Presidential Platforms’ Impact on State Policies

0
176

I normally don’t post source material wholesale like this, but this piece from Progressive States was so informative, I just couldn’t see condensing it. So here are the positions of many of the Presidentials on both sides of the aisle on the bread and butter issues that define the economic policy in the states.

Democrats_republicans_head_to_head_
Given
the experience of Senate filibusters against innovative policies
proposed at the federal level, here at Progressive States we are inevitably cautious in our hopes based on Presidential candidate proposals.

But
state policymakers can in many cases adapt the best of the candidate
proposals for state laws– and in many cases already have done so,
since as this Dispatch will outline, many of the best ideas
proposed by the candidates are already part of the debate in the
states. This issue will focus on three areas — energy policy, health
care
, and aid for working families — where states can adapt candidate
proposals.

Much, much more on the flip…

Energy Policies

As we’ve emphasized in the past, a healthy energy policy must include weaning us off of foreign oil, developing and promoting renewable energy, and taking serious steps to fight global warming.
While some states can take elements from the Presidential candidate
plans, the most striking part is that none of the candidates are
offering anything that is more bold or more daring than what is already
happening in the states.

Cap and Trade:  Many of the candidates are supporting expanded cap and trade systems to decrease the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. There are already several regional cap-and-trade programs in place and a federal cap and trade plan, as proposed by many of the candidates, would mostly widen participation
                   

Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd (who also supports a carbon tax), John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama all support a cap and trade system to cut U.S. emissions by 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Bill Richardson supports a goal of cutting emissions by 90% below 2006 levels by 2050.

Mike Hukabee
supports a cap and trade system but has not come out with any
specifics. John McCain supports a cap and trade system and is the
co-author of the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act with the goal to reduce emissions by roughly 30% by 2050.
                  

Rudy Giuliani does
not support a cap and trade system. Mitt Romney also doesn’t support a
cap and trade system, even though Massachusetts was involved in the
development of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
– the country’s largest and first regional cap and trade program-
during his tenure as governor. Romney ultimately backed out of signing
it, but thankfully Governor Deval Patrick signed the state back into the compact at the beginning of this year.

Fuel-Economy Standards for Automobiles: The federal bill
that just passed the Senate calls for the first major increase in
automobile fuel efficiency in 32 years. The bill requires car companies
to achieve an industry-wide average of 35 miles per gallon (mpg) for
cars, small trucks and SUVs over the next 13 years. Many of the
presidential candidates have much higher standards:
                   

  • Dodd has the best standard calling for 50 mpg by 2017. Richardson also supports
    50 mpg, but by 2020.
                            
  • Several candidates endorse a 40 mpg standard with different timelines: Biden by 2017, Clinton by 2020 (with an increase to 55 mpg by 2030), Edwards by 2016.
                       
                            
  • Obama has a weaker standard that calls for 40 mpg for cars and 32 mpg for light trucks by 2020.
                                                    
  • Huckabee supports a 35 mpg by 2020 and McCain
    supports raising standards but has not named a specific target. He did
    introduce legislation in 2002 that would have raised standards to 36
    mpg by 2016.
                          
                            
  • Romney has an unsatisfying plan that opposes raising fuel-economy standards on their own but has ideas for making U.S. cars more fuel efficient.

While raising fuel economy standards will help reduce carbon dioxide emissions, California
has a much better way of ensuring decreased emissions by regulating the
amount of carbon dioxide emissions from cars and trucks instead of a
mpg standard.  As a result, to meet their emissions requirements, the
fuel economy of cars must be raised to an average of 43.5 mpg — much
higher than the federal regulation that just passed. The regulation was
challenged in court by automakers, but a judge recently ruled in favor of the state.
                   

Renewable Energy Development: Renewable energy development seems to be the one area that all candidates support. Among those that have specific proposals, Richardson has the highest target with 30% of electricity to come from renewables by 2020 increasing to 50% by 2040, otherwise known as a renewable portfolio standard
(RPS).  The other candidates with specific targets call for RPS’s that
range between 20- 25% of all electricity to come from renewables.

Biden supports investing $50 billion over five years into developing renewable energy technology. Clinton supports a $50 billion 10-year fund while Obama proposes investing three times that amount at $150 billion over ten year. Edwards supports a $13 billion a year investment fund.

By far, Dodd has the most expansive plan proposing to invest $50 billion every year through funds that are generated through his proposed carbon tax.

There’s
a lot of catch up to do on the federal level with regards to renewable
energy. Twenty-five states, plus the District of Columbia, already have
a mandatory RPS and three others have voluntary standards. Of those, at
least half are as high, or higher, than what the candidates are
proposing. 

Health Care Reform

Health care is the number one domestic concern for
Democratic, Republican, and unenrolled voters. It is no surprise that
candidates for president are offering decidedly different approaches to
fixing our country’s worsening health care woes.

  • Most of the Republicans largely
    tinker around the edges of the problem, using a mix of tax credits and
    incentives for families to purchase non-group health insurance.
    Unfortunately, many of their proposals would weaken state reforms that
    help consumers find comprehensive and affordable insurance options.

  • Democrats,
    with the exception of Dennis Kucinich’s universal single-payer plan,
    pursue a decidedly public-private approach to reform by expanding
    public programs, creating large purchasing pools, and offering sliding
    scale subsidies to help families afford individual and employer
    coverage.

What
is of interest to state policymakers is that there is little in the
presidential candidate proposals that isn’t already being pursued in
the states. Many of the proposals incorporate or build on what states
are pursuing, making it clear that states should continue working
towards comprehensive health care reform as any federal system will
likely have a strong state-federal link.

The Problem of Affordability:  The
affordability of health care coverage is front and center in the health
care debate with candidates of both parties proposing affordability
measures including tax credits, tax incentives, or sliding scale
premium subsidies.   

Democratic presidential plans would
largely pair sliding scale premium subsidies to both individuals and
employers with stronger consumer protections. To increase affordable
options, Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Richardson would explicitly allow
Americans to buy-into the federal employees’ health plan.

On the Republican side,
Guiliani, Huckabee and McCain would provide low-income families with
tax credits (although often undefined in their plans or, in the case of
McCain, far less than the cost of typical premiums). All three of them,
plus Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, support broader deductibility of health
insurance costs– an approach that does little for average families but
a boon for wealthier taxpayers. Thompson and Tancredo have vague plans
to provide some subsidies, while Duncan Hunter provides no financial
help in his plans.

But do the candidates really ensure affordability of health care? Hillary Clinton
is the only candidate to specifically include a provision that annual
expenses not exceed a percentage of family income, but this falls short
since the limit only applies to premiums, not all out-of-pocket
expenses. Active proposals in Wisconsin and California are offering comprehensive affordability protections limiting ALL out of pocket costs, including premiums, deductibles and co-pays, to a percentage of income. Dennis Kucinich’s universal single-payer plan
goes the furthest to ensure affordability by eliminating premiums and
deductibles and setting tax-based financing on a sliding scale.

Guiliani,
Hunter, McCain and Tancredo, unfortunately, would undermine state
consumer protections in the name of "affordability" in their plans by
allowing insurance companies to evade state rules on maternity
coverage, mental health parity, and breast and prostate cancer
screenings.  Romney’s plan would not mandate weakening state plans but
would use federal money to encourage weakening of
state health insurance regulations.

Individual and Employer Mandates:  Across the broad, Republicans
oppose individual mandates to purchase coverage and similar
requirements on employers to participate, with most of them supporting
changes to the tax code that reduce employer incentives to provide
health care and instead shift the burden of providing health care
towards individuals, with the goal of expanding the individual market
and shifting more of the cost-burden to individuals and families.
Adding to his "flip-flop" reputation, Mitt Romney is not supporting an individual mandate that he promoted as Massachusetts governor in 2006.

Mandates get a more welcome reception among the Democratic candidates, with the notable exception of Barack Obama.
While most of the Democrats, including Obama, include mandates on
employers to participate in paying for coverage or helping to finance
expansions and affordability subsidies, there is less agreement around
individual mandates. Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson would require individuals to obtain coverage. While Barack Obama would require all children to have coverage, he contends it is unfair to impose an individual mandate before affordability can be ensured for all Americans. As Massachusetts is showing,
it is easy to require everyone to have insurance, but it is far from
easy to ensure everyone has access to a comprehensive and affordable
plan. Of course, the issue of the individual mandate is mute in Dennis
Kucinich’s plan which would automatically enroll all Americans in a
universal single-payer system.

Strengthening Public Programs:  Additional
contrast between the major Party candidates emerges in how each would
treat public programs, like Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP. While Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, and Fred Thompson
would largely leave them alone, Mitt Romney would block-grant Medicaid
and reduce federal Medicaid requirements, opening the door to costly
reductions in which benefits Medicaid covers and who is eligible.

Virtually
across the board, Democrats would expand Medicaid and SCHIP, though
proposed levels fall short of what many states are pursuing, such as
New York’s expansion of SCHIP eligibilty to 400% of poverty.
Additionally, many would open up the federal employee health plan to
any American. Notably, Dennis Kucinich’s proposal would absorb public
programs into the new universal single-payer plan.

Cost Controls and Quality Improvement:  Along
with ensuring affordability of health coverage, controlling costs and
improving quality may be the most important elements of health care
reform proposals, although they often receive the least attention.

Proposals by Democrats and some Republicans, notably John McCain
who presents the most detailed cost and quality proposals among the GOP
candidates, include: provisions to invest in electronic medical records
and other information technology; provider payment based on performance
and quality metrics; emphasizing prevention and chronic care management
by, in part, providing it at no cost to patients; greater public
disclosure of provider, insurance and Rx manufacturer costs and
provider’s quality of care performance; and, reimportation of
prescription drugs which are dramatically
cheaper in Canada and overseas.

Most of the Democrats,
however, go further by concentrating on reducing profiteering by the
insurance industry. They propose stronger consumer
protections and requiring insurance companies to spend more of the
money they raise from premiums on direct medical care, with John Edwards requiring that at least 85% of premiums go for care. Hillary Clinton offers a detailed cost-containment proposal including an independent "Best Practices Initiative" and would limit direct-to-consumer health care advertising. Barack Obama expressly identifies the reduction of health disparities as a key reform goal and Bill Richardson would
limit consumer exposure to medical debt. Additionally, most would
eliminate Medicare Advantage overpayments to private insurance carriers.

Republicans
on the other hand, place their faith in more individual decision-making
by consumers to reduce health care costs.  Several would increase the
availability of Health Savings Accounts, which are tied to high
deductible plans, and Mike Huckabee explicitly supports increasing the out of pocket costs of individuals to increase their cost-sensitivity, despite studies showing that such measures reduce both necessary and unnecessary care and can lead to worse outcomes.

Supporting State Innovation:  There is little among the Presidential proposals from both parties that does more than what states are already pursuing.
In fact, aside from Kucinich’s plan, which would have no state
administrative or financing role, there seems to be recognition from
candidates on both sides that supporting state innovation in health
care is important to fixing our dis-jointed system. Several candidates
expressly advocate a federalist approach to health care and support
greater flexibility of states to implement programs, but in some cases
would also limit state regulatory powers over insurance companies.

Working Families

As
families struggle with stagnating wages and the strain of balancing the
demands of work and family, some of the Presidential candidates are
promoting ideas from the minimum wage to the EITC to family leave that
would help families make ends meet.

Minimum Wage:  With the increase in the federal minimum wage to $7.25 by 2009, the reality is that twelve states will still have higher rates than the federal level then– with a number of others passing the feds over time since their rates are indexed to inflation. Edwards, Obama, Dodd, and Kucinich all
propose raising the federal rate, with Kucinich specifically aiming for
a rate of $8.50 per hour and Edwards supporting an increase to $9.50
per hour by 2012.  All four plus Richardson and Clinton would link the
federal rate to either inflation or to increases in Congressional pay.
Indexing the minimum wage to inflation is a good model for states that
don’t yet index their own rates.

None of the Republicans plan to raise the minimum wage, with Romney on record vetoing his state’s minimum wage increase (a veto that was overridden), McCain on
record filibustering against minimum wage increases, and Ron Paul,
Hunter and Tancredo voting against it as well. Thompson did vote for an
increase when he was in the Senate in 1996 and Huckabee
signed a minimum wage increase as Governor, although he says he did so
only to prevent passage of a constitutional amendment that would have
indexed the wage to inflation.

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC): For low-income workers, Edwards, Clinton, Obama and
Dodd promise to triple the EITC for single workers, extending help to 4
million people, while Obama promises additional increases to single
workers paying child support and extending help to families with three
or more children. Kucinich talks
about doubling all tax credits for those making $80,000 or less. None
of the Republicans talk about EITC, although Ron Paul is on record in
favor of eliminating the EITC altogether.

Family Leave and Sick Days:  Even
as a few states are taking steps towards paid family leave and paid
sick days, some candidates are taking bold leadership to assist them.
To support state paid leave programs, Clinton promises $1 billion per year, Obama promises $1.5 billion per year, and Edwards promises $2 billion per year with the explicit goal of covering all workers by 2014. Dodd more generally talks about guaranteeing eight weeks of paid leave for all workers and Richardson
says we should "consider" doing do. Edwards, Obama and Clinton also all
support extending the existing three months of unpaid family leave from
firms with 50 or more employees down to those with 25 or more
employees, bringing help to 13 million additional Americans. Clinton
also proposes to restore the right of states to use unemployment
insurance to provide family leave benefits — state flexibility
eliminated by Bush early in his Presidency.

Edwards, Clinton, Obama, Biden and Dodd would
also all support guaranteeing full-time workers seven days of leave
each year to care for themselves or loved ones in case of sickness. Richardson would again "consider" such a plan.

Again, none of the Republicans have explicit plans on the subject, although Guiliani condemned Clinton for "out of control spending" when she announced her modest paid family leave plan.

Conclusion

Looking
at the candidates’ plans, it’s clear that the states are leading the
feds. In the area of clean energy for example, a recent report
summed it up:"Over the last decade, the states, living up to their
reputation as ‘laboratories of democracy,’ have crafted and implemented
a series of bold, innovative clean energy policies. And those policies
are working." In health care, it seems inevitable that state policy is
likely to drive federal debates, much as is happening now with SCHIP.

What
is encouraging is that many of the Presidential candidates are adapting
some best practices from the states, from renewable energy standards to
indexing the minimum wage to inflation. And in a few areas like paid
family leave and paid sick days, candidates are legitimately ahead of
almost all states, which can in turn be a spur to states to move
forward on those policies regardless of whether they may fall prey to
filibusters in D.C.