Dave Cox Senate Report: October 2007

Special Session On Water

The California State Senate failed to pass a $6.8 billion water bond authored by President Pro Tem Don Perata in a special session this week. This is after a Senate committee rejected a $9 billion water bond authored by Senator Dave Cogdill (R-Modesto). I support the Cogdill measure because it contained authorization to construct three separate surface water storage facilities. I voted against the Perata measure because it contains no specific authority for surface storage, did not adequately protect “areas of origin,” and did not provide small communities with the ability to apply for funding without significant matching fund requirements.

Governor Schwarzenegger called this special session to address the issue of water because the state is facing serious issues with its future water supply. We are growing at a rate of over half a million people per year, and we have not constructed any new water supply facilities since 1979. This is a problem that needs to be addressed.

The world has changed since the late 1970’s. Water projects now include the necessity to address environmental issues such as the protection of habitat and river flows for fish and other endangered species. Relying on local agencies to plan and construct dams for water storage guarantees that no dams will be built, because regional agencies cannot afford such projects and local disagreements inevitably seem to delay them. The state must step in so that the water projects benefit everyone in the state, and those who benefit must also pay their fair share.

Senator Cogdill’s bill would have accomplished this objective. It also contained funding for restoration of ecosystems and stormwater management projects, but it failed in the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee on a party line vote.

The cities and counties in the First Senate District asked me to make sure that protection of water rights from “areas of origin” were protected in these bond measures. They also asked that small communities not be required to provide large amounts of “matching money,” which they are unable to provide even in the best of circumstances. When these bills were brought up for votes, neither measure had adequate language on these issues.

The voters of California have passed $20 billion in water related bond measures in the last ten years, and none of it has been used to actually provide any water. I was hoping that this special session might change this situation. But the Legislature’s Democrats do not seem to be able to face reality, and want to continue to delay the construction of actual water storage facilities. In the end, the Senate was not able to pass anything.

Back to the top

Health Care Next

The Governor has also called a special session on health care. Proposals being considered by Democrats and the Governor call for a largely tax-funded program which ensures that every resident be provided with health insurance.

Other nations that have implemented universal health care programs have unfortunately discovered that government-run programs increase demand and costs, reduce access and personalized care, and achieve cost containment by rationing care. It is not my desire to see California move in that direction. Should the Legislature and/or the voters proceed toward the implementation of a government-run healthcare system, significant tax increases will be required to fund it. Some proposals put forward so far specifically target businesses and hospitals for new taxes– a counterproductive option. Throughout the twelve-county First Senate District, rural hospitals struggle to keep their doors open – and some have simply closed. Taxing businesses and medical facilities will make it even more difficult to provide jobs and keep hospitals open in these rural communities.

Some proposals would expand eligibility for government healthcare to everyone, including illegal immigrants. Such provisions have been known to create an incentive for employers to eliminate job-based healthcare plans and allow the taxpayers to pick up the tab. The coverage of illegal immigrants will be solely at the state taxpayers’ expense, since federal law prohibits the use of any federal funds for that purpose. Additionally, no minimum residency requirements have been proposed, which would make California a magnet state – not only for illegal immigrants, but anyone seeking health care. The costs the state could incur are incalculable. Without appropriate residency requirements, California taxpayers will be essentially signing a blank check.

After researching the options, I am convinced that there are more appropriate means of achieving the desired end without the creation of a massive, impersonal bureaucracy funded through tax increases. Approximately 85% of the population currently has some form of health insurance. It does not make sense to dismantle 100% of the health care system to provide insurance to the 15% of the population who lack coverage.

Research shows that, in many ways, government has been a part of the problem – adding to the cost of insurance. Through laws and regulation, California has imposed approximately 48 health care mandates that can add as much as 30% to the cost of health insurance premiums.

From my perspective, the free market has the greatest success in providing health care coverage options in the most cost-effective manner. To remove the barriers to access, the Legislature should support efforts to equalize the market by shoring up provider rates under state programs to reduce cost-shifting to the insured, and increase insurer competition by reducing regulation.

A market where insurers may more freely customize their policies, co-payments, premiums and coverage allows consumers to choose the best product based upon their means and medical needs. Enabling insurers to compete through innovation and efficiency improves both affordability and accessibility. The Legislature should also make it easier to refer the uninsured to community clinics for non-emergency care, and provide tax credits for employers and individuals who purchase coverage.

Senate Republicans have introduced our own health care proposals as alternatives to government-run programs. You can look at them at this website:
http://republican.sen.ca.gov/calcare

Back to the top

Drunk Driving Program is Launched

In 2005, I was proud to carry legislation, sponsored by Dr. Leon Owens, to establish a pilot program in Sacramento County to impound the vehicles of second-time drunk drivers and require them to undergo alcohol rehabilitation as part of their sentence.

This month, the program established by my SB 547 will be formally launched by the Sacramento County Superior Court, the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, and the Sacramento City Police Department, with the financial assistance of the California Office of Traffic Safety.

Dr. Owens and I believe that we need to refocus our community on the problem of drunk driving, because statistics show that drunk-driving related deaths and injuries have recently reversed a downward trend and are now going up. Dr. Owen’s program focuses on people who by their repeated drunk driving behavior are causing the largest part of the problem. The program that will start in Sacramento this month takes these repeat offenders and uses the impoundment of their vehicles as a “teachable moment” when their minds can be focused on actually changing their behavior. Intervention with alcohol counselors will be initiated at the arraignment hearing for these individuals, where they will be referred to treatment programs.

This program will operate for the next three years. Monitoring studies will be a part of the program to gage its effectiveness. When this program sunsets at the end of 2011, we can make a decision about whether or not to expand it statewide.

My thanks go to Dr. Leon Owens for bringing this idea to me. It is my sincere hope that we can have some effect on the ongoing problem of drunk driving.

Back to the top

Quote of the Week

“The only way to keep your health is to eat what you don't want, drink what you don't like, and do what you'd rather not. “
-- Mark Twain

Back to the top