Las Vegas, NV - Republican leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives have delayed the repeal vote on the health care reform law, in light of the tragic shootings this weekend in Arizona. But they have pledged to repeal the new law, calling it a budget-buster.

Nevadans may feel justifiably confused after listening to the pro and con arguments. Some say repeal will save money; others insist it will cost billions. According to Michael Ginsburg, Southern Nevada director of the group Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN), when Nevada factors in the state's high population of senior citizens, plus those who are unemployed and children without health insurance, repeal could be expensive for the Silver State.

"For us, if we were to repeal the Affordable Care Act, would translate into hundreds of millions of dollars in uncompensated care for our hospitals - which are struggling as it is, across the state."

Joanne Grossi, regional director of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources, points out that the new law will save at least $230 billion over the next 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

"Anyone who believes that repealing this will save the government money, they're wrong. We really have true, nonpartisan estimates that health care reform is actually going to save us money - and make people healthier."

Nevada seniors stand to lose both preventive care and new improvements to Medicaid prescription drug coverage if the plan is repealed, adds Ginsburg.

"Changing that for those seniors is really, really catastrophic; I mean, you could be adding thousands and thousands of dollars onto each one of Nevada's seniors every year, which is absolutely ridiculous."

Nevada's congressional delegation is split along party lines on the issue. Republicans Dean Heller and Joe Heck have campaigned against the Affordable Care Act, while Democrat Shelley Berkley has been a major supporter.



get more stories like this via email

The election is less than six weeks away and Washingtonians will be deciding on a slate of initiatives, including one measure affecting funding in support of children.

If passed, Initiative 2109 would repeal a 7% tax on capital gains for assets worth more than $262,000. The repeal has support from hedge fund manager Brian Heywood, who said it is a slippery slope toward a state income tax, which the state does not have.

Gabriela Quintana, senior policy associate for the Economic Opportunity Institute, said fewer than 4,000 people in the state pay the tax.

"It's a very privileged move to be able to fund these initiatives for your own needs and to not think about the impact this will have on a huge majority in Washington state," Quintana contended.

Last year, the tax pulled in about $786 million. The first $500 million collected from it goes toward schools, early learning and child care. Any additional money collected goes toward school construction.

Justin Fox-Bailey, president of the Snohomish Education Association, said the vast majority of Washingtonians who do not pay the capital gains tax will be affected if Initiative 2109 passes, especially kids.

"They're going to feel it in their communities when we give a tax cut to these millionaires and billionaires and you don't have the same access to child care, your kid's school isn't getting updated, public services are being cut or reduced," Fox-Bailey pointed out.

Washington has historically had one of the most regressive tax systems in the country and a recent report found the lowest-income 20% pay more than three times as much of their income as the top 1%.

Quintana argued the capital gains tax is vital for the state.

"We all need to play a role, including the wealthy individuals," Quintana asserted. "Repealing it will only really hurt families and children."

Ballots start going out on Oct. 18.

Congress has one week from today to reauthorize a sweeping policy playing a big role in shaping the nation's food production system, and Wisconsin agricultural voices are paying close attention.

The Farm Bill is supposed to be renegotiated every five years. A temporary extension was approved one year ago, amid big differences about where to prioritize aid, including subsidies typically helping industrial-level farms.

Chuck Anderas, associate policy director at the Wisconsin-based Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, said as the issues get sorted out, organizations like his hope lawmakers do not lose sight of the need to adequately fund conservation programs to benefit small farms.

"To neglect that is basically just picking winners and losers within the agricultural economy," Anderas contended.

Advocates are concerned about proposed language which would essentially spread conservation funding to "climate-smart" practices skeptics say only benefit big farms. The Farm Bill also covers the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. House Republicans have proposed formula changes hunger-relief advocates say would amount to a $30 billion cut. GOP leaders dispute the claim, saying they would lower costs without cutting anyone's benefits.

According to the National Centers for Environmental Information, Wisconsin has seen more than 20 weather-related disasters -- each resulting in at least one-billion dollars in damage -- in the past five years, four times the totals from the 1980s and 90s.

Anderas argued stronger and effective climate resiliency aid in the Farm Bill means participating producers can mitigate some of the damage.

"Even if you are skeptical about climate change, these practices infiltrate more water and hold more water in the soil and make a huge difference on the amount of water coming off of farm fields," Anderas outlined.

He added it protects natural resources, as well as infrastructure in farming communities, with local governments not having to spend as much on fixing washed-out roads and bridges.

With the current focus on the November election, analysts said it is likely Congress will approve another temporary extension of the current Farm Bill, rather than agree on a new one.

Even in a stable economy, consumers in Wisconsin and elsewhere still express pessimism and advocates said a key federal agency working on issues like unfair business practices cannot risk losing resources needed to help consumers.

To avoid a government shutdown, Congress has to approve a new federal budget by month's end. Over the summer, House Republicans floated cuts in certain areas, including a 27% funding cut for the Federal Trade Commission.

Erin Witte, director of consumer protection for the Consumer Federation of America, said the timing could not be worse for such a move.

"We've seen people talk a lot about feeling like their costs are increased in lots of ways," Witte pointed out. "The FTC's work is really aimed at trying to lower a lot of those costs, to bring some fairness back to the process."

Last month, the agency co-hosted the first meeting of a task force about whether companies are price-gouging and the effect on consumers. GOP leaders on the Appropriations Committee said they want a financial services bill prioritizing combating terrorism-money activity, maintaining the integrity of financial markets and spurring small business growth.

Witte contends the FTC has made progress in standing up for consumers with great efficiency. She pointed to the proposed "click to cancel" rule, which would remove barriers for people worried about recurring charges for an unwanted subscription for a service or product.

"That would make it as easy for someone to cancel a subscription as it is to sign up for it," Witte explained. "That proposal has gotten thousands of comments from consumers about how much time they are wasting on things like unnecessary subscriptions."

The state-level organization Opportunity Wisconsin has also cited concerns about consumer protections being gutted. It called on Congress to pass clean funding bills without extreme provisions it said would "hurt Wisconsin families." It is unclear if any of the budget ideas floated over the past several months will find their way into a final spending plan.