in the world saying that they can not handle the security, so we'll move it to some small city that doesn't have the infrastructure of the Big Apple? It is routine for New York to have events that require massive security. Not so for White Plains, Newburgh or New Haven. In fact, I recall what a mess the Black Panther trials made out of New Haven in the early 1970's-- and I don't think they posed half the threat of this trial.

It will be interesting to hear Rosa's take on this...

Telephone Town Hall Meeting

2009-11-24T18:11:00.000-08:00

A couple of weeks ago I received a call inviting me to join a telephone town hall meeting. Listening to Congresswoman DeLauro and Ron Pollock and their glowing visions of life with H.R. 3200 converted me to become a true believer in health care reform as it is being presented by our current Congress.

Rep. DeLauro and Mr. Pollock asserted many wondrous benefits of their health care reform, in general, and H.R. 3200 in particular. These benefits include no annual benefits limit, no lifetime benefits limit, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, no policy rescissions allowed, all screening tests and preventative medicine covered, no discriminatory rates for age, gender or current health status, more coverage, premium subsidies at income levels up to around $80 – 85K per mandates, and subsidies for small businesses and lower incomes (defined as 4 times the poverty year). Both Rep. DeRosa and Mr. Pollock asserted that all of this not only would not increase costs, but would actually save money.

So, let’s look at the effects of these benefits.

No benefits limits, either annually or lifetime. Should a person contract a high-maintenance chronic condition, no limits on coverage would be a very handy feature to have in your health insurance. Currently, some companies or individuals take their chances and, in exchange for lower premiums, choose insurances that have coverage limits. This is not unlike a car owner deciding how much liability insurance they feel it is necessary to carry on their automobile. The higher the limits, the more expensive the premium. Why will that not apply to our health insurance once reform is enacted?

No exclusions for pre-existing conditions. No “discriminatory” rates for health status. If you have a known health condition, you know you are going to require continuing care. That continuing care is going to incur costs. If the insurance company must provide coverage to you and it must not charge you more for that coverage, then the only alternative is to charge everyone else more to make up for the difference. The only way that “no exclusions for pre-existing conditions” can possibly work is if it is mandated that everyone must be covered from cradle to grave.

No discriminatory rates for age or gender. Insurance companies claim that they use actuarial tables that predict the likelihood of certain risks occurring and base its rates on those likelihoods. As a person who is over the age of 50, I feel the pain of age rating. As a woman, I feel the pain of gender rating. In large groups, the differences between the various ages are not huge. In small groups, they can be astronomical. I cannot imagine, however, if insurance companies are precluded from basing rates on actuarial tables that premiums will decrease significantly for women and older people. It is far more likely that men’s and younger people’s premiums will be increased.

Subsidies for lower income individuals, families and small businesses. Consider this from the Washington Independent website,

The flames were ignited late Sunday after the health insurance lobby issued a controversial report charging that legislation passed this week by the Senate Finance Committee would hike Americans’ insurance premiums by thousands of dollars each year. PricewaterhouseCoopers, the consulting firm that conducted the study, later conceded that it had considered only a small portion of the Democrats’ strategy, ignoring, among other things, the hundreds of billions of dollars in federal subsidies designed to keep premium costs affordable. (emphasis added).

So, are we really supposed to believe that if the government subsidizes it, it actually costs less? Subsidies do not reduce costs, only prices. The costs still must be paid. The only question is, who will pay them? Sadly, the answer is, we, the taxpayers must pay them.

You know, long ago, my mother taught me that when something sounds too good to be true...

I don’t want to be seen as someone who is just knocking what others are doing without offering any alternative, so here is what I would like to see happen with health care insurance reform.
I believe a project so huge and so complicated should be broken down into smaller pieces that can be more easily dealt with on an individual basis. In the town hall meeting last evening, Representative DeLauro stated several times that because the reform was so complicated, it was going to take several years before it was implemented. If the reform were broken down into manageable pieces, some of it could be effective nearly immediately.
The following is what I believe would make a better start.

First, repeal The McCarran-Ferguson Act. There is movement among some in Congress (mostly Democrats) to remove the exemption from anti-trust laws that the insurance companies enjoy. If, in fact, one of the main purposes of health care reform is to increase competition, this seems to be a logical first step to me. The exemption from anti-trust legislation not only hinders competition, it gives the insurance companies inordinate power in the marketplace. Repealing McCarran-Ferguson will not only be a boon to health insurance consumers, but also to automobile owners, as insurance companies also wield an enormous amount of control over the auto body repair process, but that’s a topic for a different day.

Second, provide small businesses with a payroll tax (not corporate tax) credit if they provide health insurance to their employees. This can be coupled with a tax disincentive to large companies who do not have a certain percentage of their employees, full-time and part-time, covered by health insurance. Eliminate the provision that is currently in place that states that, in order to be a part of an insurance group, you must be a bona-fide full-time employee.

Third, along this same line, allow companies, clubs, groups and individuals to form groups for insurance purposes. Allow companies to sell insurance across state lines.
Fourth, eliminate all coverage mandates. Allow individuals to pick and choose which benefits and services for which they wish to be covered. For an example, reasonably healthy individuals may want a strictly major medical program, being willing to pay for their few doctors’ visits out of pocket. A family with small children would probably prefer a very comprehensive plan. A woman who has no chance of becoming pregnant has no need to pay for maternity benefits, and so forth. Premiums would vary based upon the level of coverage chosen. It is my belief that individual people have better knowledge of their needs than the federal or state government.

Fifth, guarantee portability of coverage. If you lose your coverage or change jobs, you should be allowed to either keep the coverage you currently have or be included in your new employer’s insurance program.

If these incremental changes were implemented, they might effect enough change that a good portion of our health care problems are solved. In any case, we would get more immediate relief than these enormous bills that are being debated today, none of which are expected to be implemented before 2013. It would be easier to tweak – add or delete provisions found in small, individual bills rather than one huge bill. When being taught computer programming, I quickly learned that implementing and testing each individual operation in a program individually and insuring that that operation worked as expected before going onto the next operation was, in the long run, far more effective and quicker, than trying to debug a complete program at once. A project of the magnitude of health care reform is no different.

There is no question that this country needs to change the way it pays for and deals with health care costs. We need to make sure that we do not throw out the baby with the bathwater and lose what has made our health care innovative and outstanding.