June 19, 2013

You are here: Home / Archives for Orrin Hatch

Senator Hatch’s anti-tax hike sequester proposal [updated]

March 4, 2013 by Leave a Comment

, member of the United States Senate.

[Update] Since original publication, Senator Hatch’s Press Secretary was kind enough to both read and comment that the Senator’s proposal is only intended to be a short term fix and that the Senator has proposed more long term solutions to Medicare and Medicaid. The proposal dates back to the end of January and can be found here.

 

[Original post] Senate Democrats proposal to dealing with the sequester is simple: raise taxes. The expenses of the federal government in caring for America are increasing, and so some Americans should pay more of their fair share.

Senator Hatch on Friday responded, with both a legislative  proposal that avoids any tax increase and an op-ed the Salt Lake Tribune describing the proposal.

Our country is $16.6 trillion in debt. Republicans have tried to work with Senate Democrats on common-sense spending cuts so we can begin to get our crippling debt under control, but we’ve been met with virtual silence. Disappointingly, the president seems more interested in continuing his campaign across the country to score political points, all while the country sits disgusted with a lack of action from Washington to fix the president’s sequester.

The cuts represented in the sequester are necessary, but what is not necessary is how they are structured. To essentially cut $1 trillion from our military in a short period of time will place an unnecessary burden on our service members and the workers who aid their efforts. So why won’t the president work with us to restructure these cuts in a more manageable way so the Department of Defense can plan accordingly?

Hatch’s proposal–his “smart spending cuts”–finds $142.2 billion in cuts from the federal budget. That’s $60 billion more than the amount cut this year by the sequester, “but in a much more common-sense, reasonable way[,]” says Utah’s senior senator in his Tribune piece.

A break down of Hatch’s plan on his site shows proposed cuts, based on a 2011 report by Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma called “Back in Black.” Using estimates from that report, Hatch finds ten areas where the federal government can cut back without affecting spending on national security. With the sequester disproportionately hitting defense spending (nearly $500 billion of the $1.1 trillion in cuts over the next decade are coming out of the military spending), Hatch appears to have made special effort not to touch the armed services.

130226-tobias-sequesterNot surprisingly, the list of proposed budget savings include a number of targets for conservative ire in recent years (and decades), including elimination of funding for  National Public Radio, consolidating National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for Humanities under one roof, freezing federal employee pay to match locality, and reducing agency budgets for advertising and travel. Also, fewer limousines owned by the feds.

I’m impressed that Senator Hatch is proposing more specific cuts than the across-the-board-we’re-all-gonna-die cuts that have been threatened by fear-mongering administration officials over the last week. The proposals astutely avoid hurting any particular constituency, with the exception of a few federal employees who will make roughly the same as their counterparts in the private sector in the areas they live, but that seems reasonable–working for the government is not supposed to make you rich.

However, it’s clear that the cuts are not much more than chopping at leaves with little real long-term impact on the drivers of federal budgetary growth.  Untouched are the big costs–Medicare and Medicaid.  In spite of bipartisan agreement that reform is necessary to retain the long-term solvency of these programs for the poor and weak in society, little effort has been made to address their future. I laud Hatch’s efforts on the budget, but I would like to see a more frank discussion of how entitlement spending will be addressed.

The full list of Senator Hatch’s proposal is here:

1. Freeze Federal Locality Pay for Five Years:  The Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 created locality pay to align salaries for federal employees with private sector pay scales in their geographic area.  Estimated savings: $71 billion over ten years.

2. Reduce Civilian Agencies’ Travel Budgets by 75 Percent:  Estimated savings: $43.3 billion over ten years.

3. Reduce Agency Advertising Budgets by 50 Percent:  Estimated savings: $5.6 billion over ten years.

4. Combine National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities into One Agency and Reduce Funding by 75 Percent:  Estimated savings: $2.8 billion over ten years.

5. Consolidate Various Funding Programs into a New Office Dedicated to Weather Research with the National Science Foundation and Reduce Overall Expenditures for This Research:  Estimated savings: $11.6 billion over ten years.

6. Eliminate Federal Funding for Public Media (National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting Service):  Estimated savings: $5.6 billion over ten years.

7. Reduce Administrative Expenses for the Treasury Department:  This would include eliminating printing and mailing of certain forms, publications and inserts.  Estimated savings: $2.2 billion over ten years.

8. Reduce the Number of Limousines Owned by Federal Agencies:  Estimated savings: $115.5 million over ten years.

Related articles

 

Filed Under: Entitlement Reform, Fiscal Reform Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Packing hygiene kits with the Utah Delegation

August 27, 2012 by 3 Comments

Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart and others assist at the Utah delegation humanitarian project on Monday.

With tropical storm/hurricane Isaac crossing the Gulf of Mexico, the schedule for the Republican National Convention was abbreviated today, but that doesn’t mean Utah’s delegates weren’t busy. This morning, after a breakfast honoring Senator Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican Party organized a humanitarian service project for delegates packing hygiene kits for use in any areas affected by the Isaac storm system.

“When we heard about hurricane Isaac, we decided to turn a negative into a positive,” said Thomas Wright, Utah Republican Party Chairman. Although it’s become something of a tradition for Utah Republicans to do a service project during the national convention–they did one in St. Paul in 2008, too–Wright said that the delegates planned on assembling back to school kits for children in need later in the week and only threw together this additional project in the last few days. The materials in the kits were donated by Utah business leader Fred Lampropoulous and Merit Medical.

Including toothpaste, toothbrushes, towels, soap, and other sundry items, the kits were quickly assembled by volunteers that included Attorney General Mark Shurtleff in a t-shirt, several legislators in dressed down to work, Speaker Rebecca Lockhart with her sleeves rolled up, and, in addition to the members of the Utah delegation, members of the Arizona, California and Hawaii delegations who dropped in to help. Energy was high, and some delegates broke out in an

impromptu and slightly off-key version of the BYU fight song (a version that Chairman Wright, a Ute, said was “out-of-order”). Later, a member of the Hawaii delegation led the room in “God Bless America.”

The kits are to be given to LDS Charities locally and, with Isaac shifting from a tropical storm to a potentially category 2 hurricane as it approaches the Gulf coast near New Orleans, may even be distributed later this week.

Related articles
Filed Under: Republican Politics Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

If gray hairs say anything about Hatch’s support…

March 16, 2012 by 4 Comments
, member of the United States Senate.

Image via Wikipedia

…then tonight was his night, at least in my precinct.  At triple the turn out from two years ago, our caucus was hot, full, and gray. Gray haired, that is. Of the thirty-seven people who showed, over twenty were well into their Social Security years.

Not too surprisingly, they came supporting Senator Hatch. Within a few seconds of the opening of nominations for state delegate,  Gentleman X (who I know from church) stood to nominate Gentleman Y (also, from church and not a year younger than 70, either of them). I looked over at the nominee–Gentleman Y–and there in his hand is a stack of mailers featuring Orrin’s stately image.

Speeches began, and Gentleman Y laid out his support for Orrin Hatch. He spoke for a good three minutes longer than we let anyone else, mostly because after him we put the kibosh on long speeches, but also, because once questions began, it became more of a free-flowing debate. The questions ranged from the benign  ”Who do you support for Senator/Governor?” to the more aggressive “Would you still support Senator Hatch if you knew he co-sponsored the individual mandate with Senator Kennedy?”

Why did he do well? A few simple reasons seemed clear:

  1. No one, even the solid Hatch supporters, could unequivocally support him, and that included the gray-haired Gentleman Y who held forth on Hatch’s behalf. “Better then devil you know than the devil you don’t know,” was their theme, and they don’t know who would replace him.
  2. The seniority argument got a lot of play, as did Hatch’s potential seat as chair of the finance committee if Republicans take the Senate.
  3. Mitt Romney’s endorsement made huge strides when in doubt.  A quick straw poll of the precinct showed overwhelming support for Romney’s candidacy.
Looking back at my precinct and the comments made, I think the feelings were evenly split on the Senate race (few had any feelings on the governor, attorney general, or Third Congressional races). In a tie, however, voters went with the person they know, and right now, they know Orrin Hatch.
Related articles
Filed Under: Elections Tagged With: , , ,

Predictions for Tonight?

March 15, 2012 by 2 Comments

What’s your prediction for your caucus meeting tonight?  Are you running for county or state delegate? Caucus leadership?

Do you expect a high turnout?  Will high turnout benefit candidates? Will naysayers change their minds about the caucus system if turnout is high?

Do you think that Senator Hatch or his challengers will be able  to stack the caucus?

Do you think it’ll be like 2010? or something entirely different?

What do you think will happen?

 

Related articles
Filed Under: Elections Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Are Candidates Subverting Caucus Night?

March 14, 2012 by Leave a Comment

If you’ve ever been a state delegate, or might again be a state delegate, you’ve been flooded in recent days by a veritable forest worth of glossy mailers.

It must be getting close to Utah‘s caucus night.  From the number of mailers arriving each day, you would think that the election was next week, instead of in the latter half of April. In fact, it’s only the selection of delegates that is this week, and there are those out here that question whether trying to stack the caucuses so much is really very good for our system.

Enter pundit Ethan Millard. He level’s his pen at a certain candidate for Attorney General and fires away:

Swallow is trying to get his supporters to become delegates pre-committed to him. Under this tactic, the legitimacy of an election is compromised from the beginning, with delegates never intending to represent their neighborhoods.

Swallow’s not the only one trying to stack the caucus meetings to elect a delegates who will represent him. Millard pegs Ben McAdams, Ross Romero, Carl Wimmer, and Dan Liljenquist, too. Ironically, he left out Senator Orrin Hatch whose campaign manager Dave Hansen told The Hill that the Hatch campaign has been focused on the caucuses for a year and a half.

“We’ve been at this campaign for a year and our focus has been on the caucuses,” said Hatch campaign manager Dave Hansen. “We take them very seriously. Are we focused on them? Absolutely.”

Is it easy? No. But that doesn’t stop a cool hand like Hansen’s.

“In effect what you’re doing is putting together 1,820 individual campaigns all occurring on the same night, which is a massive task, to be honest with you,” Hansen said.

Brigham Young University Professor Adam Brown said both sides are well-organized but Hatch’s forces likely have the edge.

“Both Hatch and Freedomworks have sent me a pile of mail. If organization means mailing things out, then they’re both strong,” he said. “I’ve had several mailers from Hatch inviting me to those meetings to train to be a delegate. I haven’t seen anything like that from Freedomworks.”

So the candidates are trying to control who gets elected delegates. So what?  That’s called free speech, right?

It is. But that still doesn’t stop people from complaining about Super PACs that spend money unseat incumbents. And if it’s wrong for Super PACs to spend money in Utah, is it wrong for candidates to try to control the neighborhood caucus in neighborhoods they don’t live in?

Back to Millard’s argument:

This is a deliberate subversion of the caucus process as politicians stack the conventions with delegates committed to them, not committed to representing their neighborhoods.

These actions delegitimize the caucus and convention as a system to elect our representatives.

You decide.

On that note, let me show you what’s been going out this week.  First, “the nice” stuff, or mailers that I think help politics in Utah more than hurt.

This piece from Liljenquist's own campaign is a rarity in this election. It lays out his background (education at BYU and University of Chicago law school, career at Bain and as an entrepreneur, election to Utah Senate, etc) and his policy positions.

Inside, the mailer is content heavy. No distortions or misleading graphics. Just the facts, Ma'am.

Another benign and useful piece was this one from Orrin Hatch a couple weeks back. Clear, to the point, and an important message: If Republicans take the Senate, Hatch will head the Finance Committee. It also carried Mitt Romney's endorsement, a potentially persuasive piece in a state where Romney is clearly the favorite for President.

The front side of the Orrin Hatch "finance committee" piece. The only faux pas on this piece was the timing. It hit mailboxes the same day that Olympia Snowe retired, softening the argument because conservative Senator Crapo of Idaho stands behind Orrin in line for head of the finance committee.

 

And then things start to go awry. If this were just an intraparty battle limited to Utah, it might be one thing. But this year, heavy spending out of state PACs have gone to bat for both Orrin Hatch and his competitors. My previous analysis has found that those going to bat for Senator Hatch have been fast and loose with the facts (see here).  On the other hand, Freedom Works has spent heavily to talk about Orrin Hatch’s 36 year record in the Senate. Whether you like his record or not, it is what it is, and Freedom Works’ mailers have been far heavier on facts, if less rhetorical than the shadowy Freedom Path.

The mailers:

 

As I noted before, Hatch's "Finance Chair" mailer was poorly timed when Senator Snowe announced her retirement. And Freedom Works jumped on that.

This mailer pounds points that have been constant in Freedom Works' mailers: raising the debt ceiling, co-sponsoring an individual mandate, etc.

This mailer essentially says that Senator Hatch says one thing at home and another when in D.C. That might be a stretch...

...but if it is a stretch, it makes a reasoned argument for questioning his real intent. It's hard for Hatch to run from his 36 year record, and I think he's done a good job of framing the debate where it benefits him best. Voters could easily look at both sides and find reason to support keeping, or replacing, Utah's senior senator.

The biggest argument Tea Party folk are raising? Hatch's support to raise the debt $7.5 trillion.

Freedom Works dropped the hammer on the $7.5 trillion with this piece, waving the national debt (it's at 100% of GDP, by the way) in voters faces.

Inside Freedom Works' "debt" mailer, we see simply the amount the national debt increased in each vote by Orrin Hatch. It should be noted that a number of these bills were signed by Ronald Reagan.

Meanwhile, Freedom Path (which I love to hate for how little transparency there is into who they are and where their facts come from) sent out this piece on Liljenquist. It looks dark and dangerous, but if you get past the image, the facts are relatively innocuous. Or just plain wrong. As I've indicated in past posts, Liljenquist did not just allow double-dipping to continue, he saved the state hundreds of millions by reforming it and pensions.

On the facts, Liljenquist did miss votes, but not an abnormal amount for how much legislation he was carrying. On double-dipping, it's actually Liljenquist's own bill that limited the practice. Last, Liljenquist voted, along with nearly the entire Utah legislature, to change Utah's GRAMA law, as well as did the Governor. Is this an attack on them, too?

Worst. Comparison. EVER. Whether you like Hatch or not, comparing him to Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama is a stretch. Next we'll see Hitler and Stalin, too. Or maybe Darth Vader, or Voldemort.

And the backside. Does the comparison hold up? I'm dubious. 36 years in Washington means a lot of votes and a lot of policies. It's hard to believe all of that boils down to one theme.

Obnoxious. But then, it's by Freedom Path. Could we expect anything better?

Not only is it obnoxious, it's misleading. The facts are stretched (like the gum--ha!), not to mention distorted. and it does little service to our state or to informing voters. I would say this is just short of dishonest.

Also, obnoxious, if for a different reason. If you're on the Hatch campaign and reading this, don't send me a mailer that's so big. I don't need a wall portrait of Romney, or Hatch. (The penny is next to Romney's head for scale).

The opposite side of the giant Romney head mailer.

This piece, I think, might be one of the more effective pieces yet, and I'm surprised Freedom Works hasn't done more. It reminds voters of what they can do with a positive message.

 

Finally, this: a reminder from the Hatch campaign to attend caucus, support Senator Hatch to put him on the Finance committee, lowering taxes, balancing the budget, and so on.

 

Does this distort and corrupt our caucuses? That’s for you to decide. Whatever you believe, I encourage you to show up, ask questions of the people who want to represent your vote, and demand that they represent you, not the candidate. This is representation of our interests, not the candidates. Whether it’s perpetual candidates like John Swallow or esteemed Senators like Orrin Hatch, it’s ultimately about how what they are and what they vote will affect our families.

Show up, ask questions, and make a good choice. It only works if you do.

[The Hill] [KSL]

(Personally, I think the sheer number of mailers is because the guys over at Freedom Path saw my post debunking their “facts” and decided that they would hit me with so many I didn’t have time to debunk them again…but I could be a little walleyed about that).

Related articles
Filed Under: Elections Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Utah’s March 15 Caucus: To go, or not to go…

March 12, 2012 by 1 Comment

Today, with the Utah caucus finally within site (it’s on Thursday at 7 PM if you’re Republican, Tuesday if you’re a Democrat…find out where to attend here), many are still questioning whether we should even have a caucus.

Why not just hold a primary? Why do we have to sit in a room with our neighbors and elect someone else to be our delegate? Wouldn’t it be easier to just hold a primary?

It’s relevant. If there’s one thing that matters in a liberal democracy (or republic or constitutional republic or whatever the heck you want to label the American governmental system), it’s how we select our leaders.  It moves from relevant to important, though, when we see how many people don’t participate. Today’s Deseret News carried the story:

The majority of Utah voters, 60 percent, have never attended a political caucus meeting and half said they will not this year either, according to a new Deseret News/KSL poll.

The poll by Dan Jones & Associates also found that 65 percent of Utah voters didn’t know what days the caucus meetings were scheduled — and even more, 72 percent, didn’t know where the meetings were being held.

Let me say, again: if you don’t know where to attend your caucus, click here.

Beyond statistics, I’ve spoken with several people in the last week who have turned to me and said: “Why do we do this? Why does Utah hold caucuses?”

Caucuses have a host of arguments both for and against them. In Utah, the caucus is the primary method that we select our candidates for public office. Delegates, at both state and county level, are selected to attend a either a state or county convention where they will vote on the candidates. They are expected to learn about those candidates in the weeks between caucus and convention so that they can make an informed decision. Most take this responsibility seriously. Some do not.

One of the great benefits of the system is that it brings politicians close to the people they represent. Because of the relatively low cost to earn a party nomination, you don’t need big bucks to run an expensive TV and print media campaign in a primary. Almost anyone can afford to meet the delegates of a legislative or school board district.

Just ask Orrin Hatch. In 1976, he ran a dark horse campaign on a relative shoe string, beat out well-known politicians for the Republican nomination, and talked voters into calling home 18-year incumbent Frank Moss. Senator Hatch has gone on to a distinguished career of 36 years as Utah’s senator…all because Utah’s caucus system allowed an underdog the same chance as a well entrenched politician with deep pockets.  (I won’t mention the irony of the campaign to remove him with that history). Delegates meet the candidate, face-to-face, and make an informed decision.

Criticisms include complaints that caucuses are not well attended. With sixty percent of Utah voters having never attended one, that’s alarming. Voting in a primary is far easier and faster and have a higher rate of participation.

Which ever you think is the best method to select nominees for the ballot, right now the only way to change it is the caucus. And you might find you enjoy it.  My mother attended her first caucus in Washington State just over a week ago. Her experience discussing the issues and the candidates invigorated her interest in our system and in our country.

And should I be surprised? Engagement has that effect. It’s going to the soup kitchen will warm your heart a lot more than clicking “Like” on a Kony video. When you show up, you become a part of the change, and the change becomes a part of you.

Again, March 15 at 7 PM. Look up your location, get a babysitter for the kids, and go find out how it works. You can complain about the process, but until you show up, you can’t really do much about it.

[Deseret News]

Related articles
Filed Under: Elections Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

“Time Changed Hatch” Mailer Factually Correct

February 29, 2012 by 6 Comments

Is Freedom Works as dishonest as Freedom Path?

Over the last couple weeks, I’ve looked at a couple of maligning mail pieces sent out by the shadowy Freedom Path PAC whose primary purpose appears to be to malign incumbent Senator Orrin Hatch‘s opponents.  Both mail pieces appear to distort and misrepresent Hatch challengers Chris Herrod and Dan Liljenquist. Read the posts on the “Two Scoops” or “Double dip” mailer here and the “Jobs not Made in the USA” mailer here.

As per my promise, I will also analyze for factual accuracy the mailers sent by the anti-Hatch Freedom Works PAC. This post looks at a mailer I call “Time Changed Hatch.”  As with the last two mailers, I have tried to go to the primary sources and have also reached out to the Hatch reelection campaign for any kind of response they might have. They have directed me to the site realhatchrecord.com but declined to respond directly to the mailer any further. I have utilized their site to augment my research into the primary sources.  Since the site appears to be more focused on the larger Freedom Works mailer (as in, it’s 45 pages long), I expect finding it more useful when I present that analysis.

Analysis: ”Time Changed Hatch” Mailer Attempts to Paint Hatch as Changed by Washington

The mailer opens with the following paragraph:

“In 1976, Orrin Hatch went to Washington. And just as time has shaped Utah’s unique landscape, thirty-six years as a Washington insider has changed Orrin Hatch into a big-spending, big-government politician.”

This, then, is the thesis of the entire effort to remove Senator Hatch from office and not really a fact so much as an argument. It’s classic Tea Party rhetoric.   The question: is Senator Orrin Hatch really a big-spending, big-government politician?“

I will let you answer that yourself.  It’s really a statement that is relative to your own perception of what “big” is and whether it is good or bad. I will note this: Senator Hatch, with thirty-six years in the US Senate, has a record that has been examined by many organizations, lobbyists, and activists. As the Hatch campaign pointed out to me, the American Conservative Union has given him a lifetime rating of 90%, the National Taxpayer’s Union this year gave him the highest rating in Congress, and the Club for Growth gave him a 97% rating for his pro-growth policies. These are just a few. Find a more thorough list of organizations that have honored him here. 

Clearly, reasonable minds can disagree. So, I won’t answer the question about whether Senator Hatch is a “big-spending, big-government politician.”

On the other hand, the “Time Changed Hatch” mailer lists five specific bullet points in support of the statement that we can look at for accuracy.

The Statements: Five Votes or Types of Votes

  • Statement 1: “Voted 16 times to increase the debt ceiling by a whopping $7.5 trillion–accounting for half of our nation’s debt.”

That Senator Hatch voted 16 times to increase the debt appears to be mostly TRUE, though I could only verify 14 votes, and I’m not going to discuss the total amount. (I suspect that somebody is going to correct me on the missing upon posting).

  1. Senate Vote #298 (Sep 29, 1981).
  2. Senate Vote #23 (Feb 6, 1981).
  3. Senate Vote #851 (Sep 23, 1982).
  4. Senate Vote #115 (May 25, 1983).
  5. Senate Vote #663 (Oct 12, 1984).
  6. Senate Vote #371 (Dec 11, 1985).
  7. Senate Vote #636 (Aug 15, 1986).
  8. Senate Vote #262 (Sep 23, 1987).
  9. HR 3136 (March 28, 1996).
  10. HR 2015 (June 25, 1997).
  11. S.2578 (June 11, 2002).
  12. HR 4 (April 1, 2004) .
  13. H.J. Res. 47 (March 16, 2006).
  14. H.J. Res. 43 (September 27, 2007)

Editorial Comment: Whether raising the debt at any one of these particular points is public policy question that I am not addressing here. It should be noted that a number of these votes (the first eight) occurred and were signed by President Ronald Reagan. With as often as we see politicians of all stripes (even Obama has tried) trying to channel the Gipper, I think it is relevant to note that President Reagan would have had to sign off on each of the debt increases that passed the House and Senate.

  • Statement 2:“Supported the “TARP” $700 billion Wall Street bailout.”

This statement is TRUE.  Senator Hatch did vote for TARP. According to the roll call list, Senator Hatch, along with then Senator Bennett, voted “Yea” on H. R. 1424, better known as “TARP” or “Troubled Assets and Relief Program.”  The bill’s stated purpose was to “provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers.”

  • Statement 3: “Voted for numerous bills filled with pork-barrel earmarks–in 2010 Hatch was the 3rd highest earmarker out of all 535 members of Congress.”

This statement appears to be TRUE.  If you surf over to CQ.com, there is an excellent database on earmarks and what each member of Congress has earmarked.  If you click on the link on the left that says “Member’s with the highest total” you find a list of the top ten highest earmarking members of the Senate and the House. Senator Hatch was #3 on this list in 2010, the year in the Freedom Works “Time Changed Hatch” mailer. However, on that same page you can find that in 2009 Senator Hatch is not even in the top ten list.

Editorial Comment: Whether earmarks are “bad’ per se is an open question. Unlike a lot of other spending methods, earmarks are transparent and open, and, in reality, the way that Congress was designed to work. Federal earmarks account for only .5% of the budget, and in fiscal year 2010, cutting out Senator Hatch’s earmarks  (worth $358,815,000 for Utah) would have left another $10.7 billion in earmarks. If the federal government is going to spend, then earmarks are about the most benign and transparent way it happens.

  • Statement 4: “Co-sponsored the Obama-like Individual Mandate for Health Care, a law that forces individuals to purchase health insurance.”
, member of the United States Senate.

Image via Wikipedia

While it is TRUE that Senator Hatch did co-sponsor S.1770 in 1993per the “Time Changed Hatch” mailer, what is unclear is whether it was “Obama-like.”Looking further at the bill summary, the bill appears to provides for, among other things, “access to health insurance coverage under a qualified health plan for every citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States” (universal coverage regardless of citizenship status),  ”nondiscrimination based on health status” (preventing insurance companies from discriminating based on preexisting conditions), imposes a mandate on states requiring them to comply with certain insurance certification and enrollment requirements, and allows an exemption from a universal coverage mandate for those with religious scruples that prevent participation in “health plan coverage” (that last one I thought was odd, but, there it is…).

Therefore, it does appear that S.1770 required that all individuals be part of the national healthcare plan, or what is better known as an “individual mandate.” While states may legally do as much within their own states (as did Massachusetts), whether such is constitutional on a federal level raises is an open question and will be argued before the Supreme Court this year. (See more about that debate here).

  • Statement 5: Partnered with liberal Ted Kennedy as a co-sponsor of SCHIP, described as ‘…a precursor to the new [universal health care] system.”

This statement is TRUE.  Senator Hatch did co-sponsor SCHIP with Senator Ted Kennedy (and 23 other Senators, too) in 1997, as was highly reported in the news media at the time. It was seen as sufficiently significant at the time that Wikipedia even makes a note of  Senator Hatch’s co-sponsorship with the support of then First Lady Hillary Clinton in the second paragraph of the entry on SCHIP.  The New York Times reported at the time that

Senator Orrin G. Hatch, a conservative Republican, today embraced a major Democratic effort to provide health insurance for half of the nation’s 10 million uninsured children, saying he would become the chief sponsor of the legislation.

Senator Hatch explained that he took the step across the aisle to show that “the Republican Party ”does not hate children,” and he added that ”as a nation, as a society, we have a moral responsibility” to provide coverage for the most vulnerable children.”

CONCLUSION: Freedom Works “Time Changed Hatch” Mailer is factually true.

While reasonable minds can, and do, disagree on the wisdom of the above cited votes by Senator Hatch, the statements Freedom Works makes are largely true. In fact, I’m not sure that any of them appear to distort his record in any way. The only statements that seem to be questionable, in my assessment are the following:

  • “…36 years in Washington Changed Orrin Hatch.” This is up for debate. Yes, the man is three and a half decades older, but change can swing both ways.
  • “Obama-like Individual Mandate of Health Care[.]”  I have not addressed how comparable the mandate Senator Hatch voted for and co-sponsored is to the American Healthcare Act because such would need more space and time than I care to give the issue and than you care to read. However, on its face, there are many relevant comparisons. (For more on the American Healthcare Act before the Supreme Court, go here).

The striking contrast between the mailers sent by Freedom Path (pro-Hatch) and those sent by Freedom Works (anti-Hatch) is stark. Where Freedom Path grasps at straws and makes very distorted spins on Liljenquist and Herrod’s records, Freedom Path takes an almost “high road” approach. “Here are the votes,” Freedom Works says, and “we think they lead to a certain result.”

With that in mind, please carefully consider the facts and whether they support your policy preferences. Freedom Path is demonizing Liljenquist and Herrod without any basis; Freedom Works is pointing out policy points with a very real basis in Senator Hatch’s record. Happy hunting!

[U.S. Senate Roll Call on H.R.1424] [S.1770 "Individual Mandate" Bill Summary] [S.674 "SCHIP" Bill Summary] [New York Times] [CQ Earmark Database]

Filed Under: Republican Politics Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,
«Older Posts