News-Leader: Please define "resolve"
I'm completely dumbfounded by this morning's editorial in the News-Leader, praising Speaker Ron Richard for his "resolve" in working for autism insurance coverage. The piece notes the Governor's "strong stance" on the issue, and the fact that there's momentum for the bill -- but, like last week's AP story, completely ignores the fact that Ron Richard personally killed autism legislation in the just-ended session. The bill enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support; it passed the Senate, and by all accounts, would have passed the House if Richard had let it come up for a vote.
This isn't some conspiracy theory about backroom dealing. Richard's communications director told the press that the Speaker shut the negotiations down in April, six weeks before the end of session.
GOP State Sen. Scott Rupp blamed Richard and his leadership team last week by name. Only then did Richard appoint a panel to study the issue, after he'd been publicly embarrassed (again).
Yet today's editorial gives credit to Richard for his "resolve," and only refers to opponents as abstract, unnamed forces.
How does one reconcile this...
Autism bill blocked by Speaker of the House
Republican Speaker Ron Richard is the one who stalled an autism bill, killing it in the House.
Earlier in the day, several House committee chairmen pointed fingers at who was responsible for the casualty.
Finally, the Speaker's communications director, Kristen Blanchard admitted the House will not be taking up the bill at the direction of Richard.
...with this?
The last legislative session offered some progress. But the session ended with two bills stalled in the state House and never reaching the floor for discussion.
Heartening news, though, came last week. Speaker of the House Ron Richard told the Associated Press that he will create an interim group of legislators to come up with a plan for mandating the insurance...
We applaud Speaker Richard's resolve on this. We wish his interim panel quick, strong progress toward addressing this profound insurance inequity.
What am I missing?
