American Forum

Monday, November 9, 2009

A Tale of Two Cities

Posted by American Forum at 8:56 AM

NEW MEXICO EDITORIAL FORUM
By Rev. Dr. Holly Beaumont

As I follow the outrageous rumors and disturbing behavior surrounding health care reform I am reminded of an earlier health crisis in this country. The outbreak of the AIDS virus in the 1980s created similar behavior among those who listened to the fear-mongers exploiting the crisis to advance their political and ideological agendas.

One of the victims of that hysteria was a young boy from Kokomo, Indiana named Ryan White. He acquired the AIDS virus through a blood transfusion he received to treat his hemophilia. When his diagnosis was made public Ryan and his family were shunned, vilified and threatened. Classmates refused to attend the same school. Customers dropped his newspaper route. The White family fled their home in Kokomo after someone so filled with hate and fear fired a bullet through their living room window.

Young Ryan and his family moved to the town of Cicero, just 50 miles south of Kokomo. On his first day of school the principal, superintendent of schools, and a number of students greeted Ryan with outstretched hands. It was a powerful gesture of reason and compassion. The news swept the country and began to calm the hysteria.

What made the difference between these two communities that look the same in every other way? Instead of listening to rumors based on ignorance and fueled by fear, the people of Cicero turned to credible sources for reliable information on the AIDS virus, including the Centers for Disease Control and the New England Journal of Medicine. They took the responsibility to educate themselves. They learned the facts, and they realized that many of the rumors about the disease were false. By the time young Ryan arrived they were prepared to welcome him, rather than repeat the shameful mistakes of their neighbors to the north in Kokomo.

Twenty years later, we find ourselves in a similar situation with a similar opportunity. Will we allow profiteers, who will spend whatever it takes to protect their Golden Parachutes, manipulate us? Or will we seek out and listen to credible, reliable voices that have a proven record of serving rather than exploiting the people of this country?

Are you listening to Rush Limbaugh, who signed a new contract in 2008 worth $400 million? According to the LA Times, “Limbaugh's annual salary is more than the combined annual salaries of the four best paid news anchors on network television.” Do you believe Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who made the false statement at a recent town hall meeting that “You have every right to fear…a government-run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma?” Grassley accepts huge contributions from the very industries that are spending millions to shut down reasoned debate on health care reform to protect their obscene profits.

If you are searching for credible, reliable voices supporting health care reform, the list is long. I would refer you to Faithful Reform, the national interfaith coalition that includes the United Methodist Church, United Church of Christ, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Union for Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, American Muslim Health Professionals and Buddhist Peace Fellowship. Other groups working for health care reform include the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Nursing, the Children’s Defense Fund, YWCA, NAACP, AARP and the AFL-CIO. I urge you to visit their web sites.

The polls show that over 70 percent of Americans recognize the need for health care reform and support a quality health care system that serves people rather than profits.

Health care reform is the most critical issue we face as a nation. If this democracy is going to survive and thrive each of us must take the responsibility to seek reasonable and reliable sources, learn the facts, and then let our voices be heard. The choice is ours. Are we Kokomo or Cicero?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beaumont is a legislative advocate for the New Mexico Conference of Churches.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 11/09

Friday, November 6, 2009

The Shadow of States' Rights

Posted by American Forum at 6:31 AM

MINNESOTA EDITORIAL FORUM
By Dan McGrath

Governor Tim Pawlenty’s call for states to stand behind the 10th Amendment to avoid federal health care reform is the latest political ploy from an ambitious politician. And Pawlenty’s call has been joined by State Representative Tom Emmer, who himself hopes to succeed Pawlenty as governor.

One thing’s for certain -- Tim Pawlenty is running for president. And, he’s willing to support some radical ideas in order to lead a crowded field of better known Republican hopefuls. But while states’ rights may be a sure winner with today’s Republican caucus goers, it was most memorably used during one of the greatest tests of our national resolve, the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. And its connotations are not pretty.

As with civil rights, no other issue today matches health care reform for the deep emotional response it elicits. In the 1950s and 60s, a national consensus emerged that the status quo -- segregation -- was unacceptable. Today, the vast majority of Americans agree that the current health care system is badly broken and must be fixed. Both issues raise the same moral question: is inequality OK? Is it acceptable for some to be excluded from access to health care because of cost, employment status, pre-existing condition, or the whims of the private insurance industry? If not, what are we as a society going to do about it and what is the role of our national government?

With his invocation of states’ rights, Pawlenty makes another connection between the health care debate and the civil rights movement. The same threat was tried by southern governors to resist desegregation. Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus used the 10th Amendment to resist President Eisenhower’s order to desegregate Little Rock Central High School. Five years later, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett used the same argument to block James Meredith’s admission to the University of Mississippi. The next year, George Wallace, governor of Alabama, literally stood in the way of a federal desegregation order for the Alabama public schools. In each case, the 10th Amendment was invoked as the last defense of an unjust system against an enlightened national consensus.

Here in Minnesota, health insurance premiums for Minnesota families have increased 35 percent. Minnesota's uninsured population now stands at over 450,000. And earlier this year, Pawlenty eliminated coverage for another 30,000 of the state’s poorest adults, disproportionately impacting minorities and people of color who are overrepresented in public health care programs.

This is the track record Governor Pawlenty wants to protect from federal intervention?

We don’t know what kind of health care reform will emerge out of Washington this fall. And, we don’t know its scope. But, if President Obama’s core principles are met, we do know that more Americans will have access to the health care they need at a more affordable cost.

The late Senator Strom Thurmond, former Governor of South Carolina, ran for President in 1948 as a third-party “Dixiecrat,” using the cry for states’ rights to advance his political ambitions. Southern Democrats, alarmed that the federal government had begun the tilt toward support for civil rights, saw their way of life crumbling. Thurmond exploited this sentiment for political gain, earning only 2.4 percent of the popular vote, but mobilizing segregationists nationally.

Like Thurmond, Faubus, and Wallace before him, time will tell if Tim Pawlenty will come out on the right, or on the wrong, side of history. But in going to extremes to deny Minnesotans the ability to access the same federal health care that other Americans would have the freedom to enjoy, it’s hard not to predict the latter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McGrath is the executive director of TakeAction Minnesota.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2009 by the Minnesota Editorial Forum. 11/09

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Preventing Breast Cancer Through Health Care Reform!

Posted by American Forum at 8:19 AM

By Wendy C. Wolf

One simple test could end up saving thousands of women’s lives. Yet, for those without health insurance, the test comes too late. According to the American Cancer Society, this year alone an estimated 40,170 women will lose their lives to breast cancer. Meanwhile, it is estimated that 4,000 breast cancer deaths could be prevented just by increasing the percentage of women who receive breast cancer screenings to 90 percent.

Breast cancer often can be treated with early detection. That's why health insurance that pays for mammograms is especially important. But mammography rates declined between 2003 and 2005, with a notable decrease for Hispanic women (from 65 percent to 59 percent) and African-American women (from 70 percent to 65 percent). An estimated one in five women over 50 has not received a mammogram in the past two years.

Everyone needs health insurance to keep healthy, yet women are disproportionately underinsured. An estimated 21 million women and girls went without health insurance in 2007, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. And a recent congressional report found that 18 percent of all women not eligible for Medicare are uninsured, which translates to 28 percent of 19 to 24 year olds and 26 percent of single mothers without insurance.

Why are so many women left uncovered? Perhaps it’s because many medical situations faced by women are treated as pre-existing conditions, including breast cancer. The National Cancer Institute estimated that in 2004 approximately 2.4 million women had a history of breast cancer. But without continuing coverage, cancer survivors face steep risks.

A recent report by the Department of Health and Human Services found that breast cancer patients with employer-based insurance had total out-of-pocket costs averaging $6,250 in 2007, higher than out-of-pocket spending for patients with asthma, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or high blood pressure.

Why are women falling behind in insurance coverage faster than men? According to the Department of Health and Human Services, various factors restrict women's access to health care, which include a vast array of "pre-existing conditions” such as breast cancer, pregnancy, caesarian section and domestic violence. In addition, women are less likely to be employed full time, which makes them less likely to be eligible for employer-based health benefits. In fact, fewer than half of women have the option of obtaining employer-based coverage.

Any health care reform proposal should take that into consideration and include access to comprehensive care, including preventative care such as mammograms. Americans, men and women alike, understand this need. A recent poll commissioned by Moving Forward, a values-based research initiative developed by the Women Donors Network and the Communications Consortium, found that a strong majority of voters -- 87 percent -- think insurance companies should be required to cover women’s preventive care and screenings, such as contraception, Pap tests for cervical cancer and breast cancer screenings.

Public health experts recommend health insurance coverage be universal and available to all regardless of work status, place of residence, health status or other factors unrelated to need. Reform should be aimed at achieving quality outcomes and eliminating disparities as well as at being affordable. Coverage also needs to be continuous from birth until end of life without interruptions or delays, as gaps in existing coverage allows women to fall through the cracks.

Reform will bring health care to more American women and their families than ever before in our nation's history. Women would do well to learn more about their stake in health care reform. One good resource is www.WomenandHealthCareReform.org. As we end National Breast Cancer Awareness month, the best thing we can do to end breast cancer is to make sure all health insurance coverage is universal -- not limited by exclusions due to pre-existing conditions -- and includes preventative care and basic services such as breast and cervical cancer screenings. Let's create a system that provides health care, not just sick care.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf is a board member of Living Beyond Breast Cancer and Women Donors Network and leads WDN’s effort on reproductive and other health issues.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 10/09

Monday, November 2, 2009

A Budget Solution that Balances Cuts with New Revenues

Posted by American Forum at 10:34 AM

OHIO FORUM
By State Representatives Mike Foley and Bob Hagan

Ohio is a great, messy, complicated state. We are conservative and liberal, libertarian and socialist. We likewise have a whole bunch of moderates except for the host of issues on which they swing to the left or right. In the partisan parlance of the day, Ohio is a purple state. In a word, we are normal.

We have some real structural economic problems now, however. Problems we can only solve if we rebalance our politics and take some progressive economic actions.

First and foremost, we must deal with our budget or lack thereof. Since 2005, when Ohio enacted a dramatic tax cut, our economy has been headed for the train wreck where it ended up this year.

While Gov. Strickland should be commended for seeking a moderate solution, his hands are somewhat tied by the legislature in which we serve. Ohio needs a bold, progressive solution. In the past few years, all Ohioans have seen a dramatic reduction in the taxes people and corporations pay. This may seem popular, but these tax cuts have not only wrought enormous, unnecessary challenges; they have failed to produce any of the economic results which led to their original implementation.

The argument for these dramatic tax cuts was that it would stimulate Ohio’s economy; it did not. Rather, Ohio’s economy sank further, well before the current national economic troubles. In fact, were it not for the national crisis, Ohio would be in much bigger trouble than it currently is, thanks to federal “stimulus” funds.

We cannot make up for the harm of the 2005 tax cut policy, but we can stop it from causing further damage. We can bring Ohio back from the edge of greater decline. Rather than following the governor’s modest proposal, we should repeal much of the 2005 income tax cut and restore Ohio’s upper tax levels to those of 2005. The benefits from pursuing this policy are many. Don’t forget, the compromise budget adopted last summer left not only many people unhappy, it left far too many of our fellow citizens hurting even more.

The pain of the cuts enacted just 10 weeks ago is already being felt throughout our state. Among the Ohioans who lost out are our youngest and oldest neighbors and those most in need of help. From the Early Learning Initiative to adult protective services, programs and services geared to enable children to start school well-prepared and to ensure that the oldest among us are not abused have been eliminated and decimated by budget cuts.

Community mental health services were cut by nearly $200 million compared to spending last year. These cuts have occurred at a time of unprecedented need.

We cannot wait any longer for a bold solution. That solution is pretty obvious, it involves simply restoring tax rates for those earning more than $200,000 annually to the level prior to the 2005 cuts and creating a new tax bracket for those earning more than $500,000. Both rates are lower than the top tax rate for several years during the 1980s.

Certainly, those among us earning such high salaries at this time of crisis are willing to contribute just a little bit more, so that all of us can have a better future. One thing we know about Ohioans is that despite our flaws, we care about our state and each other.

Given our crisis, those who make more have more to contribute. They have done well by Ohio. It is not such a bad thing to require those who are doing pretty well right now, to help those who are struggling, by contributing more in taxes to the state.

We need adequate social services; we need good schools; commonsense development patterns; recreation centers and parks; clean drinking water and air; bridge inspectors; meat inspectors; colleges and universities; great transportation networks. The list goes on. But none of this happens without sharing the costs, burdens and opportunities.

We love Ohio. It has contradictions galore and a sense of absurdity that we adore. But we hate that amidst all of our history of innovation and hard work, the portion of us that is selfish has been encouraged and indulged by our state government for the last two decades.

We can extricate some of that selfishness from our tax code. It is past time. Having top income earners paying their fair share would provide Ohio’s bone-dry budget with an additional $1.4 billion just in this budget period. It’s the right thing to do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foley is a state representative (D-District 14). Hagan is a state representative (D-District 60).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Ohio Forum. 10/09

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Historic Health Care Reforms on the Way for Women

Posted by American Forum at 9:22 AM

WISCONSIN FORUM
By Dr. Doug Laube

Ten years ago, the Centers for Disease Control listed the top 10 achievements of public health in the 20th century -- among them, family planning, control of infectious disease, and vaccinations. These achievements vastly improved our quality of life, resulting in an increase in life expectancy, worldwide reduction in infant and child mortality, and the elimination or reduction of many communicable diseases.

Following President Obama’s historic address to the nation, America is poised for the first dramatic public health achievement of the 21st century.

What makes this moment truly life-changing in every sense of the word is that, for the first time, more women and their families will have coverage than ever before in our nation’s history.

However, if a new national health plan is to fulfill the goal of correcting our fragmented health system and improving America’s health, then it must address the specific health needs of women. That’s why earlier this year, I and a group of medical and public health colleagues contributed to a scientific, data-driven report stating that reproductive health should be an essential part of any national health plan. Our statement was endorsed by 39 deans of schools of public health.

According to the report, issued under the aegis of Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, “a well-woman standard of care -- one that includes access to comprehensive care and services essential to reproductive health -- will ensure that women can attain good health, maintain it through their reproductive years and age well.”

Put simply: without making women’s reproductive health a central component of health care reform, we will not have real reform in the 21st century.

The scientific data point to the compelling need to improve the reproductive health of all Americans. Rates of maternal and infant mortality, low birth weight, unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections are much too high for a nation that is rich in resources and technical competence. Moreover, health problems are concentrated among disadvantaged groups, and these disparate rates have stagnated or worsened over the past three decades.

The good news is that the proposals currently being considered in the House and Senate contain many of the critical elements that will help us address these problems. For the first time, women will be able to participate in a health care system in which:

Maternity and reproductive health will be part of a basic care package.

Women won’t be charged more because of their gender.

An affordability provision will subsidize those who can’t afford insurance.

Out-of-pocket costs will be capped so that families don’t go bankrupt.

No American can be denied health coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition, including breast cancer, pregnancy or evidence of “uninsurability” such as being a victim of domestic violence.

Key preventative tests, like mammograms and pap smears, will be included in basic care.

The reforms currently on the horizon are significant not just for women but also for their families, because women act as gatekeepers for the health care that their children, spouses or parents receive. According to the Department of Labor, women make approximately 80 percent of all family health care decisions. But until now, these gatekeepers have all too often been denied the keys to the health care kingdom.

Nearly one-quarter of all women depend on coverage through their husbands’ employment, leaving them vulnerable to the loss of coverage if divorced or widowed, or if their husbands lose their jobs. Recent years have seen an overall decline in health insurance coverage for women. In 2006, 10 percent of American women received coverage through Medicaid, while 18 percent of women were completely uninsured.

For all of these women, including the 21 million American women and girls currently without health insurance, change cannot come soon enough.

As the president said in his speech, health care reform is not about politics -- it is about shaping the future. But in order to bring about that future, we must show what is at stake and why it is in everyone’s interest to demand coverage that recognizes women’s basic needs and is truly health care, not just sick care.

Without these critical changes, our current system may well top the list of the biggest health care disasters of the 21st century.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Laube is Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Wisconsin and Past President of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Wisconsin Forum. 10/09

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Nonprofits are Good for New Mexico

Posted by American Forum at 12:49 PM

NEW MEXICO EDITORIAL FORUM
By Ona Porter

Following the close of the 2008 legislative session, and in preparation for a special legislative session on health care, New Mexico Youth Organized (NMYO) and Southwest Organizing Project (SWOP) distributed mailers to the constituents of six legislators. The mailers informed constituents about how their legislators were voting on critical issues and provided information about the source of contributions their legislators were receiving from special interests. Believing this to be political campaign intervention, Secretary Mary Herrera, acting on the advice of Attorney General Gary King, ordered the nonprofits to register as political action committees (PACs). A lawsuit disputing the claim quickly followed.

Recently, Judge Judith Herrera issued an important federal court decision in this closely watched case. In her decision, Judge Herrera sided with decades of legal precedent, and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Free speech is a value that all of us hold sacred. The implications of having nonprofits, whose primary purpose is not the election or defeat of candidates, register as PACs for simply speaking out about an issue are chilling. If nonprofits were forced to register as PACs, it would severely restrict the ability of thousands of organizations across New Mexico to serve their communities. Perhaps most importantly, it would leave critical voices unheard.

Most people are familiar with the services that nonprofit organizations provide to vulnerable people throughout our state. But the work of nonprofits often goes beyond service provision and extends to advocacy. If a family is homeless, it’s important to provide that family with shelter. At the same time, we must address the causes of homelessness if there is any hope for an America where decent affordable housing is available in all of our communities. That work is advocacy. Similarly, if someone contracts cancer due to exposure to second-hand smoke, providing that person with treatment and perhaps hospice care is essential. But getting to the root of the problem at a policy level will help save lives. That takes advocacy.

Another crucial component of nonprofit advocacy is accountability. Holding our public officials accountable to the needs of their constituents is a core function for nonprofit organizations. Stopping short of criticizing an elected official, simply because that official will stand for election at some point in the future, undermines the essence of our democratic process.

Our elected leaders should be working for all of us, vulnerable communities included. When they do not, nonprofits have a responsibility to point it out. Can you imagine a policy debate in which only corporate interests get to provide input? New Mexicans across the state would get the short end of the stick if they did not have nonprofits working to make sure their voices are heard and their interests accounted for.

Nonprofit organizations also meet with elected leaders to share the complex information, research and experience that is critical to public policy decisionmaking. Issues that affect our communities, like affordable housing, poverty, health care, and education are given greater attention because of the hard work of nonprofits. Absent that role effectively executed, communities that have a huge stake in the outcomes would lose a voice in the policy making process.

In a study of just 14 nonprofits in New Mexico that was completed by the National Committee For Responsible Philanthropy late last year, the researchers documented that the total dollar amount of benefits accruing to the groups’ constituencies and the broader public in the five-year period studied was more than $2.6 billion. Additionally, they found that for every $1 invested in the 14 groups for advocacy and organizing ($16.6 million total), the groups garnered more than $157 in benefits for New Mexico communities. Thus, the return on investment and economic stimulus of organizing and advocacy by nonprofits in New Mexico is inarguably significant to our state's wellbeing.

In a state where money and resources are scarce, it is absolutely critical that we not tie the hands of those who are working hard to build their communities. In addition to the hundreds of millions of dollars nonprofits bring to our state's economy, they provide critical services, empower communities, and advocate on behalf of those same communities in order to solve social and economic problems. Some elected officials continue to look for ways to silence nonprofits. This must stop. Instead, we hope those who have actively worked to undermine the work of New Mexico’s nonprofits will accept the clear reasoning in Judge Herrera’s legal decision, and acknowledge and support all of the good the nonprofit sector brings to our state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Porter is the executive director for Community Action New Mexico.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2009 by the New Mexico Editorial Forum. 10/09

Budget Reform Won't Turn Colorado into California

Posted by American Forum at 8:21 AM

COLORADO EDITORIAL FORUM

By Matt Sundeen

There's a story going around that's so scary it ought to be told only in a whisper:

If Colorado tries to untangle the conflicts in its budget, it will end up like...California.

No self-respecting state would want that. The massive budget cuts, the IOUs, the celebrity governor autographing government-surplus sale items...yikes! Just the thought makes your blood curdle.

The "change makes us California" story is intended to scare us, but like many good tales, it's blatantly untrue. Budget reforms will not transform us into the Golden State. Almost the opposite is true. In many ways, Colorado is already like California, and if we don't change, more California-type problems are likely.

Opponents of budget reform have peddled the Colorado-to-California scare tactic for years. This summer, the Independence Institute's Barry Poulson repeated it to Colorado's Long-term Fiscal Stability Commission. Speaking about Colorado's ongoing reform efforts, Poulson warned that "if these trends continue, the outcome in Colorado will be similar to that in California."

Poulson supported his ominous assertion by comparing Colorado to California of the 1980s. That's when California voters modified their GANN amendment, a constitutional provision similar to our own TABOR. After that, the story goes, California spiraled into a free-spending budget morass – a state that people and businesses were eager to leave. Surely a similar nightmare would befall Colorado, Poulson intimated.

The comparison is simplistic and false. It ignores meaningful differences between the two states. California boasts one of the world's 10 largest economies, and a general fund budget roughly 13 times the size of Colorado's. California state services support nearly 38 million people, compared to the 4.9 million here.

California's main problem is its requirement for a two-thirds "supermajority" vote by its legislature to pass fiscal measures. This provision allows individual lawmakers to hold the budget hostage each year and makes it almost impossible to pass anything on time. The result is an annual budget impasse and the perception that California is running amok. Stunningly, many in the Colorado-to-California crowd have called for a similar supermajority rule here.

It's also noteworthy that California's GANN changes did not lead to runaway taxes, stagnant growth and people fleeing the state. California's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office reports that California tax rates, though slightly higher than the national average, are comparable to tax rates in the western region and in other large states. Many corporate powerhouses are located in California, and the state experienced sustained economic growth in the 1990s and early 2000s. Although its growth has slowed along with the rest of the country, California's population continues to climb.

Unfortunately, the "change makes us California" story overshadows the real threat. Colorado's lawmakers are already hamstrung by many of the budget conditions afflicting California. Look at the similarities:

Both states limit residential property taxes. Over time, that's reduced local revenues and shifted much of the public education costs to the states' budgets.

Voters in both states passed constitutional budget formulas that guaranteed ever-increasing amounts for K-12 education. That means K-12 funding must grow even when state revenues drop.

Both states are experiencing fiscal pressure from other programs that can't be cut, notably corrections and federally mandated Medicaid. Roughly 73 percent of their general fund budgets are consumed by K-12 education, Medicaid and corrections.

Although we don't have a supermajority requirement, Colorado's voter-approval requirement in TABOR has a similar effect -- revenue increases to pay for our growing costs aren't impossible, but they are highly improbable.

Those restrictions are creating significant fiscal headaches. This year, the economic downturn forced Colorado lawmakers to close a $1.8 billion budget shortfall. With limited options, the resulting cuts hurt -- layoffs and furloughs for state employees, a closed nursing home and a shutdown of a prison project are examples. And all indications are that next year will be just as painful, if not more so.

The lesson is this: Don't be scared by wild stories that budget reform will turn Colorado into California. It won't. But inaction might cause budget paralysis that's just as bad, and that's what's truly worrisome.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sundeen is a senior policy analyst and general counsel for the Bell Policy Center, a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research center in Denver.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Colorado Editorial Forum. 10/09

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

An American Renaissance for the New Millennium

Posted by American Forum at 6:44 AM

By Hector Garcia

The financial, economic and environmental crises are alarm signals to the world, and particularly to us in the U.S. Acting on the basis of a fragmented worldview while globalization magnified and quickened that worldview’s effects, we rushed into unsustainable and destructive practices. On the other hand, we now have an opportunity to build the foundation for an American Renaissance. Extrapolating from Peter Senge’s learning organizations, “where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire,” the U.S. can shift to a paradigm of a learning global nation.

Our financial and economic formulas functioned well within the nation-state paradigm for most in developed countries and some in developing countries; the marginalized experienced totally different results, but couldn't convey their dissatisfaction effectively. Thus, 4 percent of the world's population could consume a quarter of global resources, enjoy a continuously improving material quality of life and disregard global consequences as externalities because no one of significance seemed to complain. Indeed, many developing nations still think they should enjoy the same increasing affluence with little accountability. Once 17 percent of the world's population, consuming at the American rate, surpasses 100 percent of global resources, what should the rest do?

Because it seemed we had devised a flawless machine -- the intelligent market -- and had reached what Francis Fukuyama termed “the end of history,” the rush to expand use of our unrestrained growth formulas finally boomeranged.

The crises encompass international relations and the environment. The buffer of delayed effects of our actions and the resilience of humanity and nature allowed us to be indifferent to the impact we were having on each other and the environment. This buffer is no longer capable of shielding us in the smaller world of globalization.

Yet, we are not letting go of the nation-state mindset and other cherished but less reputable notions, such as the mantras used to manipulate the public -- “You can have it all, looking out for No. 1, and winning is the only thing,” which are alive and well. Economist Paul Krugman recently wrote that we are unable to give up the also simplistic “ideology that says government intervention is always bad, and leaving the private sector to its own devices is always good.” Consequently, dilemmas are resurfacing: excessive compensation to executives in bailed-out institutions, new Wall Street grand ideas for securitization, trade protectionism proposals, a militarized wall between the U.S. and its free-trade partner and neighbor, credit cards being used for rent and food at exorbitant rates of interest, and a Yale professor in the Washington Post calling for American corporations to continue striving for “the highest profits in history.”

The solutions to dilemmas the nation and world face are all around us, but we cannot see them because we retain dysfunctional either/or mindsets. We need to acknowledge their incongruence and shift to a paradigm more in keeping with the reality of globalization -- both its powerful forces and its definition of our limitations. We need to see, think and act as global nations instead of nation-states…as citizens of the world instead of exclusively national citizens.

Secretary of the Treasury Geithner appeared on CNN and repeatedly told interviewer Zakaria that he was glad other nations, particularly China, have accepted the “imperative” of consuming more and saving less. This isn't a paradigm shift; it's an expansion of a culture of excessive consumption that the U.S. and others have been following for years and which has been recently identified by a few prestigious and courageous economists as the culprit behind the financial and economic crises.

Geithner also claimed that our government has implemented a strategy in response to the crises. TARP and the stimulus package do not constitute a strategy; they are tactical corrective measures to regain liquidity and trust. Some economists had delayed judgment so as to not exacerbate the public’s anxiety, expecting that there was an undisclosed strategy behind those measures. Now it appears that a new strategy might not exist. Reactivating the economy with a capital infusion is not dealing with fundamental problems brought to light by the crises; without a long-term and new strategy, it is creating false long-term expectations.

Only a new paradigm can lead us to a new strategy; yet a new vision does not have to reject our identity. This new paradigm can complement the context of globalization and foundational principles of this nation: educated democratic participation; association and collaboration; accountability; frugality; modesty; honesty; and “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind.” The latter will help us become a learning global nation, which will allow us to learn from Japan’s and China’s dominant linkage of finance to the real economy, from the banking practices of Canada to better regulate our financial system, from Norway’s medical insurance coverage of its citizens treated in Denmark to expand Medicare coverage to selected Mexican clinics for the million Americans now living in Mexico and the many more who would move there if coverage were available, from the nations who excel in moderation and moral values.

Yes, let us continue giving credit to American innovation and individualism. But let us balance them with wisdom and the overarching goal of the common good. We've demonstrated capacity to unleash powerful forces; now we need to “see” sufficiently and to learn how to manage these. The complexity and paradoxes of a globalized reality call for a paradigm of complementarity --seeing through this prism, we can create the results we truly desire!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garcia is a consultant on international trade and investment and on intercultural communications.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 10/09

Friday, October 23, 2009

PBS program asks doctors about health care reform

Posted by American Forum at 9:05 AM

KRWG - Newsmakers in Las Cruces, New Mexico recently aired a program about the multitudes of doctors that are speaking out about healthcare reform. They interviewed New Mexico Editorial Forum author Dr. Sandra Penn, who recently penned an op-ed "Stop Negotiating Away the Public Health Insurance Model" about her views that Congress is letting real reform slip away. You can see her interview for yourself, which occurs at the 5 minute mark.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

A Rose for Sister Mary

Posted by American Forum at 12:11 PM

IOWA FORUM
By Erik Camayd-Freixas

When the Iowa Department of Human Rights awarded the 2009 Cristine Wilson Medal for Equality and Justice to Sister Mary McCauley for her defense of community after the Postville raid, she humbly said: “It is our duty to work for equality and justice.”

These are just the latest of this brave woman’s history-bound words in a ministry that started the day of the raid, May 12, 2008, when she summoned Father Paul Ouderkirk out of retirement with a phone call: “Father, we need a collar down here.” Ever since, she has been a pillar of strength and inspiration to many in Postville and across the country.

When I was inside Waterloo’s National Cattle Congress, interpreting the misguided prosecutions and watching authorities sworn to uphold the Constitution deny it to 389 ragged workers in chains and tears, I was reminded of Orwell’s Animal Farm: All are equal under the law, “but some are more equal than others.” I was dumbfounded, confused, and afraid, with no one to turn to for guidance on equality and justice. That is when I found Sister Mary.

It was the evening of May 13th. Eager to find out what was happening “on the outside,” I found an Internet video clip of Sister Mary, surrounded by trembling women and children, describing the tragedy. “This shattered us,” she said firmly. “Hundreds of families were torn apart by this raid. The humanitarian impact is obvious to anyone in Postville. The economic impact will soon be evident.” I had found a moral compass.

Sister Mary had told the world what was happening in Postville. The ball was in my court: Shame on me, if I didn’t follow her lead and tell what happened on the inside. After I published my essay on the Waterloo prosecutions, she wrote to thank me. Since then we have corresponded and spoken regularly about equality and justice.

Those who do not know her might think she is a passionate advocate. Yet it is not passion or politics that drives her, but duty, serene faith, sheer humanity, and intelligence. Sister Mary is the voice of reason and sanity in times of extremism and crisis. Hundreds of gendarmes in trucks and helicopters storm the town; wailing children, destitute mothers, hungry workers beg for shelter; community volunteers seek her direction; and Sister Mary delivers, calm amid the storm. Her composure and kindness are a source of strength for others.

I joined the Postville relief effort part-time from afar and found it heart-wrenching, even in small doses. I wondered over the months how those in Postville could cope day-to-day with so much misery. I understood when I met Sister Mary last October at Luther College and at the Postville anniversary vigil in May. A year of stress and sorrow had taken a visible toll on many of the relief workers, but Sister Mary was in for the long run.

Day in and day out they reckoned with the traumatized children; the desperate women with ankle monitors and deformed hands from 24,000 daily cuts on the meatpacking line; the starving families in Guatemala and Mexico, the workers languishing in jail, the persistent fear and despair, the bills, the legal and medical needs, the empty food pantry, the crumbling economy of the town, the homeless, and the long, cold, heartless winter of 2008. And they are still at it. Sister Mary’s work is far from over.

Almost a year and a half later, among many other problems, there are still women with electronic shackles and ankle sores, suffering from depression and post-traumatic stress. Sister Mary accepted the Human Rights Medal on their behalf.

In contrast with Mary McCauley’s leadership and grandeur stands the federal government’s callous disregard for the local community, both migrant and Iowan. Postville’s is the most egregious example of reckless enforcement, abuse of process, and domestic interventionism in American history. Yet no investigation, acceptance of responsibility, or assistance of any kind has been forthcoming. Instead, a follower, in this untoward prosecutorial debacle, is being promoted to a position of leadership as Northern Iowa’s U.S. Attorney.

The Cristine Wilson Medal, reserved for true leaders, is a fitting preview of how history will regard these events and their participants. It symbolizes the inspiring strength of the individual, and shows the world that in the end, big government was no match for the little nun from Iowa.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Camayd-Freixas, is a professor of modern languages at Florida International University.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Iowa Forum. 10/09

Back to the Future for Energy Policy

Posted by American Forum at 11:06 AM

By Ed Smeloff and Scott Denman

Too much heat and too little light are being generated right now inside the Washington, DC Beltway on the issue of global warming. Some electric utilities and allies in the coal and nuclear industries claim that only coal or nuclear reactors can meet future energy needs and combat global climate change. They say there is no other way.

However, beyond the Beltway there is clear evidence that there is another way. There is a prosperous new direction – without using more polluting coal or building more expensive, dangerous nuclear reactors.

This “third way” takes advantage of America’s vast – and easily recovered – energy efficiency ‘reserves’ and dramatically expands reliance on a wealth-creating mix of advanced and renewable energy technologies.

Quietly, but steadily, one major U.S. utility, California’s Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), has spent the last 20 years demonstrating that this “third way” powers economic growth, is easier on the family pocketbook, and slashes air pollution.

Despite its odd sounding acronym, SMUD’s success – now spanning two decades – is a model for other cities, states and indeed, for Congress. SMUD’s path to success began in 1989 when Sacramento voters closed the problem-plagued and expensive Rancho Seco nuclear reactor. SMUD's citizen leaders then embarked on an ambitious and remarkably productive, utility-led, energy efficiency and green energy initiative.

Since the vote to shutdown their troubled reactor, Sacramento’s industries, commercial businesses, residents, and nonprofit institutions, have benefited from consistently lower electric rates than California’s major utilities. Close collaboration with customers is a key to SMUD’s comprehensive energy efficiency programs and renewable energy development, ranging from detailed audits of industrial facilities to incentives for miserly refrigerators and compact light bulbs. SMUD even enabled local manufacturers to “co-generate” electricity for the community together with the steam needed for their industrial processes.

Moody’s Investor Service, Wall Street’s fiscal watchdog of U.S. utility performance, rates SMUD higher than or equal to other U.S. utilities that operate nuclear reactors. In June, Moody’s warned that: “The likelihood that Moody’s will take a more negative rating position for most issuers actively seeking to build new nuclear generation is increasing.”

On the cost side of the energy equation, a new, comprehensive academic report from Vermont Law School (VLS) on the prospective economics of new reactors underscores Moody’s wariness of embracing a new generation of reactors. The study, conducted by Dr. Mark Cooper, found that efficiency and renewable energy cost estimates average 6 cents per kilowatt-hour, while the cost of electricity from new nuclear reactors is estimated in the range of 12 to 20 cents per kilowatt-hour. VLS’s analysis concludes that, “the additional cost of building 100 new reactors, instead of pursuing a least cost efficiency-renewable strategy, would be in the range of $1.9-$4.1 trillion over the life of the reactors.”

Congress and the American people have heard this story before – promises that nuclear power is a solution to America’s energy needs. In fact, nuclear power continues to be a fiscal black hole; looming as a fool’s gold solution to the growing real threat posed by global climate change.

Many states “get it” and are now implementing SMUD-type programs. More than two dozen states have legislated or passed referenda requiring that utilities provide a specific percentage – typically ranging between 10-30 percent of their electricity supply – to be generated by sustainable energy resources by a certain date. Nearly 1,000 mayors of cities like Denver, Chicago, Portland, Austin, and Salt Lake City, representing tens of millions of Americans, have signed the Mayor’s Initiative on Climate Change, pledging to use sustainable energy resources to power their jurisdictions to prosperity.

Nevertheless, Beltway cheerleaders for the nuclear and coal industries are trying to force us, the taxpayers, to give away tens of billions more in shaky loan guarantees. This scheme shifts responsibility for failed nuclear projects onto the backs of the American families and businesses -- despite the conclusion of the Congressional Budget Office that 50 percent of such nuclear reactor loans will likely default.

The nuclear industry and their lobbyists want us to take the risk while they pocket the profits. New nuclear reactors would lead us deeper into national financial debt, and weaken our economy.

Congress must look outside the Beltway and adopt practical and profitable solutions like Sacramento did 20 years ago. It’s time to make energy efficiency, wind, geothermal, biomass, and solar power the cornerstone of America’s energy future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smeloff is a developer of utility-scale solar projects for SunPower Corporation and the former president of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. Denman is an energy policy consultant and the former executive director of the national sustainable energy advocacy coalition, the Safe Energy Communication Council.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 10/09

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

A Moral Mandate: Education for Life Choices

Posted by American Forum at 6:22 AM

MISSISSIPPI FORUM
By Marsha Meeks Kelly

In another life, I was a public school teacher. English, math and eventually “Skills for Adolescence” were the subjects that consumed my days along with an average of 140 seventh graders.

Every day I worked hard to meet the needs of my students in “inner-city” public schools in Mississippi. I remember the tears of the student who came to me to discuss her pregnancy and how she was going to tell her parents and whether she should get married at 13 years of age.

That year we started a “Peer Ears” program, a peer counseling program, and the next year we started survival skills classes called “Skills for Adolescence.” Too many pregnancies and too many sexually-transmitted diseases forced our school district to incorporate classes to educate our students about their life decisions.

Reading the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report on the sexual and reproductive health of young people was depressing. So little progress has been made here! Twenty years ago several concerned Mississippians formed a statewide coalition to work with the legislature to ensure a comprehensive K-12 health education curriculum, but we still do not have even a pilot program offering students sex education, despite attempts to institute such a program in the 2009 legislative session.

The CDC reports that Mississippi is still among the top states in the nation in the spread of HIV and AIDS among pre-teens. We also have the highest birth rate in the nation for mothers ages 10-14 and 15-17, and have seen a spike in sexually-transmitted diseases. Several government studies have confirmed that about 60 percent of Mississippi high school students are sexually active, but most do not use birth control. The statistics are heart-rending and constitute a moral mandate for action by the leadership of this state.

Mississippi can change such statistics, but like every problem, leaders must step up, understand the issues, look at possible curriculums, get educated and educate our citizens and our youth.

In all my years in public service, I have always been more interested in the opinions of folks in the field rather than critics on the sidelines. I ask the state legislature, the Governor, and the Lieutenant Governor to once more convene a working group focused on comprehensive sex education. This group should include educators, parents, students, social workers and health professionals who deal with youth to ensure that people on the frontlines of teen pregnancy and HIV/AIDS prevention are at the planning table. There are models from other states, like the F.L.A.S.H. program in Washington State, which can be considered.

Young people in Mississippi make tough decisions every day. We can’t be with them all the time, but we can increase their ability to make informed, responsible decisions by giving them the information they need. Comprehensive sex education delays sexual activity and promotes healthier life choices, according to a review of research on the subject by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.

It is time to set aside emotions and focus on filling the educational gap that jeopardizes the future of so many of our youth. We need a model program that can be set in place across the state. Our young people are counting on us; their health and their future are at stake.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly is the recently retired executive director of the Mississippi Commission for Volunteer Service.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Mississippi Forum 10/09

Monday, October 19, 2009

Putting Maternity Care to Work in Health Care Reform

Posted by American Forum at 9:17 AM

By Maureen P. Corry, MPH

“I don’t need maternity care.” Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) lobbed this comment against Sen. Debbie Stabenow’s (D-MI) efforts to guarantee maternity coverage as a basic benefit in health care reform. “Your mom probably did,” Stabenow famously shot back. That exchange and the wave of support that followed for Stabenow’s proposals illustrates how out of step Kyl is with a huge majority of Americans, including those in his own party.

Voters across the political spectrum are almost universal in their support for making maternity care an essential health insurance benefit through health care reform, according to a new poll conducted by Mark Mellman and commissioned by the Communications Consortium Media Center and the Women Donors Network. Fully 86 percent of voters strongly support a guaranteed maternity care benefit, and 95 percent believe that women should have the right to decide when to have a child, where to give birth and the health care provider who will attend their birth.

At Childbirth Connection, a 91-year-old national organization advocating high quality, evidence-based maternity care, we are not surprised by these results. We’ve known for years that rapid gains in the quality, value and cost of maternity care are well within reach. Health care reform is our opportunity to ensure that all women and babies get higher quality care with better results, and savings from following best practices can be put toward providing coverage for all.

It’s a fact: Maternity care is an essential component of women’s health care across their lifespan, and it represents a major segment of the health industry. Eighty-five percent of all women give birth, and childbirth is the No. 1 reason for hospitalization. With 4.3 million births per year, maternal and newborn charges are the runaway leader in hospital costs – topping $86 billion in 2006. Employers and private insurers pay for 49 percent of all births, and taxpayers pay for 43 percent. Although the U.S. spends more on health care than other developed nations, our performance lags way behind other countries on quality indicators including low birthweight, prematurity, and maternal death rates. According to the United Nations, 40 other countries have lower maternal death rates.

While the vast majority of childbearing women and their babies are healthy and at low risk, the current style of maternity care is procedure-intensive, costly, and entails unnecessary risk, including elective induction and cesarean surgery. Proven practices that are generally safer and cheaper are underutilized, including continuous support during labor, smoking cessation programs and breastfeeding.

Most Americans agree that access to care must be broadened, quality and value improved and costs reduced. These are achievable goals for maternity care today by simply putting into practice what we already know is good for women and babies from comparative effectiveness research. Many provisions of the health care reform measures passed by committees in Congress are a good first step toward better maternity care in this country, and by extension, better care for all Americans. Key provisions include:

prohibiting insurers from excluding pregnancy as a pre-existing condition and using past birth experiences (e.g., cesarean section) to justify ineligibility and higher premiums;

widening access to certified nurse-midwives by eliminating Medicare reimbursement inequities;

measuring and publicly reporting maternity care performance and using results to improve care;

paying for family home visits by nurses during and after pregnancy via Medicaid;

expanding access to primary maternity care by improving Medicaid coverage of free-standing birth centers;

expanding coverage for prevention and wellness services; and

offering incentives to maternity care providers under Medicaid to care for underserved women and their families.

These proposals are geared toward bringing about the rapid gains in coverage, quality, value and cost of maternity care, improved maternal and newborn outcomes, and reduced health care costs overall. They are both cost-effective and compassionate.

America’s women and families are expecting real health care reform. Now it’s time for Congress to deliver.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corry is the executive director of Childbirth Connection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 10/09

Ensure Maternal Health in Reform Package

Posted by American Forum at 8:46 AM

PENNSYLVANIA FORUM
By Cathy Raphael

As a midwife in Pittsburgh’s Jewish community during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, my great-great-grandmother Hannah Sandusky brought many healthy children into the world despite the high maternal and infant mortality rates of the time.

I can’t help but wonder what “Bubbe” Hannah – as she was known to all – would make of the fact that today, some 150 years later, the U.S. ranks 42nd globally in maternal mortality rates, the highest among industrialized countries. Maternal mortality is a key indicator of health worldwide and reflects the ability of women to secure not only pregnancy-related services but also other health care services.

What Bubbe Hannah no doubt knew in 1909 surely remains true in 2009: healthy women have healthy babies.

The pending reform of the American health care system recognizes this simple equation, creating -- for the first time ever -- a seamless, lifelong continuum of care for women.

Women will be able to participate in a health care system in which they won’t be charged up to 45 percent more than men for identical coverage, and maternity and reproductive health will be part of a basic care package.

That’s good news for the more than 62 million American women now in their reproductive years. The average woman wants two children, so she will spend five years of her life trying to become pregnant, being pregnant and recovering from pregnancy, and three decades trying to avoid pregnancy.

That means pregnancy-related care alone is not enough. Health education, prenatal care, family planning and medical care should all be integrated to help women attain good health in their youth, maintain it through their reproductive years, and age well. These factors are so critical to the health of America that the deans of 39 of America’s 50 schools of public health have endorsed a scientific, data-driven report urging that women’s health needs be treated as a top priority.

According to the report, “The evidence shows that reproductive health care is essential to women’s health. If national health reform is to fulfill the goal of correcting our fragmented health system to improve America’s health, it must address the specific health needs of women.”

As these experts understand, taking care of women really means taking care of everyone, because women have a major stake in decisions about health care for their entire families, and they often play a significant role in the health care that their children, spouses or parents receive.

In a recent speech at the White House, First Lady Michelle Obama affirmed this fact, noting that eight in 10 mothers report they are the ones responsible for choosing their children's doctors, and more than 10 percent of women in this country are caring for a sick or elderly relative.

“Being part of the sandwich generation, raising kids while caring for sick or elderly parents, that's just not a work-family balance issue anymore... it is a health care issue,” Mrs. Obama said. “If we want to ensure women have opportunities that they deserve, if we want women to be able to care for their families and pursue things they could never imagine, then we have to reform the system."

The First Lady is right. By ensuring coverage of prevention and basic health services such as maternity benefits, the proposed reforms will create a system that provides not just “sick care” but true health care for women and ultimately for all citizens of our nation.

Bubbe Hannah may not be here to see it, but the many descendants of the children she brought into the world will certainly benefit from this momentous change. And the many generations of children to come will grow up knowing that health care is a basic human right, not a privilege.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raphael is a member of the Women Donors Network and involved with the Moving Forward Initiative.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 10/09

Sensible, Sustainable Food Policy for Virginia

Posted by American Forum at 8:38 AM

VIRGINIA FORUM
By Christopher Mattera

Hard economic times have spurred an explosion in home gardens with more people realizing that food does not begin and end in the supermarket. This increase in food awareness, coupled with recent food recalls, has brought increased attention to issues of food safety and farm policy.

Unfortunately, recent proposals fail to take into account the issues underpinning the food safety problems faced by this country.

Congress is seeking to enhance federal oversight of the production of food, thereby increasing food safety. To that end, all food producers would be subject to the same stringent regulations, regardless of their size. The local farmer and his organic or all-natural tomatoes will be treated with the same suspicion as produce from massive industrial “farms” which grow and process enormous amounts of food at unnaturally high rates, bolstered by synthetic fertilizers and genetically modified seed.

Similarly, small ranches where cattle graze on open fields of grass and are slaughtered one or two at a time in local abattoirs would be subject to the same requirements as the giant meat packing companies whose relentless “protein” production requires that they pump their cattle full of growth hormones and steroids, and dose them with antibiotics to combat the dangerous effects of a grain-based diet on the stomachs of animals designed to eat grasses.

The push for food safety ignores the real and important differences between modes of production. In regulating this way, we stand the very real chance of forcing small, sustainable and responsible food producers out of business. The increased cost in both time and money of complying with unnecessarily stringent regulations would be too great to allow many mom-and-pop operations to continue. The answer to our food safety problems though is not to regulate to the lowest common denominator but to raise the standard to which all our food producers are held.

Furthermore, these new food safety efforts demonstrate the flawed mindset with which we approach our food. We have been raised to fear our food and to suspect that items available at the grocery store may be contaminated with deadly bacteria or toxins. We have been taught to overcook meats, and wash vegetables in specially formulated vegetable wash--available in convenient spray bottles. Sadly, under the current industrial mode of food production, such fear is sometimes warranted. We have come to think of food recalls as a part of modern life. Industrial food producers would like us to think food is something too dangerous to be left to small time growers to produce.

The truth is that these problems exist in large part not in spite of the best efforts of industrial food producers, but precisely because of them. Large meat companies race to fatten their cattle for slaughter by feeding them corn, which also encourages the development of a dangerous strain of E. Coli bacteria that sickens those who ingest it.

Similarly, in vegetable production, mono-cropping, the practice of growing large amounts of a single crop in one place, can attract large numbers of pests. Farmers then spray toxic, petroleum-based pesticides, killing not just the pests but all insects in the area. Without beneficial insects, crop pollination and biological pest control becomes much more difficult if not impossible. We become the victims of our own avarice, sickening our animals and our farm fields as well as ourselves in the push for bigger, faster and cheaper supplies of food.

Rather than pushing for stricter oversight of small-scale beef producers, we should eliminate the government corn subsidy, which makes corn-feeding cattle economical. Instead of more testing for pathogens, we need a system by which foodstuffs are raised in a responsible and sustainable way that keeps them free of dangerous pathogens to begin with. When was the last time you heard about a small, organic farmer recalling the produce he sold at the farmer’s market?

Instead of “modernized” regulation and the resulting increased centralization of food production, we need a decentralized, sustainable model of agriculture that emphasizes safe, clean and responsible food production. Rather than a handful of large industrial “farms” producing our nation’s food, we should promote thousands of locally producing small farms. Small, local and sustainable food producers are already supplying many thousands of customers through local farmers markets, co-ops, buying groups or Community Supported Agriculture. Buying food from the person who grew or raised it a few miles down the road assures the freshness and cleanliness that industrially-produced grocery store food will never have, no matter how much government regulation and oversight we impose.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mattera is a sausage-maker and an advocate of local and sustainable food systems.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Virginia Forum. 10/09