|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 26, @06:02PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
http://207.68.164.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah= 46aec9adf67a2d24f7e1e922ff5df4f4&lat=1064614774&hm ___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2enationalreview%2ecom% 2fcomment%2fmorse200309250844%2easp
September 25, 2003, 8:44 a.m.
10 Ideas
The leading candidates in California should listen a little.
By Jennifer Roback Morse
I have never been a candidate for elective office, not even in the Great Recall Election of 2003. I have had the luxury of combing the newspapers, surfing the Net, and scraping the bottom of the talk-radio barrel in search of any and all reasonable proposals. Listening to the Great Debate of the Five Frontrunners, I was amazed at the number of potential good ideas that never got mentioned, or that got run over by Arianna's interruptions. In an eclectic, but disinterested spirit, therefore, I offer these proposals to whomever occupies the governor's office after the recall-election results are in.
Among the candidates that weren't in the debate, my personal favorite is Dr. Warren Farrell. The author of Father and Child Reunion, Farrell's campaign literature describes him as a "Men's Issues Author." A mild-mannered, professorial type, Farrell has spent most of his adult life arguing for greater involvement of men in the family, supporting policies that enhance their involvement, and trying to help fathers who have been shut out of their children's lives. His campaign for governor highlights these issues. I'm sure he'd be delighted to have other candidates use his ideas. I know I would.
1. Make shared-parenting time the norm for divorcing couples. More father involvement is correlated with better outcomes for children in virtually every area. This translates into lower demands for social spending for everything from medical care, to special-education services to mental-health services to prisons and corrections. Keeping fathers involved with kids is a social policy that actually reduces government spending.
Fathers who see their children regularly are more likely to meet their child support obligations in full. Fathers who are denied access to their kids are more likely to default. Policies that keep dads paying voluntarily are a lot cheaper than trying to force them to pay.
Last but not least, a rebuttable presumption for joint custody will reduce unilateral divorces by mothers. Most people don't realize that women initiate between two-thirds and three-quarters of all divorces. Women are more likely to initiate divorces in states where they tend to get sole custody. A presumption in favor of shared-parenting time reduces that probability.
So, when are the candidates going to stop wringing their hands over "the children," and do something to keep their dads involved in their lives?
2. A Paternity-Fraud Bill.
When a man is named as father of a child, he may be required to pay child support. A man can pay for years, only to find that he is not the father of the child. Contesting paternity is a long, ugly process. These disputes are costly to all the parties, including the branches of government involved in the lawsuits, and enforcement of child support. When a man successfully contests paternity, the prize is that he no longer has to pay. I have never heard of a case in which he receives restitution for past payments. Currently, there is no penalty for a woman who knowingly names the wrong man as father of her child.
Paternity fraud may not seem like a huge issue. In fact, it isn't even on the other candidates' radar screen. But it should be. A paternity-fraud bill is a low cost way for the government to send a clear message that women are not entitled to treat men as if they were just combination sperm banks and wallets.
All the candidates in the Great Debate agreed that something has to be done about the workers'-compensation system. Only Tom McClintock seemed able to provide specifics. Cruz Bustamante's suggestion to create a discount for safe workplaces is nothing more than the experience-rating system that should be standard operating procedure for anything calling itself insurance.
A couple of economists from the Pacific Research Institute, Larry McQuillan and Andrew Gloger, have shown that California's workers compensation system is fraught with abuse. Not fraud, mind you: but perfectly legal, and entirely inappropriate overuse of the system. California employers have seen their workers' comp premiums triple since 1997. The Pacific Research Institute's recommendations would save money and improve the state's business climate.
They specifically recommend:
3. Compensable injuries should be "predominantly" work related.
Under current rules, injured workers are entitled to all medical care reasonably required to treat an injury. If contested, workers must only show the injury was "proximately" caused by employment, not predominantly caused.
4. Benefits should only be paid based on objective findings of doctors. California is the only state that pays permanent disability benefits without "objective medical findings" such as an x-ray. Of the $3.5 billion paid in indemnity benefits in 2001, nearly half were for permanent disability benefits, many paid on subjective complaints of pain — a boon to chiropractors who are now the leading medical providers in the system.
5. Medical payments must be consistent with other plans. Prices paid for medical services under workers' comp are higher than those paid by other plans for identical services. Payments for hospital stays are 30 percent higher than employment-based health plans. Reimbursement rates for pharmaceuticals are 50 percent higher than Medi-Cal. Outpatient surgery reimbursements are 88 percent higher than Medicare.
Finally, the Reason Public Policy Institute has published the Citizens' Budget, a 150-page detailed report, chockfull of cost-saving and efficiency-enhancing ideas. The Reason Public Policy Institute is an offshoot of Reason magazine, the brainchild of a California engineer named Bob Poole. Reason made its mark arguing for such glamorous policies as private garbage collection. Since those humble beginnings, the organization has spun off a couple of research institutes. Carl DeMaio, president of the Performance Institute, and Adrian Moore, senior fellow of the Reason Foundation Public Policy Institute, continue the venerable tradition of policy-wonkery. Their suggestions are nothing sexy: Few politicos favor photo ops in front of privatized garbage trucks. But their proposals provide the nuts and bolts of actually running the state government. These ideas would appeal to Silicon Valley nerds, if there were any left behind to turn off the lights. Davis tax-and-spend policies have turned Sillicon Valley into a near ghost town. For those of us who remain behind, here are some ideas to keep the fiscal lights on a little longer.
6. Adopt Biennial Budgeting.
By moving California to a two-year budget cycle under biennial budgeting, the challenge of balancing the budget becomes easier. Biennial budgeting is an accepted way to budget on the state level. Moreover, it will take time to thoughtfully implement the various management reforms and program restructuring that will be needed for long-term fiscal health.
7. Reform Procurement and Competitive Sourcing.
Competitive sourcing is the best tool government can use to redesign its programs to be more efficient — producing cost savings of 30 percent on average each time it is applied. A review of state agencies reveals that state employees are routinely performing activities that could be best contracted out for a lower price. Many of the contracts being used by state agencies are outdated "fee-for-service" contracts that open the state to substantial cost overruns. Those contracts should be converted to fixed-price/performance-based contracts. When Tom McClintock argued that competitive bidding and private contracting could save the state some $9 billion, he might well have been quoting the Men from Reason.
8. Create a California Sunset Commission that would systematically review the continued relevance and performance achievements of 20 percent of all state programs annually.
As the kids would say, "Duh."
9. Improve performance and accountability of state employees by:
Implementing Employee-Performance Contracts for every employee in state government to hold them accountable for clear and transparent performance goals.
Enacting Managerial-Flexibility Legislation that restores the authority of department and program heads to effectively manage the state workforce.
Adopting State-Employee Retirement Reforms by adjusting benefits and allowing partial privatization of retirement funds that would provide beneficiaries greater freedom to invest in their own retirement.
10. Create a Regulatory Review and Innovation Commission that would systematically review regulations for their cost-effectiveness and negotiate and enforce "Performance Incentive Agreements" with businesses to achieve regulatory results without high regulatory costs.
So there you have it: ten ideas anybody can use. Warren Farrell's two ideas to improve family life in California will save the taxpayers money by reducing the demand for expensive social services. The Pacific Research Institute's three ideas to reform workers' compensation will improve the business climate. And the Reason Public Policy Institute's five ideas to streamline the government and hold it more accountable will help avoid future crises.
Any takers?
— Jennifer Roback Morse is Love and Economics: Why the Laissez-Faire Family Doesn't Work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 26, @06:43PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/morse2003092 50844.asp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 26, @08:12PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
A friend just sent Jenny's article (below) to me and it is really an interesting read. Jenny sends a short note to Warren prefacing the article. If this got out in the mainstream Hispanic community and the regular media it could really raise a ruckus. As it is, it will really raise a ruckus among many Catholics, many of whom are Hispanic. Could this create a problem for the Democrat Bustamante?
This recall/election has more twists and turns than a pretzel, and the last minute campaigning is furious, including that going on in Warren's camp.
Can anybody say, "CHOICE FOR MEN!"
Sincerely, Ray
-------------------------------------------------
Dear Warren, et.al.
Here is a copy of an article I did for the National Catholic Register. They ran this under the title, "Abortion, Hispanics and the Great Recall." It came out in the edition dated Sept.28-Oct. 4, which just arrived in my mail box today. My editor tells me it will be on the website by Monday.
Use this as you see fit. My constituency over at NCR thinks this is great stuff.
Jenny
-----------------------------------------------
ABORTION IN THE GREAT RECALL OF 2003
As of this writing, the status of the Great Recall Election of 2003 is up
in the air. The Ninth Circuit Court has just thrown a monkey wrench into the
whole process by ruling that the voting in the Special Election might
violate somebody's Equal Protection. By the time you read this, we'll all
know whether the election will go forward as originally planned, has been
postponed until some future date, or has been scrapped altogether. However
that court process ends, this election has opened up some very interesting
political possibilities around abortion. The very wildness of the election
has allowed some new and unusual voices to be heard. And this is all to the
good for those of us with unconventional views about crucial issues like
abortion.
You wouldn't think there is anything new to say about abortion. The most
conservative of the Republican candidates, Tom McClintock, has taken stands
that are, by this time, fairly typical among conservatives. He opposes
partial birth abortion. He favors parental consent as a condition for
abortions by underage girls. This is sufficient for the pro-abortion
establishment to paint him into an "anti-" candidate: anti-choice,
anti-woman, anti-freedom. Therefore, he tends to keep a low profile about
this issue. While he answers straightforwardly if he is asked, he doesn't
usually bring it up. It seems safer to stick to the fiscal issues that were
the original motivation for the recall movement, and which still provide its
most reliable backbone.
However, another candidate has emerged from the pack who has something
different to say about abortion. Warren Farrell, a registered Democrat,
describes himself as a "Father's Issues Author." Farrell's signature issues
have to do with getting and keeping men involved with their children. These
issues include things like a presumption of joint custody in divorce cases.
He favors a bill imposing penalties for paternity fraud to discourage women
from naming the richest guy they've slept with as the father of their child.
Farrell has a small, but intensely motivated following among disenfranchised
and defrauded fathers as well as among second wives. But it is his abortion
position that interests me here.
First, Warren Farrell believes a pregnant woman should be required to
notify the father immediately when she learns of her pregnancy. In Father
and Child Reunion, Dr. Farrell writes about cases in which the woman only
informed the father of her pregnancy after she had already made all the
decisions, effectively cutting him out of all possibility of contributing.
Second, Farrell proposes that if either parent wishes to care for the
infant-in-process, then the fetus must become a child. As we all know, a
child has rights that a fetus does not. A father should be permitted to make
a legally binding commitment to care for the child himself. If neither
parent is willing to care for the child, then adoption is the second choice.
Only if those alternatives are found non-viable, should abortion be allowed.
Now, no one would mistake this position for the exuberantly optimistic
Catholic pro-life position. But neither would anyone mistake it for the
typical Democratic pro-abortion fundamentalism. In my view, the real value
of Warren Farrell's proposal is that it calls attention to the deeply social
nature of every abortion decision. And this is where the abortion issue
could get very interesting in the Great Recall of 2003.
The major Democratic candidate to replace Gray Davis is current Lieutenant
Governor Cruz Bustamante. Gleeful Democratic and left-leaning commentators
have speculated that if Hispanic voters want to see Bustamente as the next
governor, they will a) vote for recalling Gray Davis, and b) vote for
Bustamente as his replacement. Since a lot of other people want Davis to get
out of Dodge, this strategic voting by Democratic Latinos will sink Davis'
ship for good. So the Recall movement, initiated by conservative
Republicans, will completely back-fire on them, and bring about California's
first Hispanic governor in over one hundred years. Ha, ha.
But if McClintock or any other plausible contender has the guts to raise
the abortion issue, and if the media ever start listening to Warren Farrell
emphasize the social aspect of the abortion decision, the Hispanic vote will
be up for grabs. Here's why.
Latinos make up about fifteen percent of California's registered
electorate. Mexican-Americans are more pro-life and pro-family than the
average voter. In one nationwide poll, for instance, fifty percent of
Latinos said that "Congress should put more limits on abortion." A large
percentage of Mexican-Americans are Catholic, and not just nominally
Catholic, but devoutly and unabashedly Catholic. Some secular commentators
make no secret of their delight that some Hispanics are abandoning
Catholicism. These commentators fail to realize that Hispanics become
Pentecostals and Evangelicals, not Episcopalians or members of some New Age
cult. In other words, they don't leave the Catholic Church because it is too
traditional on moral issues: they leave because it isn't traditional enough.
When Democrats talk about economic issues or entitlement issues or
immigration issues, many Latinos respond. But when the subject is sex,
family or abortion, Latinos resonate with Republicans. One of our
"alternative newspapers" here in California reports that many Hispanics
don't realize that the Democrats are the party of abortion. Jim Holman's
San Diego News Notes clearly insinuates that Democrats strategically conceal
their pro-abortion extremism from their Hispanic constituents.
I have lost track of the number of times I have read about some Sacramento
legislative assault on the family that was opposed by, "a coalition of
Republicans and Hispanic Democrats." For instance, a bill providing for an
extension of existing domestic partnership benefits easily passed in
Sacramento this past month. In the California Assembly (the equivalent of
the House of Representatives in Congress) all Democrats voted for, all
Republicans voted against, with the exception of six abstentions. All the
abstentions were Democrats, indicating how firmly the party leaders enforced
party discipline. The most notable fact about the abstentions is that
two-thirds of them were Hispanic cross-overs. Four of those six abstentions
were members of the Latino Caucus, including its Chairman, Marco Antonio
Firebaugh. In the Senate, there were no abstentions. The only deviation from
rigid partisanship was Dean Florez, a Democratic Senator from the Central
Valley, the farm heartland of California.
Warren Farrell's position demonstrates that, contrary to the Democratic
Party line, it is possible to have nuanced positions on abortion. Farrell is
alone among visible Democrats in calling for partner notification as a
requirement for abortion. California is probably not ready for that, but I
do believe parental notification is an issue with widespread appeal. The
protests of the pro-abortion extremists will reveal the fundamentally
anti-social nature of their position.
So here are a couple of strategic questions someone should ask in the next
debate. Maybe an older Mexican-American lady could stand up from the
audience and ask the candidates why her son's wife can have an abortion
without even telling him. Maybe she could mention that no one in her family
would dream of sending her thirteen year old granddaughter to the doctor by
herself. So why does the state of California allow her to leave public
school to go to an abortion clinic, without any adult in the family even
knowing about it?
Maybe one of the other candidates could ask Cruz Bustamante a few pointed
questions about Davis Administration policies. Why does the Attorney General
of California restrict the sale of Catholic hospitals? (Catholic hospitals
often stipulate that the buyer agree to follow their current policies
against providing abortions. They don't want to sell a hospital called St.
So-and-So's and have it provide abortions while appearing Catholic.
California's Attorney General ruled that sellers of hospitals located in
California can not impose such conditions of sale.) Maybe another candidate
could ask whether abortion clinics are mandatory reporters of child abuse.
Is there any girl young enough, with a boyfriend old enough, that the
clinics should be required to report a possible case of statutory rape? (The
Attorney General was specifically asked to rule on this very question last
summer.) Why was this a tough question for the Davis administration, Mr.
Bustamante?
If another candidate has the guts to ask these questions, maybe some of
those Mexican grandmothers would start telling Cruz he ought to be ashamed
of himself for hanging around with such a disreputable character as Gray
Davis. If they do, the Great Recall Election of 2003 really will be up for
grabs.
Jenny Morse
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Article has been updated.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
