Politics | Tell Hetrick

Archive for the 'Politics' Category Page 2 of 7

Will healthy workplace hopes go up in smoke?

Published

on October 12, 2009

in Healthcare, Indiana, Lifestyle, Politics and Workplace

. 0 Comments

This week, a City-County Council committee will consider whether Indianapolis should finish what we started five years ago: making all workplaces smoke free.

Having sat through myriad hearings in countless communities since then, I can predict as well as any seer what witnesses will say at the Oct. 14 council committee meeting.

Health advocates will cite study after scientific study showing that second-hand smoke is hazardous to life and health—even in small doses in a short period of time.

They’ll present evidence that second-hand smoke causes cancer, heart disease, asthma, respiratory infections, sudden infant death syndrome and more.

They’ll show that smoking-related illnesses are the number-one cause of preventable death in Indianapolis and America—more than crime, AIDS, H1N1 flu, texting-while-driving, etc.

Inevitably, someone will quote the U.S. Surgeon General as saying, “The debate is over. The science is clear: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard that causes premature death and disease in children and nonsmoking adults.”

They’ll also quote the Surgeon General’s finding that “There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.”

Next up will be the economic developers. These witnesses will tell councilors that 26 states, myriad cities and counties and many foreign nations have recognized the health benefits of smoke-free workplaces and cleared the air for all their employees.

They’ll say that in the battle for jobs and smart people to fill them, Indianapolis can’t afford to be an unhealthy place with high health-insurance rates—especially if we’re touting ourselves as a health and life sciences powerhouse.

These witnesses also will cite studies showing that smoke-free workplace laws have not had an adverse economic impact on communities and states that have gone smoke free.

Next, councilors will hear what the public wants—in the form of opinion polls showing strong preference for clean indoor air. There will be breakouts showing that this holds true in virtually every part of the city; among Democrats, Republicans and Independents; and among every age group.

The other side of the argument will be led by people who own or represent businesses where smoking is still allowed. Foremost among these will be bar owners.

Tavern representatives will tell councilors that most of their patrons smoke and that their businesses would be killed and jobs lost if a smoke-free workplace law were to be imposed on them. They will cite studies and anecdotes of their own showing bars, jobs and tax revenues lost in other places that have enacted such legislation.

Next up will be the “businesses-should-choose” argument. Its proponents will say that government should not impose more regulations on private companies. They will say that with a legal practice such a smoking, property owners should be able to decide what occurs in their establishments.

Next, councilors will hear the libertarian perspective. These witnesses will say that Hoosier adults have the right to make their own decisions and that no government should deny the right to impose and inhale smoke-filled air. They will say that if workers don’t like it, they should get jobs elsewhere, and if customers don’t like it, they should patronize other establishments.

Finally, councilors will hear calls for compromise and delay. Someone will say, “We have to balance jobs, revenues and health. While we know smoking is dangerous, we just can’t risk the job and revenue loss right now.”

The councilors will then contemplate this input, along with such factors as party position, personal faith and values, political contributions, family smoking/non-smoking history, etc. Then they’ll have to make, quite literally, a life-or-death decision for workers in our community.

I don’t envy elected officials calls like this, especially in our shrill, partisan, uncivil times. But such are the expectations of courageous elected leadership.

So what will happen?

Will councilors heed Thomas Jefferson, who called for “a wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another”?

Will anyone consider George Washington’s advice that “Every action done in company ought to be with some sign of respect to those that are present”?

Will council members of faith consider the Golden Rule, and does imposing one’s smoke on patrons and employees constitute “doing unto others as you would have them do unto you”?

Will they heed the advice of State Health Commissioner Dr. Judith Monroe, who said, “We know tobacco kills. We know it hurts Indiana’s economy. And our elected officials hold the power to make a positive difference in the health of thousands of Hoosiers”?

Will they consider what candidate (now Mayor) Greg Ballard wrote to me in October of 2007: “Second-hand smoke is a proven health hazard and I would support any legislation to limit the impact of second-hand smoke”?

Or will they set safety and civility aside, leave the life-or-death deciding to individual employers, and declare, “Don’t tread on me”?

No, Mabel, government is not a four-letter word

Published

Bruce Hetrick

on September 28, 2009

in Communications, Healthcare and Politics

. 5 Comments

Last weekend, I dined with some friends who’d travelled to Indianapolis from all over the country. The company was delightful and the conversation pleasant—until the topic of health reform came up.

I sat at the end of the table, listening to the points and counterpoints. Then the person on my left said to the person on my right, “Well, you don’t think government could get it right, do you?” The “ew, ick” in my friend’s voice said that she didn’t think government could get anything right.

About that time, someone at the table cut off the conversation. “We all get along great,” she said, “as long as we don’t talk politics.”

The next morning, I watched Meet the Press on NBC. Host David Gregory interviewed President Obama at the White House. Gregory asked the President whether some of the criticism of his health reform initiative was, as some have asserted, racism.

The President said no.

“This debate that’s taking place is not about race; it’s about people being worried about how our government should operate,” Obama said.

“It’s an argument that’s gone on for the history of this republic,” he said. “What’s the right role of government? How do we balance freedom with our need to look after one another?”

This debate, Obama said, “always invokes passions … it was a passionate argument between Jefferson and Hamilton … Andrew Jackson built a whole political party around this notion that somehow … there is populist outrage against a federal government that was over-intrusive.”

Consequently, Obama said, “Every president who’s tried to make significant changes along these lines, whether it was FDR or Ronald Reagan, elicits very strong passionate responses.”

We drive on roadways and walk on sidewalks plotted, paved and maintained by government.

We obey stoplights and speed limits established by government.

We pray and protest under the protection of government.

We drink water provided by—or with standards set by—government.

Our garbage and sewage disappear because of government.

We flip a switch to enjoy light and heat regulated by government.

We deposit our money in banks with insurance provided by government.

We breathe air that’s cleaner because of government.

We enjoy social and human service safety nets because of government.

We battle diseases that would run rampant were it not for government.

We live in relative safety and get emergency help quickly because of government.

Every child can go to school because of government.

We can freely publish columns like this one and openly complain about them because of government.

So as citizens who benefit from government every minute of our lives, why do so many Americans—even those running for office—seem to believe government is evil, and every dollar wasted and every public servant a bumbling idiot?

Are there bad eggs in government? You betcha, just as there are nincompoops and crooks in the private sector. But the vast majority of public servants do more with less than you’d ever tolerate in your own job.

Is there waste and fraud in government? Yes, just like the business and nonprofit sectors. But with purse strings tight, scrutiny high and zero profit required, most governments deliver tremendous return on investment.

The key difference between public and private shenanigans and shortcomings is this: In government, they’re swept into the headlines. In the private sector, they’re more often swept under the rug.

So is it the cost of government that irks us? Big time. After all, what else do we see deducted from every paycheck?

But get this: The Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, reports that “U.S. taxes are low relative to those in other developed countries.” The Center reports that in 2005, among the 30 member nations in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, “only Mexico and Korea had lower taxes than the United States as a percentage of [gross domestic product].”

That leaves the biggest rap on government: Because of our long-held sense of entitlement, government’s everyday services and protections—and the people who provide them—are simply taken for granted.

If government has helped us “form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”—why the automatic “ew, ick” when considering government as one of many competing payors for health care?

Further, why are free-market capitalists—people who presumably believe government agencies should have to compete with private companies to deliver public services (read: privatization)—so afraid of private health insurers having to compete with a government alternative (read: public option)?

It’s worth a civil discussion over dinner.

The sad controversy over the President’s back-to-school speech

Published

Bruce Hetrick

on September 9, 2009

in Communications and Politics

. 35 Comments

Yesterday, President Obama spoke to the nation’s school kids. He talked about responsibility—to show up at school, pay attention and do the hard work necessary to succeed. He also talked about students’ responsibility to discover what they’re good at, set goals and achieve them through education.

The sky did not fall. World War III did not commence. Our children did not march, en masse, over the cliff.

Had you believed the advance hullabaloo from the President’s political opponents, you might have expected all the above. Some questioned the President’s right to even address the nation’s students, even though President Ronald Reagan did the same thing in 1988 and President George H. W. Bush in 1991.

Of those presidents, Reagan’s speech was the most political (he talked about the evils of taxation). President Obama didn’t mention public policy—except to say, “What you’re learning today will determine whether we as a nation can meet our greatest challenges in the future.”

I suppose that was intended as an economic development message. But what scares me is what our children are learning about freedom from the controversy over this speech: That we should censor anyone (including the President of the United States) we don’t like. Even worse, some partisan critics seem to believe that our young people are too stupid or too gullible to listen and decide for themselves—let alone assume the level of responsibility the President urged them to take for their future and the future of our country.

Is it just me, or has the partisanship gone too far?