Letter to the Editor

Your View: two views from 9/30

Monday, September 30, 2002

There is an adage that one picture is worth a thousand words. Today, one phone call may be worth a thousand votes.

I recently learned the FY 2003 budget eliminated Medicaid spend down payments to eligible Medicaid recipients. Spend down is synonymous with co-pay or cost share and until the 2003 budget takes effect, Missouri Medicaid spend down pays the portion of the medical care or prescription cost that federal Medicare does not cover. In effect, the Missouri Medicaid spend down is a supplemental insurance program funded by Missouri taxpayers and dollars matched at approximately 50 to 80 percent by the federal Government.

I called Governor Holden's office to learn more about this and discovered all those who assisted this provision's inclusion into the Missouri budget. After several verbal pauses, the Governor's staff person attempted to portray the new budget's spend down provision as the federal government forcing the Governor's hand. However, she said, "He is working very hard to fix this problem."

My problem with this issue is my phone call to the Governor's office and the impression his staff person gave me. If I had no other means to confirm the Governor's story, I may very well have believed it. After some research, I discovered a United Press International article that explained the situation in Missouri. It appears to me the Governor is attempting to spin his approval of the Medicaid spend down elimination as a federal mandate. The UPI article lists the Missouri Division of Medical Services Director, Greg Vadner as saying, "he has made $286 million in cuts this past year, including $180 million in pharmacy costs and $20 million in lower payments to nursing homes. The problem is the Missouri Legislature wrote those savings into the overall budget immediately, rather than allowing time for them to be worked in." However, the ultimate responsibility for this new law that takes away up to 50 percent of a poor or disabled person's fixed income lies with Governor Holden who signed it.

I sincerely hope my impression of the Governor is wrong but with a party that in the past has strived to scare this country's senior citizen population with Republican elimination of medical care in order to garner votes, I will not be surprised to learn I am correct. I find it very ironic that the Democratic Party in Missouri are the ones who are actually working to eliminate medical care for the poor and disabled.

The Missouri Governor has line item veto authority and should have used it in this instance and vetoed the provision eliminating Medicaid spend down contained in House Bill 1111. The sponsors of HB 1111 are Rep. Timothy P. Green, District 73 and Senator John Russell, District 33. They should both be ashamed of their actions.

The Missouri Legislature and Governor performed a great disservice to the poor and disabled people of Missouri. The time has come for performance-based budgeting to apply to our elected officials as Senate Bill 509 from 2001 and SB 0696 from this year's legislative session attempted to accomplish as a means for our state legislature to reward or punish all state agencies for superior or substandard performance. The Governor receives a salary of over $74,000, not counting benefits. The 2002 legislative session provides for each state representative to receive over $50,000 each year in salary and benefits. State senators probably receive about the same. I think it is time for our elected officials in the Executive and Legislative branches of our state government to receive the compensation they really deserve.

Tom Monan

The editorial in the Sept. 18 edition of the Standard Democrat is a classic example of Mr. Jensen's tactics to get anyone and everyone aboard the Republican ship.

To insinuate that Governor Holden and Senator Carnahan's acceptance of union money to finance their campaigns would direct their efforts only toward St. Louis and Kansas City is ridiculous. Trying to make non-union working families in rural areas believe that a Democrat would not represent them in good faith is stooping awfully low in order to curt votes for a Republican.

The national head of the AFL-CIO stumping for Senator Carnahan is no different than a large corporation head stumping for Jim Talent. A Democratic candidate fueled by union dollars clearly illustrates who working people trust to represent them. Republicans have never done anything in favor of working families, including minimum wage increases, family leave, affordable health care and prescription drug benefits for the elderly, to name a few. "Working families" are smart enough not to buy into your propaganda and vote for Democrats who really represent working families.

Mr. Jensen, you should be ashamed of yourself for giving no more credit to the working families than you do. Surely you are smart enough to realize they have enough sense to figure out who represents them in every aspect. Not a Republican.

If it wasn't for union funds supporting the Democratic agenda, working families would have little voice in standing up against the $110 million corporate-driven Bush machine.

Erwin Porter, USWA Local 7686