Politics 2011: Looking out for us

Lawmakers and rule-makers are asking a lot of questions this week. Questions such as:

-- Does a picture ID reduce voter fraud in a state where such shenanigans already are low?

-- Should drug testing be necessary to stay in a state's Medicaid program?

-- Can a state redirect federal funds so they don't go to Planned Parenthood?

And some Washington followers want to know: Does revising or expanding one's comments made on the Senate floor set the record straight?

A picture worth ... one vote

Republican backers of a plan to require photo identification at Minnesota polls say they'll consider a constitutional amendment if a voter ID bill is vetoed.

The voter ID bill is working its way through the Legislature, and even though Gov. Mark Dayton -- who called voter ID a "solution in search of a problem" -- has not said he'd veto the measure, he doesn't necessarily love it either, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported recently.

The voter ID bill would require registered voters to show Minnesota photo identification to vote and would eliminate vouching as a way for people to register on Election Day.

The bill also would create a new system for provisional balloting, in which challenged ballots would not be counted until voters supply proper identification, the newspaper said. The state would issue free "voter identification cards" for voters without driver's licenses.

Supporters say the changes are necessary to prevent voter fraud -- something critics say is basically non-existent in the state. If the language becomes state law -- either through a bill or as a ballot measure -- opponents say the requirements to have a state-issued ID with a current address would disenfranchise seniors and college students, who may not have up-to-date identification.

Former Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer, now a Republican representative, introduced the bill in January, but its $60 million price tag made it difficult for lawmakers to swallow. A series of changes reduced cost to about $5 million over two years.

He would like any election reform legislation to also increase the frequency of campaign finance disclosure.

Kansas could be first to defund Planned Parenthood

Efforts to defund Planned Parenthood on the federal level may not have worked in recent months, but Kansas may be the first in the nation to strip funding from the women's health group.

Budgets moving through the Legislature would rechannel about $300,000 in federal family planning funds from Planned Parenthood to state and local health clinics, The Wichita Eagle reported recently.

Indiana, too, is working to defund Planned Parenthood.

"We have the prospect of being the first state in the nation to enact that kind of law," said Peter Brownlie, president of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri.

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, a Republican, proposed axing Planned Parenthood funding in his proposed budget for fiscal 2012, which begins July 1.

"Gov. Brownback, along with the overwhelming majority of Kansans, opposes taxpayer subsidy of abortions," said Brownback spokeswoman Sherriene Jones-Sontag, repeating the chief reason why congressional Republicans want to defund the program.

The money pays for family-planning services for low-income women, and helps pay for contraception, pap smears and cancer screenings, among other things. It is against federal law for abortions to be underwritten by the money, which is part of federal Title 10 funds that go toward family-planning activities.

Making healthcare laws the drug police

Two Republican-sponsored -- and possibly unconstitutional -- bills would impose mandatory drug testing on Maine residents enrolled in MaineCare, the state's Medicaid program for low-income and disabled residents.

One bill would require the Maine Department of Health and Human Services to conduct random drug tests on MaineCare recipients and suspend benefits for those who test positive for illegal drugs, the Bangor Daily News reported recently. Benefits would be restored if subsequent testing is negative.

The second bill would require the department to develop a program for testing MaineCare recipients who have prescriptions for certain scheduled drugs -- such as painkillers, antidepressants and anti-psychotic medications -- to be tested periodically "to ensure they are taking the prescribed scheduled drugs."

Both measures drew strong opposition from a broad group of treatment and advocacy organizations, the newspaper said.

Shenna Bellows, the executive director of the Maine Civil Liberties Union, said it was unlikely either bill would survive a constitutional challenge. While private companies are permitted in some circumstances to test employees for drug use for public safety reasons, a public program such as MaineCare is held to a different standard under Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure, Bellows said.

Plucking public pensions

The once-unthinkable is happening: Lawmakers are seriously looking at public pension programs as a way of saving money.

State laws and constitutions notwithstanding, the lingering fiscal crunch prompted state officials in California and Illinois and city officials in Detroit to pour through state laws in search of loopholes they can drive cutting their pension plans through, The New York Times reported recently.

The move in Detroit, which lawyers said is possible because of Michigan's weak constitutional protections, could prompt other local governments to try to follow suit.

"These things do tend to be herd-oriented," Sylvester J. Schieber, an economist and consultant who studies pensions, told the Times.

Mayors of some cash-strapped cities said the high costs of pensions forced them to lay off workers. Officials in Oakland, Calif., for example, laid off about a tenth of its police force last year because they couldn't win concessions on pension costs.

Pension funds, like some house plants, can shrivel up. The Times cited as an example the Prichard, Ala., pension fund, which ran out in 2009, prompting the city to stop mailing checks to 150 retired workers, flouting a state law that requires it to pay what it promised.

Back in the day of flush budgets, government workers often were recruited with promises of excellent benefit and pension packages. Now cities want to rethink and retool those agreements and are being met by resistance from workers who said revisiting their benefits would be unfair and likely illegal.

Moving forward, local and state governments are far more likely to adopt more modest retirement plans for future workers. Some states are requiring workers to work more years before retiring or to contribute a higher portion of their salaries toward their pensions.

In his budget address in early April, Detroit Mayor Dave Bing spoke of the need to reduce pensions for current workers and shift away from traditional pension plans to plans similar to 401(k)s for "at a minimum all new hires."

If Detroit doesn't man up, "an emergency financial manager will be appointed by the state to make them (new policies) for us," he said. "It's that simple."

Vermont seeks more government-involved healthcare

Vermont officials aren't challenging the federal healthcare law; instead they're pushing to eclipse it and offer state-managed universal healthcare to its citizens.

The Vermont Senate's 21-8 preliminary vote follows a vote in the House of Representatives to create a state insurance program that Gov. Peter Shumlin, a Democrat, supports, Stateline.org reported.

If approved, the measure would be rolled out over several years.

Opponents of the bill said it would double the state's deficit and pigeon-hole Vermont into obligations it would be nearly impossible to abandon. Shumlin told Stateline.org a state-run system would save money by removing private insurers from the market, reducing costs to small businesses and releasing doctors from the constraints of paperwork.

The un-permanent record

Unless you were watching C-SPAN during debate or caught the news soon after he spoke, you may have missed Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., saying 90 percent of Planned Parenthood's activities are abortion related.

"You don't have to go to Planned Parenthood to get cholesterol or your blood pressure checked," Kyl said on the Senate floor. "If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood; and that's well over 90 percent of what planned parenthood does."

His assessment, offered when he spoke against Planned Parenthood on the Senate floor during budget debate, was removed from the Congressional Record, Politico reported.

Congressional members have the right to revise and extend their floor statements within a certain time frame after a floor session.

Kyl caught lots of grief from television pundits and personalities because of his remark, as well as mockery in YouTube videos. Later, his office explained the percentage wasn't meant to be a "factual statement."

Planned Parenthood said about 3 percent of its services are abortion-related. Opponents of the funding cut also point out that federal law bars federal dollars from being used for abortions.

Now, according to the Congressional Record, Kyl said, "If you want an abortion you go to Planned Parenthood and that is what Planned Parenthood does."