Anchorage Daily News

The Senate Finance Committee breathed some life this week into a bill that would expand the state's health care insurance program for low-income children and pregnant women.

The committee finally moved the bill along to the next step.

That's good news, though it will be a stretch to get the bill passed by both houses of the Legislature before adjournment, scheduled Sunday.

Some legislators are reluctant to support the bill because they fear the state won't be able to afford children's health insurance at the increased level at some time in the future.

That would be understandable if Alaska provided children's health insurance at a reasonable level.

It doesn't. Our health insurance program is one of the most stringent in the country. A state as flush as ours should take better care of its children.

Congress created this joint federal-state program to insure children in families with too much income to qualify for Medicaid and too little income to be able to purchase their own private insurance.

In Alaska, the program covers children in families with earnings at 175 percent of the federal poverty level.

Forty-one states include families with earnings at twice the federal poverty level, an aide to Sen. Bettye Davis told the Senate Finance Committee. Davis's bill, which the committee moved out Tuesday, would raise Alaska to the 200 percent level, too.

Angela Liston of Anchorage was one of less than a dozen people testifying at the committee hearing.

"Frankly, as an Alaska resident, it's sort of an embarrassment that Alaska, one of the wealthiest states, has one of the lowest levels of children's health care," she said.

The economic argument against expanding the program is even weaker when you consider that the federal government pays 70 percent of the costs.

It's true that some time in the future, Alaska will likely have to cut back on spending. At that point, the level of children's health insurance will have to be weighed against every other state program.

But that's no reason to deny children who need health care today. We've got the money. We've got no excuses.

BOTTOM LINE: This bill will extend health insurance to more low-income children. It's a no-brainer.

Initiatives

Let's make it easier to follow the money, consider the source

Whether writing new law is the work of citizens or legislators, we do a better job of it in the light of disclosure.

That's why most of House Bill 355, the Open and Transparent Initiative Act, is a good idea.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Kyle Johansen of Ketchikan, would require initiative committees to disclose, right from the start, names of contributors and publish that information online. Anyone donating more than $500 would have to file a separate report on their donation as well. Current law requires disclosure only after the initiative backers have finished gathering signatures. This bill would let voters know before they signed a petition who was backing it.

That kind of information is as important to a fair and open initiative process as it is in any election. The more information we have about who is behind an initiative and why, the better we can judge an initiative's purpose, intent and what, if any, special interests it may serve. And the sooner we know, the better.

The initiative process is a valuable right, guaranteed in the Alaska Constitution. Through it, citizens can work their will when their elected representatives will not.

The bar for success is high, as it should be. Only after a proposed initiative passes legal review and certification by the state can backers then set out to gain signatures. They need to collect registered voters' signatures equal to 10 percent of the vote in the last general election -- currently 23,831. In addition, those signatures must include seven percent of the vote in the last general election from at least 30 of the state's 40 House districts. No exclusive cherry-picking for signatures in the population centers like Anchorage.

That high bar can be expensive to reach. The law allows sponsors to pay signature-gatherers up to $1 a name. Alaskans should be able to know who's paying those bills, or any other expenses involved in an initiative campaign, whether for or against, from the first signature to the morning of the election.

We'd strike one section of the bill, which sets well-meaning but vague guidelines for what a committee can name itself. An initiative committee's name should reflect what an initiative would do. Backers shouldn't be allowed to blow smoke with a bogus name that might win the support of voters who don't read the fine print.

But we'd rather let the political marketplace sort that out than give state employees control over the process. Critics will swiftly point out deceptions. The bill should stick to its prime purpose of disclosure. Then voters can follow the money and draw their own conclusions about whether an initiative committee's name fits.

There's an old line that likens making law to making sausage, and says don't look too closely. Don't buy it. Alaskans need to know how the sausage is made and who's making it.

BOTTOM LINE: Open up the initiative process to more disclosure of financial backers.

ADVERTISEMENT