The contortions of Wyoming politics

Contortionists! That’s it. Think of Governor Mead and the legislature’s leadership as contortionists and you can fathom what they’re doing by denying the benefits of Obamacare to Wyoming’s citizens.

Contortionists are performers displaying dramatic ability to bend and flex. Contortionists are circus acts. Contortionists have extraordinary flexibility, putting themselves through intense and painful gyrations.

Thinking of the Governor and some legislators as “contortionists,” explains why some believe contortionists apply snake oil to their joints to achieve flexibility.

What else explains the bending and flexing these politicians are engaged in with their partisan response to Obamacare? First the Governor abdicated his responsibility to the legislature. When the Wyoming Department of Health (WDH) advised legislators that expanding Medicaid to the uninsured would save the state tens-of-millions of tax dollars, these otherwise self-appointed fiscal conservatives displayed dramatic flexibility, rejecting the opportunity to save those dollars in order to make an anti-Obama statement.

The circus act continues. The Labor, Health and Social Services Committee is poised to send the uninsured into the private insurance market for coverage. What could possibly go wrong?

Calling it a “free-market solution,” instead of the “predatory solution” it is, the committee co-chairs, Senator Charlie Scott and Rep. Elaine Harvey, are twisting themselves into unusual positions. Before WDH experts finished a study evaluating alternatives, Scott and Harvey had a bill drafted to send the uninsured to private insurance companies for health coverage.

Senator Scott earlier blocked creation of an insurance exchange which consumers in other states find helpful in weighing the market’s confusing options. Exchanges have also achieved lower rates through transparency. But Wyoming legislators find Obamacare so radioactive they refused to create a Wyoming-specific exchange.

The Wyoming Insurance Department then refused to regulate private insurance companies to assure compliance with the consumer protections of the ACA. In that non-regulatory environment some legislators are willing to send their constituents into the shark-infested private insurance market to fend for themselves.

I lobbied for insurance companies for twenty-two years. Having continually defended their practices against legislators who believed the state should regulate and control the companies, these politicians are showing a dramatic ability to bend and flex their traditional views of insurance companies in order to avoid the documented benefits of Obamacare.

Private insurance companies had to be coerced by the Affordable Care Act to reduce their administrative costs to 20% or give rebates to consumers. The private companies have always had notoriously high administrative costs attached to them, which was one cause of escalating premiums.  Companies have rebated millions to consumers when they couldn’t control the overhead.

Senator Scott abhors Medicaid. He calls it “too expensive.” Medicaid’s administrative costs are a meager 4%.

After the Scott-Harvey bill was drafted, WDH issued a report studying the “free market solution” and three other options. The negatives included added costs of start-up and loss of control over rates and benefits among others.

Read the entire report at www.health.wyo.gov/Media.aspx?mediaId=14365.

Political considerations likely sidelined Option Four, managing the expansion group as the existing Medicaid eligibility groups. This is the soundest of all options but was the one rejected during the last session despite taxpayer savings of at least 47 million dollars, the one WDH says will “increase the number of individuals covered by the Medicaid program, without increasing its state general fund contribution to the program” while reducing the costs of uncompensated care and improving Wyoming’s health infrastructure.

It’s also the option WDH determined “would mean reduced complexity of operations” simplifying or eliminating “any administrative processes needed to manage this new group.”

WDH found, “This option allows the State to provide the most generous benefits package at a relatively low cost to State General Funds due to the enhanced federal match rate.”

Legislators know, the governor knows expanding Medicaid through the ACA provides the best healthcare while saving the most money. How are we to understand the Governor and legislature rejecting this option? It’s neither their interest in social justice, nor fiscal responsibility. Contortionism is the only explanation, well, other than partisanship.

If the governor won't lead, the legislature will!

The legislature wasn’t satisfied with taking away Cindy Hill’s job. Now they’re after Matt Mead’s. In fairness, Mead hasn’t demonstrated a desire to lead. He’s acquiesced to the legislative branch on everything from Medicaid expansion to budgeting for the Game and Fish and Transportation Departments. It’s time for this governor to decide whether he really wants his job enough to do it rather than allowing a group of powerful legislators to lead a coup.

The latest attempt to usurp the governor’s duties came when the legislature’s Management Council decided it could bypass the governor and order state agencies to act. That’s is clearly not their prerogative but it will be up to the governor to assert that it is his.

Initially a budget footnote demanded that on top of recent state budget cuts and federal sequestration, the agencies expend more time and resources planning for yet another round of cuts that may never even be required. The legislature wanted agencies to plan for mythological reductions of 4, 6 and 8 percent for the next budget cycle.

The governor vetoed the footnote saying it doesn’t make sense to require agencies that have more than enough work to do, to spend time on a meaningless exercise when the state has no idea whether cuts of any size will become necessary. The legislature didn’t attempt to override the veto. They knew they didn’t have enough support.

A veto override would have required two-thirds of both houses, about 60 votes. Instead, they waited until the session adjourned. Then the Management Council met and imposed the same requirement the governor had vetoed. The backdoor through the Management Council required only a majority of its 13 members.

Senators Phil Nicholas and Tony Ross told the media they didn’t really see any difference between what the Management Council is requiring and the language the governor vetoed. Really? The difference is respect for the process and the separation of powers. Ignoring both is fast becoming the defining characteristic of the majority of the Wyoming legislature.

The voters have decided that they want a legislative branch made up of almost entirely one-party. Not only are 85% of all legislators members of that party, most of them are elected with no opposition.  Add to that formula a governor who has been reluctant to lead and you have a certain prescription for legislative overreach.

Even though they want to run the executive branch, there is not a single member of the Management Council who has ever served in it. It’s easy for folks like Senator Ross to say it's “healthy” for state agencies to plan for cuts. Neither he nor his colleagues have ever done it. They have no appreciation whatsoever for what it means when the legislature continues to add unnecessarily to the workload. They are happy to cut budgets without taking any responsibility for cutting programs and state employee duties. Each session they add more responsibilities while reducing the number of employees available to do the heavy lifting.

Mead is right when he told legislators it simply makes no sense to go through all the work of planning for 2, 4 and 6 percent cuts long before the state’s budget analysts arrive at their projections. But legislators operate from that old maxim, “No job is too difficult for those who don’t have to do it.”

As Rep. Ken Esquibel said, legislators of Mead’s own party have drawn the line in the sand. Mead has allowed them to run the executive branch for his first two years. Why not his last two? Senator Nicholas made the threat to Mead and the executive branch very clear. If agencies don’t comply, lawmakers will axe their budgets across the board.

In many ways, on many levels, it’ll be especially interesting to see how the governor responds to this usurpation. Maybe he doesn’t even consider it a threat. But now we’ll see whether he really wants the job or whether he’ll give yet another piece of it to the legislature.

Who holds legislators accountable? Not the voters.

Most Wyoming legislators call themselves  “fiscally conservative” yet they needlessly spent $80 million rejecting Medicaid expansion. Expansion could’ve saved hundreds of millions. Journalist Kerry Drake called that “legislative malpractice.”

So, who holds legislators accountable? Not the voters. Parliamentary contests in Cuba are more competitive than legislative races in Wyoming.

Legislators audit state agencies for accountability. The Legislative Service Office’s website says the goal of Program Evaluation “is to provide legislators with useful, objective, and timely information about the extent to which desired program results are being achieved.” Legislators evaluate “the effectiveness and efficiency of programs,” in order improve state government.

That raises the question, “Who audits the auditors?” If auditing agencies improves their operate, why not also audit the legislature? Voters should know more about whether the legislature functions effectively for the same reason legislators should know whether state agencies are effective.

The legislature was last “audited” in 1971. As a part of a national assessment Rutgers University graded the effectiveness of all 50 state legislatures on matters such as independence from lobbying groups and openness to public participation. Wyoming’s legislature ranked 49^th best in the nation. As a result, the LSO was created and other important reforms initiated. That was four decades ago.

Where to start? Legislators fondly call themselves “a citizen legislature.” Is that really true? What does it even mean?

An audit of the legislature could begin by asking how it happens that so many members run unopposed in a “citizen’s legislature?” Incumbents have created an environment where few of their fellow citizens feel they can actually run for the job. Perhaps the audit would disclose that the desire of legislators to micromanage state government has resulted in the creation of so many committees and select committees that few people in the state have the time or the financial means to take part in the process.

Legislature have a dozen standing committees, 16 select committees and 20 other councils and commissions requiring legislative participation in addition to other obligations. Resulting demands on legislators’ time, beyond the days they spend in session, are extreme. That’s not a part-time “citizen’s legislature.” Neither is it the best way to conduct legislative business. But it is a good way to discourage citizen participation.

An audit should review the dependency of legislators on professional lobbyists. How many bills originate with special interests rather than citizens? How many out-of-state organizations write proposed bills for introduction in Wyoming? To what extent do legislators rely on the information provided by professional lobbyists? You’d be surprised by the answers.

Wouldn’t you like to know whether your legislators operate in an “evidence-based world?” If you follow them, you can identify instances where statements made on the floor or in a committee are verifiably untrue. An audit would make recommendations for holding legislators accountable when misleading information is used. It would also be enlightening to learn the sources of information that legislators drag to the floor for debates.

It would also be worth knowing how often legislators ignore the legal advice of well-paid LSO lawyers and introduce clearly unconstitutional bills. How much do those charades cost the taxpayers? Legislators demand that state agency decisions are data-driven and that they measure outcomes. The voters have a right to know the same about legislators and the work they do.

Our legislature is “transparency-challenged.” Auditors should look at procedures and infrastructure that deter public participation. Wyoming is one of the few states resisting electronic voting. Bills are scheduled for public hearings on short notice, often in small rooms, discouraging voters from participating. Small changes could be found to open the process and encourage citizen participation.

An audit of the legislature would “provide voters useful, objective, and timely information about the extent to which those we elect achieve desired results.”

No other state agency staff and budget has grown as much as the legislature’s over the last 20 years. That growth occurred without an audit. Good government principals require that at least occasionally somebody should audit the auditors.

Will Wyoming be left alone...again?

State Senator Eli Bebout says Wyoming can wait another year to expand Medicaid. He speaks like someone who doesn’t know what it’s like to be uninsured. Governor Mead says Wyoming needs “more answers.” They remind me of the old adage, “Either lead, follow or get out the hell out of the way. If he doesn’t do one or the other, Mead may well become the only governor in America refusing to expand Medicaid coverage to the uninsured.

Nearly every other Republican governor is aboard. Recently Rick Snyder of Michigan embraced Medicaid expansion, the latest conservative Republican governor to figure out what’s best for his state. Snyder joins several anti-Obamacare Republican governors signing on, including Arizona’s Jan Brewer and Ohio's John Kasich. Republican governors in North Dakota, Nevada and New Mexico have done the right thing for their people.

The National Journal reports even Florida Governor Rick Scott is wavering. Although Texas Governor and Tea Party darling Rick Perry promises resistance, some GOP legislators are planning to join. Of course.  The Urban Institute calculates each would receive $7 in federal aid for every $1 contributed to expanding coverage.

But not Governor Mead. Not Wyoming’s GOP legislators. They are standing firm, if alone, willing to needlessly spend millions of your tax dollars while leaving constituents uninsured to score meaningless political points. Wyoming has 30,000 uninsured people and spends multi-millions providing a patchwork of medical care programs for them. Our hospitals lose 200 million dollars annually caring for uninsured patients. But Wyoming Republicans prefer to represent those who hate Obamacare more than they care about the health of their neighbors.

Last year, the Governor used your tax dollars on a quixotic joust to convince the Supreme Court that Obamacare was unconstitutional. He’s a lawyer who should have known better. The Supreme Court said Mead was wrong, that Obama was right.

However, the high court ruled that under Obamacare the expansion of Medicaid was optional. Governors could decide. The Tea Partiers pressed governors to resist Medicaid expansion as a way of fighting Obamacare despite clear evidence it will reduce the numbers of uninsured, save millions in tax dollars, improve the healthcare system and provide needed medical care to those who now suffer and die early from a lack of that care.

That mattered little to Matt Mead and most GOP legislators. The most indecisive governor in Wyoming history shrugged his shoulders even after the director of his own health department said expansion of Medicaid was the best fiscal decision the state could make. Told that Medicaid expansion could save the lives of uninsured people while saving state taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, Mead said in effect, “This decision is to tough for me. I am only the governor. I will let the legislature decide.” Perhaps he thought they’d have the courage and empathy he lacked. They didn’t.

Meanwhile nearly every other Republican governor has decided that politics be damned, Medicaid expansion is a good deal. Wyoming’s governor and legislators have operated on myths while other Republicans have decided the facts and their people matter more. For GOPers outside of Wyoming it makes sense. The federal government will initially cover 100 percent of the costs, declining to 90 percent in a few years.

Senator Charlie Scott, the self-appointed healthcare guru in Wyoming told colleagues, with absolutely no evidence, the feds won’t pay. The lemmings lined up and Wyoming’s people will pay the price. You will continue to pay millions of dollars to provide health care for the uninsured and you’ll continue paying for uncompensated care at local hospitals.

Other states with genuinely fiscally conservative governors and legislatures will be able to end the programs they have funded to fill the gap. The taxpayers in their states will save millions, their uninsured will have insurance and preventive care, and their hospitals will no longer shift the costs of the uninsured to those with insurance.

But not here. Not Wyoming. We settled for a governor who believes he was elected to serve only some of the people and legislators who were elected to serve even fewer.

This is what’s come of Thomas Jefferson’s vision?

This is the new America? This is what’s come of Thomas Jefferson’s vision? After a 237-year experiment with democracy and freedom, some of those who’ve been given the mantle of leadership in the United States of America are apparently willing to sacrifice it all on the altar of their demagoguery-fueled perception of gun rights.

In Wyoming, legislators have introduced the blatantly unconstitutional “Firearm Protection Act.” They seek to create a felony punishable by five years in prison for any “official, agent or employee of the United States government” who enforces “or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government” regulating gun safety.

The Ft. Collins Republican county sheriff says he’ll violate his oath by refusing to enforce federal laws he considers unconstitutional. He’s mimicking other sheriffs around the country who have decided they have authority to decide which laws are not constitutional.

The sheriff of Jackson County, Kentucky, Denny Peyman, falsely claimed the federal government plans to ask him to confiscate guns, “and I said ‘you are never going to pull a gun from Jackson County,” adding, “I am responsible for the people inside this county… if Obama passes this, it doesn’t matter what he passes, the sheriff has more power than the federal people.”

He wasn’t the first Southern politician to pretend he has “more power than the federal people.” Sheriff Denny and the boys didn’t learn much from what they call the “War of Northern Aggression.” They got another lesson when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled their schools had to be integrated. But politicians are politicians. Although they knew they couldn’t get away with it, they couldn’t resist playing to their less-informed constituents.

Like those sheriffs and Wyoming legislators who sponsor the “Firearm Protection Act,” Southern governors knew more votes could be won than lost by playing the fool. In1957, when nine children arrived at a Little Rock high school where the Supreme Court said they could begin classes, segregationist governor Orville Faubus, turned them away, defying an order of the Federal District Court.

President Dwight Eisenhower refused to allow Faubus to disrespect the Constitution. Eisenhower was as determined to uphold his responsibility as this governor was to ignore his. Eisenhower reaffirmed that ours is a country of law, and patriotic citizens, regardless of their prejudices, traditions, and customs, are expected to obey the law. "The foundation of the American way of life," Eisenhower reminded them, "is respect for law."

Another Southern governor required a remedial course. Alabama’s George Wallace stood in another school-house door and attempted to defy federal law. “I stand here today, as Governor of this sovereign State, and refuse to willingly submit to illegal usurpation of power by the Central Government.” In spite of his rhetoric, federal agents moved Wallace aside and the federal law was enforced.

Pseudo-conservatives like Faubus, Wallace and those Wyoming legislators aren’t so ill-informed as they are ill-motivated. They know the law. They just don’t respect it. They’d rather play to the crowd than lead. During the segregation battles, politicians irresponsibly incited not only disrespect for democratic institutions but violence as well.

These demagogues regurgitate words of the “founding fathers,” demanding the Constitution be interpreted as the “fathers” intended. They can’t help themselves when an opportunity comes to trash both the “fathers” and their handiwork.

James Madison wrote the Federalist Papers Number 47 discussing federalism and the separation of powers. These legislators should read it instead of the junk they receive from the NRA. “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

State legislators don’t trump federal law. They can’t prevent federal officials from enforcing it. Sheriffs don’t get to decide whether laws they don’t like are constitutional. In a dictatorship, only one opinion matters, but maintaining a free society requires the self-discipline to understand your opinion is just one of many.