By: Wes Culver

The American health care system is ailing and policymakers at the national level are experimenting with various prescriptions trying to determine which one will cure the patient.  If we are not careful though, in our search for a cure we may end up failing to fix what is wrong with the system and harming what is already right with it.  I believe that our health care system can be fixed by giving it a strong dose of patient oriented reform that puts individuals and their doctors at the center of the system and forces third-parties to take a back seat role.  Overreaching federal regulation, heavily regulated insurance companies, and overzealous trial lawyers should not be in the driver’s seat of this vehicle.

For years we have looked on the health care sector as something different and unique from other consumer products or services.  While it certainly possesses dimensions that other sectors do not have, it is not too unique to be exempted from the innovative mindset that has generated advanced technology and better products at a reduced cost in other areas of our economy.  If we can make high quality electronic devices widely available at an affordable price, I think it is time for us to look at harnessing the principles that made that happen and put them to good use lowering the cost of health care and increasing our accessibility to that care.

The problem we must grapple with today in improving our health care system is not one of quality, but of affordability and accessibility.  Today, 85% of Americans are satisfied with the quality of care they receive from doctors, hospitals and other health care providers.  Yet even as the majority of our population approves of the job that our medical professionals and institutions are doing, no one is satisfied with the rising cost of that care.  From 2000 to 2008 the annual cost of employer provided health insurance rose from $6,438 per family to $12,680 per family.   Our nation annually spends $2.4 trillion on health care.

(Click here to read more)

On Friday, the Howey Political Report carried an item saying that State Rep. Vernon Smith (D-Gary is trying to instigate a class-action lawsuit against the state by urban school districts around the state.   According to Rep. Smith, urban schools were treated unfairly in the two-year budget passed back in June, and they have been treated wrongly by the state for several years now.   The problems these districts face, ranging from dilapidated school buildings to overcrowded classrooms and tight budgets (Memo to the Rep: everyone is facing a tight budget), are allegedly the fault of state government.  Apparently, we are not to remind ourselves that local taxes pay for the majority of school costs and that when a tax base leaves a city due to poor government policies, the amount of revenue coming in to pay for a school system declines.  Budget shortfalls, spending cuts, and other tough choices then result for the local school district.
(Story continues below the fold)

“The American people want health care reform; they just don’t want the disaster that Washington is offering them.” – Rep. Wes Culver (R-District 49)

Indiana State Representative Wes Culver joined legislators from other states and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani today at a press conference in the Westin O’Hare Hotel to discuss health care reform from a state-level perspective. The press conference was part of a summit focusing on how states can provide effective local solutions to the nation’s health care challenges. The summit is being hosted by GOPAC, an organization that seeks to recruit, train and highlight candidates and public officials at the state and local level.

Below is a portion of Rep. Culver’s press conference remarks as prepared for delivery.

“The American people want health care reform; they just don’t want the disaster that Washington is offering them right now. Today, our health care system stands in need of vital systemic change. Accessibility, accountability, and affordability must be increased so hard working individuals and families across this nation can find it easier to get the medical care they need.

“But reform simply for the sake of reform will not do. The 1,000 plus page proposal put out by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and advocated by President Obama, is far too costly for our country. In my state of Indiana, every man, woman and child will find themselves on the hook for $4,247 in combined state and federal obligations if this measure becomes law. If the federal government ends up forcing the states to pick up the cost of extending health care benefits to more lower-income individuals, essentially creating a tremendous new unfunded mandate, every person in Indiana will face an additional $900 in tax liability.

“Through our Healthy Indiana Program, and our CHOICE program for senior citizens and the disabled (Community and Home Options to Institutional Care for the Elderly and Disabled), Indiana has focused reform attempts on the critical doctor-patient relationship. By including measures that give an ownership interest in their health insurance plan to the people enrolled in those programs, we have seen the level of care that these people receive increase while the number of unnecessary emergency room visits decrease. Appropriate federal and state health care reforms will focus on empowering consumers to connect with producers to achieve healthier outcomes for all.”

By: State Rep. Wes Culver

Are our state universities financing inefficiencies on the backs of students? Recently Purdue University announced a 5% increase in its tuition rate in addition to a new annual per-student $500 surcharge that must be paid on top of tuition and room and board fees. These increases are, according to a trustee, necessary to maintain Purdue’s status as an excellent school. Purdue is not the only state funded university looking to raise tuition rates. Indiana University, Ivy Tech, Ball State, Indiana State University, Vincennes University and Southern Indiana University are all proposing or adopting tuition increases in the 4%-5% range for the upcoming academic year.

The rise in tuition rates at Indiana’s state funded public universities is not without precedent. According to Andrea Neal, a scholar with the Indiana Policy Review Foundation, the historical trend in Indiana is for college tuition rates to double every 10 years.* This figure does not include increases in room and board fees that also come on a frequent basis. In 2006 Indiana earned an “F” from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education in terms of college affordability. Hoosier students and their families bear a heavy financial burden when they pursue a college education. Those who chose to finance their degree through a private loan frequently find themselves paying much more for their degree once interest on the loan is factored in and paid back.

But the cost to students is more than just a financial one, as young people trying to start life often find the cloud of college debt hanging over them and their finances to be a hindrance to personal and professional development. If we are going to make sure that Indiana is ready for the 21st Century economy, we must reform our college education system to make it more affordable and more accountable. The rising costs hurt many students, and all too often have the disappointing effect of discouraging many well-qualified high-school students and adults from pursuing a college degree.

(Read more below the fold)

By: Wes Culver

Last year when state government worked to produce a property tax reform plan that capped property taxes, they took a step in the right direction.  The problem of rising property taxes is a regular story in Indiana.   It is almost with cyclical frequency that every decade or so we see Hoosier property owners rightfully express indignation about rising property tax bills.

In 2008 the property tax reform effort centered on shifting the cost of some local government activities to the state, raising the statewide sales tax from 6% to 7%, an overall increase of 16%, and placing caps on how high a tax bill could go in relation to the assessed value of the property.  For residential real estate the cap was placed at 1%, for rental property the cap was set at 2%, and for business property the cap was placed at 3%.  In 2010 these caps will be fully phased in and already many Hoosier property owners are seeing some form of property tax relief.

If we are not careful, though, the plan that we passed in 2008 will need to be fixed again in the not-so-distant future because we failed to address the fundamental and underlying cause behind property tax increases: government spending.

As legislators look to bring more permanent tax relief to Hoosiers, we must also realize that reigning in tax increases means reigning in government spending. Unless something further is done the end result will be higher taxes for all of us.  The only difference is in whether we pay them via a property tax or some other tax.

(Read more below the fold)

By: Wes Culver (R-Goshen, Ind.)

Unless they work in education or state government, not many people know or understand the complicated formula that determines how much funding each school corporation receives each year.

Each school corporation receives a specific dollar amount per student. So, two schools with the same number of students will receive a different dollar amount because the amount per student is different.

The amount per student can be immense. The lowest amount received by a school corporation in 2008 was $5,414 per student in Northwest Allen School Corp. The school corporation with the highest rate per-student was Gary School Corp., receiving $9,010 per student.

Several community members have voiced their concern with this variation. Why, they ask, does the state give more money per student to some schools and less to others?

Generally, tuition support for schools is tied to the numbers of students — “average daily membership” in bureaucratic terms — in each school district. As such, districts with declining enrollments face decreasing amounts of tuition support.

However, districts are still provided partial funding for students who have left the district, which is known as “ghosting.” Ghosting may occur when a student was enrolled at the start of the school year and then left sometime during that year.

Keep in mind, school districts have five years before funding is completely phased out for that student — 100 percent the first year, 80 percent the second, then 60 percent, 40 percent and, in the fifth year, 20 percent.

School systems with declining student enrollments have benefited greatly from this method, while those with growing enrollments have suffered, even though both face the same problem of changing enrollment.

The governor’s budget wants to finally end ghosting to make sure the money follows the student. If the student is not there, the money for that student wouldn’t be, either. However, the House Democrat’s budget proposal includes the ghosting formula.

A declining enrollment creates no more problems than an increasing enrollment. Officials from schools with declining enrollments say the students leaving are not from one class, but rather a few from every classroom; therefore, they cannot get rid of any teachers. However, neither can a growing school corporation place all the new students in one classroom and hire one teacher.

Growing schools are forced to handle their greater enrollments by redistricting to most efficiently handle students; declining schools should do the same.

These are not easy problems for superintendents to resolve. But that is what their job is and why we put them in those positions. Tough decisions aren’t always easy for businesses and families either, but they have to make them when their income declines.

I don’t think we should ask our schools to do anything we wouldn’t do as families and business people. They should not be exempt from the struggles everyone else faces.

Wes Culver (R-Goshen) represents House District 49 in the Indiana House of Representatives.  His website is www.electwesculver.com.

By: Wes Culver

On Tuesday, June 2nd, the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit agreed to hear Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock’s claims against the government’s managed restructuring of Chrysler Corporation.   The centerpiece of the plan is to sell the bankrupt automaker to Italian automobile manufacturer Fiat.  Unlike bankruptcies of the past though, this bankruptcy is like none before.   The federal government managers of this situation have used the power of the federal government to step in and dissolve the rights of Chrysler bond-holders.

Chrysler bonds are owned by many, many people in our country.   Many people may have them as part of their 401K or their retirement investment fund and not even know it.  The elimination of the rights of these bondholders substantially decreases the value of any fund or portfolio that owns Chrysler debt.

In Indiana three public funds, the State Police Pension fund, the Teachers Retirement Fund and the Major Moves Highway Construction Fund own large amounts of Chrysler bonds.  These funds have collectively lost roughly $5 million as a result of the federal government’s unwise rewriting of bankruptcy law and the rules that govern bankruptcy court proceedings.

The question about Chrysler is not whether or not they should go bankrupt, but who they should belong to coming out of that bankruptcy.  Law and history both say that those who invested in the company and owned the company should the ones that own it upon its emergence from court.   Perhaps because of political expediency, or perhaps because of well-intentioned but misguided thinking, the government has changed long-standing law with the result being a terrible shift away from previous bankruptcy precedents.

The transfer of wealth that is taking place here is not the transfer of wealth from the “rich” to the “poor”.  The transfer of wealth is going from those who invested in an American company to an Italian automaker that is getting 20% ownership for free! Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock’s principled opposition to this action should earn him the respect of all who believe that obligations are to be honored and responsibilities are to be fulfilled irrespective of how convenient such action is.

Wes Culver (R-Goshen) represents Indiana’s 49th House District in the Indiana General Assembly.

By: State Rep. Wes Culver

  In the next few weeks Indiana legislators will be reconvening for a special legislative session in Indianapolis to finish the work of passing a state budget.  The only piece of legislation that the Indiana General Assembly was required to pass this year was the state budget.  Unfortunately,  it failed to do so because some chose to promote spending policies that our state simply cannot afford.

 During the final hours of the regular session I voted against the version of the state budget that was brought to the House floor.  In my opinion, it adhered to flawed budget principles and was fiscally irresponsible when considered against the backdrop of our state’s economy.  I also believed that if we passed that version of the budget we would be doing the state more harm than good because of the tax increases that would have been needed to support the same level of funding in future budgets.

 As we go back into session it is my hope that the special committee tasked with negotiating the outline of the revised budget will present us with a pro-growth budget, a budget that I and other legislators can vote for in good conscience.  Our state must not have a budget that places us squarely on the path to deficits and higher taxes.  Fortunately, we as a state are not contending with the billion dollar budget shortfalls that plague most states today.  Passing a pro-growth budget, however, will mean more than just hitting auto-pilot and allowing politics to proceed as usual. 

 The right budget for our state will be one that encourages economic growth and positions our state to thrive whenever the national economic climate changes for the better.  Such a budget will be defined by several notable characteristics.  First, it will not assume that past revenue levels indicate future revenue levels.  The steady decline in revenues below the rate forecasted by experts should give pause to those who believe we do not need to adjust our state’s fiscal belt.  State government must learn a lesson from individual Hoosiers and businesses that are cutting back and looking for ways to save money.

(Read more below)

Editor’s Note:  State Rep. Wes Culver (R-Goshen) represents Elkhart County, which has one of the top four highest unemployment rates in the country.  Reforming the unemployment insurance fund directly impacts a high percentage of workers in his district, and he presents his thoughts on the matter below.

By: Wes Culver

Recently, the Indiana Senate passed a measure aimed at reforming Indiana’s unemployment insurance program. While our state’s unemployment fund has been experiencing problems for several years, the problems of the past were compounded by the economic downturn that has swept across our nation in recent months. Reform is certainly necessary to maintain the viability and sustainability of the fund, but that reform must not come at the expense of those who need the program most.

The national and state unemployment numbers tell the story of an economy hit hard by a crisis that picked up speed as energy prices rose and banks failed. But even the nationwide unemployment rate of 8.9% and the Indiana unemployment rate of 10.1% do not begin to measure up to Elkhart County’s unemployment rate of 18.0%.

I believe that any reform plan should insure that a worker who has not drawn more than 26 weeks of unemployment benefits in the past 3 years from the same employer will receive full benefits until they reach the current 26 week benchmark. I will fight to make sure that individuals like our county’s RV workers, who have not abused the system, get the full benefits they need. Between this reform, and federally provided extended unemployment benefits, unemployed workers in Elkhart County would potentially be able to receive up to 72 weeks of benefits.

I am also in favor of Indiana creating an unemployment plan with some of the characteristics of the Wisconsin unemployment insurance plan. The Wisconsin plan allows a person receiving unemployment benefits to get a combination of unemployment money and money from a new job, with the unemployment benefits tapering off as the individual earns more money. In fact, it allows the combination of the two to be greater than the amount the recipient was receiving on unemployment, thus creating a win/win scenario. The State’s expenses go down (saving taxpayers money) and the unemployed worker does not have to turn away jobs that pay less than unemployment benefits.

While we work to return Indiana’s unemployment fund to a surplus, my fellow legislators must keep in mind that we will not be able to fix this problem immediately. Our first order of business is to make sure that workers who genuinely need the system get the benefits they need. In the future we can look for ways to build the fund’s reserve, but raising taxes in a recession is not the way to accomplish this goal.

The men and women of Elkhart County rank as one of the best workforces in the world. Possessed of a hard work ethic and a can-do attitude, they can outwork and out-produce other workers in this country and around the globe. They have weathered the downturns of the past and with the proper help they will weather the downturn of the present.

I am honored to represent Elkhart County in Indianapolis, and I will work hard to insure that the final version of unemployment insurance reform reflects the needs and concerns of the workers and employers of Elkhart County. It is my goal to serve you in keeping with my campaign promises and I know that together we can overcome this storm.

Wes Culver represents the 49th District in the General Assembly.

By: Brian Sikma

As one of his first acts as President, Barack Obama signed an executive order  beginning  the process of closing down the military’s high-security GITMO detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  Leftwing groups and politicians who opposed the use of rigorous interrogation techniques on the radical Islamic detainees housed at GITMO turned the prison into a political symbol of repression and inhuman torture.

Now that President Obama has placated his leftwing supporters by starting the process of closing down the facility, he is faced with the question of what to do with the 240 captured terrorists currently behind held at GITMO.  These prisoners are unlike other common criminals that are currently housed in state and federal prisons across the country.  These thugs are part of global network of terrorist organizations committed to destroying the United States as we know it and housing them on American soil brings them right into the target country and allows them to quickly wreak havoc should they escape.  Additionally, any conspiracy by their friends on the outside to free them could lead to significant violence that would take the lives of American civilians living around any prison facility on the American mainland.

Because Indiana is home to one of the highest security facilities in the federal prison system, the United States Penitentiary at Terre Haute, speculation has been made that the terrorist detainees could be brought to Indiana.  Considering the fact that the Terre Haute facility has been used for extremely dangerous prisoners in the past, this speculation is not far fetched.

A group of Republican state legislators banded together to urge the Obama administration to not bring the 240 detainees to Indiana.  Arguing that the high value prisoners present a security threat to Hoosiers and needlessly endanger the lives of the people they represent, the lawmakers are putting forward a resolution expressing their official opposition to any decision to move the terrorists to Terre Haute.

The list of legislators backing the measure includes some of the strongest and most articulate rising conservative leaders in the General Assembly: Sen. Marlin Stutzman, Sen. Carlin Yoder, Sen. Greg Walker, Rep. Jackie Walorski and Rep. Wes Culver.