New Democrat Update - March 1998
CHOICE CAN MAKE THE DIFFERENCE
State Rep. Jennifer Veiga (D-Denver) is showing her fellow Democrats that individual empowerment should replace the old politics of top-down paternalism and one-size-fits-all government. We should move beyond the old left-right debates and get behind expanding individual choice and decentralizing power, making citizens the problem-solvers of first recourse.
This measure takes a New Progressive approach to reform Colorado's broken auto insurance system - now the 13th most expensive coverage in the country with one-third of the drivers uninsured. Her bill (HB 1104), just approved by the House of Representatives, reduces the amount of required minimum personal injury coverage from $130,000 to $15,000. Interestingly, it has been the House Republican leadership that wants to restrict choice, calling for higher mandated limits.
Veiga's non-bureaucratic, market-oriented proposal gives drivers the opportunity to reduce their annual premiums by up to 50 percent - $80 a year for most drivers and up to $700 for some high-risk motorists. Those savings, which are a lot better than the state's current sales tax rebate of $60 for the middle-class, should induce more lower-income citizens into the system - another force that will decrease rates for everyone else.
Senate Democrats should support lower auto insurance costs because the middle-class could use the savings and those less fortunate need the protection. Affordable insurance will also help senior citizens on fixed-incomes and encourage former welfare recipients in the cities to take a job in the employment-rich suburbs.
Finally, as shown by the recent gubernatorial election in New Jersey, the rising cost of auto insurance is a key emerging issue for the electorate. The political party that aggressively gets out in front of this issue will reap the political benefits.
DEGETTE - GET BACK ON TRACK
As demonstrated in a Denver Post guest commentary, Colorado DLC board members Doug Friednash and Steve Leatherman make the case for giving President Clinton fast-track trading authority. The piece persuasively encourages Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-Denver) to change her “No” vote to “Yes.” For a copy, contact the Colorado DLC.
DeGette opposes fast-track because, she says, (1) enforceable labor and environmental standards are not required in the core of any new agreement, (2) it will be easier for corporations to take our jobs elsewhere, and (3) it is not needed because the administration has negotiated hundreds of trade agreements and will continue to do so without such authority.
However, requiring standards in the core of any new agreement amounts to the United States dictating the other nation's economic and environmental policies. What self-respecting sovereign nation would come to the negotiating table on these terms?
The fear of “exporting jobs” has nothing to do with fast-track. Today, companies can move their operations overseas with or without fast-track. Besides, Congress can disapprove negotiations before they begin, is guaranteed consultation while they occur, and can reject agreements once they are signed.
Finally, not one single trade agreement requiring action by Congress has been concluded without fast track authority over the last twenty years. Virtually all the major bilateral and regional negotiations just ahead will require implementing legislation by Congress.
Congresswoman DeGette should change her mind. Denver needs more, not less, trade.