Drug Testing and Welfare

This week, the Missouri House passed legislation which prevents drug-users from receiving welfare benefits. The legislation calls for the Department of Social Services (DSS) to establish a drug-testing program for work-eligible applicants and recipients of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. This is a cash-aid program and currently has NO restrictions for those who may use illegal substances. If passed and signed by the Governor, Missouri would become one of eleven states that practices drug testing provisions for welfare applicants – it’s about time.

The legislation says that to be tested, there must be "reasonable suspicion" to believe a person is using illegal drugs. After an administrative hearing, applicants or recipients who test positive will be declared ineligible for benefits for one year.

This legislation is long over-due. Most employees, including the military and federal employees, are required to take a mandatory drug test. Why shouldn’t welfare recipients who receive support from OUR hard earned tax dollars be held to the same standard?

The bill also directs the department to develop, implement, and enforce a policy requiring the immediate termination of an employee who fails to report any suspected illegal use of a controlled substance or fraud of the TANF Program by any applicant or recipient of TANF benefits.

In addition, the bill also subjects elected officials to a drug test prior to taking office and once every two years after that while they remain in office.

This legislation will help encourage people using drugs to stop and get help. It is a necessary intervention. If people want to receive welfare benefits, they have to be drug-free. The Senate needs to pass this bill and the Governor should sign it. This legislation will begin to help and enable our citizens to live a clean and productive lives rather than harming themselves and those around them.

Building Castles in the Sky

Last week Governor Jay Nixon delivered the annual State of the State address to the Missouri General Assembly, the Missouri Supreme Court, Missouri Cabinet heads, and to the people of our great state.

This annual address has become the vehicle for a governor to outline his vision for Missouri and present the executive branch’s budget recommendations for the next fiscal year. It is also the event that adds definition to the agenda boundaries of each body in the legislature and the governor’s office for the current session of the General Assembly.

This year’s State of the State address did none of that. In fact, Governor Nixon dodged revealing the actual state of the state and it is now painfully obvious why after he has revealed his proposed budget to the General Assembly.

As I mentioned in a previous column, the Governor, House, and Senate budget leaders have agreed upon the revised consensus revenue estimate for the remainder of this fiscal year which ends on June 30, 2010 predicting that revenues will be 6.4% less than expected at $6.97 billion in general revenue. The fiscal year 2010 budget was passed based upon an overly optimistic revenue estimate of $7.76 billion.

They also agreed upon the consensus revenue estimate for the next budget year which begins on July 1, 2010 suggesting a growth in state general revenue collections of 3.5% resulting in $7.223 billion of general revenue.

It was revealed this week that January revenues are 22.36% less than they were in January of last year with year to date revenue collections now falling to a negative 12.55% down from 10.5% last month year to date. As a result, Governor Nixon announced another round of withholds from the current budget of $74 million.

Unlike Congress, we must have a balanced budget. The state of Missouri can’t print money to satisfy unrestrained and politically motivated spending habits – even in an election year. To have a balanced budget, the General Assembly and the governor’s office must build a state budget at or, preferably, below that target.

Governor Nixon’s budget proposal would spend $8.317 billion of general revenue, a number that exceeds the agreed upon CRE by $1.09 billion, or 15% - this is not a balanced budget proposal. The governor would pay for these excessive increases with federal “stimulus” money, which I contend is federal “dependence” money, which Missouri is expected to receive which is about $900 million dollars plus a phantom $300 million that might come from the federal government even though the legislation has not been passed by Congress yet.

After years of fiscal discipline, a budget is now being proposed that relies on significant one-time monies that may or may not materialize. Our budget difficulties earlier this decade stemmed from uncontrolled spending that relied on one-time monies. This can’t be done, but politicians are often afraid of making the difficult decisions that require discipline, because they fear unpopularity, especially in an election year like this one.

The disciplined decisions of the past few years have put Missouri in better financial position to weather this economic downturn than most states. Missouri remains one of only seven states that still have a triple-A bond ratings from the three major bond rating agencies.

The proposed budget suggests that $900 million of one-time monies be used to pay for ongoing operating costs of government and its programs. This money will not be available next year. It may be considered good politics by some, but it is lousy fiscal policy. We can’t allow the federal “stimulus” to lead us down the path to ever more federal dependency and greater threats to the pocketbooks of Missourians.

Data released this week claim that unemployment may drop to 9.8% this year, down from the current 10% unemployment rate. The data also suggests that with 5% growth in GDP throughout the year, unemployment would only drop to 9%.

How out of touch with our existing economic situation can we be to accept a budget that requires a 15% more general revenue knowing that we are currently experiencing 9.6% unemployment in Missouri? It just won’t happen – even the 3.5% CRE is too high and is setting us up for even bigger budget problems next year and years after.

This is a time for restraint, a time to prioritize, and a time to drive efficiencies into the state bureaucracy. It is a time to shed the hindrances that hold back innovation and invention, a time to empower Missourians to build dreams, not sustain them where they are.

People are outraged with the unparalleled and unabated spending spree in Washington, DC that denies the economic realities that we live in. Missouri cannot, and must not, follow in those footsteps.

This is a time when doing what is right is far more important than doing what is popular and hiding our actual state of the state. We can’t spend time building castles in the sky and hoping for a miracle. Lest we forget, hope is not a plan.

Health Care and Obligations of Citizenship

As the national debate on health care continues in Washington, DC, several states across the Nation are taking steps to protect themselves and their citizens in their state constitutions. Missouri is one of those states. This week a public hearing was held on House Joint Resolutions 48, 50, and 57 which are essential in securing the rights of patients to make their own health care choices.

Even before the events in Washington, DC, the question of patient rights has been bubbling to the surface as an issue important to those interested in keeping the relationship between patient and doctor in tact.

The essence of the proposed constitutional amendment is this, “To preserve the freedom of citizens of this state to provide for their health care, no law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly or through penalties or fines, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system.”

The proposed amendment ensures that:

· Each Missouri citizen has the right to pay for health care services with their own money,

· Health care providers may accept direct payment for services rendered by Missouri citizens,

· The purchase and sale of health insurance shall not be prohibited by law or rule, and;

· No person will be required to pay fines or penalties if they choose to purchase their own health care and accept payment for providing health care services.

In other words, an individual cannot be forced to participate in a health care system without their consent and that individuals have the freedom to participate.

Think about it, there are two general obligations for citizenship in America: paying taxes and the draft. Proposals in Congress today would add a third obligation of forcing each American to purchase health insurance. Never before has the federal government used the force of the federal government to compel every citizen to purchase a product or service.

We can have the debate about whether it is responsible for someone to go without health insurance, but that is a completely different conversation than saying that every citizen must, by the force of law, purchase health insurance or enroll in a government program thereby binding them to the will of faceless bureaucrats.

Some argue that such an amendment to a state constitution is unconstitutional. They argue that the supremacy clause of the US Constitution trumps state actions. It is time that we consider another constitutional principle, that of federalism. As a constitutional principle, it is important not only to the appropriate division of powers between the federal government and the states, but also the ever important pursuit of individual liberty and limited government.

Traditionally, states have been considered laboratories of democracy and innovation. The states were able, even expected, to develop policies reflecting the widely varying local conditions of our great land, and that is especially important in health care. Today, the federal government is asserting, if not amassing, it’s authority over the American life in regards to health care, imposing a "one size fits all" policy. Now is the time to reassert the proper constitutional role of federalism so that future power grabs become more difficult and less likely.

We should allow the people of Missouri to vote on this proposed amendment, allow us to voice our belief in liberty, allow us to direct the future of our state, allow us to direct the future of health care, allow us to retain the freedom that we already enjoy. If a constitutional challenge arises, then let’s have that discussion, but let us not be intimidated into silence and inaction with threat of litigation.

Federalism is all about keeping government within the reach of the people, about keeping government in its place. Health care is personal, it is about us, each of us, and we deserve our rightful place in making health care decisions. The Health Care Freedom Act which I have sponsored keeps government in its place. As Alexander Hamilton proclaimed before the New York ratifying convention, “Here, sir, the people govern.”

State of the State

This week Governor Jay Nixon delivered the annual State of the State address to a joint session of the General Assembly. This was different than the seven previous State of the State addresses that I have attended during my time in the Missouri House. Unlike previous addresses, this year’s address was a 45 minute speech without enthusiasm, without passion, without substance, and without leadership.

In the midst of 9.6% unemployment and sagging state revenues, Governor Nixon failed to cast a vision for Missouri’s future. The speech was more notable for it didn’t address than what it did.

There was no mention of the current state of the state. It lacked any serious conversation of the challenges we face in crafting the next state budget. It lacked any serious discussion of his priorities in his budget. No mention of serious tax reform, economic incentive reform, or health care reform. The Governor even failed to take a stand on the health care proposals in Congress.

This was a “safe” speech. It did not address anything controversial, nor did Governor Nixon stick his neck out backing any significant issue. He gave his office and the General Assembly all of the elbow room necessary to do anything and claim a victory – after all it is an election year.

While I did expect more from Governor Nixon’s address, he did state that:

We must keep the jobs we have, and create thousands more.

We must build a granite foundation for Missouri’s future growth.

And we must balance the budget without raising taxes.

This simple statement is a great place to start and deserves bipartisan cooperation to move Missouri forward in the coming year and decade. His economic proposals deserve our attention, we must build a budget that lives within our means without raising taxes, and we must position Missouri by simplifying our regulatory environment.

Even though the State of the State lacked substance and leadership, it did open the door for Governor, the House, and the Senate to work together this session.

In contrast to Governor Nixon’s silence on the health care proposals in Washington, DC, the Missouri House passed a concurrent resolution this week by a vote of 111 to 46 that sends a message to our congressional delegation, Speaker Pelosi, and the President opposing these measures on the grounds that they are too expensive, too big, to corrupt, and hand out too many special deals. The cost to the state of Missouri is enormous and will do nothing bend the cost curve making health insurance more affordable.

According to a Rasmussen Reports poll released recently, 55% of the American people oppose these proposals and only 40% support the federal healthcare takeover and mandate being thrust upon us by President Obama, Senator Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi. Other polls in Missouri suggest opposition among Missourians is closer to 60 - 65%.

These proposals contain provisions that obligate the states to substantially increase the amount of money that each state will be required to pay for Medicaid with the exception of special backroom deals like Senator Nelson’s Cornhusker Kickback for Nebraska that exempts Nebraska from this provision shifting their costs on the rest of the states.

The Missouri Department of Social Services estimates that the total cost to Missouri could range from $2.18 billion to $2.45 billion. This is on top of the $100 million plus per year in new funding for natural caseload growth. Our budget, along with Missouri taxpayers can not bear this new shift of costs without increasing taxes or cutting expenditures on education or other vital state services.

The weeks ahead will pose many challenges for lawmakers. Short-term fiscal policies will fail to promote long-term growth. The Missouri House of Representatives will pursue policies that will allow people keep more of their own money, allow them to make decisions for themselves and their families, and give individuals more liberty in their consumption, savings, and debt retirement.

House and Senate Priorities

The second week of the session has concluded and business in the Missouri House is taking shape. As bills begin to be referred to committees and committees begin public hearings, the legislative agenda takes shape.

The most notable event of the week occurred on Wednesday when visitors from across the state crowded into the Capitol Rotunda to hold the first ever Missouri State Sovereignty Rally. The purpose of this year’s rally was prompted by the massive opposition by Americans to the federal health care proposals and encroachment of the federal government into our private lives.

Those in attendance are concerned that the federal health care proposals would create an unfair tax on individuals who do not purchase health insurance and penalize businesses that do not offer it to their employees. They oppose the massive expansion of welfare at the expense of the states and lack of fiscal restraint. Their opposition is well founded after Democrat negotiators in Washington caved and exempted union health care plans from their proposed 40% tax creating yet another special class of Americans at the expense of the rest of us.

The week was also the scene of a joint press conference by House and Senate leaders outlining a joint set of priorities for this session. First, and foremost, fiscal responsibility and passing a balanced budget will be front and center. Missouri’s revenue collections continue to lag projections and difficult choices will be in store. The fiscal priorities include:

• Urging Governor Nixon to issue prompt income tax refunds;
• Require legislative oversight for the spending of federal stimulus dollars;
• Reduce fraud and abuse in the Medicaid system
• That the state of Missouri will live within its means; and
• Pledge that there will be absolutely no tax increases on Missourians.

In addition to passing a sound, fiscally responsible state budget so that Missouri continues to be solvent and viable for future generations, these priorities also include protecting our constitutional rights and Liberty; continuing to secure the health, safety, and welfare of all Missourians; and continuing to uphold traditional, common sense Missouri values. Specifically, the House and Senate recognize these issues as necessary to reach these goals:

• Ensure greater transparency and strengthen ethics in government;
• Oppose a bloated and expanded government, support smaller government;
• Oppose the federal government takeover of our health care system;
• Call upon Congress to oppose job destroying cap-and-trade legislation;
• Make certain that statutes pertaining to clean water are implemented to ensure public safety of our citizens; and
• Require credit agencies to withhold reporting negative information if it is caused by identity theft.

As our state continues to face budget uncertainty and Missouri’s unemployment recently inched up to 9.6%, Missouri must be wary of any proposal, state or federal, that would potentially cost Missouri financially or at the expense of our collective identify as Missourians.

These proposals are intended to allow people keep more of their own money, to allow them to make decisions for themselves and their families, to give individuals more liberty in their consumption, savings, and debt retirement. At some point, we, as Americans, will decide whether Thomas Jefferson’s maxim will prevail - will we allow Liberty to yield and government to gain ground?

Session Begins

This week the Second Regular Session of the 95th General Assembly was convened. This will be my last year to serve in the Missouri House of Representatives due to term limits and I look forward to representing the interests of our communities and our state in the coming months.

It is also with great regret that I inform you that the U.S. Congress has also convened this week to work tirelessly on their behalf, and their elections, as well.

Missouri's state budget will command the most attention from lawmakers and special interest groups this session. This is the second budget year in a row where general revenue collections are less than the previous year. At present, revenue collections are down considerably from last year with year to date collections off by 10.5%.

The Governor, House, and Senate budget leaders have agreed upon the revised consensus revenue estimate for the remainder of this fiscal year which ends on June 30, 2010 predicting that revenues will be 6.4% less than expected at $6.97 billion in general revenue. The fiscal year 2010 budget was passed based upon an overly optimistic revenue estimate of $7.76 billion.

They have also agreed upon the consensus revenue estimate for the next budget year which begins on July 1, 2010 suggesting a growth in state general revenue collections of 3.5% resulting in $7.223 billion of general revenue. This will be a difficult number to beat if unemployment remains high.

Speaking of unemployment, this year begins with a staggering 9.5% unemployment rate in Missouri and 10% unemployment nationwide. The shadow of the federal government continues to darken over the states and the federal overreach into the lives of Americans is frighteningly Orwellian.

A recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece suggested, "... a civilization becomes incompetent not only when it fails to learn the lessons of the past, but also when it becomes crippled by them." The world over is strewn with the debris of failed socialist governments, despots, and the wretched human condition of those struggling for hope and liberty at the hands of those promoting "the greater good".

Yet, in Washington, Congress continues to fritter away opportunity after opportunity to provide real leadership for America, to unleash the American mind and the entrepreneur by promoting Liberty. Instead, our elected Congress and executive branch ignore the virtue of our matchless Constitution, they ignore the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness endowed to us by our Creator as recognized by our Founders in the Declaration of Independence, and they buy each other off with our tax dollars to ingratiate themselves, buy votes for unpopular legislation, and then turn around and lecture us about who is watching out for our best interests.

This is the year where states will play defense. We will dust off the forgotten notion of federalism and we will remind Congress and the President that the U.S. Constitution begins with "We the People".

The Republican majority in the Missouri House recognizes that the bedrock of the economy, the bedrock of every community, is you and your family.

It is time for government to quit trying pick winners and losers, to stop trying to tell us what is good for us, to stop trying to be God. Instead, government should recognize that, as Frederic Bastiat observed in 1850:

God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies... And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgement of faith in God and His works.

Where our federal government has failed to act, the Missouri House will remain committed to seeking solutions to the problems faced by Missourians from all walks of life.

A Prescription for Health Care in America

Just exactly what will health care look like in America in the coming years? Even better, who will pay for it? At this point in time these questions are very difficult to answer, but they are important questions that we should all be concerned and vocal about.

Congress and the Obama administration have decided to provide their answers to these questions and this past month in town halls all across this great land of ours and have shown just how tone deaf our elected officials in Washington, D.C. really are.

With unemployment at 9.3% (August 2009) and expecting to top 10% next year and a federal deficit growing so fast that revisions to the trillions of dollars of debt are blurring the reality of our actual financial condition, the White House has characterized our current situation as “grim”. Yet, amidst this “grim” outlook our Congress and executive branch are all about socializing American health care under the guise of “reform”. When will they understand that the problem with socialism, aside the loss of individual liberty, is that you will eventually run out of other people’s money?

So much has been written against these proposals, and Congressmen and Senators have received an earful at their town hall meetings during the August recess, that the real issue at hand in health care has been forgotten – out of control costs. Both sides of the debate have publicly stated that they favor lower costs, more choice, and reducing the number of uninsured.

We struggle today with a health care system that is price blind and quality silent, with inequitable tax treatment of coverage, extensive government regulation of benefits and marketing opportunities.

What is missing in the debate is a real conversation about the cost drivers in the system, e.g. over-utilization, technology, and the infusion of public dollars, but even these are symptomatic of other challenges, e.g. third-party payors, innovations in health care, and spending public money in hopes of solving an ill-defined problem.

Policy makers should be discussing cost drivers like friction in the system, waste, error, delay, and variance. These are all cost drivers that exist due to the lack of free market principles in American health care and they deserve more attention.

It is possible to reduce costs. It is possible to create more competition. It is possible to reduce the number of uninsured. All of this is possible without tax increases or running up our national debt or eroding our Liberty. This is possible if we allow Americans to own their health care coverage and make health care decisions with their doctor. This is known as consumer-directed health care.

Consumer-directed health care is simply defined as giving consumers the ability to have choice in their plan benefits, ownership of their plan, and have the information necessary to “shop” for their health care goods and services leading to better service and competition.

A movement in the direction of consumer-directed health care requires us to put aside the old “iron triangle” of the industrial age of cost, access, and quality and embrace a new “iron triangle” for a new health economy that addresses ownership, access, and privacy.

Our current health care finance model is extensively regulated with a substantial reliance on third-party payment systems that distort incentives. This distortion when coupled with the lack of transparency in prices and quality measures limit the effectiveness of competition. Add in the fact that societal attitudes towards health care are different from other goods and service sectors and you have an environment that is difficult to reform.

In other words, give consumers the tools they need to actively engage the health care market through the promotion of private property, i.e. the ownership of health insurance.

The key components of such a transformation will embrace the market and seek to improve it through ownership and transparency. Ownership is only possible when the market distortions are leveled for consumers in the marketplace. It will also require consumers to “come to grips” with the public consequences of their private actions.

Think about it, our car, life, and homeowners insurance have no connection to the workplace. They are purchased by individuals and are owned by them until the individual decides otherwise making these insurance products portable – who the individual is employed by is irrelevant in regards to our ownership and consumption of these insurance products.

If individuals can’t “take it with them” or have choices in their plan benefits, e.g. deductibles, coinsurance, co-pays, provider networks, and have some certainty that they won’t change on a yearly basis, then we can’t be consumers – we remain recipients borrowing or renting our health insurance from benevolent employers or worse, politicians seeking re-election.

If we don’t have control over the plan benefit options that best fit our family’s needs and we don’t have the ability to take our health insurance with us when we switch jobs, then we can never achieve ownership.

Why then should health insurance be any different?

Congress and the Obama administration should drop their belief that government is the only honest player and put their faith in the American people once again. The following proposals will promote ownership and competition while preserving Liberty:

Tax Equity. Give every American taxpayer the full deductibility of their health insurance premiums from their federal income taxes regardless of whether they have group insurance or an individual health insurance.

Portability. Make it possible for individuals to own their health insurance coverage and take it with them from job to job. One study indicated that up to 40% of workers who get their health insurance through their employer never advance their career by going to another company, they never start a small business, or engage in an entrepreneurial activity, because they are afraid of losing their health insurance. Congress should consider the loss of invention and innovation, because of such laws on the books today!

Transparency. Our health care system is price blind and quality silent. Individuals have a right to know the relative price and quality of health care goods and services. Without this information we can never make value decisions about our health and truly exercise our rights in property of our own health. We know the cost of every other good and service before we purchase it, why not health care?

Guaranteed Access. The current debate is infatuated with this notion of reducing the number of uninsured to reduce the amount of uncompensated care. The real issue is not the uninsured, but those who have pre-existing conditions and are considered uninsurable. Those individuals who are considered uninsurable, i.e. they can’t be medically underwritten for an individual health insurance policy, are more likely to contribute to uncompensated care. Affordable, publicly subsidized high risk pools should be promoted and funded in each state.

Interstate Commerce of Health Insurance. Remove barriers to allow individuals to purchase health insurance policies across state lines from any insurance company in any state. This would allow consumers to purchase plans that best suit their needs, instead of the interests of local politicians, by escaping expensive mandated benefits and extensive regulation, e.g. a family in New York with extensive regulations, e.g. guaranteed issue and community rating, will pay about $12,254 for a policy versus a family policy in Missouri for $5,535 which does not require guaranteed issue or community rating.

Health Banking. It is time to give consumers ownership of their health care records. Consumers already manage their own bank accounts, investments, and purchases. In this new information age consumers deserve to have the same authority over their own medical records. Consumers should have the ability to designate who may see their private information. Consumers should be able to legally own and be protected through privacy laws a copy of their complete, lifetime medical record.

These proposals will transform American health care into an even better system than we have today by reorienting our state and federal health care policy toward the objectives of the individual and away from the employer, the insurer, providers, and government through portability and fairer tax treatment among all consumers of health care goods and services.

Once individuals own their own health insurance and take control of their own health care needs, then transparency of prices and service will be demanded by consumers. As Milton Friedman so aptly pointed out, “…if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly utilized, you have to do it through the means of private property.” After all, “Nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own.”