| April 26, 2007 Legislature Forcing Choice Between Protecting Seniors Or Kids by Rep. Les Gara, press release Sometimes I think politics is the art of finding thoughtful, creative and unique ways to, well … disagree. The people I like most look for common ground. In Juneau sometimes it seems like people look for common ground so that they can set their sights on it, aim, and then obliterate it. Last week we voted on a bill to modestly expand payments to low income seniors under Alaska's "Senior Care" plan, and also modestly expand health insurance coverage for children under our "Denali Kid Care" insurance program. Most legislators supported these provisions. However, some legislators wanted additional language in the bill that created a great divide; they added language that conditioned passage of these senior and children's protections upon passage of a third very controversial provision. That additional language would say, in effect, that the Legislature would not be allowed to fund the Longevity Bonus. The Longevity Bonus was paid to those seniors who were 65 or older in 1996, and who still live in Alaska. Governor Murkowski stopped funding the Bonus in 2003. The language in the House bill this week would have repealed the existing Longevity Bonus statute, and therefore prevented the Legislature from ever adding funding for the Longevity Bonus in the budget. The legislators pushing to eliminate the Longevity Bonus took the position that unless we prohibit the reinstatement of the Bonus this year, they would oppose the non-controversial parts of the bill and prevent its passage. That is, if they didn't get their way on the Longevity Bonus, they wouldn't allow HB 198's provisions on children's health coverage and low-income senior payments to pass. Representative Harry Crawford (D-Anchorage), I and others worked this past week to take the divisive language repealing the Longevity Bonus statute out of this bill. We felt we should debate the Longevity bonus under its own merits. The debate over that issue shouldn't stop progress on the two other senior and children's issues most of us can agree upon. Rep. Crawford and I first tried to remove this controversial language in the Finance Committee last week. That vote failed. On Tuesday, we succeeded when the bill reached the Floor for a vote. After a divisive House debate, this amendment passed, though by a narrow margin (20 – 17). The amendment deleted the language that would have prohibited funding later this session for the Longevity Bonus. That should have led to passage of the rest of the bill. But things aren't so simple in Juneau. After we succeeded at deleting the controversial language, House Speaker John Harris (R-Valdez) prevented a vote on the remaining parts of the bill – the parts we all agreed upon. He withdrew the bill from the House Floor, where it was about to be voted upon and passed, and instead sent it to the Rules Committee. When a bill is sent to the Rules Committee from the House Floor, it usually means the bill will not be voted upon. In legislative lingo, bills are usually sent back to the Rules Committee to "die." Les Gara is a Democrat, and serves in the Alaska House of Representatives. His office can be reached at: Alaska State Capitol, Juneau, AK 99801; by phone: 888-465-2647; at his website: gara.akdemocrats.org; or email: representative.les.gara@legis.state.ak.us. |
-
Columnists -
- also from this
writer -
GOP Head Ducks Debate It's Not Too Late Alaskans Should Share In Record Oil Company Profits Democratic Priorities |
|||||||
| Copyright
2005-2007
Insurgent Media. All Rights
Reserved. in-sur-gent (in sur'jent), n. 1. a member of a group which revolts against the policies of its leadership. |
||||||||
