From the Dispatch - News

California Legislation Would Eliminate Consumer Protection for Internet Services

Cheryl Leanza — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 18:05:10 +0000

Sometimes states operate against stereotype, and this legislative session is no exception. In contrast to a forward-thinking bill put forward in West Virginia earlier this year, which would have explicitly granted authority over high speed broadband Internet services, it seems the typically consumer-friendly and technologically savvy California legislature is considering moving in the opposite direction, taking up a policy that was endorsed by the ultra-right wing American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) when it was under consideration in New York State.

California Senator Alex Padilla, Chair of the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee, is sponsoring SB 1161, which is also cosponsored by Assemblymember Steven C. Bradford, chair of the Utilities and Commerce Committee. The aim of the legislation is simple: to prohibit any state agency from regulating any Internet Protocol service. In other words, just as most Americans are moving to new technologies, the state might pull out the rug on any rules to protect consumers who use it.

This is a sweeping preemptive strike against consumers and small businesses because it renders the state powerless with respect to a technology that virtually everyone relies on today, and it is occurring at the same time many states are removing protections for traditional telephone service as well. As Progressive States Network laid out in its Blueprint for Economic Security 2012, high speed broadband Internet is an important key to create jobs and stimulate economic recovery because essential communications service for everyone from elementary students to small businesses.

The New York proposal was successfully defeated by a determined coalition of labor, consumer and other advocates. While Governor Andrew Cuomo originally proposed such a prohibition on his state utility commission as part of his budget, public interest advocates as diverse as the Communications Workers of America and AARP celebrated Cuomo's decision not to prohibit state agencies from assisting consumers with broadband regulation.

California's venerable consumer advocate, The Utility Reform Network (TURN), has written to Sen. Padilla opposing his bill, identifying a long list of protections that will be eliminated if it were to become law. TURN's Executive Director, Mark Toney, calls SB1161 "a wolf in sheep's clothing" and explains it will have implications far beyond services like Skype because all modern telephone, and even cable services, use Internet Protocol. This bill is something of a change in course for the Senator, since Sen. Padilla has been the source of some good bills in the past. Padilla authored the law that established the California Broadband Council, and recently introduced a bill to prohibit localities from shutting down telecommunications services as San Francisco’s BART system did last year, an action that was widely criticized by the telecommunications and civil rights communities.

SB 1161 comes on the heels of a recommendation by California's Greenlining Institute that states should be going in the opposite direction, recommending that states adopt legislation to ensure more transparency with high speed Internet, requiring Internet companies to "disclose what types of Internet traffic they discriminate against and to what extent that traffic is blocked or delayed, and why."

The bill is up for a hearing on April 17 before the California Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee.

Full Resources from this Article

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/psn/images/dispatch/fc042111.jpg

Conservatives Confused as State Minimum Wage Attacks Fail

Tim Judson — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 21:02:46 +0000

Legislators in Arizona conceded defeat this week in an attempt to gut the state’s minimum wage law. House Majority Leader Steve Court admitted that the law, enacted in a landslide 2006 ballot initiative with 65% of the vote, is still unassailable. Court’s decision wraps up a rough couple of months for legislators and lobbyists intent on rolling back minimum wage laws.

First, presidential candidate Willard Mitt Romney went off-script for over a month strongly supporting annual increases in the minimum wage, and inadvertently lending support to measures to raise the minimum wage in at least fifteen states. After conservative leaders succeeded in pressuring Romney to retract his position, the candidate’s statements have lacked conviction and consistency.

Earlier this month, a bold attack on Florida’s minimum wage law also failed when legislators realized how unpopular and harmful it was. The Florida bill targeted restaurant servers and other tipped workers, decreasing their base wage rate depending on how much they earn in tips. Attempts to roll back restaurant workers’ wages are the most prevalent in attacks on minimum wage this year. A similar bill has been introduced in Minnesota, and the failed Arizona bill originally targeted tipped workers (legislators changed course to target the 2006 law’s core provision of annual increases in the minimum wage to keep pace with inflation.)

In essence, the tipped-employee wage indirectly authorizes employers to steal tips from their employees by crediting them against wages. Restaurant association lobbyists have tried to sell the idea on the basis that most tipped workers have the audacity to take home more than minimum-wage incomes, despite some restaurant owners’ desire to pay them as little as possible. Also occurring in multiple states are bills to force sub-minimum wages on younger workers and bills to curtail or repeal annual wage increases in states like Arizona that have such provisions. Such attacks are expected to continue, as much as anything because they provide a vehicle for conservatives to push the overarching idea that what’s bad for workers is good for business.

At the same time, proposals to raise the minimum wage are gaining steam as legislative sessions continue. Following the Delaware Senate’s early passage of a minimum wage bill, measures in New Jersey, Connecticut, Iowa, and Massachusetts have advanced, and legislative leaders in Illinois and New York have announced plans to do so in 2012. A joint op-ed by Connecticut House Speaker Chris Donovan, New Jersey Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver, and New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver calling for minimum wage increases in their states gained national attention this month. Articles reporting on their statement have appeared in newspapers throughout the country. In contrast to the unpopularity of attacks on the minimum wage, the public’s enthusiasm for these measures gives voice to a deep belief in the promise of fairness and economic security that the minimum wage represents.

Several new reports out this month drive home the realities the public is responding to. A new analysis of Internal Revenue Service data shows vastly different trends in income inequality following the Great Depression and the Great Recession. Where policy changes favoring direct spending on reemployment, infrastructure, and progressive taxation and regulation in response to the Depression resulted in rising incomes and broadening prosperity, policies promoting austerity, tax reductions, light regulatory reforms, and so-called “supply-side” responses (e.g., the TARP and auto industry bailouts) have resulted in falling wages and increasing inequality.

The importance of raising the minimum wage in this picture is obvious from reports by the National Low Income Housing Council and the Center on Economic and Policy Research. NLIHC’s Out of Reach 2012 report shows that, in every state, the minimum wage is insufficient to allow workers to afford decent housing. The council calculated how many hours per week a minimum wage employee would have to work to afford a two-bedroom apartment, which ranges from 63 hours/week in Arkansas to 175 hours/week in Hawaii. CEPR’s analysis of historical minimum wage rates explains the mismatch between our nation’s wage floor and the economic realities facing the 99%. The real value of the minimum wage rate has fallen by over 30% since its peak in 1968 when measured against standard inflation measures. However, CEPR also finds that, had the minimum wage kept pace with the overall productivity of the economy as it did very closely from 1950-1970, it would be $21.72 in 2012 – three times what it is today. By that measure, minimum wage workers in all but five states would be able to afford housing on just one full-time job today.

Full Resources from this Article

RaiseTheMinimumWage.org

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/psn/images/dispatch/tj092211.jpg

While Some States Debate 21st Century Internet, Others Consider Returning to 19th Century

Cheryl Leanza — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 21:02:45 +0000

A rash of backward thinking appears to be taking hold in a number of states that might be better spending their time considering how to create modern technology jobs and skills at home. Some states are considering how best to deploy modern high-speed Internet to ensure their local economies and residents are ready to compete in the global marketplace. But in other states, legislators are debating whether telephone service should be offered at all - leaving many observers wondering whether they would prefer to live in the 19th century, before Alexander Graham Bell's invention became ubiquitous.

Legislators in Kentucky wisely scrapped a bill last week once they heard loud and clear from its citizens that telephone service is not optional - particularly in rural areas where mobile services and high speed broadband are at best unreliable, and at worst nonexistent. Able and fast-acting leadership by the Kentucky Resources Council , the Kentucky AARP, and National Rural Assembly brought much-needed attention to this blast to the past. As PSN has pointed out, AT&T and other phone companies received over $27 million last year to provide this service in Kentucky alone.

Even as Kentucky realized that it was a bit hasty to think that rural Kentuckians could communicate with each other relying solely on the U.S. Postal service, Ohio and Mississippi are considering picking up where Kentucky left off.

While Kentucky quickly fought off their bill, Mississippi has been considering a similar proposal since earlier in the session. HB 825 passed the House 83 to 35 and was sent to the Senate on Monday, just in time for the crossover deadline, although a similar measure originally died in a Senate committee. Fortunately, Mississippi benefits from the advocacy of a bipartisan pair of state regulators who are outspoken against the AT&T-sponsored bill - Northern District Public Service Commissioner Brandon Presley, a Nettleton Democrat, and Southern District Commissioner Leonard Betz, a Gulf Coast Republican. "I think the rural customers should have the right to have a phone line, period," Presley told the Associated Press. The Mississippi AARP has strongly opposed the bill, explaining that it will "abandon" seniors and people in rural areas.

Ohio's Senate passed SB 271 in February which takes a similar approach - removing the basic obligation to serve that has been required of all "carriers of last resort" since the earliest days of telephone regulation. The plain-English version of this rule is that if a customer calls the telephone company, he or she can get a phone if you pay for it. Without carriers of last resort, there might be parts of Ohio with no telephone service - and the places most likely to lose service, expensive to serve rural areas, are also the most likely not to have any alternatives, such as mobile phone service or high speed Internet. The Ohio Consumers Council has expressed its concern with the bill, as well as AARP Ohio. The Ohio bill builds on the massive deregulation from last year, but without the protections in last year's SB 162 and without waiting for the legislative report evaluating that bill's impact. Ohio's bill is now before the House of Representatives.

Arguments that alternate technologies can replace traditional telephone service leave rural advocates shaking their heads. Edyael Casaperalta of the Center for Rural Strategies, and coordinator of the Rural Broadband Policy Group, wonders, "How are these companies going to provide wireless Internet to a customer in a remote area when it requires a landline? Let's not forget many areas do not have access to wireless or other, newer technologies. This is why communities not only need access to traditional phone service, but need the chance to create their own high speed broadband networks where the private sector will not deploy it."

Full Resources from this Article

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/psn/images/dispatch/032212.lines.sky.png

This Week in the War on Women in the States

Charles Monaco — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 21:08:07 +0000

As the world marks the 101st International Women’s Day, more and more American women are finding their own health under rhetorical and legislative attack in the halls of Congress, on radio airwaves, and in state after state. From attempts to defund organizations providing women with basic health services, to placing intrusive and often humiliating obstacles before women exercising the right to choose, to restricting access to contraception, the past few weeks have seen a range of attacks on women in the states – and a growing movement of progressive state lawmakers standing up and fighting back.

In Virginia, national furor and protests in the state over a bill requiring invasive transvaginal ultrasounds for all women seeking an abortion forced the state’s House of Delegates to go back and pass a revised version of their bill that would allow women to opt for an abdominal ultrasound instead. The revised bill was signed into law by Gov. Bob McDonnell this week, days after over 30 peaceful protesters were arrested at a the state Capitol. The controversy that erupted over Virginia’s bill may have influenced the fate of a similar bill in Alabama, where State Senator Clay Scofield indicated this week that he is seeking a delay for the ultrasound bill he is sponsoring in order to address some opponents’ concerns. An ultrasound bill in Pennsylvania is also scheduled for a vote next week.

In other states, attacks on reproductive rights continued at the same blistering rate seen across the nation since conservatives took control of many state chambers two years ago. Oklahoma’s state senate passed a bill to place more barriers in front of women seeking abortions. Mississippi lawmakers continue to advance bills that would place limits on the morning-after pill and make access to abortions even more restrictive. And in Texas, the ideological effort by the state legislature to defund Planned Parenthood may lead to the shutdown next week of clinics that provide health services to 130,000 women.

Despite clear majorities of the public favoring access to contraception – used by 98% of American women at some point in their lives – conservatives in the states are also continuing to push legislation to restrict access to birth control. In New Hampshire, one of the 27 states who currently have laws on the books requiring insurers to cover contraception, the state House passed a bill this week that would allow some employers to opt out. The 196-150 vote, however, fell well short of the margin needed to override a veto. Legislation to deny access to contraception has also been introduced in other states recently, including Missouri, Idaho, and Arizona.

Women state legislators have not sat by idly while these attacks have progressed.

In Minnesota, Assistant House Minority Leader Erin Murphy and Rep. Tim Mahoney introduced the “Contraceptive Equity Act” this week that would require insurers to fully cover contraception. “Minnesota women to know that we will not wither under such attacks,” said Rep. Murphy at a press conference introducing the bill. "We will fight to protect basic health care, including contraception, so women remain in control over this fundamental decision in their lives."

Thirty-two women state lawmakers in Maine sent a letter recently to state Attorney General William Schneider, pressing him to remove his name from a letter that opposes a national requirement that health insurance plans cover contraception.

And in Georgia, eight of the state’s nine female state senators staged a walk out of their legislative session on Wednesday in protest of two measures that would restrict access to health services for women. “What we’re seeing here,” State Sen. Nan Orrock told a reporter, “is an ideological battle that’s being waged to make women a target, to take our access to our Constitutional right of privacy and also our ability to make our health decisions with our doctor and our own best judgment.

Other legislators are taking a different, satirical approach. In Missouri, State Rep. Stacey Newman gained national attention for her bill that would restrict vasectomies for men, while in Ohio, State Sen. Nina Turner introduced similar legislation to “take appropriate steps to shelter vulnerable men from the potential side effects” of drugs intended to treat impotence.

Sen. Turner explained her reasoning behind the bill, noting in a press release that since “the men in our lives, including members of the General Assembly, generously devote time to fundamental female reproductive issues—the least we can do is return the favor.”

In addition to these individual efforts, state legislators from around the nation are joining together to sign on to a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services supporting efforts to ensure that all women have access to contraceptive coverage. As state attacks on women’s health seem likely to continue, progressive state lawmakers are continuing to lead the way in standing up for women across the nation.

Full Resources from this Article

This Week in the War on Women in the States

Stateline – Abortion ultrasound debate intensifies
Washington Post – 2012: Another record year for abortion restrictions?
Think Progress – INTERACTIVE MAP: The Most Restrictive Abortion Measures In The States
Progressive States Network – Legislator Letter: Support Contraceptive Coverage for All Women

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/psn/images/dispatch/030812.doctors.jpg

With Economy in Mind, Governors and Legislative Sessions Focus on Broadband

Cheryl Leanza — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:03:28 +0000

Since state legislatures around the country have started their sessions in 2012, legislators and governors alike have been recognizing the importance of broadband (or high speed Internet) to growing state economies. Governors in states as diverse as Hawaii, Maryland, Missouri, and Wyoming highlighted broadband initiatives in their state of the state speeches, as more and more of our leaders are realizing that without broadband, the U.S. economy is not going to produce jobs or the highly-skilled workers needed to compete in a global marketplace.

To understand the problem we are facing as a nation, a few key facts are essential. According to the most recent data from the Department of Commerce, in a nation of over 300 million people, 100 million still do not have access to high speed Internet in their homes, and 28 percent of rural Americans do not use the Internet at all. While broadband might have been a luxury for gaming or streaming movies in the past, this technology is becoming as necessary as electricity was in the 1930s. For example, as states around the country prepare to implement the Affordable Care Act, a key means to obtain access to health insurance will be through web portals to online marketplaces currently being developed state-by-state and through the Department of Health and Human Services.

With that as our background, we are pleased to report on an important victory in Georgia, where SB 313, which proposed significant procedural burdens on local communities that seek to offer public broadband, has been set aside in favor of SR 994, creating a broadband availability study committee. As the Georgia Municipal Association and an array of high tech companies pointed out, SB313 would have reduced the competitiveness of Georgia’s local communities. Broadband task forces and deployment councils are a great way for legislators to make progress on this issue and you can use Progressive States Network’s model legislation as a starting point. A setback for community broadband occurred in Washington state when Representative John McCoy’s HB 1711 was unable to clear committee in time for full consideration in this legislative session. Rep. McCoy has promised to remain vigilant to see whether the private sector will be able to deploy high speed Internet where it is most needed, and remains committed to addressing this issue.

Other states also have proactive bills pending. There is bipartisan support behind SB375/AB 473 in Wisconsin, which would delay by one year last session’s legislation requiring public schools, universities and libraries to separate from WiscNet, a non-profit cooperative offering advanced broadband access to public entities. Colorado is considering identifying areas in the state where additional action is necessary to ensure universal broadband access with SB12-129. And Representative Dan Kelley in Iowa has introduced HF 2355 proposing to map wireless communications in the state.

Expanding broadband access is a serious challenge which will require all sectors to contribute — the private sector, the public sector, and the philanthropic sector. No player should be told to sit on the sidelines as we work toward adequate infrastructure for the 21st century. State legislatures can promote strong state economies by making sure that small businesses, school children and households — regardless of income, race, or rural location — have access to high speed broadband Internet.

If you are interested in these issues, please follow our Twitter feed @BroadbandPSN.

Full Resources from this Article

With Economy in Mind, Governors and Legislative Sessions Focus on Broadband

U.S. Department of Commerce - Exploring the Digital Nation: Computer and Internet Use at Home
Bloomberg - The Case for Publicly Owned Internet Service: Susan P. Crawford
Progressive States Network - Model Legislation on State Broadband Deployment Councils

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/psn/images/dispatch/022412.broadband.jpg

As National Debate Flares, Surveying Contraceptive Coverage In the States

Julia Crowley — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:23:00 +0000

In the furor surrounding the Obama Administration’s decision this month that contraceptive coverage be provided to women by their employer or insurer, the leadership provided by states in the debate about women’s health has often been overlooked. States have been on the forefront of the fight to ensure that women have access to contraceptives, with 28 states having laws on the books requiring access.

Massachusetts is included in the 28 states where women have access to contraceptives. While Mitt Romney was Governor, he signed an overhaul to the Massachusetts health care system which included a similar contraceptive mandate that required health insurers to provide contraception in the same way they cover other prescription drugs. Although then-Gov. Romney threatened to cut other health insurance options, he never threatened to do the same with contraception.

Of the 28 states that require contraceptive coverage, 8 states — Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Montana, New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin — have no exemptions for an employer’s religious affiliation. In New York, Arizona, California, and Rhode Island, the only religious employers who do not have to provide contraceptive coverage are those that employ mostly members of their own faith. All other organizations — such as hospitals, large religious organizations, and universities — must provide contraceptive coverage.

In Texas and Virginia, the employer must be offered the option to include contraceptive coverage in their employees’ health plans, but the ultimate decision on coverage rests with the employer. Even in those states, many religiously affiliated employers do offer birth control as part of their health care plans. As a Jesuit employer that employs many Virginians, Georgetown University offers access to contraceptives free of cost as part of their health plans.

In the Administration’s first proposal that drew controversy, all employers except for churches would have had to provide contraceptive coverage as part of their employees’ health care plans. Catholic and other religious employers were against the rule, saying that it violated their religious freedom. In response, the Administration amended the rules so that religious employers need not directly provide contraceptive coverage, but insurance companies would need to reach out to each individual woman to provide contraception coverage free of cost.

Even before the compromise, the majority of Americans agreed with the Administration’s position. Approximately 56% of all Americans and 53% of all Catholics supported employers offering contraceptives in their employees’ health plans. This overwhelming support of birth control is unsurprising given its substantial use, as even 99% of Catholic women who had ever been sexually active have reported using birth control.

In agreeing with the President’s compromise, several influential Catholic leaders emphasized how it would allow them to provide care without compromising their values. Sister Carol Feehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, the largest network of nonprofit hospitals in the U.S., applauded the change, saying the resolution “protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions.” A few Catholic organizations were unsatisfied with the Administration’s latest decision. The New York archbishop, Timothy Dolan, head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, wrote in a letter to other bishops that “the violation of our freedom of religion [still has not] been addressed” by the Administration’s plan. In the Archbishop’s home state of New York, only religious organizations that mostly employ members of their own faith are exempt from having to provide contraceptives.

The battle for women’s health care and contraceptive coverage will fight on in state legislatures. Missouri, which does require contraceptive coverage allowing insurers to opt out for moral reasons, is bringing forward a bill that would allow any employer to refuse to provide health insurance coverage for contraceptives if it goes against the employer’s religious beliefs. State legislators will clearly have important roles to play in the fight ahead to ensure that women have access to reproductive health services.

Full Resources from this Article

As National Debate Flares, Surveying Contraceptive Coverage In the States

Guttmacher Insitute — State Policies in Brief: Insurance Coverage of Contraceptives

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/psn/images/dispatch/021712.medication.jpg

Why Sweeping State Tax Cuts Don’t Spur Economic Growth

Ben Secord — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:23:00 +0000

Conservatives have long wanted state lawmakers to believe that enacting sweeping tax cuts is the key to spurring economic growth. As most legislators across the country grapple with another year of difficult budget choices, controversial economist Arthur Laffer and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have been pushing a comparative analysis which aims to prove that the nine states with no state income tax (Alaska, Florida, Tennessee, Washington, Nevada, Texas, South Dakota, New Hampshire and Wyoming) have dramatically outperformed the economies of the nine states with the highest income tax rates (California, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, and Vermont).

Thankfully, a new study from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), successfully debunks Laffer’s claim and his misleading analysis.

The report, “High Rate” Income Tax States Are Outperforming No-Tax States, shows that according to three commonly recognized indicators of a state’s economy, the so called “high tax” states were actually outperforming their “no tax” counterparts. According to the report:

The nine “high rate” states identified by Laffer have actually seen more economic growth per capita over the last decade than the nine states that fail to levy a broad-based personal income tax. Moreover, while the median family’s income, adjusted for inflation, has declined in most states over the last decade, those declines have been considerably smaller in “high rate” states than in those states lacking an income tax entirely. Finally, the average unemployment rate between 2001 and 2010 has been essentially identical across both types of states.

ITEP has also released a report that discredits the methods Laffer uses to arrive at his conclusions.

This debate over the efficacy of drastic cuts to state revenues coincides with efforts to dramatically reduce personal and corporate income taxes in states across the country. Conservative Governors in Oklahoma and Kansas are even proposing to phase in outright repeal of the state income tax in. A number of other states are considering cuts to the income tax including Idaho, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio and Maine.

As lawmakers push ahead with these efforts, often echoing the ‘pro growth’ arguments pedaled by Laffer and groups like ALEC, they would be wise to take heed of the findings in ITEP’s new report, which soundly prove these claims to be misleading and disingenuous.

Full Resources from this Article

Why Sweeping State Tax Cuts Don’t Spur Economic Growth

Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy — “High Rate” Income Tax States Are Outperforming No-Tax States
Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy — Arthur Laffer Regression Analysis is Fundamentally Flawed, Offers No Support for Economic Growth Claims
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities — The False Claim That State Income Taxes Impede Growth

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/psn/images/dispatch/021712.income.tax.jpg

States Seek to Repeal Broad Anti-Immigrant Laws

Suman Raghunathan — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:36:00 +0000

As state legislatures begin to pick up speed early in the 2012 session, a growing number of states that passed broad anti-immigrant laws over the past two years are seeing the error of their ways. Citing widespread economic devastation, a dramatically-worsened business climate, and a loss of public support, four states out of the five that passed laws based upon Arizona and Alabama’s flawed models are now seeking to repeal their anti-immigrant laws.

In the last two weeks alone legislators have announced efforts to repeal state anti-immigrant bills in Georgia, Utah, Arizona (home to SB 1070, the first broad foray into misguided state-level immigration enforcement), and Alabama — where legislators are reportedly seriously considering rewriting HB 56.

Alabama’s law set a new floor for anti-immigrant proposals that encourage racial profiling, imposed barriers to children getting a public school education, and burdened law enforcement with onerous and often unfunded immigration enforcement responsibilities. Alabama’s case is particularly instructive given a new University of Alabama study released just this week which found that implementing the law would result in devastating annual losses of up to 140,000 lost jobs, an $11 billion reduction in the state’s GDP, and up to $265 million in lost state tax revenue.

Georgia, whose House Democratic Caucus announced its effort to repeal its anti-immigrant laws at a packed public hearing last week, also introduced a companion proposal to delay implementation of the flawed federal E-Verify program — which has been shown to be a jobs killer due to its astronomical error rate — until 2015 for businesses with less than 50 employees.

Perhaps most notably, a growing number of legislators from states that have already seen the economically disastrous effects of misguided immigration enforcement are throwing their support behind a more measured approach to state immigration policy. State Senator Jerry Lewis, who replaced the now-infamous Senator Russell Pearce after his historic and unprecedented recall by Arizona voters last November, is one of the core backers of the Arizona Accord, a common-sense effort backed by a cross-section of leaders from the business, faith, government, and nonprofit sectors. The Accord’s common-sense principles — which mirror those of several state immigration “compacts” proposed in 2011 — reinforce the need for federal comprehensive immigration reform, the folly of burdening local police and sheriffs with immigration enforcement duties, the need to integrate immigrant families into communities statewide, the economic benefits immigrant workers bring to state economies, and the need for a humane and inclusive approaches to immigrant families and residents.

Senator Lewis’s support for the Arizona Accord reflects a political reality now being thrown into stark relief across the nation: elected officials with anti-immigrant platforms have steadily-dwindling public support. The recall of Senator Pearce by Arizona voters broadcasts this message loud and clear. Voters are increasingly looking for common-sense, pragmatic approaches to immigration — and it’s clear that state legislators from both sides of the aisle are listening.

(Alvin Melathe contributed to this article.)

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.

View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/psn/images/dispatch/020212.children.jpg

Washington State Proposal Would Make Taxpayer Money Work for the 99%

Ben Secord — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:36:00 +0000

A proposal to create a state-owned bank is gaining momentum in Washington State, where a bill modeled after the successful Bank of North Dakota was introduced in January with 44 co-sponsors in the House. In a speech at the outset of the legislative session, Speaker of the House Frank Chopp called it one of the caucuses’ key priorities this year.

The proposal would allow Washington to begin to administer certain loans and services that are currently operated by large multinational banks like Bank of America and Chase. Long-term, it could help increase lending to small businesses and farms, while also generating significant revenue for the state.

The Bank of North Dakota, an almost 100 year-old institution which partners with local banks to expand their lending capacity, is credited with helping the state support the most diverse banking sector in the country. North Dakota has four times more local banks than the U.S. average and local banks account for 60% of all deposits in the state, compared to only 16% nationally.

This is important because local community banks are much more likely to lend to small businesses and farms – the kind of employers that have been hit hardest during the Great Recession and its aftermath. In fact, smaller community banks lend three times as much to small businesses than four mega banks (Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Chase and Citi Bank), despite having only a quarter of the total assets of their much larger counterparts. The reluctance on the part of big banks to make loans available to small businesses has been a significant barrier to job creation, as many business owners say that the lack of access to credit has prohibited them from growing.

The Bank of North Dakota has also generated more than $300 million in revenue over the past decade, a significant boost to the general fund for a small state. By comparison, the equivalent sum in Illinois would have been $6 billion over the same period of time.

Washington has made more than $10 billion in cuts to core education and health systems since the onset of the recession, and this proposal could provide the state with more long-term stability and flexibility, especially during tough times. Instead of allowing the interest gained from the state’s reserves to funnel back to Wall Street, the money could potentially go toward funding infrastructure improvements, education, or replenishing the state’s Rainy Day Fund. It’s an idea that is resonating with lawmakers and the public alike who are angry over the role big banks have played in sinking the country into the Great Recession and saddling the state with four consecutive years of severe budget troubles.

The bill introduced in the state House to create the Washington Investment Trust, sponsored by Rep. Bob Hasegawa, has a companion bill in the Senate that has already garnered 11 sponsors. A number of other states are considering similar legislation, including Oregon, Maine, Michigan, Illinois, Massachusetts, Vermont, Hawaii, Montana and California.

Full Resources from this Article

Washington State Proposal Would Make Taxpayer Money Work for the 99%

Yes! Magazine — How State Banks Bring the Money Home
Center for State Innovation — State Banks Initiative

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/psn/images/dispatch/020212.bank.jpg

Even Conservative States Moving Forward on Health Exchanges

Julia Crowley — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:36:00 +0000

Faced with a rapidly approaching deadline for establishing state-based health exchanges under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), more than half of all states — including several with conservative control of their legislatures and governor’s offices — have already taken steps to implement this critical piece of the health law set to come online in 2014, according to a report released this month by the White House. By January 1, 2014, consumers will be able to use exchange as one-stop marketplace to find health care plans that fit their needs and will be able to enroll starting in October 2013. With those dates drawing nearer and nearer, many state legislative sessions are opening with implementation of the exchanges at the top of their priority list.

Even conservative led states such as Alabama have recognized the crucial need to prepare to implement the state-based Affordable Health Exchanges. In September, Governor Robert Bentley told a commission charged with implementing the ACA that, “even if that bill [the ACA] had never been passed, this was something that we needed to look at,” adding that his goal was to “set up an Alabama health insurance exchange so people in the state, regardless of where you are in life – you will be able to purchase insurance.”

Under the Affordable Care Act, states have already applied for three rounds of federal grants to help them plan and implement exchanges under separate “planning”, “establishment” and “Early Innovator” grant programs. A full 49 of the 50 states have received funding through planning grants while 28 have received establishment grants, with additional states expected to receive funding in February 2012. The Commonwealth fund released a report on the state of health insurance exchange legislation as 2012 sessions began in January.

“States are taking strong steps to implement health reform,” said White House Deputy Chief of Staff Nancy-Ann DeParle in a press statement. “The Obama Administration is working in partnership with State leaders across the country. We will ensure Americans in every State have access to an Exchange and the same kinds of insurance choices as Members of Congress.”

Even some conservative governors opposing the ACA in court see the importance of being able to customize the health insurance exchanges to best serve their residents. Despite claiming that the law is unconstitutional, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval said in his State of the State address that he realized Nevada needs to “plan for a Health Insurance Exchange so that we — and not the federal government — control the program.” Others remain wary about the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision regarding the Affordable Care Act. South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard expressed such concerns in a statement earlier this month, claiming a need to know “at a minimum…whether this law is constitutional before we pass legislation at the state level.”

At the same time, other state executive branches are moving forward despite legislative inaction. In Minnesota, Governor Mark Dayton is taking the lead on setting up his state’s exchange through the Commerce Department, creating a task force last year and requesting authority to take further steps, despite political divisions that have led some conservative lawmakers to decline to participate in the process at all. In December, the Commerce Department released five prototypes of what an online health insurance marketplace might actually look like, giving consumers a feel for how the exchange interface might function.

With the clock ticking, states must see movement on their exchanges by the end of this year — either through legislative or executive action — in order to succeed in their purpose of expanding choice, competition, and coverage when they come on line in 2014.

(Devin Boerm contributed to this article.)

Full Resources from this Article

Even Conservative States Moving Forward on Health Exchanges

White House — States Moving Forward to Implement Health Reform’s Affordable Insurance Exchanges
Commonwealth Fund — State Health Insurance Exchange Legislation: A Progress Report

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/psn/images/dispatch/Exchange-ex-1-l.sm.png