American Forum Op-Ed

By Delia Armstrong Busby

The U.S. Department of Education’s 2010 fiscal year budget of $47.6 billion includes an allocation of $517 million dedicated to the Teacher Incentive Fund which rewards principals, teachers, and other school personnel who raise student achievement, close achievement gaps and work hard to staff schools.

School districts across the country will be competing for the billions of dollars on the line. They will showcase their great schools, exemplary teachers and innovative ideas. There’s no doubt that the stimulus money will be a boon for school reform. For years, school districts have shown that they have innovative ideas, but without proper funding those ideas never come to fruition.

Colorado Springs School District 11 is among those salivating at the size of the federal pot. One of its latest projects, the creation of the Jack Swigert Aerospace Academy, could well fit the criteria the feds come up with for handing out money. The school is in a low-income neighborhood, it's being created in partnership with the U.S. Space Foundation, it'll have hands-on -- or what's now being called project-based -- learning, and its emphasis will be on math and science, areas where U.S. students tend to lag their counterparts in other parts of the world. District officials recently said they've already presented the idea to the governor and are working with state officials.

Innovation and change should be energized with both an incentive and reward to replenish resources of ingenuity, commitment, and creativity. Only in public education is going the extra mile a donation expected of the dedicated few.

It is empowering to be recognized for turning gang infested schools from the strong hold of the socially impaired to havens where students can remediate themselves to academic achievement. Yes, placards and pats on the back feel good; but, they don’t buy anything. Why are educators the only missionaries who trek the roadways of the underachievers – prodding them to the higher places with maybe a brief notation in the annual assessment of their deeds and misdeeds in the educational workplace?

When an inspired teacher or administrator makes the difference in average yearly attainment a reward is more than appropriate. It is fully earned for having the tools to enable the struggling student to complete a toolkit that is in ill repair.

Based on the state funding tables issued by the U.S. Department of Education, Colorado is expected to receive $33,845,209 in Recovery Act funding for schools identified for improvement, corrective action and restructuring under Title I. This money is expected to come into play this fall.

If past history is any indicator the incentive program will be a success. Programs such as the Absence Addiction Approach recognized by the National Interagency Drug Institute and the U.S. Department of Education helped an academically impaired high school move from low attendance and floundering graduation rates to turn around status celebrated by its principal winning recognition as Outstanding Individual In School and feted by the state’s governor. This turn around scenario was incentivized by outside funding. This shows what dynamic effects special funding can have.

The rewards reaped from the Teacher Incentive Fund will provide a tremendous opportunity for improving schools with hard work and innovation. The real winners though, will be the children.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Busby is a former Colorado Springs high school principal and school board member and an educational consultant with the Women’s Workplace and Educational Initiative.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Colorado Editorial Forum. 7/09

By Melissa Reed

How reproductive health care is dealt with in national health care reform is no small matter; and who provides this care is still to be determined.

For communities like ours, local health centers are where many people turn for trusted health care. In North Carolina, more than 504,160 low-income women need family planning services. Community health providers, like Planned Parenthood, often serve as an entry point for essential health care needs. And Planned Parenthood isn’t the only health center women rely on for preventive care.

Today, one in four women who receives contraceptive care does so at a women’s health center. One in six who obtains a Pap test or a pelvic exam does so at a women’s health center, as do one-third of women who receive counseling, testing or treatment for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. This basic health care is essential, particularly during difficult economic times, to give women the tools they need to protect and support their families. This is particularly true when you consider that women of childbearing age spend a remarkable 68 percent more in out-of-pocket health care costs than men, in part because of reproductive health-related needs.

As Congress works to enact health care reform, they must make women’s health a priority and ensure that reproductive health care is covered. While this fact should be a given, the truth is that family planning and reproductive health care are still not fully part of mainstream health care, even though 98 percent of women use contraception at some point in their lives.

Two recent reports underscore the need for women’s health to be an integral part of health care reform.

A recent report by the Department of Health and Human Services titled "Roadblocks to Health Care: Why the Current Health Care System Does Not Work for Women" places an important spotlight on the impact that the nation’s health care crisis is having on women, particularly women of childbearing age. The report states that “women are more vulnerable to high health care costs ... [because] women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly Pap tests, mammograms, and obstetric care.”

And a 2009 survey conducted for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found that women are delaying their annual exams as a result of the economic downturn.

These reports demonstrate the importance of ensuring comprehensive health care reform that meets the needs of American women and their families. To do this, health plans participating in any health insurance exchange must include community health providers in their network.

Protecting community health providers is fundamental to solving provider access issues that will come with expanding coverage and ensuring Americans can access trusted providers wherever they live. Each year, Planned Parenthood health centers across the country perform nearly one million Pap Tests, identifying 93,000 women at risk of developing cervical cancer. And we provide more than 850,000 breast exams a year. In North Carolina alone Planned Parenthood provides these preventive health care services to more than 22,490 patients each year at its eight health centers across the state.

Under health care reform, women must have access to reproductive health care and their women’s health provider. Women cannot be worse off after health care reform than they are today.

How essential is your community health provider? The answer is simple -- if Americans want real health reform, community health providers must be part of the plan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed is the vice president for public policy at Planned Parenthood Health Systems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 7/09

By Ralph Riviello, MD, MS

Recently I saw a pregnant woman I will call Lillian, a 22-year-old who brought her two children with her to the ER. Lillian has a fulltime job whose health insurance doesn’t cover pregnancy. She can’t afford to cover herself and her family on the individual market, and she makes too much money to qualify for Medicaid. Lillian came to the ER because she wants to make sure her baby is okay. A friend with better insurance advised her that she should have an ultrasound.

But because Lillian told the registration clerk about abdominal pain, we had to put her through other work-ups like a complete pelvic exam, cultures, and blood tests, on top of the only test she wanted. The hospital spent at least $1,000 on Lillian, which drives up the price of care for everyone.

I discharged Lillian with worry. I know that she will have a difficult time finding standard prenatal care. Without that help, she and her baby are at much higher risk for complications, like low birth weight, that can turn into tragedy. Or Lillian’s health might suffer. I am embarrassed by how many women die in childbirth in the U.S. -- at 15.1 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, our rate is higher than most developed nations.

And this pregnancy is just one facet of Lillian’s health. Like most women in America, she will spend roughly 35 years of her life preventing pregnancy, trying to become pregnant, having children, or recovering from pregnancy. She might also face a sexually transmitted disease -- or a common condition of the reproductive system, like fibroids or polyps. Her health insurance will not help her with any of these basic needs, yet we still call it health insurance.

As a physician, I have been watching our president and the members of Congress wrangle over the costs of health care reform, hoping to hear something constructive about women. Although women comprise more than half of the U.S. population, many insurers treat their medical care as an exception to the rule, charging them more to stay healthy than men and refusing to cover basic reproductive services. This dangerous double standard must end.

When women do not receive gynecological care, they get sick when they could have easily and inexpensively been kept well. Just as she needs to be in good cardiovascular health, a woman must be in good reproductive health -- whether or not she is trying to get pregnant. An undetected problem in the reproductive system can have devastating consequences. Two of my colleagues have had patients who went without ob/gyn checkups because they could not afford health insurance. By the time they saw a doctor, their cervical cancer had already spread too far to save their lives. One of these women was in her 50s. The other was 28.

A woman’s reproductive health affects her throughout her life; it is inextricable from her overall wellbeing. Any plan for health care reform must reflect that reality. Reproductive health care is a necessity that too many women have gone without for too long. And when women get sick and die, their children feel the impact, as do their spouses, employers, and everyone else who depends on them.

I was disappointed but not surprised by the following survey finding: 52 percent of women in our country did not visit a doctor when they had a medical problem or went without a needed prescription or follow-up care because they could not afford these services. I have worked in Philadelphia’s emergency rooms since 2002, where I have treated women of all ages who have nowhere else to go for fundamental care.

For instance, every day our department treats at least 10 women who come to the ER not for broken legs and third-degree burns but for pregnancy tests and ultrasounds. These women have to pretend that they have emergency stomach pain or bleeding so that they can get a little bit of obstetric attention.

In the rush to develop legislation for health care reform, our senators and representatives must not forget the health of half their constituents. Every private and public insurance plan must guarantee the same set of reproductive services to every woman. We can’t keep Lillian and the rest of the women in this country healthy and alive without taking care of their reproductive health.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Riviello, MD, MS, is a board member of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health and an attending physician at Hahnemann University Hospital.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 7/09

By Elia Arenas

I grew up hard-working, and started at the age of 15 to supplement my family’s income when my father became very ill and required surgery. I stopped going to school to sustain our family, and would go on to work at the same job for 37 years.

After being terminated from the job in 2008 because the business was closing, I did not know what to do. Without a high school degree I could not apply for jobs. I learned of the opportunity to gain my General Education Development (GED) and registered. I will graduate soon, that is, unless Illinois legislators cut the program before I have the opportunity to finish.

Due to our state’s budget crisis, adult education programs are facing severe cuts to their budget. Most programs will have to close down completely so people looking to attain their GED, participate in career preparation, or take English-as-a-Second-Language lessons are in a tough situation. Adult education classes are the only opportunity for adult learners who did not attain a U.S. education as a youth, to get back on track and advance.

People attending adult education classes work hard to keep up with the lessons and fortify lifelong skills for their professional development. Most are motivated by the desire to gain different employment with more responsibilities and higher wages. GED programs allow people to get out of poverty and support their families. According to Women Employed, 1.8 million people in Illinois do not have a high school diploma and need adult education programs.

These services provide the social environment that encourages learning and facilitates improvement. Many adult candidates left school and are returning decades later. Staff provide nurturing guidance where needed and motivate students to be dedicated to their goals and strive to succeed.

As more Illinois residents participate in educational opportunities, we create role models within families that contribute to communities. Motivating others to seek an education and promoting its attainability encourages more Illinoisans to complete their education.

Our economic conditions forced many people, including myself, to start anew and build new skills for a job search. As there are significant amounts of workers retraining in skills to change jobs and put their best foot forward in their career changes, Illinois must not limit these opportunities.

If Illinois is to remain a desirable state for business creation, we must maintain a workforce that is prepared and trained. If we do not have the human capital required, no businesses can be created or expanded and our economic slump will continue. Legislators cannot ignore the total loss involved in cutting adult education programs; diminished human capital in the future and the current loss of matching federal dollars intended to generate more educated workers.

Illinois is harmed additionally because low-income workers are rarely allowed to progress and earn higher wages. This reduces the capacity of the state to generate more revenue in the form of income and sales taxes. As people earn more, they could afford to pay a little more in income taxes. With earning a higher income, people also consume more goods and generate more sales taxes. Through short-sighted planning, legislators will lose out on opportunities to improve our state if these budget cuts remain.

On the one hand, we expect residents of Illinois, especially immigrants, to be productive citizens. But on the other hand, we are about to eliminate almost every resource available to people who are ready, willing, and able to better themselves.

The long-term economic and social impact of cuts to adult learning will reverberate for generations. Illinois must act quickly, and raise the revenue necessary to invest in our families.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arenas is a community activist and a student at Malcolm X College in Chicago.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Illinois Editorial Forum. 7/09

By David C. Baldus

Now that the Senate has finished its hearings on the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the next steps in this process are critical to all Iowans. Senators Grassley and Harkin will soon execute one of their most important constitutional responsibilities – voting to confirm the lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

Judge Sotomayor is a highly qualified nominee who will keep faith with our nation’s constitutional values. Iowans should value someone who is moderate and measured in her rulings.

President Obama has chosen someone who is superbly qualified and endorsed by the American Bar Association. Judge Sotomayor has outstanding legal credentials and she understands that upholding the rule of law means going beyond legal theory to ensure consistent, fair, commonsense application of the law. We Iowans understand the need for someone who respects fair application of the law for all.

Judge Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in 100 years, and more overall judicial experience than anyone confirmed to the Court in the past 70 years. She has been a big-city prosecutor, a corporate litigator, a federal trial judge on the U.S. District Court, and an appellate judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Before she was promoted to the Second Circuit by President Clinton in 1998, Judge Sotomayor was appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush -- with a show of bipartisan support that proves good judging transcends political party.

In fact, our 41st president recently spoke out against Judge Sotomayor’s few detractors, saying, “I think she’s had a distinguished record on the bench and she should be entitled to fair hearings.” I couldn’t agree more -- after all, fairness is what this is all about.

The Supreme Court needs more fair-minded members such as Judge Sotomayor, who is in the mainstream of American viewpoints and is not pushing a political agenda. We need judges who will uphold our Constitution and the law to provide equal justice and protect personal freedoms for everyone in America, regardless of wealth, status, or popularity.

Now it’s time for the Senate to vote on her confirmation. Sotomayor should be seated before the August recess to allow her time to prepare when the Supreme Court reconvenes in September. In nominating Judge Sotomayor, President Obama has chosen someone with the ideal combination of brilliance in the law and a real-world understanding of how legal theory is applied.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Baldus is a professor of law at the College of Law at The University of Iowa.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Iowa Forum. 7/09

By Kaffie McCullough

Despite aggressive FBI action to target prostitution and pimp rings, an estimated 300 girls are still forced into commercial sex transactions each month in our state, more than twice the number who are killed in auto accidents in a year.

The Juvenile Justice Fund has mounted a statewide campaign called “A Future. Not A Past.,” to address this sexual exploitation, seeking to show that adolescents who are drawn into prostitution are victims of adult criminal behavior, rather than criminals themselves. The media has helped raise awareness of the staggering dimension of the problem, most recently in an article profiling the forceful response of faith-based communities.

This fight is to rescue girls who have been exploited and help restore their lives. Although we still do not have enough capacity to treat all of the victims, the Governor’s Office of Children and Families has committed to develop a statewide system of care so that any girl who may have been exploited can be assessed and, if necessary, treated for the trauma that she has endured through commercial sexual exploitation.

But as a community we must do more than just rescue the young victims. We must move to stop the behaviors that are producing the victims. No community can afford to say “It doesn’t happen here.” From Dalton to Lilburn, communities large and small are learning that sex trafficking is just around the corner.

However, when it comes to stopping the behaviors that produce the victims, we have a long way to go. The behavior of the men who take advantage of girls should cause outrage — and from that outrage should come action — and that has not happened yet.

We must insist that our law enforcement and publicly elected officials increase the frequency of arrests and prosecution of johns and pimps to deter others from seeking sex from our children. We also must change the cultural attitudes that excuse grown men who exploit young females.

Commercial exploitation of under-age girls is not a problem without a solution. No new technology or medical breakthrough is needed. We know what the solution is — we just haven’t summoned the public will to make it happen. Georgia has the laws to arrest and prosecute perpetrators. We just need to do it.

The FBI MATCH task force has made a good start, partnering federal and local law enforcement and arresting both pimps and johns. But one task force is inadequate to deal with a problem that is increasing exponentially, especially over the Internet, every month.

We need every law enforcement jurisdiction in the state trained on what to look for and how to address this issue effectively. Prosecutors must be supported in making their cases and elected district attorneys must understand that we will accept nothing less than zero tolerance when it comes to prosecuting these cases. There are fewer than 100 strip clubs in Georgia. Their operating permits can be inspected to ensure that all exotic dancers are actually their stated age.

Finally, we must look to ourselves and we must demand that men be held accountable for their behavior. Men must confront their friends, their brothers, their sons, and no longer excuse behavior that results in young girls being prostituted for their pleasure. If, as a society, we don’t hold ourselves responsible for taking these critical steps, if we excuse behavior that continually produces young victims who need to be rescued, then we will be committing our state, and our tax dollars, to an ongoing stream of victims.

Will we allow men with money in their wallets to continue buying sex with girls under age 18? Or will we at last say no?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCullough is the campaign director of A Future. Not A Past., a project of the Juvenile Justice Fund to address sexual exploitation and show that adolescents who are drawn into prostitution are victims of adult criminal behavior, rather than criminals themselves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Georgia Editorial Forum. 7/09

By Larry Struck

Picture yourself with a serious health problem and no medical care. This is not difficult to imagine for anyone without health insurance or with substandard coverage.

Fortunately, my partner Debra, and I were in excellent health when we departed the U.S. aboard our sailboat for a multi-year sabbatical. We left corporate and government jobs which had provided complete first-class health care and insurance for decades. Now we were self-insured and decided to see what a medical system in another country could offer.

In the U.S. if you are unable to pay to see a doctor, then you reluctantly learn to live with that low-grade fever, strange pain, rash, persistent cough, or deep ache in the gut. Your shortness of breath probably just means you have to take it easy if you can and maybe lose a few pounds. You hate to do it but you’d better postpone checkups for the kids.

As a result, you or your family’s health, and maybe lives, are at risk. This could be avoided if the U.S. would summon the courage to truly change the health system for the better.

Currently more than 45 million U.S. citizens have no health insurance, not to mention the millions more with insufficient coverage. Waiting in the wings are those who are one major medical event away from loss of insurance or personal bankruptcy.

The deepening economic crisis and rise in unemployment ensure that these numbers will grow. Some may say that this is just a natural outcome of market dynamics, an unpleasant economic reality. You may think that the uninsured and sick will always be with us. But losing your job or watching a friend fall through the cracks might change your mind.

Recent research by the Kaiser Foundation and the Harvard School of Public Health found that more that 60 percent of Americans feel that in light of overwhelming economic problems facing the country, “it is more important than ever to take on health reform now.”

Total health care expenditures in the U.S. for one year amount to $2.4 trillion -- more than the combined economies of all of Latin America. Of that amount, which is expected to double by 2017, it has been estimated that 30 percent is wasted or badly spent. Among 191 nations, the World Health Organization ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost per capita, 37th in overall performance and 72nd by overall level of health.

The U.S. can learn from other countries to provide more cost-effective health care. We should not be afraid to borrow workable ideas wherever we see them. They can be found in unexpected places.

Venezuela, for example, values its citizens’ health. Their constitution gives all Venezuelans the right to health care. Alongside a traditional fee-for-service medical system, a network of 6,500 neighborhood clinics has been created so that anyone with a medical problem can see a doctor at no charge.

We underwent extensive health checkups in both systems. The quality was high, and when there was a fee, it was a fraction of what you would pay in the U.S. The free clinic system, known as “Barrio Adentro,” focuses on health education, early intervention and disease prevention, rather than expensive treatment. The clinics provide medications, dentistry, eye exams with new glasses and referrals for more specialized treatment, counseling or other community services.

Universal care, often made to sound threatening, can range from a single payer to various public/private arrangements of insurers, provider networks or employers. We don’t need to offer all free medical services or copy another nation’s system, but we can at least redefine “affordable” in a way that makes sense to out-of-work heads of families.

Let’s consider a joint venture with Venezuela. Health care experts from each country could exchange visits and begin to build on the limited community services already available. Foreign advisors working in our neighborhoods may seem strange, but how many times have we provided help to other countries expecting them to see the good sense that collaboration makes?

We can expect problems and obstacles as we try to expand health care coverage. But Americans have always been known as problem solvers, a quality we especially need now, whether in health care, jobs, public safety, education or international affairs. Finding solutions based on cooperation, rather than a “not invented here” mentality, can be just what the doctor ordered.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Struck is a Minnesota training consultant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 7/09

By Linda Tobin and Marie Smith

As the Senate finishes its hearings on the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Senators George Voinovich and Sherrod Brown will soon execute one of their most important constitutional responsibilities – voting to confirm the lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

Judge Sotomayor is a highly qualified nominee who will keep faith with our nation’s constitutional values. Ohioans should value someone who is moderate and measured in her rulings.

Endorsed by the American Bar Association, President Obama has chosen someone who is superbly qualified. Judge Sotomayor has outstanding legal credentials and she understands that upholding the rule of law means going beyond legal theory to ensure consistent, fair, common-sense application of the law. We Ohioans understand the need for someone who respects fair application of the law for all.

Judge Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in 100 years, and more overall judicial experience than anyone confirmed to the Court in the past 70 years. She has been a big-city prosecutor, a corporate litigator, a federal trial judge on the U.S. District Court, and an appellate judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Before she was promoted to the Second Circuit by President Clinton in 1998, Judge Sotomayor was appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush -- with a show of bipartisan support that proves good judging transcends political party.

In fact, our 41st president recently spoke out against Judge Sotomayor’s few detractors, saying, “I think she’s had a distinguished record on the bench and she should be entitled to fair hearings.” We couldn’t agree more -- after all, fairness is what this is all about.

The Supreme Court needs more fair-minded members such as Judge Sotomayor, who is in the mainstream of American viewpoints and is not pushing a political agenda. We need judges who will uphold our Constitution and the law to provide equal justice and protect personal freedoms for everyone in America, regardless of wealth, status, or popularity.

We approve of the timely handling of Judge Sotomayor’s hearings. Now is the time for the Senate to vote on her confirmation. Sotomayor should be seated before the August recess to allow her time to prepare when the Supreme Court reconvenes in September. In nominating Judge Sotomayor, President Obama has chosen someone with the ideal combination of brilliance in the law and a real-world understanding of how legal theory is applied.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tobin and Smith are co-chairs of the Ohio Coalition for Constitutional Values.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Ohio Forum. 7/09

By Brian Miller

One-hundred years ago, on July 17, 1909, Sen. William E. Borah (R-ID) wrote the words, "The income tax is the fairest and most equitable of the taxes. It is the one tax which approaches us in the hour of prosperity and departs in the hour of adversity. Certainly, it will be conceded by all that the great expense of government is in the protection of property and wealth. There is no possible argument founded in law or in morals why these protected interests should not bear their proportionate burden of government."

Within two years of Senator Borah's pronouncement, Wisconsin enacted the first state income tax. Several other states followed suit as a wave of Progressive Era reforms led many states to replace their ailing property taxes with more progressive and effective income taxes.

By contrast, the first functional sales tax was enacted in Mississippi during the dark days of its segregationist history, in 1932, in part as an effort to shift taxes off of the wealthy and politically powerful landowners, and onto the backs of African-Americans and poor whites. Several states followed, and while their reasoning may have been less offensive, it’s clear that legislators have known since the very beginning exactly who is most impacted by the sales tax.

As states across the country grapple with budget shortfalls this year, choices are again being made that will affect families everywhere. States including Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Wisconsin are taking the more progressive path and opting for the addition of new tax rates at the top of their states' income tax structures. Over the coming months and into early 2010, states will continue to debate these two paths as they struggle to meet their respective shortfalls.

The choice should be clear. Unlike the income tax, so eloquently described by Sen. Borah, the sales tax falls like a hammer on families precisely during their hour of greatest adversity. That’s because it’s based on how much we spend, not how much we earn.

There are many situations where someone can spend more than they earn for months or even years: someone who takes an extended time off work to take care of an ailing parent; college students trying to focus on studies as they live off student loans; a family struggling for months after a plant closing; an entrepreneur in the first critical years of a new business venture; and a family that chooses to live on just one income during their new child’s formative years. In all these family realities, as spending outpaces income, the sales tax has its greatest adverse impact. In more streetwise language, the sales tax gleefully kicks you when you’re down.

Meanwhile, there are those at the top of the income scale whose millions are scarcely touched by the sales tax. Much of their income is used to acquire more wealth with the purchase of stocks, bonds, and real estate investments. Unlike the “purchases” most of us make every day, these “purchases” are sales-tax free, allowing their wealth to snowball. Even their attorney fees and landscaping services are generally free of the sales tax.

According to a report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, “The average state’s consumption tax structure (sales and excise) is equivalent to an income tax with a 7 percent rate for the poor, a 4.8 percent rate for the middle class, and a 1 percent rate for the wealthiest taxpayers. Obviously, no one would intentionally design an income tax that looks like this—yet by relying on consumption taxes as a revenue source, this is effectively the policy choice lawmakers nationwide have made.”

And so, under a sales tax, income at the top that more often finds its way into speculation or idle savings remains virtually untouched, while the income of the far-less-wealthy, which moves swiftly and consistently back into our local, state, and national economies at a time when we need it most, is taxed at the highest possible level.

If our elected officials are serious about strengthening the middle class and fostering a more broadly shared prosperity, let them take a moment to consider the wisdom of our forebears. Great truths, like the words of Sen. Borah, stand the test of time and can help us make wise and just decisions when facing the challenges of today.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller is the executive director of Tennesseans for Fair Taxation. In mid-August, he will become the new executive director for United for a Fair Economy, a national organization based in Boston that works to foster a more broadly shared prosperity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 7/09

By Charles E. Fisher

There’s a common theme coming from some of Missouri’s Congressional delegation regarding the subject of clean energy and green jobs.

We’ve been hearing a lot of “not so fast,” and “no, we can’t,” with a lot of mumbling about costs and endangering current jobs. Senator Kit Bond even went so far as to issue a report called “Yellow Light on Green Jobs.” His sound bite on the issue: “It sounds really neat to think we're going to have wind-powered jobs, except I don’t see cars going down the road with propellers on them.”

For members of United Auto Workers Local 2379 in Jefferson City, green jobs are a reality. We quite literally have wind-powered jobs, building the transformers for a new wind farm in northwest Missouri. According to the Department of Energy, this single wind project in DeKalb County will not only create 150 megawatts of pollution-free energy; it will create more than 2,500 jobs here and around the country.

That means a lot to a group of workers that have watched their business decline and co-workers hit the unemployment line. As members of the UAW, my brothers and sisters and I know that we are not just in danger of losing jobs; we are losing jobs.

Right now, only about one out of every four clean energy companies is based in the U.S. Germany's second largest export, after cars, is wind turbines, and they also deploy nearly half of the world's solar panels. Even though the U.S. wind industry is booming – including in Missouri – more than 70 percent of the turbines popping up across the country were actually built overseas. Instead of importing green technologies manufactured abroad, it's time for the U.S. to lead in the development of these technologies, which will power the world for decades to come.

Missouri's skilled workforce can play a key role in developing these new industries and deploying new technologies. The only thing standing in our way is a handful of out-of-touch politicians in Washington, who seem to have lost faith in American ingenuity.

It doesn’t have to be that way. According to a recent study by the Center for American Progress and the Political Economy Research Institute, a responsible, comprehensive approach to clean energy would create 43,000 new jobs here in Missouri. These jobs would include everything from mechanics needed to retrofit public buses to be more fuel efficient, to electricians and roofers to install solar panels. We’ll need line workers to manufacture the components for wind turbines, truck drivers to deliver the pieces, and steel and sheet metal workers to put them together. Replacing our inefficient and aging electrical grid will take engineers and laborers. Making homes and businesses energy efficient will require trades from carpenters to insulation installers and HVAC technicians.

The politicians that oppose green jobs are telling us that we can’t afford to make the investment. We need to let them know that we can’t afford not to. There is no reason the workers that built the strongest economy of the 20th century should be left behind in the 21st.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fisher is head trustee and past-president of UAW Local 2379.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Missouri Forum. 7/09

By Elena Rovner

As the Senate begins open hearings on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, no doubt there will be those who continue to oppose the nomination, but they will have a tough time proving their case.

It has been widely observed that President Obama has chosen someone who is superbly qualified. Judge Sotomayor has outstanding legal credentials and understands that upholding the rule of law means going beyond legal theory to ensure consistent, fair, common-sense application of the law to real world facts.

If confirmed for the Supreme Court, Judge Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in 100 years, and more overall judicial experience than anyone confirmed to the Court in the past 70 years. She has been a big-city prosecutor and a corporate litigator, a federal trial judge on the U.S. District Court, and an appellate judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Before she was promoted to the Second Circuit by President Clinton in 1998, Judge Sotomayor was appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush – with a show of bipartisan support that proves good judging transcends political party.

In fact, our 41st president recently spoke out against Judge Sotomayor’s few (but extremely vocal) detractors, saying, “I think she’s had a distinguished record on the bench and she should be entitled to fair hearings.” I couldn’t agree more -- after all, fairness is what this is all about.

The Supreme Court needs more fair-minded members such as Judge Sotomayor, who is in the mainstream of American viewpoints and is not pushing a political agenda. We need judges who will uphold our Constitution and the law to provide equal justice and protect personal freedoms for everyone in America, regardless of wealth, status, or popularity.

Judge Sotomayor is a highly qualified nominee who will keep faith with our nation’s constitutional values. Senators Specter and Casey and their colleagues must ensure that she is given a fair and expeditious confirmation process – one that will allow for a frank and transparent conversation about her views on the law and the constitution, covering her record and issues on which she has yet to establish a record.

The nomination hearings must proceed without delay. I agree with President Obama who said he believes it is important for the Senate to vote on Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation before the August recess to allow the new Justice time to prepare and participate when the Court confers in September and selects cases to be heard this year.

Judge Sotomayor is a highly qualified nominee who has a demonstrated commitment to core constitutional values and a common-sense understanding of how the law impacts the lives of all Americans on a daily basis. It is essential that the President continues to appoint, and the Senate confirm, Judges who meet these essential criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rovner is co-chair of the Judicial Nominations Committee of the National Council of Jewish Women, Pittsburgh section and the co-leader of the Pennsylvania Coalition for Constitutional Values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 7/09

By Carol Bloch and Jan Schneiderman

When the Senate begins holding hearings on the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Senators Nelson and Johanns will exercise one of their most important constitutional responsibilities – to advise and consent to lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court.

Judge Sotomayor’s outstanding legal record shows that she is someone who makes judicial decisions based on the law and the Constitution. In nominating Judge Sotomayor, President Obama has chosen someone with the ideal combination of brilliance in the law and a real-world understanding of what it means to ensure that legal theory is applied in a way that ensures justice for all.

If confirmed for the Supreme Court, Judge Sotomayor will bring more federal experience than any justice in the past 100 years. She has served as a large-city prosecutor and a corporate litigator, a federal trial judge on the U.S. District Court, and an appellate judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge Sotomayor was first appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush and was later promoted through an appointment by President Bill Clinton to serve on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. First appointed to the federal court by a Republican president, followed by a Democratic president, it is clear that her substantial qualifications and good judgment transcend political party. In fact, our 41st President has recently gone on record to say that “she’s had a distinguished record on the bench and she should be entitled to fair hearings.”

Judge Sotomayor is an ideal choice for the Supreme Court. She is in the mainstream of American viewpoints and not pushing a political agenda. She is an ideal example of the kind of justice that we need on the Supreme Court -- judges who will uphold our Constitution and the law to provide equal justice and protect personal freedoms and individual liberty for everyone in America.

We agree with President Obama that it is important for the Senate to vote on Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation before the August recess to allow the new Justice time to prepare and participate in September when the Supreme Court confers to select cases to be heard for the year.

We urge Senators Nelson and Johanns, and their colleagues, to ensure that Judge Sotomayor is given a fair and expeditious confirmation process. Such a process should allow for an open discussion about her record, as well as discussion of issues on which she has yet to establish a record on her positions. We are confident that her confirmation will affirm what the American Bar Association, Presidents George H.W. Bush, Clinton and Obama, and the majority of Americans already believe: that Judge Sotomayor is a highly qualified and ideal candidate for the Supreme Court of the United States.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bloch and Schneiderman are co-chairs of the Nebraska Coalition for Constitutional Values and are leaders in the National Council of Jewish Women.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 7/09

By Mark Heyrman and N’Dana Carter

The Illinois legislature recently called for a special session after Governor Quinn vetoed the proposed “doomsday budget” passed by the House and Senate. This budget would have drastically cut mental health services. State legislators now have the chance to reconsider their priorities and should pass a fair budget. Last year over 700,000 people in Illinois suffered from a serious mental disorder and any cuts to these programs will harm not only those using these services, but also their family and friends.

One of those 700,000 people is Ms. Carter, long-time resident of Chicago’s south side. She excelled professionally with a career spanning over 20 years and was heavily involved in local civic organizations. She developed depression after suffering extreme setbacks. She could not take a promotion due to the interference and anxiety and eventually had to stop working. She utilizes mental health services in order to gradually regain her life back.

People with mental disorders face a variety of challenges. They are made to feel ashamed and have few places they can go to for help.

Mental health services provide a support system for people that are feeling stress, anger, and considering suicide. In a respectful environment with trained staff, people with mental disorders can deal with issues and become better equipped to navigate their lives.

Youth in these programs often need help in learning to write and how to process and deal with their everyday problems. Young people who experience trauma require assistance to achieve healthy functioning. They are vulnerable because they have not fully developed social skills. Without these resources they often end up on the streets and homeless without any alternatives.

People who are deprived of mental health services sometimes use alcohol or illegal drugs to treat their symptoms. Some even end up in the criminal justice system. Lack of well-developed social or intellectual skills translates into individuals lacking tools to avoid harmful behavior.

Mental health services in Illinois have long been underfunded. Indeed we rank among the bottom of the 50 states in per capita spending for mental health services, despite being the eighth richest state in per capita income. Our community mental health system has been stressed by the need to accommodate a 95 percent reduction in state hospital beds. Even with existing funding, we have long been turning people away from hospitals and community providers. With additional cuts under the “doomsday budget” 70 percent of the locations in Illinois will be closed to persons who need them.

As Illinois sorts out the budget crisis, it must not forget its responsibility to the public.

Too often mental health gets low priority, but legislators especially need to think about the long-term economic and social impacts of these service cuts. According to Mental Health America of Illinois, every dollar spent on mental health services saves $5 on overall healthcare costs. This would help in the state’s attempt to manage skyrocketing healthcare costs and be more efficient with taxpayer dollars. Mental health services are designed to help people recover from an illness and allow them to lead productive lives. Illinois should invest in its residents and develop the human capital needed for a healthy workforce. People, like Ms. Carter, faced dramatic events in their life and need some assistance to return to their full potential.

The need for mental health services is increasing in Illinois and across the country because of the pressures placed upon our citizens by increased unemployment, evictions and foreclosures and loss of income and assets. Now is not the time to cut those services.

Some legislators want to wait for reform in departments before deciding to fund a humane sensible budget. But the pressing needs of persons with mental illnesses will not wait. We must stabilize essential programs to protect those who are most vulnerable in the state. Cutting this vital care will only make Illinois’ economic recovery that much more elusive. Public officials must think of the long-term health of residents, and pass the revenue necessary to meet its responsibility to Ms. Carter and the hundreds of thousands of others doing all they can to win back their lives.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heyrman is chair of the public policy committee of Mental Health America of Illinois. Carter is an activist with Southside Together Organizing for Power (STOP).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Thoraya Ahmed Obaid

None of the crises we face today -- whether it is the food crisis, the water crisis, the financial crisis or the crisis of climate change -- can be managed unless greater attention is paid to population issues.

World Population Day is the right time to put the issue of population back on the radar screen. And it is not a moment too soon. By 2050 our current global population of 6.8 billion could grow to the United Nation's median projection of 9 billion, or even soar to 11 billion people.

But what is not widely appreciated is that the projection of 9 billion global population is premised on a substantial reduction in fertility in the least developed countries and this requires a dramatic expansion in access to voluntary family planning.

Recently we heard President Barack Obama, in his address from Cairo, say that denying a woman her education is denying her equality.

I would add another area that is vital for broadening women's horizons, one to which governments agree, it is improving access to health. The right to sexual and reproductive health is essential for advancing women's empowerment and equality between women and men.

Some 200 million women today want to plan and space their births but lack access to safe and effective contraception. According to the latest figures, just 1 in 4 married women in the least developed countries are using modern contraception and a further one-quarter of those women had an unmet need for family planning. So there is a high unmet need for family planning, and the need to expand these services is urgent.

It is important to note that investments in women and reproductive health are not only decisive for overcoming poverty, they are also cost-effective. For example, an investment in contraceptive services can be recouped four times over -- and sometimes dramatically more over the long-term -- by reducing the need for public spending on health, education, housing, sanitation and other social services.

That's why the International Conference on Population and Development proposed a plan 15 years ago in Cairo to ensure universal access to reproductive health by 2015. This target now appears in the Millennium Development Goals, under MDG5 to improve maternal health, and this is an area where we need to make far greater progress.

The sad and shocking truth is that maternal mortality represents the largest health inequity in the world. And of all the Millennium Development Goals, MDG 5 to improve maternal health is lagging the furthest behind. With the financial crisis and the reduction in budgets for health, solving these problems will be even harder.

Clearly we need to do more to improve women's health. The health benefits of these investments are well known, well documented and substantial. It is estimated that ensuring access to voluntary family planning could reduce maternal deaths by 25 to 40 percent, and child deaths by as much as 20 percent. The World Bank estimates that ensuring skilled care in delivery and particularly access to emergency obstetric care would reduce maternal deaths by about 74 percent.

Access to reproductive health helps women and girls avoid unwanted or early pregnancy, unsafe abortions and pregnancy-related disabilities. Women stay healthier, are more productive, and have more opportunities for education, training and employment, which in turn, benefits entire families, communities and nations.

In March, the World Bank reported that the current economic crisis could lead to increases in infant and maternal deaths, female school dropout rates, and violence against girls and women. Regardless of this economic crisis, investment in women and girls must continue if not increase.

In war or peace, natural or man-made disaster, prosperous economy or financial crisis, women continue to get pregnant. And when they do, what happens to them is quite limited: give birth safely, abort safely or unsafely, miscarry, or simply die while giving birth. These facts of life cannot be stopped or postponed. But we cannot excuse ourselves when women die while giving birth simply because there is a financial crisis.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obaid is executive director of the United Nations Population Fund
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 7/09

By Charles "Shai" Goldstein

This Fourth of July, America celebrates(d) its 233rd birthday. Concurrent with the celebration, over 6,000 immigrants were naturalized as citizens in commemoration programs throughout the United States (including New Jersey’s Liberty Island and Betsy Ross House in Pennsylvania).

Unfortunately, millions of American residents who are “yearning to breathe free,” who work hard, pay taxes, and even some who protect and defend our republic in the military do not have a path to citizenship … yet.

Lost amidst a variety of “stories” over the past weeks was news the President Barak Obama met on June 25 with bi-partisan group of leaders including Senators McCain, Schumer and Menendez to develop a plan for reforming our immigration system.

During the meeting, President Obama indicated in the clearest terms that he wanted a workable solution, based on reality, not rhetoric or xenophobia. The plan that emerges will probably disappoint ideologues, and must be based on the perspectives highlighted below.

There are three basic options for dealing with the broken immigration system, but only one will solve the problem: 1) Allow the current immigration mess to deteriorate further, a prospect that frustrates the vast majority the American people. 2) Hold out for the ugly fantasy that we are going to get rid of 12,000,000 undocumented immigrants, a prospect as unrealistic as it is un-American. 3) Move forward with a comprehensive plan that restores the rule of law, gets people in the system, makes employers play by the rules, and creates a stable, sustainable and legal system of immigration.

An American solution to our broken immigration system includes effective, humane border and interior enforcement that respects rights and keeps communities safe. Also there must be a way for those here without proper documentation to get in the system with legal status so they get on a path to citizenship, learn English, and become fully integrated Americans. Family reunification has always been a hallmark of our immigration system. In 2007, part of the reason that the proposal for immigration reform failed was because it ignored family reunification as a historic component of any American immigration system.

Democrats were elected on a platform of tackling and solving big problems like immigration, healthcare, and reforming our economic system. If they don’t pull together, act like a majority, and deliver on the promise of change, independents and swing voters will begin to look elsewhere, imperiling the majority they now enjoy. Republicans, seeking to regain majority status run the risk of further alienating the fastest group of new voters in the nation if they do not take a bipartisan approach to these great issues. There are many Republicans members of the house and senate who have and continue to demonstrate support for comprehensive immigration reform that is fair, humane, and just, based on reality not xenophobia.

In every generation, our great American republic has been preserved and grown by embracing change -- from the “Jacksonian Revolution” to the Civil War to the progressive movements’ response to inequality and oppression; from the Great Depression of the 1930s and the “New Deal” that preserved our Democracy by instituting crucial changes in labor relations, economic regulation, the institution of social security and massive public works programs. In our recent history, the civil rights movement of the 1960s addressed our nation’s ugly legacy of slavery and apartheid which grew out of the infamous Plessy vs. Ferguson decision. While civil rights was the focus in the 1960s, the positive parts of the Great Society in that era ALSO included the so-called “socialism” represented by Medicare and Medicaid. In 1965, we also significantly modified our immigration system (sound familiar?). We continue to pay the price for failure to enact comprehensive healthcare reform in the 1990s. Considering all these issues, we are in essence faced with a “perfect storm” that once again tests our commitment to “form a more perfect union.”

We are tested in battle against those who would destroy America from abroad and by xenophobic forces who seek to destroy America from within. Expanding our economic opportunities, democratizing our healthcare system and immigration reform, are all tests of our ability to grow as a democratic republic. Despite the great strides we have made in the area of civil rights, the specter of racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination still threaten our democracy.

Notwithstanding or because of all of these challenges, we have much to celebrate this July 4th because we as a nation of immigrants are always working “to form a more perfect union.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Goldstein is executive director of the New Jersey Immigration Policy Network.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 7/09

By Billy Parish

The House recently passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), an important step toward protecting our environment and building a clean energy economy.

ACES has generated a lot of strong opinions, for and against, especially in the environmental community. Now I'm not a scientist or a policy wonk, but I did help start and run the Energy Action Coalition, the largest youth clean energy organization in the country, and following the debate over the 1,200-page proposal has been confusing, even for me.

Al Gore calls the proposal, "one of the most important pieces of legislation ever introduced in Congress." Yet, NASA's top climate scientist, James Hansen, says "I hope cap and trade doesn't pass, because we need a much more effective approach."

In an open letter to the president and members of Congress, 20 of the top climate scientists in the country wrote "at its best it will be only a first step" and "call attention to the large difference between what U.S. politics now seems capable of enacting and what scientists understand is necessary to prevent climatic disruption and protect the human future."

I deeply respect individuals on both sides of the debate and in the end, I believe both sides are right.

The science, at least, is pretty clear. The safe upper limit of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 350 parts per million (ppm). Right now, we're at 389 ppm and climbing. In its current form, ACES will not take us below 350. Most agree with that. On the other hand, the latest study by the Congressional Budget Office reports that ACES will create 1.7 million new jobs and save consumers over $22 billion in 2020 alone. According to the Center for American Progress, by 2020 it will have the same effect on global warming as removing 500 million cars from the road. That's nothing to sneeze at.

So I'm looking forward, not back. Ultimately our goals should be to avert a climate crisis and build a vibrant clean energy economy. Does ACES bring us closer to reaching that goal? Yes. Will it bring us there on its own? Most certainly not. So, with those goals in mind, let's look at three keys to moving forward.

First, we need to strengthen ACES as much as possible before it becomes law. The oil and coal industries have spent big to weaken the proposal. In just the first three months of 2009, these companies spent $79 million lobbying Congress. They've bought access and worked against the interests of the American people.

We need to strengthen ACES to ensure that it truly delivers the clean energy job creation promised by strengthening the Renewable Electricity Standard in the proposal. A better bill will also preserve the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate carbon emissions through the Clean Air Act, a critical tool for the president to ensure the necessary emissions reductions.

Second, we need to see ACES as the foundation of good national and international climate policy, not the final product. To truly jumpstart a clean energy economy, we need a range of complementary policies. President Obama has already had some success in this area, most notably with the increase in fuel-economy standards.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we need to create a spirit of national purpose to face this challenge. If anyone in this country has proven able to inspire us to fully engage with our civic and moral responsibilities, it's President Obama. I hope it's his leadership - rather than another devastating storm or an oil shock - that helps the nation re-focus on the urgency for action.
-------------------------------------------------------
Parish, age 27, is the founder of the Energy Action Coalition, a national youth clean energy coalition.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 7/09