American Forum Op-Ed

A Jobs Crisis We Can Solve

2011-09-16T13:24:00.000-04:00

AMERICAN FORUM
By Sarah van Gelder

President Obama is proposing important steps toward doing what Americans have been asking for since the financial collapse of 2008—putting a focus on families and jobs.

To create real prosperity, though, Washington will have to deal with three main drivers of our economic malaise: massive inequality such that the super wealthy and big corporations are sitting on piles of cash while ordinary Americans’ can barely get by; enormous ongoing expenditures for wars; and assaults on our natural systems, including our climate, such that costs of everything from insurance to food is rising while our security is threatened.

Without families buying things, the economy can’t revive and create jobs. That’s why our solutions need to focus on ways to support small businesses, which create the bulk of the jobs and keep money flowing locally instead of flowing to distant corporate headquarters.

In Cleveland, a local foundation, inner-city residents, hospital and university collaborated to create locally rooted cooperatives that supply these and other institutions with solar energy, eco-friendly laundry services and locally grown vegetables. The workers from this rust-belt city are the owners, and they’re creating jobs that can’t be outsourced.

Despite the credit crunch afflicting businesses nationwide, there’s one place where credit continues to flow: North Dakota, which has the nation’s only state-owned bank. The Bank of North Dakota partners with community banks to get credit to the state’s farms and local businesses. The results are the lowest unemployment rate in the country and a state budget surplus, when most other states are facing fiscal crises.

When local businesses and family farms thrive, the benefits ripple out into the community. These local enterprises buy from other local business, driving demand that creates even more jobs. This sort of economic activity results in prosperity based on real goods and services, not speculative bubbles.

Many young people are focusing less on jobs than on DIY livelihoods made up partly of paid work and partly of doing more themselves -- growing food, making and fixing things, and starting micro-businesses. They’re finding creative ways to make do with less and to share and exchange with friends and neighbors.

The best of these diverse livelihoods tap into the rising demand for goods and services that are sustainable—grown or made close to home without toxins and without pollution, produced by workers who are fairly compensated, and made by companies with a long-term commitment to the well-being of the human and ecological community.

But how about President Obama and the U.S. Congress? What can we expect from our federal government?

In a country still the wealthiest in the world, we should insist that our government invest in education, restore failing infrastructure and lead the transition to a clean-energy economy. Single-payer health care could provide security to would-be entrepreneurs while ending excessive premiums and out-of-pocket medical costs that are creating a major drag on the economy. Trade policies should be re-crafted to reverse offshoring of jobs. We could share jobs more broadly, so there is enough work and free time to go around. And we should preserve intact a safety net that keeps millions of seniors, children, disabled and unemployed from complete destitution.

With a fair tax policy—like the tax rate for the wealthy in effect during the Eisenhower years—we could pay for these investments. And we could save money by diverting our tax dollars from corporate subsidies and the world’s largest military budget to investments in our future.

These are policies that large majorities of Americans support. Groups like the recently formed movement to Rebuild the Dream are mobilizing hundreds of thousands of people to counter the lopsided clout of large corporations and the very wealthy and get these sort of family-friendly policies enacted.

We don’t have to be satisfied with unemployment and a stagnant economy. By rebuilding our local economies, changing policies that only benefit the super-rich and investing in a transition to an environmentally friendly society, the United States can still achieve real prosperity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah van Gelder is executive editor and co-founder of YES! Magazine. Her article on jobs and livelihoods appears in the Fall 2011 issue of YES!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the American Forum. 9/11

The So-Called Personhood Amendment

2011-09-14T12:46:00.003-04:00

MISSISSIPPI FORUM
By Rims Barber

The law of unintended consequences should temper our resolve when tinkering with laws impacting people’s lives. The consequences of adopting Initiative 26 -- the proposed Personhood Amendment to the Mississippi Constitution -- are far-reaching and potentially devastating to women’s health.

In the 33 years since the first in vitro baby was born, hundreds of Mississippi couples were able to have the baby of their dreams through in vitro fertilization (IVF). Since more than one egg is harvested and fertilized to achieve a successful IVF pregnancy, making all the embryos “people” under Mississippi law will make it difficult if not impossible to continue offering IVF treatment in our state.

When embryos are created and frozen as a part of reproductive fertility treatments, these embryos will be legally persons if this initiative passes, and consequently will have all the rights due persons. The problems resulting from this change would be many.

If embryos are people, is the freezing of embryos considered child abuse? If so, what is the role of the Department of Human Services?

Will these embryos be given names (non-birth certificates)?

If one of these embryos “dies” in some part of the in vitro fertilization process, what kind of investigation will be conducted? Could the technician be tried for manslaughter? Are the county coroners equipped to do this task? What kind of death certificate will be issued?

Are the Chancery Courts ready to apply Termination of Parental Rights laws to these embryos? Adoption laws? Home visits as required by adoption law?

Does this Amendment apply only to embryos conceived in the state of Mississippi, or to any embryo entering the state (having been conceived elsewhere)? If they are transported to another state do they lose their personhood? Citizenship?

What are the property rights of these embryos? Inheritance rights? Under state law, there are many places where “person” is referenced.

If more than five unrelated embryos/persons are housed in a single building, will it have to be licensed as a child residential care home?

In Pearl, there is an ordinance limiting occupancy to two persons in a bedroom. If a pregnant woman is two people, can she be in the same bed as her husband?

Moreover, IVF is not the only medical treatment that could be prevented by passage of the Personhood Amendment. Effective treatment of tubal pregnancies, severe preeclampsia, and molar gestation could be prevented. New stem cell treatments for patients with Parkinson’s, Lou Gehrig’s disease, and cancers like leukemia and choriocarcinoma would also be at risk.

If a physician is faced with the choice saving a woman’s life or refusing to harm an embryo/person, could he or she be sued for malpractice no matter what choice was made?

Do Mississippians really want more lawyers interfering in a family’s personal medical decisions?

I have long been convinced that anyone involved in politics should have a good sense of humor. This issue clearly requires one. Let’s not be so focused on our feelings about abortion that we do something ridiculous when voting in November.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Barber is director of the Mississippi Human Services Agenda.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the Mississippi Forum 9/11

**This op-ed ran in the Jackson Clarion Ledger. You can read the response to it here.**

Keystone XL Pipeline: A Bad Idea

2011-09-08T09:40:00.001-04:00

AMERICAN FORUM
By Billy Parish

Families across the middle swath of our country -- from North Dakota to Louisiana -- have a disturbing question to ask themselves: “Do we want a leaky pipeline pumping 800,000 barrels of oil a day running through our community?”

The proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, which would transport tar sands -- a mixture of sand, clay, water and a dense tar-like form of petroleum, from the Boreal forests of Alberta to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico region -- is a 1,700-mile time bomb that either will be activated or defused in the coming days.

The pipeline would travel directly across the Ogallala Aquifer, the largest underground aquifer in North America, which provides drinking water and irrigation for much of the Plains region. The thick raw “bitumen” tar sands are mixed with a volatile natural gas, making a highly corrosive, acidic and unstable combination -- not something you’d want flowing in enormous quantities anywhere near where you sit down for dinner with your family.

The fact that the predecessor pipeline and its pumping stations have leaked a dozen times this past year should be enough to make anyone question the intelligence of this scheme. Can farmers, families, cities and ecosystems really afford an on-land spill similar to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico?

But this is a problem that should worry us all. The threat to immediate public health is compounded by the threat the tar sands pose to our planet’s atmosphere. Bizarre weather patterns are playing out the climate change crisis -- Irene, record floods and droughts around the world, freak tornados and wildfires. The atmosphere is changing, and the accelerating use of fossil fuels is a major driver.

The tar sands represent the second-largest pool of carbon on the planet, second only to the oil remaining under the desert of Saudi Arabia. If we actually go through with clear-cutting enormous tracts of Boreal forests, processing the thick tar with steam and water, mixing it with natural gas and transporting, refining and burning it, it would take the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere from nearly 400 parts per million to 600 parts per million, something leading scientists have been sounding the alarm about for years.

As James Hansen, NASA’s top climatologist, put it, if we have any chance of getting back to a stable climate, “unconventional fossil fuels, such as tar sands, must be left in the ground.” In other words, “If the tar sands are thrown into the mix, it is essentially game over.”

The project developers want us to believe we need these tar sands -- that there is no alternative. They want us to forget that the solar industry employs more Americans than U.S. steel production, and that entrepreneurs nationwide, like myself and my team at Solar Mosaic, are finding creative ways to help communities prosper through clean energy.

Because of their belief in better alternatives to our energy needs, 1,200 people have been arrested these past few weeks while peacefully protesting in front of the White House. These are people of every generation -- religious leaders, union workers and business people. Actors Danny Glover and Darryl Hannah joined what has become the largest environmental civil disobedience in a generation.

The two individuals with exclusive power to stop construction of the pipeline are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Because the pipeline would cross the border, the secretary of state and, ultimately, the president must sign a certificate of “national interest” for the development to begin.

If jobs are the president’s big concern, let’s not set the planet on fire for what the State Department estimates would be only 5,000-6,000 jobs. With even a modest carbon fee, the president could raise enough money to support an Apollo-style program to rebuild America’s lagging infrastructure and really catalyze transition to a clean-energy economy.

Your phone call this week will actually make a difference. Even if we can’t protest in front of the White House, we can step up and speak out.

Our water, our health, our environment and the natural beauty of a 1,700-mile swath of America need you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parish is president of Solar Mosaic, a solar energy marketplace, and author of the forthcoming book, “Making Good: Finding Meaning, Money and Community in a Changing World.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the American Forum. 9/11

Veto of Billboard Bill Should Stand

2011-09-01T10:43:00.006-04:00

MISSOURI FORUM
By John Regenbogen

In the final hours of the regular legislative session this past spring, the Missouri General Assembly added highly controversial, pro-billboard language to an otherwise uncontroversial transportation bill. The bill passed on the last day of session but fortunately was vetoed by Gov. Jay Nixon because the bill substantially weakens the ability of local communities to restrict billboards.

The governor’s veto is not the last word, however, as the General Assembly begins a veto session September 14 and leaders appear intent to try to override the veto by garnering votes of two-thirds of the legislature. Ironically, while all indications are that the General Assembly appears poised to finally act on a matter of basic fairness and return control of the St. Louis police department from the state to the city, it may seek to take away the right of local citizens – through their locally elected officials -- to regulate billboards according to community standards.

As the governor wrote in his veto letter, it is important for Missouri’s cities and towns to be allowed to preserve their community character in a manner that reflects local standards. A growing number of communities across Missouri feel they have accumulated enough billboards and have enacted either explicit prohibitions on new billboards or restrictive spacing and location requirements that ensure billboard blight doesn’t get out of control. From our state’s largest city, Kansas City, to rapidly growing suburbs like O’Fallon and Chesterfield, to small towns like New Haven and Defiance that depend heavily upon tourism, dozens of Missouri communities have enacted prohibitions or restrictive ordinances to protect against excessive billboard blight. But because the new language added to the transportation bill would take away this authority of local communities, the governor had no choice but to veto the bill. In fact, the bill’s extremely industry-friendly “customary use” requirement would make Missouri’s billboard law among the weakest in the nation with respect to powers of local control.

The billboard industry argues that there aren’t enough billboards in our state, which is absurd. Many Missourians feel strongly that the state has too much billboard blight and that a reduction of clutter over time will improve our communities and increase tourism. In fact, just shy of 50 percent of Missouri’s voters supported a ballot initiative in 2000 that would have prohibited new billboards anywhere in Missouri. If more Missouri communities follow the Texas model where over 300 communities have prohibited new billboards, (the fierce Texas pride in their beauty is perhaps best represented by the well-known anti-litter slogan, “Don’t Mess With Texas”) the sky won’t fall and local communities will continue to thrive, if not improve.

But the veto isn’t about the number of billboards in the state, whether we have too many or too few. Rather, it is about keeping state law intact in order to allow local governments to continue making the decisions with respect to billboards in their communities. The Missouri billboard industry may not like this law, but we must retain the common-sense notion that local communities are best able to make these local decisions. Not all communities want to take a tough stance on billboards, of course, but polling has shown that the vast majority of citizens support the strong right of local control on this issue without interference from Jefferson City.

Billboards may have a place in Missouri. But that place should not be every place. At the very least, Missouri’s local governments must retain the right to determine what is appropriate in their communities. Gov. Nixon’s veto must be upheld and the General Assembly should end its effort to put the interests of a powerful industry ahead of local communities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regenbogen is executive director of Scenic Missouri.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by the Missouri Forum. 9/11

Equality at the Workplace Remains a Goal, Not a Reality

2011-08-26T11:54:00.005-04:00

AMERICAN FORUM
By Marianne Hill

Women’s Equality Day, August 26, is both a celebration of women’s progress and a reminder that equality remains a goal, not a reality.

On this day in 1920, women gained the right to vote under the 19th Amendment. Today, over 90 years later, the struggle to advance women’s rights is concentrated on the economic front -- with an end to discrimination against women in the labor force a critical, and hotly-debated, objective.

Two proposals now stalled in Congress would improve women’s odds of getting a fair shake at the workplace. They face an uphill battle, but it’s one worth fighting.

Many companies pay their male employees more than even better-qualified women in the same job. The best-known victim of pay discrimination today may be Lilly Ledbetter, but her case is far from unique. Consider the lawsuit against Wal-Mart, the one that the Supreme Court ruled could not proceed as a class action suit. The firm’s records, cited by the plaintiffs, showed that although more than two-thirds of the firm’s hourly employees were female, only 15 percent of store managers were women. “Women were paid less than men of equal seniority in every major job category, even though women on average had higher performance ratings and lower turnover rates than men,” states the Public Justice Center.

The Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act would close many of the loopholes and lax penalties that have made the Equal Pay Act of 1963 ineffective in ensuring pay equity in such cases. Studies show that bias against women begins at hiring and persists at promotion time. According to the American Association of University Women, one year after graduating from college, women earn only 80 percent as much as their male counterparts in the same field, and after 10 years of experience, women earn only 69 percent as much. In other words, the pay elevators for women start lower, are slower and don’t go as high as those for men. And the wage gaps are worse for black and Hispanic women.

A woman working full-time in 2009 earned at the median only 77 percent of what a man earned. Over the course of her lifetime, this translates into $400,000 of lost earnings. At the bottom of the wage scale, poor adults are largely women, and the poverty rate of 15 percent among working age women is 30 percent higher than that for men. The top of the income scale is dominated by men: approximately 80 percent of persons earning $100,000 or more per year are men.

The Fair Pay Act of 2011 would require employers to make public the job-related data that is basic to determining whether or not there has been discrimination. At present, women who believe they have been discriminated against cannot get the data on jobs and pay scales they need without filing a lawsuit. At some firms, they cannot even ask co-workers about their pay.

The other bill, the Paycheck Fairness Act, clarifies that wage differences must be based on job characteristics, not on gender. And, if wage discrimination is proven in court, individuals would be able to receive full compensatory and punitive damages, as is already true in cases of discrimination based on race. It would prohibit retaliation by firms against employees who raise wage parity issues.

Eliminating the wage gap is particularly important in families where the woman is the only job-holder. And, among families with children under 18 years of age, 34 percent of working mothers are the sole earners in their family. Progress towards pay equity, then, is vital to the future of American families, and it depends on the passage of proposals like the Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Hill is an activist who holds a Ph.D. in economics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © American Forum 8/11

Proud to Invest in America

2011-08-22T18:22:00.002-04:00

AMERICAN FORUM
By Paul Egerman

I love America, and have proudly invested in America. I have invested by building successful businesses employing thousands of American workers. And I have invested in our country by paying taxes.

But our nation loses $100 billion a year to tax dodging by some of our largest corporations and wealthiest people. That’s a trillion dollar hole in our national treasury over the next decade unless we act now to plug it.

Tax dodging companies are disinvesting in our country – not investing in it.

Many U.S. multinational companies use a gimmick called “transfer pricing” – shifting patents to their offshore subsidiaries, for example – in order to pretend they've earned their profits in a tax haven like the Cayman Islands, Bermuda or Luxembourg, even though their operations there may be little more than a mail box. What they’re really doing is transferring their U.S. profits offshore and transferring their tax responsibilities to the rest of us.

In this global version of a shell game, corporations move their profits to offshore shell company subsidiaries; the U.S. parent company reports to the IRS that they've made almost no profits, or even lost money on their U.S. operations. These companies are passing the buck to other taxpayers and robbing our national treasury of funds we need.

It sickens me that businesses like mine responsibly paid taxes at the rate of 35 percent on millions of dollars in profits while companies like GE would pay zero percent on billions of dollars in profits. Even worse, they had so many tax loopholes and tax subsidies that Uncle Sam actually owed them money. From 2008 to 2010, GE had $7.7 billion in pretax U.S. profits and $4.7 billion in tax refunds, giving it a negative 61.3% tax rate, reports the tax experts at Citizens for Tax Justice.

We need to ask what kind of country we want to have and who is going to pay for it.

I have been fortunate to live the American Dream. I know my success is due to many factors. I know, for example, as a software entrepreneur, that I would have had no business at all without the government assistance I received for my college education, or the government research that led to the Internet.

It’s obscene that computer and internet companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple and Cisco are part of a coalition clamoring for a tax holiday to “repatriate” profits they shifted to tax havens to avoid U.S. taxes.

It’s obscene that so many members of Congress are willing to legislate austerity for American workers, small businesses and retirees while leaving the door open for big corporations to dodge taxes through tax havens.

We all benefit from public services, infrastructure and research paid for by tax dollars – education and public transportation, the Centers for Disease Control and food safety inspections, roads, bridges and waterways, the Small Business Administration and economic development programs, police and courts, and the public safety nets, from unemployment insurance to food stamps, that so many depend on in these hard economic times.

Instead of reducing our debt by cutting vital services, we need to close two big tax deficits - the tax haven deficit and the deficit from the Bush tax cuts for the affluent. Each is worth a trillion dollars over the next decade.

The Stop Tax Havens Abuse Act introduced recently in Congress by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) and Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) would close the loopholes that reward those who disinvest in America and dodge taxes to unfairly boost their corporate treasuries. It should be a no-brainer solution in deficit reduction.

It is simply outrageous that we would ask unemployed and disabled Americans and Medicare and Social Security recipients to sacrifice more while continuing to shower tax savings on millionaires and billionaires who have a larger share of the nation’s income than any time since the 1920’s.

It’s time for Congress to plug the loopholes that allow our largest corporations to avoid billions of dollars in taxes, and it’s time for Congress to ask our wealthiest individuals, including people like me, to also pay our fair share of taxes. After all, American corporations and wealthy individuals should be proud to support our country and invest in its future.

****************************************
Paul Egerman, a software entrepreneur, is co-founder and former CEO of the medical information technology company eScription.
***************************************
Copyright © American Forum 8/11

Avoiding the Wrong Lesson About Fukushima

2011-08-22T12:02:00.000-04:00

Pam Solo

AMERICAN FORUM
By Pam Solo and Grant Smith

The reactor disaster in Fukushima is so fresh in our memories that it may seem incomprehensible to think that the history of that tragic (and still unfolding) event in Japan could ever be rewritten and distorted. But history tells us that the nuclear power industry is very adept at revising the facts about every major reactor disaster.

Consider the Three Mile Island (TMI) reactor crisis in the United States. Thanks to years of industry propaganda, many Americans now assume that the panic that followed in the wake of this near-disaster situation derailed the nuclear power industry in the United States, halting its forward momentum in its prime. (Just watch: If the industry falters after Fukushima, it will once again pin the blame on “unreasoning panic” by the public.)

Panic was not the issue after the Three Mile Island. In reality, the U.S. nuclear power industry was already dead in the water by the time of the TMI accident. The culprit was not unreasoning panic on the part of the public. What killed nuclear power more than a quarter of a century ago was cold, hard economics: Nuclear power was just too expensive to build.

Remember the promises made about nuclear power?

First it was “atoms for peace.” But we now know that our nuclear arsenal was the priority. Then it was “too cheap to meter.” But the truth is that nuclear power has been a financial fiasco, declared by Forbes in 1980 as the worst financial disaster in business history.

Little has changed since then, including the nuclear power industry’s enormous lobbying influence and public relations clout. While Wall Street continues to take a pass on financing risky reactors, President Obama and bipartisan Congressional supporters continue to cheerlead the so-called “nuclear renaissance” even as the worst industrial disaster in history continues to play out in Japan. The possibility of an accident, we were told, was next to impossible. But we’ve had three major incidents in 30 years and numerous near misses.

Now “clean” is the mantra in support of nuclear power for politicians and environmentalists alike who think only of reducing CO2. Is nuclear power a clean energy source? Not so much. The evidence paints quite a different story: routine, low-level, radioactive emissions, tritium leaks into water supplies, thousands of tons of fish each year annihilated at water intakes, thermal pollution of lakes and streams, tens of thousands of tons of extremely toxic high-level nuclear waste generated with thousands more to come.

The industry began trumpeting the “nuclear renaissance” in 2003. Yet, not one nuclear unit has been built in the United States. The average price for one reactor increased from an estimated $3 billion in 2002 to $10 billion in 2010 – not including the inevitable cost overruns that have plagued nuclear power construction since the beginning.

In 2009 Citigroup Global Markets wrote: “Three of the risks faced by (nuclear plant) developers – construction, power price and operational – are so large and variable that individually they could bring even the largest utility to its knees.” This analysis is playing itself out now.

In Florida, Progress Energy announced in 2006 that a reactor would cost $6 billion in 2006. By 2010 it was estimated to be over $22 billion.

The price of the French nuclear power plant project in Olkiluoto, Finland has doubled and faces a costly four-year delay. Duke Energy has petitioned the North Carolina public utility commission for rate recovery of over $400 million just to design two nuclear plants. Duke, in North Carolina, and AEP, in Indiana, are pushing legislation to further shift design, construction and operational costs of nuclear plants to ratepayers.

In the meantime, the chronic and seemingly intractable problems for nuclear power continue. In December of 2009, Mark Cooper, a nuclear expert, said that 90 percent of the plants applied for at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had been cancelled or faced delays.

We’ve been down this road before … and it is truly the road to financial ruin. Ratepayers were saddled with an estimated $200 to $300 billion in cost overruns from completed nuclear plants from the 1960s through the 1980s; nearly $50 billion for abandoned plants. Due to industry whining during the deregulation craze in the 1990s, claiming that nuclear power couldn’t compete in deregulated markets because of the high cost of nuclear power, ratepayers once again bailed out the nuclear industry to the tune of $40 billion.

So, how does nuclear power essentially defy the financial law of gravity and continue to be touted by indefatigable boosters?

According to the Institute for Southern Studies the industry has spent an estimated $640 million on lobbying. The goal has been and continues to be not to reduce financial risk but to shift it to taxpayers and ratepayers.

What have we learned after 60 years with nuclear power? The bottom line comes down to this: Nuclear power is an extraordinarily expensive and dangerous way to boil water. Don’t take our word for it, just ask the people in Fukushima.
------------------------------
Pam Solo is the president and founder of the nonprofit and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute and facilitator of the Citizens Lead for Energy Action Now. Grant Smith is a senior energy policy analyst to the Civil Society Institute and former executive director of the Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, where he worked for 29 years.
--------------------------------
© American Forum 8/11

Punish Murdoch's Voicemail Crimes by Yanking His TV Licenses

2011-08-04T18:31:00.002-04:00

Mitchell Szczepanczyk

Steve Macek

AMERICAN FORUM
By Steve Macek and Mitchell Szczepanczyk

The British tabloid, News of the World, owned by conservative media-mogul Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., has been implicated since 2005 in intercepting voicemails of celebrities and politicians. But recently the newspaper has been swept up in explosive new allegations that its staff also intercepted voicemails of victims of the July 7, 2005, London bombing, of relatives of deceased British soldiers, and of a 13-year-old murdered girl.

Ramifications snowballed. Within a week of the new allegations, Murdoch closed News of the World after 168 years of operation, firing the paper's 200 employees. A class-action lawsuit filed in March against Murdoch about lax oversight was quickly amended to include the new allegations, and News Corp.’s stock lost $10 billion in value in the scandal’s first two weeks. The company's top U.K. executive, Rebekah Brooks, has tendered her resignation, and the scandal derailed an attempt by Murdoch to secure majority control of BSkyB, Britain's largest satellite broadcaster. The scandal has also impacted the head of Scotland Yard, who resigned once ties between News of the World and Scotland Yard became known.

But the Murdoch media empire extends across the world and the scandal may well have repercussions on this side of the Atlantic. News of the World is alleged to have paid a New York police officer to secure voicemails of victims of the 9/11 attacks, and the FBI has apparently opened an investigation. What's more, the editor of Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal who served as the editor at News of the World during the time of voicemail intercepts has also resigned in disgrace.

Clearly, Murdoch must face accountability for crimes committed under his watch, and one way the U.S. government could hold him accountable would be to repeal News Corp's TV broadcast licenses.

By law, American TV stations must be licensed by the FCC, and those licenses carry a requirement of having to serve the "public interest, convenience and necessity.” Theoretically, the FCC has power to take away the license of any broadcaster who fails to live up to this standard (though the FCC has historically never exercised this power without being ordered to do so by courts).

The idea of stripping News Corp of its TV licenses already has gained traction in the wake of the voicemail scandal. Murdoch reacts to license challenges about as well as werewolves do a full moon. When the FCC threatened a single Murdoch TV license in 1997, Murdoch's chief lobbyist threatened then-FCC-chair Reed Hundt, saying that Hundt wouldn't be able to "get a job as a dog catcher" if he pulled even a single Murdoch TV license.

But Murdoch is now in the hot seat and the window for broadcast license renewals (and rejections) begins next year. Moreover, the FCC is already considering pending license challenges affecting a number of stations in Chicago, Milwaukee, Wisc., and Portland, Ore. Some of those stations are Fox affiliates. (Full disclosure: One of the co-authors of this op-ed is a party to one of those challenges.) Given the speed with which News Corp's voicemail hacking scandal has developed, prompt action by the FCC will be required, and we encourage the FCC to use its power to withdraw licenses of broadcasters owned by criminals.
-----------------------------
Macek is an associate professor of speech communication at North Central College and Szczepanczyk is an organizer with Chicago Media Action.
-----------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the American Forum. 8/11

Fix the Broken Bail Bond System

2011-08-04T11:19:00.001-04:00

AMERICAN FORUM
By Timothy Murray

Every day in America, half a million people sit in local jails awaiting trial. They are there because they can’t afford to make bail. Two of every three of these people are charged with nonviolent offenses and are simply waiting to face their accusers.

Meanwhile, well-publicized and well-off defendants like former International Monetary Fund head Dominique Strauss-Kahn can make bail easily, no matter how high, and are released before court action. In effect, they have purchased their freedom until their trial begins.

The cost to local taxpayers to feed and house those who can’t make bail is $9 billion a year. We could save those dollars, ease prison overcrowding and bring more justice to the entire system with some relatively simple reforms.

Nearly 50 years ago, then-Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy convened the country’s first national conference on this issue, describing the pretrial justice and bail system in America as “unsafe, unfair and ineffective.” Unfortunately, that description remains accurate today. This outdated and dangerous system only benefits the special-interest, for-profit bail bond industry. It favors those who have the money to obtain bail, regardless of how dangerous those people are.

Recently a group of prestigious criminal justice organizations, together with the Office of Justice Programs at the U.S. Department of Justice, convened another national meeting on pretrial justice and bail reform. The 2011 conference examined the nation’s progress toward a fair, safe and accountable system and sought to outline proven solutions.

States like Illinois and Kentucky banned for-profit bail bonds decades ago. Instead, they substituted a system that relies on family and community supervision for those charged with nonviolent offenses. This includes frequent contact with a supervising officer, mandatory assessments for substance abuse, and mental health and drug testing. The reforms also included simple court reminder programs so that nearly everyone –- 92 percent of those awaiting trial in Kentucky -- shows up in court to face their charges.

We need to fix the unjust pretrial system in which dangerous criminals who happen to be wealthy can purchase their freedom while nonviolent offenders must remain behind bars. We must move to a system based on danger to the public, not dollars. Judges must be empowered with the best possible tools to determine who should be held and who can be released with appropriate supervision pending trial.

Our local jails are increasingly overcrowded, at tremendous cost to our already-strapped local governments. Sensible reforms of state and local pretrial justice procedures should focus on safety while containing costs to the taxpayer.465 words
------------------------------------------------
Murray is executive director of the Pretrial Justice Institute which is the nation's only nonprofit organization dedicated to ensuring informed pretrial decision making for safe communities through technical assistance, training and advocacy.
------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the American Forum. 8/11

Don’t Turn Out Lights on Bulb Innovation

2011-07-26T15:59:00.000-04:00

AMERICAN FORUM
By Kathleen Rogers

In a close vote, the House recently passed a provision that undercuts one of the most successful environmental programs of the decade – one that requires all bulbs -- including the incandescent -- to achieve higher efficiency levels. The amendment, which was tacked on to the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2012, delays a ban on sales of incandescent bulbs for nine months - from Jan. 1 until the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30, 2012 – turning off the lights on this successful program.

The legislation, if passed by the Senate, will repeal one of those “inside the beltway” success stories that seems near impossible these days--legislation that was drafted with the help of light-bulb manufacturing giants, Philips, General Electric and Sylvania, and with the support of a coalition of efficiency and environmental organizations, including my own, passed by a bipartisan majority of the House and Senate and signed into law in 2007 by Republican President George W. Bush. More unusual was the fact that California and Nevada, then under leadership of Republican governors, swallowed hard and gave up their own state lighting-efficiency legislation, which had faster timetables. They did so because they were persuaded by all of us that creating a single regulatory light-bulb standard for the whole country would support innovation; would help the United States maintain its market share of production; save American households money; create new jobs; and would give industry what it craves much more than the anti-regulatory crowd would have you believe. It seems fair to use the term “dim bulb” to describe those members of Congress who voted to turn back the clock.

It's up to the Senate to rectify this wrong.

Thomas Edison created the light bulb in 1879, one of the great U.S. inventions that helped solidify America’s reputation as a global innovator and a place where innovation would be rewarded. His incandescent bulb, though it revolutionized the world, spends most of its life making heat, not light, and it's remarkable for its inefficiency by today’s standards. After a slow start, and in the face of a global phase-out, manufacturers began the arduous, expensive and sometimes exciting process of reinventing lighting. Now, despite their detractors, the new generations of light bulbs, including the new highly efficient incandescent, is revolutionizing indoor, outdoor, and street lighting. And these new or improved bulbs will save American families $100 to $200 every year, for a total savings of $12 billion for American households every year. It also will save more than 2,000 American jobs, including those in high-rate unemployment areas such as Pennsylvania and Ohio.

The survival of the legislation also means we won't be putting 1 million tons of climate pollution in our atmosphere, which is the equivalent of taking 17 million cars off the road, saving our country money, energy and lives. Certainly, Thomas Edison would have embraced this technology for its energy and cost savings, as he often said, “Waste is worse than loss.”

This legislation is simply one of many dozens of efforts that Congress is seriously entertaining that would roll back progress and stifle innovation. From dissolution of EPA to stalling air-quality rules that would reduce mercury in the air, to blocking EPA from regulating climate pollutants, to even more subtle and damaging efforts -- congressional leadership is capitulating to Tea Partiers and others who myopically and tragically see regulation as an impediment to their version of a happy and prosperous life -- a life that seems to include wastefulness. Then to get us there, they have filtered out the long history of bipartisanship on energy solutions and environmental protection. Have they forgotten that Republican President Ronald Reagan pushed and pushed hard for energy efficiency standards and energy innovations?

There is one piece of ancient technology that American voters should insist on keeping-- a good old-fashioned broom. And we should use it to sweep out those members of Congress whose dedication against all regulations and support for unfettered individual freedom is undermining America’s global leadership in technology and innovation, maybe permanently.
----------------------
Rogers is president of Earth Day Network.
----------------------
© American Forum. 7/11

Making the Case that Medicaid Works

2011-07-25T11:02:00.001-04:00

AMERICAN FORUM
By Anna Liebenow

You never know what obstacles life is going to put in front of you. When I was 25, I was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. Before I turned 30, I was using a wheelchair. When you have a disability, it takes a fair amount of creativity to make life work. Like millions of other Americans with disabilities, I found a way. I continued to work, volunteer and live my life.

After a few years, my MS progressed to the point where I could no longer get in and out of the wheelchair on my own. I was still the same person and still wanted to contribute something. But without help transferring from my bed to my wheelchair, I couldn’t even get out the door. The world beyond my bedroom would be lost to me, and all I have to offer the world would go to waste.

Fortunately, Medicaid gives me the missing piece I need to make my life work. An aide comes twice a day to help get me into and out of my wheelchair. This doesn’t just make a difference in my life: It makes the life I have possible. I work at an independent-living center and I volunteer with organizations that serve people with disabilities. The assistance I get means I can help others live meaningful and more independent lives.

For me, a meaningful life includes contributing to my community. Recently, I was appointed to serve on the board of the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority. Many people with disabilities, seniors and others would be unable to get to work or to their doctors without public transit. Without Medicaid, I wouldn’t even be able to leave my home to get to a board meeting. I think that says it all.

Medicaid also helps me buy medications that control my MS. Without Medicaid, I could not afford my medications, treatments or specialized wheelchair. No amount of creativity or effort would be enough to make my life work if I lost that care. In fact, I might be forced to live in a nursing home—which would not only take away my quality of life, it would cost the taxpayers more than the help I now receive.

As I said, you never know what kind of obstacles life will throw into your path. Our country is facing the greatest economic challenges of my lifetime. Life has gotten much harder for millions of people. I know what that’s like. People are making sacrifices to make life work, and I know what that’s like, too.

Lawmakers in Washington are now negotiating a debt-reduction deal that will likely include massive cuts in federal spending. Medicaid as we know it is at risk, and some proposals would gut the program. To put it bluntly: Cutting Medicaid would end the life I know. Taking away my benefits amounts to telling me that our government does not value the contributions I make. That would be wrong, and I don’t believe it’s what Americans want our government to do.

I am not a policymaker but I do know that slashing the kinds of benefits I rely upon is bad policy. Medicaid makes sense because it helps people live up to their potential. Eliminating the opportunities it provides is bad policy.

Not every American has as much at stake in this discussion as I do, but we should all be concerned about the future of Medicaid. In America, we recognize each person’s potential to contribute. When a person is working hard to overcome a roadblock, we don’t throw another one up in her way.

Our elected leaders need to hear that cutting Medicaid is not what we need, and goes against everything that we are. I am the face of Medicaid: a woman who is not ready to give up on herself and is asking the government not to give up on her.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liebenow is a member of The American Association of People with Disabilities and a disability rights leader in Rhode Island.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the American Forum. 7/11

Agent Orange and Vietnam: Ending A Fifty Year Legacy

2011-07-22T11:11:00.000-04:00

AMERICAN FORUM
By former U.S. Reps. Constance Morella (R-Md.) and Bob Edgar (D-Pa.)

August marks the 50th anniversary of the first use of herbicides by United States military forces during the war in Vietnam. From 1961 until 1971, more than 20 million gallons of Agent Orange and other herbicides were stored, mixed, handled by U.S. troops and sprayed by U.S. airplanes over millions of acres of Vietnamese forest and farmland. The goal of this military operation was to deny cover to the enemy on the ground.

The U.S. government now compensates U.S. Vietnam-era vets for 15 serious health conditions and one birth defect related to exposure to the dioxin that was part of those herbicides.

But some 3 million Vietnamese also suffered health effects, including 150,000 of today’s children with birth defects. Their needs have long been neglected, caught in the geopolitical and scientific conflict that followed the war. The Vietnamese government, several U.S. foundations, and nongovernmental organizations have set up hospitals and small remediation programs, but so far these have redressed less than 10 percent of the need.

But the devastating legacy of Agent Orange, one remaining shadow of that war, is on the way to being resolved in Vietnam – if current trends continue. We may have disagreed on many things in the past, but on a recent trip to Vietnam we witnessed a new spirit of cooperation and partnership among former adversaries. All sides are now determined to alleviate the health and environmental damage from Agent Orange, damage that continues to this day.

At a church-run center near Ho Chi Minh City, we knelt on the floor to meet Nguyen Van Minh, 14, one of 60 severely disabled children receiving medical care and rehabilitation there. Like any child, he giggled and sang along with us to a silly song about “fishies,” as other children competed to hold our hands and give us hugs. Their simple joy in life transcends partisan differences, making it clear that the way to see the Agent Orange legacy now is as a humanitarian concern that we can do something about.

Our former colleagues in Congress agree, so $18.5 million for Agent Orange remediation in Vietnam survived the recent 2011 appropriations battle. At former U.S. military bases, starting with the Da Nang airport, the U.S. Agency for International Development is already at work cleaning up deadly “hot spots” of dioxin residues that are still making people sick where the herbicides spilled and soaked into the ground. The State Department is beginning a new $34 million cleanup project at Da Nang, and David Shear, awaiting Senate confirmation to serve as the new U.S. ambassador, pledged to continue assistance for Vietnam’s disabled citizens without regard to cause.

This is all very good news, reflecting the U.S. mission’s astute understanding that America’s commercial and security interests are well served by dealing with the Agent Orange issue. To follow through during this window of opportunity, the United States should adopt a long-term action plan like that drawn up by the U.S.-Vietnam Dialogue Group on Agent Orange/Dioxin, a nonpartisan group of prominent scientists, policymakers and citizens from both countries sponsored by the Aspen Institute.

For an investment of $30 million a year over 10 years, shared with Vietnam and other donors, the Dialogue Group plan would restore damaged ecosystems, clean up contaminated soils and expand humanitarian services to people with disabilities. Advances in technology and know-how have made this possible, and now is the time to do it.

America is at its best when it responds to humanitarian concerns, restores hope and dignity to a devastated people and closes wounds from the past. Helping innocent children like Minh, who are suffering from their parents’ exposure to Agent Orange/dioxin, is a treatment that can heal us all.
-----------------------
The authors are former U.S. Reps. Constance Morella (R-Md.) and Bob Edgar (D-Pa.)
------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the American Forum. 7/11

Minimum-Wage Earners Falling Further Behind

2011-07-21T14:22:00.002-04:00

AMERICAN FORUM
By Christine Owens

Two years ago this week, 4.5 million of America’s workers enjoyed a modest pay increase, as the federal minimum wage rose from $6.55 to $7.25 an hour. The increase was the final of a three-step boost enacted in 2007. Of those getting a bump in pay, more than three-quarters were adults, nearly two-thirds were women, and nearly half a million were single parents with children under 18.

Yet during the past two years, these working families have seen the real value of their wages fall. Minimum-wage earners working full-time make roughly $15,000 a year. Had the minimum wage rate kept up with inflation, their paychecks would have increased by $800 this year. Instead, our nation’s lowest-paid workers have had an even harder time providing basic needs for their families. This is one more reason that Main Street is having a tough time recovering from the economic calamity brought on by financial collapse.

CEO compensation grew 23 percent in 2010, while pay for the average American worker grew only half a percent. Minimum wage workers have fared even worse: Since the 2009 increase, the real value of the minimum wage has fallen 5 percent.

The decline in value of the minimum wage during the past four decades has been even more dramatic, as prices for goods and services have risen much faster than the wage floor. If the minimum wage had kept up with inflation since the late 1960s, it would be $10.38 today. Yet, roughly a quarter of the nation’s work force is now earning less than that.

Instead of keeping the minimum wage current, Congress has acted just three times in the last three decades to increase it. The deterioration of the wage floor has helped fuel a level of economic inequality not seen in this nation since the early 1900s—the era of sweatshops and robber barons. With more and more income and wealth being transferred from working families to the super-rich, our economy, our democracy and the American way of life are under threat.

Some will say this is not the moment to be concerned with the minimum wage. But restoring the value of the minimum is in fact a key building block of sustainable economic recovery.

Businesses and economists agree that lack of demand is the primary driver of the stalled recovery and high unemployment. Without customers lining up for goods and services, employers will not expand their production or their payrolls. Raising the minimum wage would put more money in pockets of the lowest earners who have little choice but to spend their wages immediately. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that raising the minimum wage to $9.50, as President Obama proposed during the 2008 presidential campaign, would generate more than $60 billion in new consumer spending.

Wielding outdated economic theories, opponents claim that raising the minimum wage will cost jobs and slow rehiring. The tired canard that the minimum wage causes unemployment recently received national attention when reporters revisited 2005 testimony in which Congresswoman Michele Bachmann argued that eliminating the minimum wage would wipe out unemployment entirely. This extremist view was roundly criticized, yet many corporate interests still promote the dogma that raising the minimum wage reduces employment.

While simplistic supply and demand theory suggests that employment will fall as wages rise, this 18th century model fails to capture the complexities of how the labor market works. Two decades of rigorous empirical research has revealed that increases in the minimum wage have not cost jobs or slowed rehiring, even during times of high unemployment.

Since the end of the recession, corporate profits have recovered and CEO compensation has skyrocketed. Corporations are sitting pretty on nearly $2 trillion in assets that they refuse to use to expand production or rehire because the rest of America has little cash of their own to spend on goods and services. Raising the minimum wage will help Main Street share in—and power—a robust economic recovery. It’s the least we can do for those with the least means to stay afloat and get ahead in a brutal economy.
---------------------------
Owens is executive director of the National Employment Law Project
--------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the American Forum. 7/11

Good News for Women’s Health and Pocketbooks

2011-07-21T11:29:00.002-04:00

AMERICAN FORUM

By Cindy Pearson and Lois Uttley

The Institute of Medicine, an independent panel of doctors and health experts, has just recommended that insurance companies be told to stop charging co-pays for contraception and several other types of women’s preventive health care in any new health plans. Ending those extra out-of-pocket insurance charges will be good for women’s health and good for women’s pocketbooks.

Medical experts also are urging that insurance companies end co-pays for breastfeeding supports, including rental of breast pumps, and for annual well woman exams, HIV infection screening and counseling for women experiencing domestic violence. Most of the public attention so far, though, has focused on the experts’ recommendations about contraception. No wonder, because the vast majority of women in our country have used birth control at some time in their lives.

For young women and their families who are struggling in these tough economic times, a $20 or $30 co-pay can make it difficult to afford to fill a birth control prescription each month. Some contraceptive methods like IUDs, which work better for certain women, require co-pays or deductibles that can run into hundreds of dollars. It’s understandable that women facing financial stress report they use contraception inconsistently and put off family planning office visits to save money.

Without affordable and reliable contraception, however, women face the risk of unintended pregnancy. In fact, half of all pregnancies in this country are now unintended. Medical experts point out that there can be serious health consequences for both women and babies from these “surprise” pregnancies. When a woman isn’t able to space pregnancies, allowing enough time between them, her risk of experiencing maternal health problems increases. This is especially true for women who have health conditions like high blood pressure or heart disease that may exacerbated by pregnancy, problems that disproportionately affect women of color.

Women whose pregnancies not planned are less likely to receive timely prenatal care, quit smoking and begin taking adequate folic acid to promote a healthy pregnancy.

When there is an interval of less than a year between births – which can happen when a woman has no family planning -- the chances increase for a pre-term birth and a low birth-weight baby who will be at risk of serious complications and even death in the first year of life.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has cited family planning as one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century precisely because it improved the health of women and their babies.

But affordable contraception does more than protect women’s health. It also protects a family’s economic security, by enabling women to have children when they are able to support them. That’s why the American public strongly supports family planning services -- with 84 percent of those polled in June by Lake Research Associates citing contraception as an importance preventive health service.

We urge the Department of Health and Human Services to adopt the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine in full and require that new insurance plans remove co-pays and out extra charges for family planning and contraceptives. It will be a historic step for women’s health and the economic well-being of families across America.
--------------------------------------------------------
Pearson and Uttley are co-founders of Raising Women’s Voices for the Health Care We Need. Pearson is Executive Director of the National Women’s Health Network. Uttley is President-elect of the Public Health Association of NYC.
-------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the American Forum. 7/11

Putting a Face on Medicaid

2011-07-20T18:38:00.001-04:00

AMERICAN FORUM
By Sue Hetrick

Open the newspaper any morning and one story is at the top: Leaders in Washington are negotiating a deal to reduce our nation’s debt and balance the budget. Trillions of dollars and thousands of laws and programs are at stake. While the public looks on, some of the most influential people in our country go back and forth with proposals: President Obama; Vice President Joe Biden; House Speaker John Boehner; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid …. .
And Sue, Micah and Nick Hetrick.

No, we aren’t members of Congress. Nor are we cabinet secretaries or big-time lobbyists. We’re an Ohio family -- I’m the proud mother of Micah, 22, and Nick, 27. Along with representatives of the American Association of People with Disabilities and United Cerebral Palsy, we traveled to Washington this week to show the human face of the policies now under consideration. Our mission was to share our family’s story with officials in the White House and on Capitol Hill in order to protect Medicaid. This program, which has enabled our family to lead a fulfilling, healthy life, is on the chopping block. My family has something to say about that.

Micah was born with Down syndrome. Throughout his life, he’s faced challenges that many young people can’t imagine, including heart surgery when he was 5 months old. He’s a fine young man who has always worked hard to reach his potential. He’s a high school graduate who works two volunteer jobs and is looking for paid work. An enthusiastic reader, he’s making his way through C.S. Lewis’s “Chronicles of Narnia” series.

I work full-time. At the end of a workday, I return home to find him preparing dinner with the aide provided to us through Medicaid. Micah cannot be home alone for a long stretch, and he needs help with transportation, his health care and skills like preparing dinner. If he didn’t have an aide, he wouldn’t be contributing as a volunteer and he couldn’t be searching for a job.
Without someone to be with Micah during the day, I could not work. I’d have to be there to support Micah. I would be on public assistance myself—not supporting our family and paying taxes. I have a master’s degree and a strong commitment to support my family and serve my community. Eliminating the benefit my family uses would mean my potential—and Micah’s – would go entirely to waste.

As the debt negotiations in Washington progress, potential cuts to Medicaid have come into play. Implementing them would harm people with disabilities and their families—who are already under-served. Our family is fortunate to have an Individual “Option Waiver” through Medicaid, which provides the services we use to keep our household running smoothly (and keep me at work). As I write this, there are more than 27,000 people on the wait list for this program in Ohio. They were not in the room during our meetings, but their stories need to be heard too.

I’m proud of both of my sons, Micah and Nick. Both have worked hard throughout their lives. Nick, who is 27, just received his PhD; Micah recently received his high school diploma. I love them both, and think I’ve given them the start in life they need to become the best people they can be. Like any mother, I love them equally. But without Medicaid, one of them could not live the productive, fulfilling life he deserves. Without Medicaid, neither could I.

Nick is married and expecting his first child. We have the highest hopes for his baby. Everyone should enter this world with the same chance in life. I fear that Washington could take this country in the wrong direction, chipping away at a resource that helps thousands of families like mine—one that keeps people at work and promotes self-sufficiency.

That’s the message I brought to Washington this week. Our elected leaders need to hear all of our voices. There are steps that can be taken without cutting off this lifeline to people who really need it. I hope my fellow Ohioans will stand up for those with disabilities, parents and hard-working families all of whom are the face of Medicaid.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hetrick is Public Policy Director for the Ability Center of Greater Toledo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the American Forum. 7/11

Texans Must Be Up for the Task of Fixing its Tax System

2011-07-19T13:12:00.006-04:00

TEXAS LONE STAR FORUM
By F. Scott McCown

When the legislative session began in January, Texas faced a crisis. The state was short roughly one-fourth of the money needed simply to do what it was already doing. The Center for Public Policy Priorities was part of a broad coalition that pushed for a balanced approach to the problem -- one that used the Rainy Day Fund in combination with targeted cuts and new revenue.

Others pushed for a cuts-only approach that slashed things like the number of teachers and payments to nursing homes. Initially, the House proposed a devastating cuts-only budget. In the end, with a slightly improved revenue projection and various one-time measures, the Legislature largely funded the Senate’s modestly better, but still damaging budget.

Texas is growing twice as fast as the nation. In the most recent decade, Texas’ child population growth accounted for over half of the child population growth in the entire country, making our state’s education system critical to our country’s future.

Contrary to any spin you’ve heard, the Legislature actually cut spending on public education. And the money the state is spending won’t go as far because of enrollment growth and higher costs.

How does Texas turn this around? We’ll need more than a stronger economy to solve our revenue problems. While the Great Recession created a larger revenue crisis than usual, Texas has spiraled downward yearly with one round of cuts in important services after another because our revenue system doesn’t produce the money we require to meet our needs.

Honest budgeting won’t be enough. The right and the left have criticized the Legislature for using accounting gimmicks, diverting dedicated money, and relying on one-time measures. In reality, though, if our elected officials stopped these budgeting practices immediately, it would mean less money, not more, for Texas priorities. That conservative elected officials feel compelled to resort to these practices even in the face of withering criticism is strong evidence of our state’s desperate need for revenue.

Pitting our priorities against each other is not the solution either. Texas is already one of the lowest spending states in the country, with over three-fourths of everything we spend going to education and health and human services. Saying we could easily pay to educate our kids if we didn’t have to provide grandma health care is as helpful as saying we could easily provide grandma health care if we didn’t have to educate our kids.

Of course, the “shrink-the-government folks” are clever enough not to attack grandma directly. Instead they attack Medicaid. But Medicaid is very efficient, beating the cost of private health insurance.

So when people say we wouldn’t have a problem if we just spent less on Medicaid, what they really mean is we wouldn’t have a problem if we just denied more people health care. Certainly our nation must figure out how to keep people healthier for less money, but providing fewer people health care is not the answer.

If a stronger economy, honest budgeting, and pitting priorities against each other aren’t the answer, what is? Texas must modestly increase taxes. No one is suggesting that Texas become a high tax state, but Texas must raise the money needed to invest in education and other building blocks of a strong economy. As a group, Texans pay low taxes, and as a percentage of our economy our contribution has been falling.

This is not a question of living within our means. Texans have the resources in our trillion-dollar economy to meet today’s needs and build a prosperous future. But until we fix our tax system, we can’t make important investments for the common good.

The issue isn’t whether to increase taxes, but how. Our state’s major tax is a sales tax on goods -- a tax designed for yesterday’s economy when we sold more goods and fewer services. The business tax is also flawed -- redesigned in 2006 to help pay for a property tax cut, it instead leaves us $10 billion per biennium short. And our state has tax giveaways and loopholes galore.

Between now and the 2013 legislative session, Texans must square our shoulders and do two things. First, we must solve some technical problems -- how do we modernize the sales tax, reform the business tax, and address tax giveaways and loopholes so we have a smart and fair tax system that produces adequate revenue. Second, we must work together to build the public will for a tax increase. There’s no other answer. Texans can handle both the truth and the task.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCown is executive director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the Texas Lone Star Forum. 7/11

Debt Negotiations Threaten Florida’s Future

2011-07-14T15:19:00.002-04:00

By Daniella Levine

Save lives or save money for the rich? Feed hungry children or subsidize the oil and gas industry? Stop buying ineffective military equipment or stop paying for job training? These questions are at the heart of the debate over reducing the federal deficit and raising the debt ceiling.

Negotiations are underway between Congressional leaders and President Obama and it’s clear that all parties want to significantly reduce the deficit.

But, there’s deep disagreement over how to achieve that goal. It’s time for Florida’s Congressional delegation to speak up on behalf of a balanced approach that makes prudent spending cuts and generates new revenue by asking a little more from those with the most.

Right now, many in Congress are rejecting any increase in federal revenues. They have embraced only spending cuts, including many that will harm vulnerable people and the economy as a whole.

Due to the secrecy of discussions, it’s not always easy to tell what cuts are on the table, but we know that some of the proposed cuts would:

Reduce healthcare for millions and eliminate at least 250,000 jobs in the health care industry;

Leave hundreds of thousands of infants and young children hungry, putting their development and education at risk; and
Eliminate scholarships for 1.4 million college students.

Proposals to cut Medicaid range between $100 billion and $1.4 trillion over the next decade. Even a cut of $100 billion would represent a 5 percent reduction in federal funding for state Medicaid programs. A cut of that magnitude would force states to reduce reimbursements to doctors and hospitals which would drive more physicians out of the Medicaid program. And, states will end coverage or increase costs to individuals who have no other options for health insurance. Here in Florida, we have already cut over $1 billion in Medicaid reimbursement rates to hospitals and nursing homes and nearly 4 million people are uninsured. A recent study in Oregon confirmed what common sense tells us: when people don’t have Medicaid they go without needed healthcare.

Medicaid cuts will also hurt our economy. According to a study by Families USA, a 5 percent Medicaid cut in 2011 will cost more than 250,000 jobs nationwide. Here in Florida such a cut would mean $1.2 billion in lost business activity and 11,320 fewer jobs. That’s not what our economy needs.

Even worse, imagine if the cuts were more than 10 times that amount as some propose. Estimates suggest that 19 million people would lose health care coverage, and another 17 million people would lose the right to receive health care coverage through the Affordable Care Act.

Arbitrary caps on annual spending, which are also on the table, would force additional cuts to programs that serve the vulnerable. The House has already adopted a budget plan that would end nutrition benefits for 300,000 and 450,000 low-income infants, young children and moms through the Women, Infants and Children program next year alone.

That would be a terrible mistake. Children that don’t reliably get enough food are more likely to be sick, hospitalized and fall behind in school, which weakens their development and reduces their ability to contribute to our economy. The same House plan would also eliminate Pell grants for 1.4 million low-income students, including nearly 83,000 Floridians, all but ending their ability to go to college. This short-sighted proposal comes at a time when our economy needs 3 million more college graduates than we are currently expected to have by 2018. How can we compete if we don’t give people the tools to work tomorrow’s jobs?

We don’t have to hurt people now and shortchange our future. We don’t have to leave our tax revenues at their lowest share of the economy since 1950. David Stockman, former budget chief for Ronald Reagan, points out that taxing capital gains at the same level as earned income would raise billions and strengthen our economy. Closing tax loopholes for corporations sheltering profits overseas, eliminating subsidies for oil, gas and coal industries, and taxing hedge fund managers’ income as income instead of capital gains are three other proposals out of many that could increase federal revenues without burdening middle class Americans. Hundreds of billions in savings are possible by reducing wasteful military spending too.

Florida’s Congressional delegation should insist on protecting low-income people from bearing the burden of cuts and support raising revenues from those who have been enjoying trillions in tax breaks for years. It’s the right thing to do, for today and our future.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Levine is president/CEO of Catalyst Miami (formerly Human Services Coalition), a nonprofit human services organization.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the Florida Forum. 7/11

Wall Street Reform Act Deserves Implementation Now

2011-07-14T15:14:00.000-04:00

AMERICAN FORUM
By Monique Perry Danziger

Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was an anti-corruption game-changer tucked into a historic, comprehensive piece of legislation aimed primarily at overhauling the nation’s financial regulatory structure. Since becoming law, anti-corruption and financial transparency proponents are still waiting for the law to be implemented.

Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act would require oil, gas, and mining companies that must report to the SEC—approximately 90 percent of the major internationally operating oil and gas companies in the world—to disclose payments made to governments for the oil, gas, and minerals they extract. This would be a boon to anti-corruption workers trying to get the records straight when investigating bribery and corruption in developing countries. It also would serve investors looking to make informed decisions about their portfolios.

Of course, 1504 attracted industrial vitriol from the usual suspects—companies used to doing business behind a cloak of secrecy were not thrilled at the prospect of having to open their ledgers. Industry concerns aside, the provision enjoyed strong bipartisan support from legislators, including Sens. Richard Lugar (R-IN); Ben Cardin (D-MD); Patrick Leahy (D-VT); and Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA).

Earlier in the season, ending tax breaks for oil companies was proposed as a means of raising revenue against looming budget deficits. The proposal was expected to raise $12 billion by eliminating a domestic manufacturing tax deduction for big oil companies such as BP, Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron and ConocoPhillips, and $6 billion by ending deductions for taxes paid to foreign governments. Proponents of the plan argued that oil companies are able to disguise foreign royalty payments as taxes, in order to reduce their tax liability.

Such disguises and obfuscations of operating payments, sales, profits and taxes owed and paid to foreign governments are a major part of the United States government’s tax collection problem.

This week, Sen. Carl Levin introduced his signature Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, which seeks to take a bite out of the nation’s estimated $100 billion annual loss in uncollected tax revenue through offshore tax haven abuse. The bill includes new language that would require SEC-registered corporations to report on their employees, sales, purchases and financing arrangements on a country-by-country basis. The logic behind such measures being that greater transparency will enable both U.S. and foreign tax collection authorities to spot profit shifting shenanigans that companies engage in to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

In addition to 1504 and the Levin Bill measures, momentum on the financial transparency issue is growing: Hong Kong put its own version of 1504 into effect roughly this time last year, requiring any petroleum and mineral companies listing with the Hong Kong stock exchange for the first time to report significantly more details about operations including taxes, royalties and other payments made to governments on a country-by-country basis. The EU is working on its own version of a 1504-type bill.

It is increasingly obvious that letting multinational companies operate on an honor system is bad business. Instituting Section1504 and passing the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act would strengthen U.S. and foreign government tax collection, inform global investment strategies, and foster good governance in the developing world—a key component in a stable global economic recovery.

No more waiting. The SEC should issue a formal rule for implementation of 1504, as it is required to do under the Dodd Frank bill, and get the ball rolling.
-----------------------
Danziger is the Communications Director for Global Financial Integrity.
-------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the American Forum. 7/11

Wal-Mart Ruling Paves Way for Women's Next Steps

2011-07-11T14:40:00.003-04:00

Lilly Ledbetter

AMERICAN FORUM
By Lilly Ledbetter and Linda Hallman

Yesterday a sharply divided Supreme Court ignored more than 40 years of established jurisprudence in its Wal-Mart v. Dukes decision, which severely restricts the ability of employees to fight discrimination as a class-action group. In a deeply misguided opinion, the majority ruled that the women of Wal-Mart cannot band together nationwide and stand up as one against the biggest retailer in the world. It's hard to manage the court costs and find the courage to keep going. We only wish the women of Wal-Mart would not have to do that. Yet the high court decided they did not have enough in common to pursue a nationwide class-action suit, a sadly ironic twist for former employees of the great homogenizer of American retail.

The court’s decision was not related to the merits of the case, however, and the women of Wal-Mart are already planning how to proceed next, either individually or in smaller, reformulated class-action cases. In fact, Wal-Mart may rue the day it fought against allowing a single class-action case. The company’s gamble—that if it could throw up enough barriers, the women would quit—is not going to pay off, and the Goliath retailer may soon end up with more Davids than it ever wanted to fight.

Unfortunately, many other employee class-action cases are now destined to be stuck at a red light, while employers are getting the go-ahead to continue to rely on highly subjective gender discrimination practices, hurting women and their families. And this disturbing ruling extends beyond class-action certification, echoing other recent stories of institutions that were “too big” to be held accountable. First, the banks were too big to fail, and American taxpayers bailed them out even as they were losing their homes and jobs. Now, Wal-Mart is too big for justice, even though American women still face a persistent pay gap that not only undermines their families’ economic security but undercuts the nation’s recovery as well.

But American women will press on as we always do, emboldened again by a Supreme Court majority that just doesn’t get the realities of the modern workplace. This past weekend, Wal-Mart plaintiff Edith Arana’s moving story of her fight against discrimination drew big applause at AAUW’s national convention—an indication of our continuing support for the women of Wal-Mart.

We’ll also be looking into other options to deal with this wrongheaded decision. The court has been wrong before— as we know all too well —but our government is structured so that we can right those wrongs through other channels. Perhaps this decision will give Betty Dukes her own bill or motivate Congress to finally pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, which aims to stop unfair pay before it starts and came within a hair of passing last year. We’re sure the Obama administration and its multi-agency Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force will also be brainstorming to address this latest misstep from the court. This kind of injustice demands action.

Setbacks in achieving women’s equality aren’t new. Ever since women started claiming our rights and fighting for equal opportunity, the powers that be have tried to thwart our plans. Although we wish the Supreme Court had understood the need for women to band together and fight, this decision is just one more battle in the ground war women have been fighting for years. It’s just a chapter, not the end.
-----------------------------------------
Ledbetter, the namesake of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, lives in Alabama. Hallman is executive director of AAUW.

Save the Jack’s Fork and Current Rivers Now!

2011-07-06T12:54:00.002-04:00

MISSOURI FORUM
By Patricia Brown, RN

It’s summer in Missouri, the peak time for canoeing on clear Ozark rivers.

Starting Memorial Day, I spent a week camping on the Jack's Fork River. Instead of the beautiful peace and quiet I was looking for, I saw inappropriate overuse of the river.

Because my father was born in Larkin "Holler" of Shannon County (I also have other relatives there) I have visited this area almost every year for the last 50 years. About 30 years ago I stopped canoeing there during the summer because the noisy crowds made it like a Worlds of Fun ride.

More recently, I've witnessed continued deterioration, with even more noise, and scenic disruption, from development of buildings, motorboats that zip by within yards of me snorkeling so that I almost inhale part of their waves, and bulldozers taking scoops of rock gravel beach.

My father had a chance to "get rich" gravel mining, but he valued the rejuvenation powers of those rivers and instead taught me to love them as they were -- which now stirs me to action. When I see things like this, or that red Allley Springs Mill in so many magazine photos, I get a sinking feeling that the memory of something precious to me has been made obscene.

The National Park Service is in the middle of drafting a General Management Plan that will guide management of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways (ONSR) -- the Current and Jack’s Fork Rivers -- for the next 20 years. Missourians should know that now is their chance to speak up about the problems confronting this gem of a river system, home to more first-magnitude size springs in one area than anywhere else on Earth.

The updated management plan should address: (1) overdevelopment that has produced a proliferation of illegal access roads used by noisy ATVs and trucks (2) overuse by horses repeatedly crossing the rivers causing E.Coli contamination that harms swimmers and (3) stopping gravel mining. All of these things cause erosion of soil, which smothers the insects that live on the rocks and that the fish eat, destroying river life

As a little girl I sat in one spot on a rock beach, taking in the serene beauty, and gathered many empty snail shells to sew a necklace. In those days all the rocks in the rivers were speckled with black snails. Because of the unlimited numbers of people who visit these rivers now, many little creatures have been trampled to death. This cherished experience won't happen for any little girl now, not in this park.

Some would argue that my opinion should not matter, because I do not live near the rivers. Since my family is from there, I understand why local people would feel protective of the place. Shannon County has many low income residents and they need to maintain all the tourist related business far into the future. They also care about preserving the cultural practices of Ozark river life and its natural beauty. We must all do all we can to assist them.

My 91-year-old cousin from the town of Eminence, which is centrally located in that Ozark Rivers region, once said that she traveled away from them once and was shocked to find that other rivers weren't so crystal clear. She had no need to travel so far away after that. In addition, as a Kansas City area resident, like others who travel to the ONSR, I recognize it as a National Park, and know that all citizens have the standing, and indeed the responsibility to make sure it is well managed.

Now is the time to speak up. The plan being formulated now will guide management of ONSR for the next 20 years. Let’s use this opportunity to fix the problems and restore the rivers to the tranquil and restorative place that I remember from my childhood. We can do it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brown is an RN and a member of the Sierra Club and lives in Independence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the Missouri Forum. 7/11

Climate Change: Follow the Scientists

2011-07-05T15:24:00.002-04:00

AMERICAN FORUM
By Pat Byington

Dr. James McClintock, a renowned University of Alabama-Birmingham marine biologist who has conducted research in Antarctica for more than 25 years, told me the following story.

“You work in a scientific lab in the quietest place on Earth -- Antarctica.

"There’s a Crack! Boom!

"You rush to the window of your remote lab with a number of your fellow scientists, and you witness a glacier 'calving' a chunk of ice the size of a house into the water. Adrenaline permeates the room.

"Ten years ago, that exciting and incredible sight would happen about once a week. It was an event. Something rare.

"Today, at that same lab in Antarctica, the calving glacial ice, the explosive sounds, are a daily occurrence.

"The scientists are almost 'ho-hum' about it, barely lifting their heads to recognize the melting ice."

Such is life in a warming world.

McClintock has spent most of his life searching the ends of the earth for a cure for cancer and other human diseases. In fact, his research team has discovered marine species in the Antarctic that produce compounds active against skin cancer and influenza.

McClintock is not an alarmist. He does not have a political agenda. But he knows firsthand the earth is warming and he understands some of the consequences. Mid-winter temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula where he works are 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than they were 60 years ago. That may not seem like a big difference to us non-scientists, but it’s devastating to a delicate polar ecosystem (and other ecosystems).

In fact, this spring, McClintock and his research associates documented an invasion of king crabs that are likely to endanger fragile Antarctic clams, snails, and brittlestars, or perhaps even the sea squirts that he and his colleagues study that could unlock a cure for skin cancer. This new predator, with its crushing claws, is moving in because of the rapidly warming seas. Once they make their way up onto the Antarctic shelf, an archaic marine ecosystem that has been without crushing predators for millennia will find itself largely defenseless. King crabs could very well destroy McClintock’s living lab. For McClintock, it’s like discovering someone is about to burn down your home and your life’s work and possessions.

I have always believed the National Academies of Science and the National Research Council motto “Where the nation turns for independent and expert advice” accurately portrays that most venerable institution. As a nation, we have been seeking their advice since President Lincoln established this scientific body in 1863. Last month, without much fanfare, and little to no attention from the national media, the National Academies released their latest congressionally requested report on climate change.

The report, “America’s Choices,” does not pull any punches. It reaffirms that climate change is occurring now and that the most effective strategy to combat it would be to begin cutting greenhouse gas emissions immediately.

What makes this report more shocking is the fact that it is not new. As far back as 2005, the National Academies of the U.S., France, Canada, the United Kingdom, India, Italy, Japan, Germany, Brazil and China have jointly called upon policy makers throughout the world to address climate change. The message from the National Academies six years ago was virtually identical to the one in 2011. Climate change is real. We need to drastically reduce greenhouse emissions. We need to aggressively seek technological and scientific solutions. Delaying will only make matters worse.

And now, more than ever, the signs of climate change are becoming starker. The extreme weather and floods in the Midwest and South this spring, historical droughts and fires in Texas and Arizona, permafrost disappearing in Russia/Siberia, floods in Pakistan, massive drought followed by flooding in Australia and whole villages in Alaska disappearing because of sea level rise are just a few recent examples.

The climate is changing so rapidly the Arbor Day Foundation has changed its recommendations for when and where you should plant your trees.

Are we going to follow the National Academy of Sciences and countless scientists’ advice on climate change? Are we going to listen to Dr. James McClintock and try to save a place that can lead to cures for cancer? Or are we going to barely lift our heads and refuse to recognize the climate changing around us?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Byington is publisher of Bama Environmental News. He is a longtime environmental advocate from Birmingham, Alabama who has served on numerous state and national environmental boards.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the American Forum. 7/11

Washington Should Provide Straight Answers on Health Care

2011-07-01T13:00:00.002-04:00

Anne Dunkelberg

Robert Restuccia

TEXAS LONE STAR FORUM

By Anne Dunkelberg and Robert Restuccia

Texans count on Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) every day. That’s why we need straight answers from elected officials about proposals to gut Medicaid and CHIP.

When our parents can’t live on their own, it’s Medicaid that provides help to keep them at home, or in nursing home care when home care isn’t enough. When our neighbors living with disabilities need wheelchairs, prosthetics and basic supports to stay independent, Medicaid allows them to continue contributing to our communities. And when parents can’t afford private health insurance or lose their jobs, Texas Medicaid and CHIP protect their kids from becoming uninsured by providing the preventive care they need to stay healthy and letting them see a doctor when they get sick or injured.

Medicaid’s federal and state partnership also protects Texas jobs. Clinics, doctors’ offices, hospitals and other health care businesses count on Medicaid for a dependable source of revenue that supports local jobs.

But Congress is considering proposals that put our families, friends, neighbors and local jobs at risk. Making Medicaid a fixed pot of money that doesn’t grow with need -- commonly referred to as a block grant -- or imposing an unrealistic health care spending cap would set arbitrary limits on federal Medicaid investments.

These proposals do nothing to bring down health care costs. Instead, they just shift costs from the federal government to states, and then on to taxpayers, families and charities. They leave states few choices. States can cut off coverage and make kids, seniors, families and people with disabilities uninsured, which is proven to raise premiums for everyone who has insurance and drives up costs when the uninsured are forced to seek expensive emergency room care.

They can cut payments to doctors’ offices, hospitals and nursing homes, but this puts care and jobs at risk. Congress shifting costs to states is just like an employer shifting more of the premium to the worker. Neither really reforms health care costs, they only push the costs to someone else. Either way, we pay.

Federal debt and deficit control demands serious attention to controlling health care costs, but this can be done while still protecting access and quality in Medicare and Medicaid -- without adding to the ranks of the uninsured. America’s health reform law, the Affordable Care Act, is a good start. It begins the shift away from rewarding too much or too little care, and demands improved quality, safety and outcomes. People with multiple health problems -- like high blood pressure and diabetes -- cost more to treat when their doctors don’t communicate with each other. But the health reform law rewards doctors for reducing costs by coordinating care. Because nursing homes are much more expensive than caring for seniors or people with disabilities in their own homes, the law boosts Medicaid payments when states make it easier to get help in homes or community settings. It also invests in getting more primary care physicians on the job to catch problems early and avoid expensive hospitalizations. The health reform law also cracks down on Medicaid fraud by improving policing and enforcement against overcharges.

We can and should do more. We should crack down on practices that keep more cost-effective generic medicines off the market, and close a loophole that lets drug companies charge Medicare more when seniors on Medicaid need drugs. We should speed up efforts to prevent costly medical errors or hospital-acquired infections, and reward improved care. Finally, we should adopt a budget that includes common-sense ideas such as tax incentives to reduce consumption of sugary drinks which will help cut the budget deficit and avoid costs from illnesses such as diabetes and heart disease.

These ideas will not just bring down Medicaid costs; they will actually drive down health care costs for everyone. And, unlike block grants and spending caps, they will actually improve care for children, seniors and Texans with disabilities who depend upon Medicaid every day, while still protecting health care businesses and local health care jobs.

With so much on the line, Texas families need straight answers from Washington about the real consequences of proposals to weaken Medicaid. We should all demand that Congress try every other viable option before they even consider policies that would put our health care and our economy at risk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dunkelberg is the associate director of Center for Public Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan, nonprofit policy institute committed to improving public policies to better the economic and social conditions of low- and moderate-income Texans. Restuccia is executive director of Community Catalyst, a nonprofit national consumer health advocacy organization based in Boston.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the Texas Lone Star Forum. 7/11

What is the Economy, Anyway?

2011-06-29T15:38:00.003-04:00

By Ann Manning

The current GOP leadership and their colleagues in the Minnesota House and Senate are the unfortunate victims of the Taxpayer’s League and Governor Tim Pawlenty’s foolish “no new taxes, ever” pledge. I suspect many Republican legislators know that the best thing for Minnesota right now is to ask everyone to pay their fair share -- and that means a small tax increase for the top 2 percent of Minnesota’s high-income households.

When I hear the conservative mantra that we are unfairly “taking from the rich,” I want to remind them that in any legitimate democracy we all benefit from and “take” from each other and the rich do take from the middle class and the poor. The amazing public systems in this country -- physical infrastructure, patents and trademark protection, public schools, libraries, and hospitals -- are something we built together, as citizens. The wealthy have not only benefitted enormously from these investments we all helped build, but over the past 30 years, they have further used their wealth to enact tax policy to benefit themselves disproportionately to the rest of the citizens.

Corporations, who are also doing enormously well, have slowly but steadily eroded the power of workers and shifted a disproportionate share of the enormous economic growth in this country to the top. Wages and household income for the middle class and the poor are either flat or down over the past 30 years. We all know what’s happened at the top --astronomical increases in income and wealth. This is not the “invisible hand” of the market. This is cronyism in the boardrooms of America and the power of money to write the rules.

The economy is a measure of how well we are doing. It exists to serve “we the people,” and to sustain a vibrant, living planet. We somehow have turned it all backwards and now worship and worry about the economy. “Oh, no, we can’t raise taxes -- it will hurt the economy!” As a brilliant communications strategist, Anat Shenker-Osorio notes: It’s not the economy that hurts, it’s we the people!

The economy is the metaphor we use to describe how we are all doing on the journey through life. Right now it’s real people that are hurting because those we have entrusted to drive the bus, to run the economy, are either driving drunk or taking us on a wild ride that is not going to end well.

When people like Sens. Kahn and Hann say that it’s “unfair” to take money from those who have “earned it,” they are ignoring the overwhelming evidence of the past 30 years. The wealthy have unfairly rigged the system through wage suppression, tax cuts or tax subsidies, and have literally taken the wages from the bottom 90 percent and lined their own pockets. I am not suggesting we shouldn’t have some differences in economic outcomes -- we want people to succeed and do well. But the current system is rigged and we need to come to grips with that so “we the people” can get back to living our lives and not worrying every night if we can pay the bills tomorrow.

Around the country, over 150 patriotic millionaires have come together to tell Congress to raise their taxes. Many wealthy business people in this state are well aware of the inequities in the system and are speaking out about their willingness to be taxed fairly. There are many good and thoughtful people running our companies. All of us though, to some degree, have become blinded by this “myth of the economy” and the power of the “free market.”

Our economy exists to serve us. Good business and economic policy will allow it to work for all of us again. It’s time we heard these voices even more clearly and push the legislature to act on their wisdom now. It’s real people who will get hurt if we shut down Minnesota on July 1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manning, outreach director for Wealth for the Common Good. She is also a former CPA with Coopers & Lybrand and was director of corporate planning for Medtronic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2011 by the Minnesota Editorial Forum. 6/11

Real Patriots Pay Taxes

2011-06-29T11:10:00.005-04:00

By Scott Klinger and Holly Sklar

Some of our nation’s biggest corporations are planning a tax holiday and they want you to pick up the tab.

Actually, you already pay for their routine tax avoidance through the use of tax havens in Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and elsewhere. These accounting acrobatics cost the U.S. Treasury $100 billion a year. Now they want Congress to pass a special tax holiday for money they “repatriate” back to the United States.

There’s nothing patriotic about this repatriation being pushed by Google, Cisco, Pfizer and other companies in the Win America campaign. To sell the tax holiday, they claim it will produce a burst of jobs and investment. In fact, Congress passed a “one-time-only” tax holiday in 2004 with similar promises. Instead, it produced a burst of shareholder dividends and stock buybacks, which goosed the pay of CEOs.

Corporations laid off workers and shifted even more income and investment to offshore tax havens in the wake of the 2004 tax holiday.

“Why should we reward firms for successfully gaming the tax system when we in turn are called on to make up the missing tax revenues?” Edward Kleinbard, former chief of staff of Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, told Bloomberg. “Much of these earnings overseas are reaped from an enormous shell game: Firms move their taxable income from the U.S. and other major economies – where their customers and key employees are in reality located – to tax havens.”

A favorite accounting trick is transferring a patent from the U.S. parent company to a subsidiary – often a shell company – in a tax haven. Profits from the patent go largely untaxed offshore while the costs of development, marketing and management remain in the U.S. where they are taken as tax deductions.

Pfizer was the largest beneficiary of the last tax holiday, bringing $37 billion back to the United States and paying just $1.7 billion in federal corporate income taxes. It laid off 10,000 American workers in the following months. The U.S. is the world’s most profitable drug market and yet over the last three years, Pfizer – maker of Lipitor, Viagra and much more – has reported $7.9 billion in U.S. losses while claiming $37.8 billion in profits in the rest of the world. Pfizer, like the rest of Big Pharma, is heavily subsidized by taxpayer-funded research at the National Institutes of Health and elsewhere. It should not be rewarded with another tax holiday.

Bloomberg reported that Win America member “Google reduced its income taxes by $3.1 billion over three years by shifting income to Ireland, then the Netherlands, and ultimately to Bermuda.” What a corporate ingrate. Google would not exist without the Internet, and the Internet grew out of U.S. government research beginning in the 1960s. In the 1990s, the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) funded the Digital Library Initiative research at Stanford University that Larry Page and Sergey Brin, now billionaires, developed into Google. Brin was also supported by an NSF Graduate Student Fellowship.
Increasingly, U.S. multinational corporations want to benefit from government spending on education, infrastructure, research, health care and so on without paying for it. Today, large corporations pay, on average, 18 percent of their profits in federal income taxes and as a group contribute just 9 percent toward federal government bills – down from 32 percent in 1952. The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation says a new tax holiday would cost $79 billion.

A dozen national and state business organizations led by Business for Shared Prosperity recently wrote members of Congress urging them to oppose the tax holiday. The letter said, “When powerful large U.S. corporations avoid their fair share of taxes, they undermine U.S. competitiveness, contribute to the national debt and shift more of the tax burden to domestic businesses, especially small businesses that create most of the new jobs.”

There is no excuse for repeating a policy that’s a proven failure. It would be even worse this time around, as corporations would redouble their efforts to shift profits overseas in anticipation of the next tax holiday. Congress should close the tax loopholes that reward companies for transferring U.S. profits, jobs and investment abroad – not encourage them.

Real patriots pay their fair share of taxes. They don’t run out on the bill.
---------------------------------
Scott Klinger is Director of Tax Policy and Holly Sklar is Executive Director of Business for Shared Prosperity. Mr. Klinger is a Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) charterholder. Readers can write to them at info [at] businessforsharedprosperity dot org.
-------------------------------
© Copyright American Forum. 6/11

What Really Counts: The Debt, Women, and Our Future

2011-06-28T11:24:00.011-04:00

Riane Eisler

Kim Otis

By Riane Eisler and Kimberly Otis

What do women really want from our President? This is a question President Obama should be asking if he wants to keep his job for another term -- which hinges on the women’s vote. The recent posting of his accomplishments mentions several positive appointments: two women to the Supreme Court, Elizabeth Warren to launch the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; and other outstanding women to top Cabinet posts; such as Secretaries Hillary Clinton, Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius, and Hilda Solis.

But such accomplishments do not begin to go far enough. For one thing, by authorizing major cuts to traditionally women’s jobs in education, health care, and family planning, the President allowed an assault on women’s economic status and health-care access. Moreover, he allowed opponents to divert the conversation about economic recovery from the millions of unemployed and the massive increase in Americans in poverty to an obsessive focus on reducing the deficit through government program cuts. And because women comprise the vast majority of public-sector teachers, nurses, social workers, caregivers, and others being laid off, women are now bearing the brunt of job losses.

These shortsighted and cruel cuts are not only harming millions of people and their families; they will soon harm us all. With health, education, and poverty alleviation programs being scrapped, our nation is undermining the most important asset for our economic future: the “high-quality human capital” economists tell us is essential for success in our post-industrial knowledge/service economy. Yet instead of educating the public about this, the Administration has itself started to talk about job creation exclusively in the private sector – with no mention of the havoc being created by gutting employment in the public sector, or of its dire future consequences.

Instead, the Administration joined “the sky is falling” talk about the deficit, failing to point out that our federal debt (roughly equal to our annual GDP or about $14 trillion, a ratio of 1-to-1 according to the most alarmist calculations) is actually far lower than our debt to GDP ratio during World War II. It is also far lower than that of many other countries. Japan had a 2.25-to-1 debt to GDP even before the massive earthquake and tsunami disaster. Certainly we have to watch our national debt, especially because so much of it is owed to foreign nations. But it must not be used as the rationale for cutting essential services or for a wholesale firing of public employees, much less as an excuse for demonizing unions, without which we would not have had a middle class.

As television and radio host Larry King stated recently, “The average guy isn’t sitting today in a diner going ‘Oh, the deficit.’” Instead we’re supposed to genuflect to the “wisdom” of the old boys clubs on Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce about the importance of addressing the deficit through spending cuts alone to jobs which provide needed human capital. Continued focus on cutting teachers, health care workers, and other traditionally female jobs will not address the stalling of the economy, but instead will mean a lot more pain and no gains for a lot more people both in the short and long term.

We’ve got to also debunk clichés about a typical American family sitting around the dinner table being better at understanding how to balance a budget than officials in Washington. In reality, most Americans’ mortgages average about $172,000 – more than four times the $40,000 average annual salary. College students also amass heavy debts with student loans, but few would encourage young people to forgo the enormous future value of a higher education. Moreover, businesses routinely take on substantial debt in order to invest in future research and development that produces a high return.

As Sally Kohn reported in her USA Today op-ed, “IBM borrows twice as much money as it earns annually. Boeing borrows four times more than it earns. JP Morgan Chase… borrows 50 times more than it earns … If the U.S. were borrowing anywhere near as much as Chase bank, we'd have legitimate reason to worry. But in general, borrowing money is necessary to invest in the future — whether the future of a business or the future of a nation.”

With the recent announcement of an opening for a new Chair of the President’s Council on Economic Advisors, there is an opportunity for the Administration to re-direct the conversation to what has been ignored at our peril: the urgent need for investing in our nation’s human infrastructure. And choosing a woman who understands these vital matters could go a long way to applying the fundamentals of economics in a more balanced way. We need the voices of women to talk about what really counts: increasing the real wealth of our nation by investing in its human beings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Riane Eisler is best-selling author of The Chalice and the Blade and most recently of The Real Wealth of Nations and founder of the Center for Partnership Studies. Kimberly Otis is a women’s rights advocate and Director of the Center’s Caring Economics Campaign.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the American Forum. 6/11

Money and Values from Congress and the President – Hard Choices

2011-06-28T11:16:00.003-04:00

By Karen Jacob

I've lived in the heartland for more than two decades. And I can tell you that there’s nothing like a sultry July night at the local ballpark, rooting for the home team, eating hot dogs and quaffing beer, watching fireworks viewed from damp, warm infield grass.

This time of year, the Midwest is awash in flags and bumper stickers boasting one’s support for the troops and the good ol’ red, white and blue. But, lately we have seen more and more “Come home!” messages, and headlines such as, “Locals hope for an end to the war.” Unemployment, which struck the heartland harder than most places, still affects many who are at the end of their unemployment checks or are underemployed. War costs in Afghanistan, nearing $2 billion a week, particularly stick in the craw of these suffering Americans.

My son will be a sophomore majoring in music education at Butler University this fall (You know, that small Midwest college with the basketball team that went to the Final Four -- two years in a row), will graduate not knowing whether there will be music and band programs in public schools where he can work. Juxtapose that against the two decades of his life filled with costly wars. The first Iraq war started in 1991, when he was not yet born. That war, followed by bombing in the Balkans and elsewhere -- Afghanistan, Iraq again, and now Libya, with the hint of more to come … means that my son and his generation have grown up in continuous war. They know nothing else.

My son's generation thinks gas prices are about war. He knows this father was drafted during the Vietnam War, and that he escaped that fate. He has older friends who returned from recent wars as lesser human beings.

His generation has grown up in a time of plenty, and also a time of economic insecurity. As someone who has worked for peace all her life, I love the Fourth of July. I honor freedom, justice and all that it envelops. Yet, I worry about the constant drain on our American collective dream of freedom, justice and economic security.

This Fourth will be observed with millions of Americans out of work, many whose homes have been foreclosed. State legislatures are cutting social services, and in Indiana, public education is being drained by a voucher system to private schools. We have returning soldiers with injuries so deep that they and their families will never recover. Our federal coffers so sapped by war spending that we may not have the money to pay for our endless war wounds. In fact, we plan for this Fourth knowing that our nation is deeply in debt. Climbing out of this hole will require deep cuts that will hurt.

Still, I am hopeful. I can’t go to a picnic with deviled eggs and apple pie, ready for the barbecue, without optimism. America is the richest country in the history of the world.

But, surprise! We often spend our federal tax dollars foolishly. The recent focus on the debt and deficit, the president’s commission on tax reform, and the congressional impasse on how to solve the problem places a magnifying glass to the federal budget.

Another surprise: Our investments in job training, education and health care – the things that make us secure and cause us to work for our collective futures – are on the chopping block. Medicare and Social Security, two of the government’s most successful programs for keeping people out of poverty, also are on the chopping block. Yet, be cautious, my friends -- some excessive spending is wrapped in a patriotic flag.

Keep your ears open for anyone who says we have to “finish the job” in Afghanistan. What job? Osama bin Laden is gone. The $2 billion a week we spend on this war could go a long way toward job training to put America back to work, for example.

Enjoy this Fourth of July. We are free, and that is no small thing, as spreading revolutions in the Mideast attest. However, freedom cannot exist without justice. We will celebrate, and we will work until our mutual critical needs are met.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob serves as president of WAND of Northern Indiana and is the national WAND board chair. WAND is a national activist organization working to redirect excessive military spending to unmet human and environmental needs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the American Forum. 6/11

Time to Bring the Troops Home from Afghanistan

2011-06-27T11:39:00.001-04:00

AMERICAN FORUM
By Matthew Hoh

As he was announcing his second increase in troops for Afghanistan in December 2009, President Obama promised that by July 2011 those troops would begin coming home. As relayed by Bob Woodward’s book, Obama’s Wars, we know the president was skeptical about the United States’ war effort in Afghanistan. In spite of that skepticism, the president's new plan for the war extends the longest war in American history for the foreseeable future.

President Obama announced his first surge of 20,000 troops in spring 2009. Pushing American forces well above the 50,000 mark and reinforcing a counterinsurgency strategy, he escalated a war in a country entering its fourth decade of continuous conflict.

Thousands of Marines and soldiers were rushed in, with the announcement that they were there to ensure free and fair Afghan elections. That summer, these troops found an insurgency fueled by resentment of their presence. Either because of hostility to foreign occupation or because our troops simply sided with someone else’s rival, akin to supporting just one side in a Hatfield-McCoy feud, 2009 became the deadliest year of the war, doubling the amount of American dead in 2008.

Meanwhile, the fire hydrant-like stream of dollars, being pumped into the second most corrupt nation in the world , seemed to purchase only further grievances among the population against a government radiantly kleptocratic. When President Hamid Karzai blatantly stole the elections in August, American officials were forced to abandon any narrative of Americans fighting and dying for democracy in Afghanistan. Then, in October, National Security Advisor Jim Jones announced that al-Qaeda had fewer than 100 members in Afghanistan.

However, given little political cover from the left, feeling little political pressure from the right and receiving nothing but a choice of small, medium or large escalation of the war by the Pentagon, President Obama in December 2009 ordered 30,000 more troops and billions of dollars into what soon would become America’s longest war.

Predictably, by doubling down on a policy that had proved counterproductive, we betrayed our national values and failed to inflict damage on al-Qaeda. We also went from being waist-deep to chest-deep in quicksand.

This past year surpassed 2009 as the deadliest year of the conflict, killing 57 percent more American service members.

Tragically, but unsurprisingly, 2011 has been even more deadly. Insurgent attacks from January to March increased nearly 50 percent from the same period in 2010, while American deaths from March to May of this year increased 41 percent from last spring’s totals.

Nationwide, a U.S.-led campaign of night raids on homes has terrorized families, while a massive nation-building program funded by U.S. taxpayers has enriched a corrupt few and disenfranchised a poor majority. Again, betraying our own values, we looked the other way when elections were stolen for the second time in as many years. The number of civilian deaths are on pace to surpass the totals from 2010, the deadliest year of the war for civilians since 2001. The result: Eight in ten Afghan men now say the U.S. presence is bad for Afghanistan.

By the administration's own account, al-Qaeda has not existed in any meaningful capacity in Afghanistan since we successfully scattered them in 2001. Over the last decade, they have evolved into an increasingly flat or networked organization(s) of individuals and small cells around the globe that is most successfully attacked through good intelligence, international law-enforcement cooperation and surgical-strikes, such as the raid against Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan. Our Afghan war policy does not affect al-Qaeda.

American troops killed or maimed in Afghanistan and others who have returned home with physical and mental injuries, increasing numbers of whom are taking their own lives, cannot be said to have made a worthy sacrifice. We must acknowledge to families that their losses did not prevent another Sept. 11.

Moreover, our policies have destabilized the region, most notably in Pakistan, a nuclear nation with 170 million people.

Indeed, President Obama was right to be skeptical.

However, despite growing bipartisan support for an accelerated drawdown, on Wednesday President Obama announced the withdrawal of 30,000 troops through next year. Such a withdrawal, particularly without a change in strategy will only bring us back to where we were in December 2009. With only modest cuts in troop levels and no real changes in our strategy, we will continue to be stuck in Afghan quicksand for years to come.

The president should go further -- removing the most recent 30,000 surge troops by the end of 2011 and reducing to a total of fewer than 30,000 troops by the end of 2012. Combined with sincere political efforts in Afghanistan and the broader region, and by maintaining a focus on al-Qaeda, the United States can move Afghanistan and the region toward stability, while freeing itself from its quicksand.
--------------------------------------
Hoh is a a Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy and the Director of the Afghanistan Study Group. He served with the Marine Corps in Iraq and with State Department teams in Afghanistan and Iraq.
----------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by the American Forum. 6/11

It’s Hurricane Season Again, But This Time It Can Be Different

2011-06-23T11:44:00.001-04:00

AMERICAN FORUM
By Yifat Susskind

Hurricane season begins this month, and in Haiti’s displacement camps, people have begun to look fearfully toward the skies. For solutions, they must look to Haitian women.

More than a year after the earthquake, each day continues to bring life-threatening challenges to the hundreds of thousands of Haitians living in tent cities. Families that lost everything to the earthquake now struggle to feed themselves, to find clean water or to stay healthy in the face of dangerous illnesses like cholera.

Now, on top of all of this, the hurricanes are returning.

In 2008, Haiti was slammed by four hurricanes in but a few weeks in August and September. Hundreds of people were killed and thousands of homes destroyed by winds, flooding and mudslides. Today, as Haitian communities continue to reel from the earthquake, another hurricane would add to the misery.

Through decades of experience responding to disasters, women’s groups worldwide have learned indispensable lessons. We know that in the aftermath of disaster, women and girls confront particular challenges. They face increased risk of rape and violence. They lose access to reproductive health services. What’s more, aid distribution targeting male heads-of-household often leaves women out.

These threats are anything but natural. Instead, they fall along social fault lines that unload the worst burdens on the most vulnerable -- especially poor women.

But there is more to this story. Survival of families and communities depends upon women standing on the front lines of a disaster. As pillars of their communities, women know how best to rebuild. These are the women who know which family has a new baby or which grandmother has been ill.

When floods in Pakistan displaced millions of people last year, women set up clinics in remote areas and made sure that aid reached the most vulnerable populations.

When Hurricane Mitch leveled Nicaragua in 1998, women directed crucial supplies like food, clothing and medicine to families most in need.

And in the year and a half since the Haiti earthquake, women there have worked tirelessly to rebuild communities and deliver life-saving aid long after the global spotlight moved elsewhere. When the next hurricane hits, no one will be better prepared to spring into action.

We can make this hurricane season different. We can’t stop the hurricane once it begins its swift path across the ocean, but we can protect communities in its wake. The best way to do this is by working with women.

Women in a hurricane’s path are demanding they not be forgotten. They are demanding a voice in disaster-response policies, so that they can help aid get to the most vulnerable. They are demanding the opportunity to use their expertise to rebuild stronger communities.

If we support relief efforts that include women and listen to these demands, we can save lives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Susskind is Executive Director of MADRE: Rights, Resources and Results for Women Worldwide.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2011 by the American Forum. 6/11

Avoiding Taxes the Way Big Corporations Do It

2011-06-22T15:09:00.002-04:00

By Brian Setzler

The coalition calls itself WIN America, but the numbers involved in the corporate tax holiday mean a real loss for America. The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation has calculated this tax windfall would cost $80 billion, money that would be made up with higher taxes on small business people like me, or through reduced government services and infrastructure upon which all businesses, communities and families depend.

Tax amnesty programs are nothing new. The IRS has a couple of times allowed individual taxpayers to declare hidden offshore assets and pay both the full tax due and penalties in exchange for avoiding prosecution and possible jail time. While much corporate tax-dodging through the use of tax havens is neither hidden, nor illegal under current law favoring U.S. multinationals, it wholly stems from corporations who engage in these transactions for the principle purpose of shifting profits between countries in order to avoid taxes. Creating an incentive for such anti-social behavior through preferential tax rates will only serve to accelerate the offshoring of U.S. profits through fictional transactions.

Indeed, this is exactly what happened in 2004, when Congress enacted the American Jobs Creation Act, a bill which promised that a 5.25% tax rate would bring home billions of dollars that supporters claimed would be reinvested to create American jobs. The promise never materialized; most of the funds went instead to boost shareholder dividends and stock buybacks. Many of the biggest beneficiaries of the tax break, including Pfizer, Honeywell, and Hewlett Packard, laid off thousands of workers just months after receiving their tax windfall. That tax holiday, and the promise of another, has dramatically accelerated the amount of U.S. profits shifted offshore.

All of my education took place in the United States, as do all of my client meetings. The vast majority of Americans find it right and logical that I have a duty to pay taxes in the U.S. It is time that the same logic applies to multinational corporations, and that we stop accepting fairy tales about patents and trademarks held in some far-away bank vault.
--------------------------------------------
Setzler is President and founder of TriLibrium, a public accounting and business advisory firm located in Portland, OR.
-----------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by American Forum. 6/11

How Elected Officials Can Celebrate Men This Father’s Day

2011-06-15T14:55:00.000-04:00

By Ellen Bravo and Dan Mulhern

After being inundated with news reports of male public figures behaving badly, Father’s Day gives us a much-needed opportunity to turn attention to the many fathers and husbands who work tirelessly to support their families -- – and to call on elected officials to move policies that allow all men to be good fathers, sons and husbands without being punished for it at work.

First, we saw Mark Kelly take time off from his space training to be at the bedside of his wife, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, as she recovered from the traumatic shooting.

Then, in a more celebratory moment, Colby Lewis and Ian Desmond told the baseball league and fans that while they loved the game, the birth of a child warranted missing one or two.

Happily but not surprisingly, the Texas Rangers are still in first place, and the Endeavor shuttle launch was a success.

The iconic photos of Mark Kelly camped out at Gabrielle Giffords’ bedside and holding her hand offer poignant evidence that men, as well as women, respond to a loved one’s crisis by wanting to be right by that person’s side.

Scientific evidence demonstrates that the presence of these men is not just sentimental or symbolic. Babies whose fathers have been more actively involved with their care score higher on a key infant development test and are more socially responsive. A year later, these babies show more resilience when faced with stressful situations.

Similarly, the involvement of loved ones is critical to the recovery of brain trauma patients. According to Dr. Stephan Mayer, director of the Neurological Intensive Care Unit at Columbia University Medical Center, “the common denominator is a present, loving and supportive family. I can’t say how important it is to have your loved ones around you helping you battle through.”

It’s awesome that these men were able to take time off to support their wives and welcome their babies into this world, and they could do it all without worrying about their job. But the policies that allowed these high-profile and high-powered fathers and husbands to be with their families at critical junctures are sorely lacking for most the dads who are working hard to support their families.

Consider this: the law allowing men to take family leave covers only half the country’s workers. Of those who have it, many cannot afford to take it because the time is unpaid.

Two in five private sector workers have no paid sick days, and the vast majority of workers who do are not allowed to use the time to care for a sick family member.

Without paid sick days or paid family leave, which are policies in nearly every other country around the world, too many of our dads miss the births of their children and are unable to stay home to care for their kids when they’re sick because of the fear of losing their job, or being unable to miss a day’s wages.

In this season of commemorating fathers and mothers, leaders across the country have a chance to give families a really meaningful gift: support for policies that allow men to be caregivers as well as breadwinners.

Just this week, Governor Dan Malloy will signed the country’s first statewide law letting workers earn paid sick days that they can use for their own illness or that of a family member. City Council members in Philadelphia are expected to pass a similar bill, and may be joined this year by decision-makers in Seattle and New York and voters in Denver.

In other states and cities across the country, leaders are realizing that paid sick days is a policy that’s good for the public health, good for working families and good for the economy. And Members of Congress can sign on to the Healthy Families Act, a national paid sick days bill re-introduced by Senator Tom Harkin and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro.

Congress can also support the President’s inclusion of $23 million in the federal budget for grants to states to help establish family leave insurance funds that will ensure men and women are able to afford to take care of themselves and their families after the birth of a child or during longer term illnesses. This policy is also gaining traction: California and New Jersey have established programs, Washington has passed one; several others are exploring paid family leave insurance.

Few men can throw a ball 90 miles an hour or hurtle into space at 17,500 miles an hour. But all our dads are working hard, and they deserve time to be loving family members.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Bravo is Executive Director of Family Values @ Work Consortium, a network of 15 state coalitions working for policies like paid sick days and paid family leave. Dan Mulhern teaches at Cal Berkeley and works with the Families and Work Institute (he’s married to former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the American Forum. 6/11

The Bush Tax Cuts: 10 Years of Economic Disaster

2011-06-14T11:48:00.001-04:00

AMERICAN FORUM
By Dr. William Barclay

This month marks the tenth anniversary of the first of the two tax cuts sought by the President George Bush. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act was enacted in 2001 to be followed, in 2003, by the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. Ten years later, it is time we assess the actual results of these tax cuts, looking at economic performance rather than political promises. The results have been a disaster for the US economy and for almost all of the American people. We have experienced very slow income and employment growth for the vast majority of families, an extremely unequal distribution of the direct financial benefits from these measures, and, very slow growth in the economy as a whole.

As someone who has personally received these tax cuts during the past 10 years, I feel it is my responsibility to speak out.

Supporters of tax cuts for high income households, such as House majority leader John Boehner, argue that wealthy people are the “job creators” and that tax cuts will encourage them to create jobs and that these new jobs will, in turn, increase employment opportunities and improve the wages of the remainder of the population. Did any of these benefits occur after the Bush tax cuts? The quick and accurate answer is, no, they did not. Adjusted for inflation, the median weekly earnings of working Americans actually fell by 2.3 percent from the end of the 2000 – 01 recession to the onset of the Great Recession. This is unique in the post WWII period. Further, the recovery from the 2000 – 01 recession was the slowest of any post WWII recession to date, requiring 39 months before the number of employed Americans reached the pre-recession level. Where is even a scintilla of evidence that tax cuts such as those passed in 2001 and 2003 generate income and employment growth for the vast majority of the population?

A significant part of the failure of the Bush tax cuts to generate jobs and income growth flows from the top-heavy distribution of the benefits conveyed by these measures. The vast bulk of the reduced taxes were reaped by a very small number of families. In 2011, the average tax reduction to families receiving an income of $1 million or more (about 321,000 families) will be $139,199. For this less than 0.5 percent of all families this is a reduction in taxes of $860 million/week.

Compare these tax benefits to the yearly savings proposed by cutting the WIC program: $833 million. An obvious question is, why can’t this very small group of extremely high income families give up just one week of their tax cut to provide nutrition for the tens of thousands of women and children that benefit from the WIC program? More significantly, in light of the deficit hysteria gripping Washington D.C., the combined impact of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts has been the addition of more than $2.6 trillion to the federal debt. This included more than $400 billion in interest payments on the debt necessary to pay for the cuts.

Of course, one might forgive these policy failures if the promise of economic growth had been fulfilled. On this measure, however, the record is even worse. The 2000 – 01 recession ended in the fourth quarter of 2001, just in time for the first Bush tax cut to take effect. From the end of the recession until the onset of the Great Recession, the economy grew at a slower rate than in any other post recession period since WWII. Thus, despite promises from the advocates of the tax cuts, the reality was slower growth rather than faster growth. The additional tax cut in 2003 did nothing to increase the pace of economic growth.

In sum, the Bush tax cuts were a bad idea at the time and are an even worse idea today. Ending these cuts for incomes over $250,000 would generate over $100 billion/year in additional revenue. If we also created additional tax rates for very high-income families (e.g. at $500,000, $1,000,000, $5,000,000 and $10,000,000) we could increase federal revenue by more than double that amount and put us on the road to reducing deficits and debts.
--------------------------------------
Barclay worked for 22 years in financial service before retiring in 2004. He is an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago in the Liautaud Graduate School of Business and is a member of Wealth for the Common Good.
----------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the American Forum. 6/11

A Life Changing Anniversary

2011-06-06T13:28:00.000-04:00

AMERICAN FORUM

By Patricia West

As a Pennsylvania social worker specializing in family dynamics, I’ve spent most of my 40 year career analyzing and trying out various ways to keep women healthy and safe. This month [June 7] we celebrate the anniversary of a breakthrough in that process: the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court decision that legalized contraceptive use for married couples—and more importantly, recognized an individual’s right to privacy in family planning matters.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently recognized family planning as one of the ten great public health advances of the 20th century. At clinics and centers that provide family planning, the complications of pregnancy that are a woman’s most common source of ill health can be prevented or treated. And our national family planning program – Title X of the Public Health Service Act of 1970 – made family planning available to low-income people as well as the rich. As a result, some 98 percent of us have used birth control at some point in our lives, and we mostly take it for granted.

We shouldn’t. The House voted recently to defund Title X completely for fiscal 2011. The Senate saved the program, but another attempt to kill it is certain this year. The attackers are using innuendo and misinformation to entangle family planning in their anti-abortion war, claiming to cut spending but ignoring the truth: Title X, the only dedicated source of federal funding for family planning services, saves the government some $3.4 billion every year by preventing unintended pregnancies, nearly half of which would likely end in abortion.

In Pennsylvania, for example, the state’s 234 Title X centers served 287,200 clients in 2008, providing not just contraceptives but also essential preventive care: pelvic exams and Pap tests; pregnancy testing; screening for high blood pressure, anemia, diabetes and cervical and breast cancer, and for sexually transmitted infections including HIV; basic infertility services; health education; and referrals for other health and social services. This care helped
Pennsylvania women avoid 59,700 unintended pregnancies, which likely would have resulted in 26,500 births and 24.900 abortions. That saved the state $183.5 million in Medicaid spending, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

At the moment, unintended pregnancy costs U.S. taxpayers about $11 billion a year, according to new Guttmacher research. Without publicly funded family planning services, these costs would be 60 percent higher. Nationwide, Title X funds 89 nonprofit grantees who operate more than 4,500 sites. Most are county and local health departments; the rest are hospitals, family planning councils and other private nonprofit agencies.

Seventeen million people need some assistance to get the kind of care these centers provide, but today Title X is funded to cover just over five million of those in need. Some 70 percent of them have incomes at or below the federal poverty level of $10,830 per year. They live paycheck to paycheck, and the Pennsylvania women I have worked with know what that is like. Six in ten women who get care from Title X
consider it their usual source of health care, and for many it is their only source.

Every dollar invested in publicly funded family planning averts nearly $4 in Medicaid costs. It only makes sense that the Obama administration should include contraceptives in the women’s health preventive services benefits under the Affordable Care Act.

Title X, in short, is essential to preventing unintended pregnancies and improving public health while saving taxpayers billions of dollars every year. Family planning gives a woman options for her life beyond childbearing. If she wants two children – as most American women do – she will be able to pick the five years she will be pregnant and bearing her children, confident that contraceptives are available to her for the 30 years she will spend avoiding pregnancy.

This is a life-changing freedom. In the coming Pennsylvania and national spending battles, Title X must be recognized for what it has always been: a fundamental part of American life that can and must be preserved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
West lives in Philadelphia and is a member of the Women Donors Network. She is a public health social worker and user of “the pill” from 1959 through 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by American Forum. 6/11

Family Planning – An Essential Part of American Life

2011-06-06T13:07:00.000-04:00

AMERICAN FORUM

By Clare Coleman

If you’re an average woman, you want two children, according to various surveys. That means you’ll spend about five years of your life trying to become pregnant, being pregnant or recovering from pregnancy, and 30 years trying to avoid it.

You can do that thanks to the June 1965 landmark Supreme Court decision Griswold v. Connecticut, which affirmed the right of married couples to use contraceptives -- and more importantly, recognized an individual's right to privacy in family planning matters. Universal usage and acceptance of contraceptives followed, transforming the lives of millions of Americans.

The Griswold case was a catalyst for our national family planning program -- Title X of the Public Health Service Act -- the only dedicated source of federal funding for family planning services. Created in 1970, Title X provides access to family planning for all, without regard to economic circumstances.

Today, contraceptives are an important part of family life in America -- so much so that 98 percent of us have used birth control at some point in our lives, and we mostly take it for granted.

We shouldn’t. During the recent battle in Congress over funding the government, the House of Representatives voted to eliminate Title X. Opponents of family planning used a mixture of misinformation and innuendo to entangle family planning in their anti-abortion war, ignoring the fact that Title X saves the government some $3.4 billion every year by preventing unintended pregnancies, nearly half of which would likely have ended in abortion. The Senate saved the program, but another attempt to kill Title X is certain this year. When it comes, Americans must recognize that access to basic primary and preventive care is being threatened.

Title X funds 4,500 nonprofit- and government-run sites nationwide: most are county and local health departments. The rest are hospitals, family planning councils and other private nonprofit agencies. These agencies are required to provide preventive and primary health care services including pelvic exams and Pap tests; pregnancy testing; screening for high blood pressure, anemia, diabetes and cervical and breast cancer, and for sexually transmitted infections including HIV; basic infertility services; health education; and referrals for other health and social services -- as well as contraceptives and counseling about them.

These are the facts of life: According to new Guttmacher Institute research, unintended pregnancy costs U.S. taxpayers approximately $11 billion a year. Without publicly funded family planning services, these costs would be 60 percent higher. In 2008, services at Title X centers helped prevent 973,000 unintended pregnancies that would likely have resulted in 432,600 births and 406,200 abortions. The centers also performed 2.2 million Pap tests, 5.9 million STI tests and a million confidential HIV tests in 2009 alone.

Seventeen million people need some assistance in order to get this important care, but today, Title X is funded to cover just over five million of those in need. There are always more patients than subsidies. Seventy percent of the individuals seen at Title X-funded health centers have incomes at or below the federal poverty level -- meaning they earn less than $10,830 per year. Many of them are working young adults, living paycheck to paycheck. They count down the days until they get paid and are just one unexpected problem from disaster -- if the car engine light comes on; the childcare center raises its fees; or their hours are cut.

Six in ten women who get care from Title X consider it their usual source of health care, and for many it is their only source. Patients under the federal poverty level receive services at no cost to them; those who make over $10,830 a year are provided services on a sliding fee scale according to income.

Although no patient is turned away because of an inability to pay, Title X actually saves money for the government. Every dollar invested in publicly funded family planning averts nearly $4 in Medicaid costs. Given its proven effectiveness, it only makes sense that the Obama administration should include contraceptives in the women’s health preventive services benefit under the Affordable Care Act.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has cited family planning as one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century, and Title X funding is essential to our effort to prevent unintended pregnancies and improve public health while saving taxpayers billions of dollars a year.

As the states struggle with growing budget shortfalls, continued funding for Title X should be recognized for what it is: an essential part of America’s health care system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coleman is president and CEO of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health
Association.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the American Forum. 5/11

Family Planning – An Essential Part of American Life

2011-06-06T13:04:00.000-04:00

AMERICAN FORUM

By Clare Coleman

If you’re an average woman, you want two children, according to various surveys. That
means you’ll spend about five years of your life trying to become pregnant, being pregnant or
recovering from pregnancy, and 30 years trying to avoid it.

You can do that thanks to the June 1965 landmark Supreme Court decision Griswold v.
Connecticut, which affirmed the right of married couples to use contraceptives -- and more
importantly, recognized an individual's right to privacy in family planning matters. Universal
usage and acceptance of contraceptives followed, transforming the lives of millions of
Americans.

The Griswold case was a catalyst for our national family planning program -- Title X of the Public
Health Service Act -- the only dedicated source of federal funding for family planning services.
Created in 1970, Title X provides access to family planning for all, without regard to economic
circumstances.

Today, contraceptives are an important part of family life in America -- so much so that 98
percent of us have used birth control at some point in our lives, and we mostly take it for
granted.

We shouldn’t. During the recent battle in Congress over funding the government, the House
of Representatives voted to eliminate Title X. Opponents of family planning used a mixture
of misinformation and innuendo to entangle family planning in their anti-abortion war,
ignoring the fact that Title X saves the government some $3.4 billion every year by preventing
unintended pregnancies, nearly half of which would likely have ended in abortion. The Senate
saved the program, but another attempt to kill Title X is certain this year. When it comes,
Americans must recognize that access to basic primary and preventive care is being threatened.

Title X funds 4,500 nonprofit- and government-run sites nationwide: most are county and local
health departments. The rest are hospitals, family planning councils and other private nonprofit
agencies. These agencies are required to provide preventive and primary health care services
including pelvic exams and Pap tests; pregnancy testing; screening for high blood pressure,
anemia, diabetes and cervical and breast cancer, and for sexually transmitted infections
including HIV; basic infertility services; health education; and referrals for other health and
social services -- as well as contraceptives and counseling about them.

These are the facts of life: According to new Guttmacher Institute research, unintended
pregnancy costs U.S. taxpayers approximately $11 billion a year. Without publicly funded family
planning services, these costs would be 60 percent higher. In 2008, services at Title X centers
helped prevent 973,000 unintended pregnancies that would likely have resulted in 432,600
births and 406,200 abortions. The centers also performed 2.2 million Pap tests, 5.9 million STI
tests and a million confidential HIV tests in 2009 alone.

Seventeen million people need some assistance in order to get this important care, but today,
Title X is funded to cover just over five million of those in need. There are always more patients
than subsidies. Seventy percent of the individuals seen at Title X-funded health centers have
incomes at or below the federal poverty level -- meaning they earn less than $10,830 per year.
Many of them are working young adults, living paycheck to paycheck. They count down the
days until they get paid and are just one unexpected problem from disaster -- if the car engine
light comes on; the childcare center raises its fees; or their hours are cut.

Six in ten women who get care from Title X consider it their usual source of health care, and
for many it is their only source. Patients under the federal poverty level receive services at no
cost to them; those who make over $10,830 a year are provided services on a sliding fee scale
according to income.

Although no patient is turned away because of an inability to pay, Title X actually saves money
for the government. Every dollar invested in publicly funded family planning averts nearly
$4 in Medicaid costs. Given its proven effectiveness, it only makes sense that the Obama
administration should include contraceptives in the women’s health preventive services benefit
under the Affordable Care Act.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has cited family planning as one of the 10 great
public health achievements of the 20th century, and Title X funding is essential to our effort to
prevent unintended pregnancies and improve public health while saving taxpayers billions of
dollars a year.

As the states struggle with growing budget shortfalls, continued funding for Title X should be
recognized for what it is: an essential part of America’s health care system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coleman is president and CEO of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health
Association.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the American Forum. 5/11

Arizona’s on Track for Passenger Rail

2011-05-04T16:59:00.000-04:00

ARIZONA EDITORIAL FORUM

By Serena Unrein

For the first time, Arizona’s State Transportation Board approved a state rail plan which includes connecting the major metropolitan areas of Phoenix and Tucson by passenger rail. In a state known for its reliance on single-occupant vehicles and its lack of good public transportation, this is a crucial step forward for providing Arizonans with better transportation options.

Over the past few decades, Arizona’s population has skyrocketed, but our population growth hasn’t been matched by an investment in public transportation, leaving most Arizonans to rely on their cars to get around.

Most Arizonans make daily trips for work, school or other responsibilities such as getting to doctor’s appointments and visiting family members. Unfortunately, our current transportation system has many of us stuck endlessly waiting in traffic, spewing pollution into the air and paying more and more at the gas pump to fill our tank. There has got to be a better way.

Arizona needs a transportation system that meets the needs of the 21st century -- one in which public transportation plays a much bigger role than it does today. Connections developing between businesses, the universities and individuals are causing Phoenix and Tucson to become increasingly dependent on one another. But while three-quarters of Arizona’s residents live in the “Sun Corridor” -- the areas around and connecting Phoenix and Tucson -- there are no public transportation options between Arizona’s two largest cities.

It seems like no matter how many times we expand the I-10, it’s near impossible to drive between Phoenix and Tucson without getting stuck in traffic. There are also some horrific accidents that occur on that stretch. Future population growth will increase the demands on our current transportation infrastructure. We cannot continue to rely on pavement alone to connect the Sun Corridor.

Linking Phoenix and Tucson by passenger rail makes sense for our economy and for our quality of life.

The State Transportation Board took a big step forward by approving a state rail plan, which prioritizes connecting Phoenix and Tucson by passenger rail and eventually expanding the rail to reach even more parts of the state. The Arizona Department of Transportation is now moving forward with a study to determine the best corridor for the Phoenix-Tucson intercity rail. Having a state rail plan also puts Arizona in a position to apply for federal passenger rail dollars.

Rail between Phoenix and Tucson will significantly reduce the strain on the I-10, reducing congestion and improving our safety. Passenger rail will improve economic productivity by reducing travel time between the two urban areas and allowing people to work while they travel.

Passenger rail connecting our state’s two largest cities is essential for Arizona’s future. Business relies on the efficient movement of people and goods. Students need to get from their homes to the universities. All of us deserve a better way to go -- one that helps to reduce congestion and air pollution and that gets us where we need to go safely and efficiently.

While it’s exciting to see that some important progress is being made, there are still a lot of steps ahead to bring passenger rail to Arizona. It’s now up to our state’s leaders to make it happen so Arizonans can have better transportation options.

Unrein is the public interest advocate for the Arizona Public Interest Research Group Education Fund which conducts research and education on public interest issues. More information can be found at www.arizonapirg.org.

Copyright 2011 (c) by the American Forum. 5/11

Irreparable Human Deficit Looms in Wake of Budget-Cutting Frenzy

2011-05-04T16:53:00.000-04:00

Riane Eisler

AMERICAN FORUM

By Riane Eisler and Rene Redwood

A financial debt can be paid back. But the debt we’ll owe our children if investments in health, nutrition and education are slashed is irreparable. Investment in human infrastructure – providing the human capacity development for optimal economic productivity and innovation through both government and business investments – is essential for success in the post-industrial economy, and this should be our policymakers’ guiding economic principle.

Rene Redwood

It’s up to us to ask the hard questions: Why are we being told we can’t raise taxes on the rich, but must cut wages for teachers, nurses, child-care workers and others on whom our future depends? There is no evidence that lower taxes on corporations and millionaires “raise all boats,” or that massive cuts in social services have ever helped people in developing nations rise from poverty. The opposite is true. It is countries like Canada, Sweden, New Zealand and Finland that have made commitments to caring for future generations that have risen from poverty to prosperity. And today nations such as Brazil, South Korea, and other “emerging advanced economies” are heavily investing in their people.

Why are we told that cutting social programs is the road to prosperity, when our past prosperity was the result of the very opposite?

At the beginning of the 20th century, the United States was what we today call a “developing country.” Except for the super-rich, our general living standard was abysmal: child and general mortality rates were extremely high, as was poverty. Then we invested in prenatal and child health care such as vaccines; abolished child labor; mandated not only primary, but also secondary public education; and promoted college education through the GI Bill for returning soldiers. These kinds of government expenditures, along with Social Security, Medicare, Head Start and other government programs to care for and educate our people had a huge return on investment for our people and nation.

Today, largely as a result of retrenching in such public expenditures, the U.S. has higher child mortality, maternal mortality and poverty rates than any other developed nation. According to a 2007 UNICEF study, the U.S. ranked 24th of 25 developed countries with children living below the national poverty level. By comparison, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Spain topped the list. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that poverty afflicts roughly one in six American children—some 13 million youths, a figure that’s expected to rise as poverty trends continue to soar.

In 2009, more than 4.4 million single mothers earned wages below the national poverty level and were barely able to supply their children with basic needs. That number of women had increased 6.7 percent compared to the previous year, according to census figures. The kinds of cuts now proposed—especially cuts to programs to help impoverished families with children—will push us down even further.
By contrast, investing in education, health care, child-care and eldercare drastically reduces unemployment, poverty, public assistance, spending on prisons -- and at the same time provides a trained work force and higher tax base. According to a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 37 percent of Americans believe job creation/economic growth is our nation’s No. 1 issue, and only 22 percent named the deficit/government spending as the top. What’s more, while Americans find some budget cuts acceptable; they adamantly oppose cuts in Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and K-12 education.

That’s because most of us know that our most important assets are our people. If we don’t invest in human infrastructure, we cannot be economically successful.

We urgently need a realistic long-term perspective on how national and state deficits are calculated. The human capital deficit created by cutting social programs will be irreparable. By contrast, benefits to individuals, families, businesses and society at large from investment in human infrastructure will accrue for generations.

There’s an old saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Our priorities should be exactly what the “deficit hawks” are putting on the chopping block. Cutting those programs is criminal behavior, not sound policy.

Riane Eisler is president of the Center for Partnership Studies (www.partnershipway.org) and author of The Real Wealth of Nations and The Chalice & the Blade. Rene Redwood is CEO of Redwood Enterprise in Washington, D.C. (www.redwoodenterprise.com)

Copyright 2011 (c) by The American Forum. 5/11

Scapegoating Nevada’s Minimum Wage

2011-05-04T16:46:00.000-04:00

AMERICAN FORUM

By Tsedeye Gebreselassie

In 2006, Nevada voters did a really smart thing. Recognizing that their state’s minimum wage stayed flat year after year, despite rising costs of living, the people of Nevada voted to index their minimum wage rate to adjust annually with the cost of living. In the last few years, these small annual increases have helped thousands of working families make ends meet in a rough economy, while providing a modest boost in precisely the type of consumer spending our nascent recovery needs.

Rather than celebrate voters’ sound economic move, critics of the minimum wage see an opportunity to once again toss out their usual—and widely discredited—claims that a strong minimum wage is a “job-killer.” Counting on understandable anxiety about Nevada’s stubbornly high unemployment rate, opponents of the minimum wage have proposed state legislation that would begin a repeal process for the initiative passed by Nevada’s voters just four years ago.

Let’s quickly dispense with these “job-killing” claims. Real-world experiences with minimum wage increases have produced little evidence of job losses. The decade following the federal minimum wage increase in 1996-97 ushered in one of the strongest periods of job growth in decades. Analyses of states with minimum wages higher than the federal floor between 1997 and 2007 showed that their job growth was actually stronger overall than in states that kept the lower federal level. And just last winter, a rigorous study finding that increasing the minimum wage does not lead to job loss was published in the Review of Economics and Statistics. Economists at the University of Massachusetts, University of North Carolina, and University of California compared employment data among every pair of neighboring U.S. counties that straddle a state border and had differing minimum wage levels at any time between 1990 and 2006. Analyzing employment and earnings data of over 500 counties, they found that minimum wage increases did not cost jobs.

Yet, critics of the minimum wage are undeterred by the facts, continuing to put the blame for the current recession and high joblessness rate squarely on the shoulders of our nation’s lowest-paid workers. This would be laughable if it weren’t so offensive—and the potential consequences of this shell game so tragic.

It doesn’t take an economist to tell you that the factors causing this recession have very little to do with how much or how little businesses must pay their frontline staff. Indeed, if we’ve learned anything these past couple of years, it’s that relying on rampant financial speculation and irresponsible lending practices to generate the spending that drives our economy, rather than investing in good jobs at good wages, is no way to run an economy. That’s why a robust minimum wage is a cornerstone of any recovery strategy, because it puts money into the pockets of low-income families who will spend it immediately, increasing consumer spending without adding to the deficit. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the small bump in the federal minimum wage in 2009 generated $5.5 billion in new consumer spending.

Over the last 40 years, the real value of the minimum wage has eroded substantially, lagging far behind rising living costs. At its peak in 1968, the federal minimum wage was worth more than $10 an hour in today’s dollars. When Nevada indexed its minimum wage in 2006, it joined many other states—as of today, 10 in all—to ensure that the purchasing power of these wages does not erode over time. On the federal level, minimum wage earners went 10 years without an increase until Congress finally raised the minimum wage in 2007. Repealing Nevada’s minimum wage indexing law might very well lead to the same result.

Gebreselassie is a staff attorney at the National Employment Law Project.

Copyright (C) 2011 by American Forum. 4/11

North Carolina’s Concealed Weapon Laws Need More, Not Less Control

2011-04-27T13:51:00.000-04:00

NORTH CAROLINA EDITORIAL FORUM

By Roxane Kolar

General Assembly veterans can’t remember a more difficult session.

With revenue crimped to a trickle, legislators have a Solomon’s chore in trying to maintain our state’s core values. For most of us, that’s good jobs, quality schools, access to health care and a clean environment. But some lawmakers want to break in line with another priority: more guns.

The legislature is now considering proposals that would allow concealed weapons in family restaurants, bars and neighborhood parks. Another proposal circumvents business owners’ rights by forcing them to allow guns in their parking lots – as well as in hospital and church lots. Then there's the one that would allow legislators to carry concealed firearms anywhere in the state.

Why is there such a rush to get more guns in more public places?

To believe these lawmakers, it's because North Carolina is a dangerous place where you take your life in your hands just by going to work, vacationing at the lake or spending a weekend evening with friends. This doesn’t sound like North Carolina to me. And the data backs my claim. Since 2008, the rate of violent crime decreased 12.5 percent statewide; this includes the murder rate, which is down 19.1 percent.

The gun lobby’s Wild West vision is a wildly distorted image of reality and sets up the second essential myth: an armed community is a safe community. Again, research shows the opposite. The sad truth is that more guns just equal more guns. No valid statistical evidence exists to show that allowing concealed weapons in more locations reduces crime. To the contrary, evidence suggests that loosening restrictions on concealed guns may actually increase crime. A recent study found that states with higher gun ownership rates and weak gun laws have the highest rates of overall gun death.

Maybe these legislators are responding to a perceived pressure from constituents. If that’s the case, polling suggests that it’s bad politics.

Polls conducted by Elon University and Public Policy Polling showed the majority of North Carolinians support our state’s existing gun laws. This includes 67 percent support for our county handgun permit system, which keeps weapons out of the wrong hands. This support holds true across geographic and political divides.

Since concealed weapons were legalized in the mid-1990s, North Carolina has built a system for deciding where guns should be allowed and who should be permitted to carry one. We should focus on improving that structure instead of dismantling it at great public risk.

Conceal carry permit systems are not without their flaws. In a 2006 study in Florida, 1,400 individuals who had pleaded guilty or no contest to felonies were allowed to buy guns. That was in addition to 216 people with outstanding warrants and 129 who were the subject of active domestic violence injunctions.

In North Carolina, our conceal carry permit system has several large gaps. Permit holders are not required to obtain a county permit from their local Sheriff’s Department and they are not required to pass a background check for five years. Before weakening our gun laws we should shorten the duration time of permits, allow more law enforcement discretion in granting permits, and not allow holders to be exempt from background checks.

In a national study, 57 percent of voters reported feeling less safe knowing that people can carry loaded, concealed guns in public.

Our legislators face challenging decisions that will define our state for years to come. This is not the time for knee-jerk responses that put our families in danger. Instead, we need them to work together to build strong systems and structures that will move us forward to being a safer state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kolar is the executive director of North Carolinians Against Gun Violence (NCGV).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the North Carolina Editorial Forum. 3/11

Use the Rainy Day Fund to Help Balance the Budget

2011-04-27T13:41:00.000-04:00

TEXAS LONE STAR FORUM

By Scott Chase

As a small business owner, I am worried our Legislature is going to make unnecessary and deep cuts to public services that local businesses and all Texans need. Yes, our state has a revenue shortfall, but we also have choices about how deal with the shortfall. We can take a balanced approach that uses our Rainy Day Fund.

My fellow business owners in the Oak Cliff Chamber of Commerce are concerned about unnecessary cuts too. Our chamber includes over 600 small business owners in the Dallas area. We were the first local chamber in Texas to call for the State Legislature to use the Rainy Day Fund to help balance the budget instead of the irresponsible “cuts-only” approach that the Legislature is considering.

The cuts-only approach of the Legislature is wrong for many reasons. All businesses, but particularly small businesses, such as the members of the Oak Cliff Chamber, know that spending on education, health care, roads and bridges, job training and the environment is an investment in the economic future of Texas. This investment will result in a more educated, healthier workforce and a modernized infrastructure. The large cuts in these areas being presented by reckless legislators will lead to a less competitive business climate in Texas, lower wage jobs and economic stagnation.

The cuts will affect our economy, not just in the future, but also right away. According to official legislative estimates, the cuts-only approach will also lead to over 300,000 fewer jobs, pushing unemployment up over 10 percent in Texas by 2013. Deep cuts to health care at the state level will mean increased costs of indigent health care for local taxpayers and higher health insurance rates -- both costing businesses.

But beyond the impact on our economy, the cuts-only strategy will have a detrimental impact on our society. Cuts in health care mean less healthy children; cuts in education mean fewer college graduates; cuts in transportation infrastructure mean longer commutes for workers and increased costs to move goods for businesses; and cuts in environmental monitoring mean dirtier air and water. That should not be the future of Texas either.

In the past, when Texas faced budget deficits, our state recognized that a balanced approach was necessary to keep the state moving forward. The Governor, Lt. Governor, Speaker, and Legislators all worked together to find a solution that was in the best interest of all Texans. But, in the current Legislature, our future economic development and the health of all Texans is threatened by the imprudent cuts that do not have to be made.

Using our $9.4 billion Rainy Day Fund is one way to minimize damaging cuts. Texans created the fund by constitutional amendment for the very situation our state is in now -- a revenue shortfall created by an economic downturn. In the first 18 of its 22 years, the fund never had a balance of more than $1 billion. In fact, the Legislature has spent the entire fund several times, including two times approved by Governor Perry. This is safe to do because the fund automatically replenishes from oil and gas severance taxes. Prices for oil and gas are likely to stay strong, rebuilding the fund quickly. Keeping billions in the Rainy Day Fund when we need to protect Texas from the damage of this recession is foolish.

The Oak Cliff Chamber of Commerce has gone on record asking our state Legislature to use the Rainy Day Fund as part of the balanced approach to solving our revenue crisis. Has your chamber of commerce gone on record in support of a balanced approach?

Chase owns his own solo law practice in Dallas and has represented small business owners, as well as public companies, in Texas for over 30 years. He is chair of the Legislative Affairs Committee of the Oak Cliff Chamber of Commerce and has served on the Legislative Affairs Committee of Texans for State Parks.

Copyright (C) 2011 by the Texas Lone Star Forum. 4/11

Tax Day – Time to Examine How Our Money is Spent

2011-04-27T13:23:00.000-04:00

AMERICAN FORUM

By Susan Shaer

As Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.” It costs money to make this country hum. Anyone can see that it would be impossible to have roads crisscrossing the country, federal jails and courts, national parks and monuments, environmental protection that has no boundaries, and a whole raft of other essential services without a nationwide system in which we all have a stake.

Right now, our debt, the deficit and the spectacle of a narrowly averted government shutdown have focused attention on federal spending of tax dollars. To that, I say hooray. I hate looking at my own spending budget, but I know what my priorities are, and what money I have to use, save or borrow against. When we examine our personal finances, we recognize our personal values. Such a magnifying glass aimed at the federal budget will expose priorities of our “civilized” society.

So what are our federal values? We have two sides to the spending budget; one non-discretionary (required spending by law or interest on the debt), and the other discretionary. The discretionary side is where our priorities are displayed full frontal. The current budget allows for 56 percent on the Pentagon, wars and nuclear weapons.

Yes, that’s right. Not to confuse the issue, but that 56 percent does not include veterans’ benefits, or the interest we pay on the debt of past wars, or homeland security. We spend a lot on war, war planning, defense, offense, outdated weapons, overspending on weapons systems cost overruns and more.

It brings to mind the old adage: If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If we have the “stuff” to make war, we use it. If we shifted priorities, we could spend more on international development to help countries survive and thrive so they might not be ripe for conflagration. If we had plentiful, well-trained and professional conflict resolution teams, we could rely on them more and boots on the ground less.

Our troops do a masterful job. The outpouring of support for what they have handled in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now in Libya, is appropriate. However, many in Congress are saying it’s time to look at the military budget. The Pentagon does not pass audits. Weapons manufacturers routinely have cost overruns that would not be tolerated anywhere else in the budget. Weapons systems made in various congressional districts are reauthorized even if the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs don’t want them.

As you look at what you pay in federal income taxes, take a few minutes to think of our country’s values in spending your hard-earned dollars. Last year, in a nonpartisan town meeting effort sponsored by America Speaks in 60 cities across the country, 85 percent of all participants wanted defense spending cut by at least 10 percent, with a majority of participants, 51 percent, supporting a 15 percent cut.

We can have the defense we want and need, plus the security of jobs, health care, education and a clean environment by adjusting our spending priorities to meet our values. It’s time.

Shaer is executive director of the national women’s peace and security organization, WAND, Women’s Action for New Directions.

Copyright (C) 2011 by American Forum. 4/11

Suffer the Little Children…

2011-04-27T12:56:00.000-04:00

AMERICAN FORUM

By Rick Weidman

When I served as an Army medic in Vietnam, I often saw a 19-year-old solider whose job was to spray an herbicide called Agent Orange on anything green inside my base. The same was true around the perimeter, to deny cover to any enemy intruders and to ensure a clear line of fire in case of enemy attack.

As I visited numerous American military bases in Vietnam during the war, they all looked like moonscapes. They were stripped of grass and foliage by the same chemical for the same reasons.

Now, more than 40 years after the war, we know that Agent Orange contained dioxin, which is among the world’s most lethal toxins. American veterans of Vietnam fought a long, hard postwar struggle to get our Veterans Administration to compensate troops for a dozen diseases associated with Agent Orange/dioxin. But what about the Vietnamese who were also exposed? And what about the leftover “hot spots” of dioxin that still exist there and continue to harm people to this very day?

The U.S. military shipped, stored, and sprayed millions of gallons of Agent Orange/dioxin over a quarter of the former South Vietnam, both for crop destruction and to deny cover to the enemy. In this country we know from our own experiences with dioxin at Love Canal and Times Beach that these toxic hot spots can cause death and disease to those who come in contact with the chemical. The diseases range from spina bifida to Parkinson’s and certain forms of cancer.

However, the political battle still rages in Washington. VA Secretary Shinseki has classified three additional diseases as associated with Agent Orange/dioxin, thereby making veterans with those conditions eligible for compensation. In addition, women who served in Vietnam can receive compensation if their children are disabled with any of 14 birth anomalies. That’s because Agent Orange/dioxin can cause DNA damage for generations.

The struggle is far from over. We have reason to believe that many additional adverse medical conditions in Vietnam veterans of both sexes also are caused by these exposures, including possible genetic problems in grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Meanwhile, in Vietnam, Agent Orange/dioxin damage also lingers. While we have made some progress for Americans harmed by these exposures, our friends in Vietnam have a long way to go to match our modest gains. The Vietnamese Red Cross estimates that 3 million people, including more than 150,000 of today’s children, are disabled because of the chemical. Former airbases like Da Nang contain dangerous toxic hot spots where Agent Orange was stored and handled and spilled into the ground. Dioxin is hard to break up in the soil and it lasts in human body tissue for years.

Unlike the United States government, the Vietnamese recognized that Agent Orange/dioxin might cause chromosomal damage in the second and third generations of original victims. My own experience is that families of American veterans also suffer. But the VA recognizes no health consequences from Agent Orange/dioxin in disabled daughters and sons of male veterans who served in Vietnam.

It’s time to put this legacy of the war in Vietnam to rest once and for all. A blue-ribbon commission of prominent Americans and Vietnamese has called for a 10-year, $300 million cleanup of Agent Orange/dioxin in Vietnam. The resources would eliminate the hot spots, restore damaged ecosystems and provide humanitarian assistance to the Vietnamese disabled population, including those second- and third-generation children affected by the chemical.

It seems to me that $30 million a year for 10 years, from government, foundation and private sources, is a small price to pay to help remedy the damage caused.

This is a humanitarian concern we can do something about. Recent progress in methods of treating contaminated soils and helping Vietnam’s disabled population shows that America is at its best when it steps up to heal past wounds.

If we make progress on nothing else regarding the ravages of Agent Orange and other toxic substances used in Vietnam, we must properly care for our future generations -- on both sides of the Pacific.

Weidman served as an Army Medic with the AMERICAL Division in I-Corps Vietnam in 1969. He currently serves as Executive Director for Policy & Government Affairs on the national staff of Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA).

Copyright (c) 2011 by the American Forum. 4/11

Arizona-style Legislation Poses Significant Costs and Public Safety Concerns

2011-04-27T12:03:00.000-04:00

GEORGIA FORUM

By Volkan Topalli

At each stage of the criminal justice system, the proposed Arizona-style legislative initiatives in Georgia represent a substantial and potentially devastating cost to its citizens, and significant unintended consequences for public safety. The new law would require peace officers to attempt to verify a suspect's immigration status when the suspect is unable to provide legal identification.

The proposed legislation stipulates that, “A peace officer shall not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this [law].” But research demonstrates that it's nearly impossible for individuals to discount attitudes about race when engaging in such tasks. T
Hence, the legislation likely would lead to racial profiling. It would put police officers in a nearly untenable situation, one where they'd be expected to decide not who “looks like” a foreigner (bad enough), but who “looks illegal,” leading to a spate of unnecessary and costly court proceedings when they get it wrong.

Also, the proposed legislation mandates poor policing. Remember, every time a peace officer pulls over or arrests someone because the officer is mandated to determine whether they're illegal, that's time he could be spending looking for or dealing with more serious criminal activity. Despite scandalous anecdotes pitched on radio and TV, academic research reveals that the foreign-born are far less likely to break the law than are average nativeborn citizens -- After all, they fear being unjustly deported or otherwise caught up in the justice system. Also, having local law-enforcement implement this legislation would undoubtedly impair community policing strategies, which would harm law enforcement’s efforts to ensure public safety for all residents. Many law-enforcement officials around the nation strongly oppose this type of legislation. They and many of the citizens they protect prefer to focus scarce public resources on fighting crime and promoting public safety, not on tackling immigration enforcement.

There's more.

We don't have a court or corrections system capable of handling more prisoners. Given the downturn in the economy, there've been massive cuts to the criminal justice system in our state.

While the underfunded and overworked court system processes its way through new arrestees that law enforcement would bring them under this legislation, many of these individuals could spend significant time in already overcrowded jails until the courts decide whether they'll be incarcerated. Exacerbating the problem, overcrowded detention centers and jails charge the state an added premium of anywhere from $22 to $45 per day per inmate when they hold an inmate because a designated prison is full. It follows that accumulated costs to taxpayers of housing a sudden influx of inmates could be massive.

There's even more.

When jails exceed maximum capacities, safety becomes an issue. The next time you wonder whether corrections officers have a dangerous job, keep in mind that most prisons maintain an average ratio of 35 inmates to one corrections officer (who cannot carry a firearm). Now, increase that ratio to 50 or 60 inmates per officer ? "Hazard pay” takes on new meaning. The number of state-sentenced prisoners being housed in county jails rose 61 percent between 2008 and 2009. How high will that number jump with implementation of this legislation? And how much will it burden an already-strained and costly (at roughly $12,000-$18,000 per inmate) correctional system?

These are but a few of potential costs and pitfalls of voting in such legislation. In the absence of real research on the implications of the proposed legislation, we're rushing headlong into implementing a system that may cost much while not making us safer. Processing and serving people through the criminal justice system is expensive, something Gov. Nathan Deal wisely alluded to when acknowledging that imprisoning nonviolent offenders would place a massive financial burden on state corrections.

How much more a fiscal burden and public safety hazard could this legislation become?

Topalli is an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice and Director at The Crime & Violence Prevention Policy Initiative at Georgia State University.

Copyright (C) 2011 by Georgia Forum. 4/11

Georgia Should Learn from its Past Injustices

2011-04-13T14:09:00.000-04:00

AMERICAN FORUM

By Chandelle Summer

The evening of Jan. 18 began ordinarily enough, my husband and I engaging in our usual, bedroom channel-surfing along with the attendant full-scale, courtroom-worthy debate over which program was to be selected. With 1,150 channels, it's a long and arduous process. Then it happened.

"Two-four-six-eight, we don't want to integrate." Grainy, black-and-white images of throngs of fresh-faced angry teen-agers dressed in crisp white shirts standing at the Arch of the University of Georgia repeatedly screaming in unison, "Two-four-six-eight, we don't want to integrate." We were watching "Eyes on the Prize," a PBS series about 1960s civil-rights struggles.

Five decades ago, young African Americans endured the wrath of the white establishment and subjected themselves to close-range, fire-hosing at water pressures so strong they could rip the bark right off a tree. They endured rock-throwing, face-smashing and arm-twisting arrests. A young woman walked proudly onto the campus of the University of Georgia to the jeers and taunts of an angry mob. Fifty years later, here we go again.

Bills pending in this session of the Georgia General Assembly propose that all institutions of higher education and technical schools in Georgia deny entrance to children of undocumented immigrants. Presently, those without documentation who graduated from a Georgia high school can attend college in Georgia provided they pay out-of-state tuition. But the Georgia Legislature now is considering barring these students altogether. Mind you, these are the same children who have been educated by the state and who have been reciting the Pledge of Allegiance since they were toddlers.

American students are taught the evils of "caste systems" in other countries that allow only a small pool of candidates to receive higher education. Ostensibly, in America the best and the brightest are selected from a well-honed system of competition and opportunity. Merit-based achievement is encouraged, character education is mandated, and students in Georgia are taught that if they study hard, participate and achieve, a bright future is all but guaranteed. Of course, if you are an honor student who happened to have been cradled in your mother's arms when you crossed the southern border, even if you haven't laid eyes on the motherland since, forget it. Your land of opportunity may extend only to the tomato patch in South Georgia, where you will be welcomed with open arms because our agricultural industry depends upon you.

The most common refrain for those who would deny admittance to qualified students regardless of heritage is that those who pay no taxes don't support our institutions of higher learning. That argument must fail since undocumented workers pay sales taxes, property taxes and often pay payroll taxes. And no one is suggesting barring children whose parents don't or can't pay their taxes. If contribution is the standard by which we judge qualification, then clearly all those who fail to buy lottery tickets should be stopped from sending their children to school on the Hope scholarship.

Only a small percentage of undocumented students now attend college in Georgia. Chancellor Erroll Davis said, "Our capacity is not being stressed by thousands of illegal students. Out of 311,000 students in our 35 colleges and universities last fall semester, we found 501 undocumented students, or less than two-tenths of 1 percent. These 501 students all pay out-of-state tuition, which more than fully covers the cost of their education." The students Davis is referring to live in fear. They were powerless over the choices that brought them here and they are powerless over their destiny. Those of us blessed with reason, conscience and heart cannot sit back and watch another generation of children disenfranchised by laws born of prejudice and hate. The wide-eyed stares of those children who have been devalued and dehumanized as though they are somehow responsible for their own predicament will haunt our collective consciousness. We must not repeat the same social injustice that tarnished Georgia two score and 10 years ago.

Summer is an attorney and mother of five. She appears as "loyal opposition" on talk-radio simulcast on WDUN-550 AM and 102.9 FM, live stream on AccessNorthGa.com, and founder of Dream On (www.supportdreamon.com).

Copyright (C) 2011 by Georgia Forum. 3/11

Does Eating Meat Cause Hunger?

2011-04-13T14:00:00.001-04:00

AMERICAN FORUM

By Doug Pibel

So far, agriculture has kept up with population -- there's enough food in the world to feed everyone. But not everyone's getting fed -- at least a billion people live with hunger, according to the U.N. World Food Program. And the world is in the midst of yet another spike in food prices. As long as we keep diverting grain from human mouths to animal ones, people will go hungry. It's simple market economics: It's more profitable to produce meat -- even though the meat that results from feeding grain to animals has less food value than the grain itself.

Which is why there's hunger even when there are no grain shortages: The wealthy of the world are willing to pay more to feed animals than poor people can pay to feed themselves.

So must we all become vegetarians in order to avert world hunger? Not necessarily. The spring issue of YES! Magazine suggests another route to food sufficiency.

Recent food price spikes mean those on the margins are more likely to go hungry, and political instability is among the outcomes. In February, the World Bank reported price levels only 3 percent below the 2008 peak that produced widespread food riots. At the beginning of March, The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported a 70 percent increase in export grain prices during the last year. The FAO Food Price Index was at its highest level since the FAO began monitoring prices in 1990.

The World Bank discusses two factors driving up food prices: weather and ethanol, and quotes a USDA estimate that 40 percent of the U.S. corn output will go to making ethanol this year.

But in the United States in 2009, the last full year for which numbers are available, 137 million metric tons of corn, sorghum, barley, and oats became animal feed. That's 46 percent of total U.S. consumption of those grains. It's also two and a half times the amount of grain the United States exported in that year.

The solution to world hunger, then, is simple: Stop eating meat.

No realistic person expects that, or anything close to it, to happen. There is a slew of valid reasons for being vegetarian: raising meat produces greenhouse gases, degrades water ways, and displaces forests and wild habitats, and many people feel that the way animals are raised and slaughtered is immoral. Nonetheless, it seems that meat eating will be with us always.

It turns out, though, that eating meat doesn't have to take food away from hungry people, and it doesn't have to involve a lifetime in a cage. As Joel Salatin says, in a YES! Magazine interview, "Don't blame the cow for the negatives of the industrial food system."

At Salatin's Polyface Farms, the pastures are five times as productive as the local average, and, he says, "We've never bought a bag of chemical fertilizer and we've never planted a seed." Salatin raises cattle, pigs, and chickens, and does it all without using anything that could become human food. He says his farmland has gotten richer and more fertile as a result of decades of grazing.

This is the model that most humans followed for most of history: Animals ate what humans couldn't, and turned that into meat that humans could eat. Ron Fairlie, in his new book, Meat: A Benign Extravagance, calls this "default livestock." He calculates that a universal return to that model would return food grains to human mouths, and still produce enough meat for everyone to have some.

Not a great deal, mind you -- about three quarters of a pound of meat and 1.33 pints of milk per week. But the roughly 1.5 billion people in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh eat less than that already.

For the sacrifice of cutting our meat consumption, we'd eliminate the cruelty of confinement animal-feeding operations. We'd do away with the bulk of the greenhouse gases associated with industrial livestock -- Salatin says his operation actually sequesters carbon. Best of all, we'd know that no one in the world had to go to bed hungry.

Pibel is managing editor of YES! Magazine.

Copyright (C) 2011 by the American Forum. 3/11

What Happened to Gloomy Predictions?

2011-03-30T13:04:00.000-04:00

AMERICAN FORUM

By Frank Knapp, Jr.

Economic reports show that most job growth in our country this year has come from small- and medium-size businesses. That trend will only accelerate, according to the recently released Small Business Index from the Center for Excellence in Service at the University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business.

Nearly 3.8 million new jobs will be created by small businesses with fewer than 100 employees in 2011, says the report. That will be enough alone to lower the U.S. unemployment rate by 2.4 percent. The survey, conducted in January, also found that only 2 percent of small businesses planned to lay off workers.

Major health insurance companies nationwide are reporting dramatic increases in small businesses offering health insurance to employees. This reverses a trend for small businesses dropping insurance because of affordability.

This is not what opponents of health-care reform told us would happen if Congress passed the Affordable Care Act (ACA). They warned us strenuously before the ACA became law March 23 of last year that small businesses would not only stop hiring out of fear of the future but would begin laying off workers because of anticipated new taxes, fees and health-insurance mandates under the ACA. Small businesses also were supposed to start dropping health insurance because the ACA would drive up premiums. These dire predictions continued right up until last year’s November elections.

Fortunately, the gloom and doomers were wrong. Those of us who supported the ACA have tried valiantly to put out more realistic predictions about how the ACA was going to help small businesses. There will not be new taxes, fees or health-insurance mandates for small businesses with 50 or fewer employees (approximately 96 percent of all businesses). However, most of the mainstream media preferred to report on the negative tea-reading.

But now the good news for small business is rolling in and the positive future effect of the now 1-year-old ACA is becoming clear.

More than four million U.S. small businesses with fewer than 25 employees are eligible to receive health-insurance tax credits under the ACA. That’s 87.3 percent of all small businesses in the country that the ACA can help by making health insurance more affordable.

As for the ACA dramatically increasing the cost of health insurance, a senior vice president at Harvard Pilgrim says that the federal law has only increased premiums by 1 percent.

The ACA is helping small-business owners who have been locked out of health insurance because of their own pre-existing condition. Right now, these entrepreneurs are eligible for affordable coverage from new high-risk pools established under the ACA.

This year, the ACA is requiring that at least 80 percent of every premium dollar being paid in small group health insurance plans is actually paying for medical costs -- not marketing, CEO salaries or profit. If not, the policyholder is owed a refund.

These benefits for small business are in place now.

Today, small businesses are paying as much as 18 percent higher premiums than big businesses. This is a result of higher administration costs for small groups. In 2014, this extra cost is eliminated, so small-business employees, along with individuals, will be able to purchase their coverage from the new health insurance exchanges in each state.

A small business with only one employee with a pre-existing condition finds itself priced out of the market or paying highly inflated premiums. In 2014, health insurance companies will no longer be allowed to charge higher rates because of pre-existing conditions.

And because no one will be denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition, aspiring entrepreneurs will no longer be locked into a job because of health-insurance benefits. As a result, ranks of small businesses should expand.

The one year anniversary of the ACA is truly something small businesses should celebrate for what it has already done. The future will be even better.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Knapp is president and CEO of The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce and serves on the steering committee for the American Sustainable Business Council.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by American Forum. 3/11

Raising the Minimum Wage Makes Good Business Sense

2011-03-30T13:00:00.000-04:00

AMERICAN FORUM

By John Shepley

As a small business owner, I support legislation to increase Maryland’s inadequate minimum wage because it makes good business sense. It’s an important part of our economic recovery and economic progress. I know businesses can pay a better minimum wage and still make a profit -- it helps the business prosper.

Opponents of this legislation like the Maryland Chamber of Commerce, the Maryland Retailers Association, and the Restaurant Association tell you the time is not right to increase the minimum wage because the economy is weak. What they don’t want you to remember is that for them the time is never right. In 2005, they opposed legislation to raise Maryland’s minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $6.15. They opposed federal legislation to raise the minimum wage in 1996, in the middle of the longest economic expansion in our nation’s history. Then president of the Maryland Retailers Association, Tom Saquella, cut to the chase when he said about their opposition in 1996, “A lot of it’s philosophical.”

So let me cut to the chase: If my business, a small nursery in rural Harford County, can profit and grow when paying a wage that people can thrive on, then there’s no reason any viable business cannot do that too. Unless, that is, their philosophy is getting in the way of good business sense.

Claims that a higher minimum wage will cost Maryland jobs and hurt our local economy are rubbish. The real hard evidence, such as a comprehensive study published in the November 2010 Review of Economics and Statistics, shows minimum wage increases do not increase unemployment.

I challenge anyone who thinks the minimum wage shouldn’t be raised, to try living on it. The minimum wage is now just $7.25 an hour, or $15,080 for full-time, year-round work. Today’s minimum wage has far less buying power than it had in the 1960s.

How is it good business to pay a wage so low your employees are continually stressed because they can’t make ends meet and are looking to leave at the first opportunity? Businesses that pay lower wages almost always have higher turnover. Instead of paying adequate wages, the owners are paying to recruit and train new workers who aren’t as productive as a more stable workforce.

The cost of a higher minimum wage is more than offset by increased productivity and cost savings from reduced turnover. At Emory Knoll Farms, we know we can count on employees: They look after the quality of our products, they understand and anticipate our customers’ needs, and I can count on our people to step up when our business needs demand a little extra. Our employees know we’ll stick by them when times are tough, and they will stick by us.

How is it good business to pay a minimum wage with less buying power than it had in the 1960s? Doesn’t that weaken the consumer demand at the heart of our local economy? I know people at the lower end of earnings tend to spend 100% of their after-tax income. They put it right back into local businesses buying food, clothing, car repairs, and other necessities of living. That money spent locally adds more jobs and boosts our economy. Moreover, a higher minimum wage boosts the sales tax and personal income tax base.

How is it good for Maryland taxpayers to have a minimum wage so low it increases the strain on our social safety net? Many state governments have reported on the public health care burden from underpaid employees of big national retailers – Massachusetts, for example, found that in 2009, Wal-Mart had more than 5,000 employees receiving health insurance coverage through state public assistance programs. The state’s cost for these Wal-Mart employees and dependents is conservatively measured at $16.6 million.
The Chesapeake Sustainable Business Alliance, made up of local and independent businesses, has signed the Business for a Fair Minimum Wage statement in support of raising Maryland’s minimum wage to $8.25 this July, $9 in 2012 and $9.75 in 2013 – and adjusting it beginning in 2014 so it does not fall behind the rising cost of living. Local and sustainable business owners know our fortunes are entwined with the fortunes of our employees and customers.

The right thing to do for Maryland workers and families is to move the minimum wage to a level where people can do more than “just survive.” Raising the minimum wage will move us towards a more stable and sustainable Maryland economy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shepley is co-owner of Emory Knoll Farms Inc., a wholesale nursery in Harford County. He is also chairman of the Chesapeake Sustainable Business Alliance, made up of local, independent and sustainable businesses in Maryland.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the American Forum. 3/11

The Facts about Public Workers

2011-03-30T12:58:00.000-04:00

KENTUCKY FORUM

By Kelly Anthony

The battle between Governor Walker and public employees in Wisconsin shines a spotlight on people who are normally behind the scenes in our communities – the public workers.

Teachers, firefighters, street cleaners, police, child abuse caseworkers – these public employees are the heartbeat of our communities. Wisconsin breaks open a debate about how these workers are treated, and the impact on citizens’ pocketbooks. Unfortunately, that debate has become more political theater than substance, with pundits advancing ideological points over honest debate. Here in the “Show Me State” we prefer to look at hard facts.

The nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute (EPI) recently issued a report on the lot of public employees in the state of Missouri. They made no-nonsense comparisons between public employees and their counterparts in the private sector. The findings may surprise you – and they will certainly alarm any Missourian that believes an effective government needs to attract the highest quality employees, and keep them for the long term.

Myth #1: Public employees earn more and have cushier jobs with more costly benefits than those in the private sector.

FACT: The EPI finds that Missouri public employees earn 15.6 percent less in total compensation per hour than comparable full-time employees in Missouri’s private sector -- this is a comprehensive figure that includes pension and health insurance benefits. Also illustrated in the report is the finding that compared to the private sector, public sector employee compensation costs are 24.3 percent LOWER at the state level than their private sector counterparts.

Myth #2: Those who are employed by the public sector are there because they “can’t make it” or are unqualified to get a job in the private sector.

FACT: the EPI report shows that public employees in Missouri have substantially higher education levels than those in the private sector; 53 percent of Missouri public employees hold at least a Bachelor’s degree, compared with 22 percent of private sector employees.

Myth#3: The public sector unions are bankrupting the state.

FACT: Despite that low pay, state workers have not received a cost of living adjustment in three years. State employees have also seen reductions in health benefits and pensions. All are now paying significantly higher premiums and deductibles through the state’s health insurance plan, and new state workers must pay 4 percent of their salary into their pension plan.

In light of all this, the question may be, why does someone in Missouri choose to work in the public sector over the private sector? That is best answered by a public employee (and you should ask them). The firefighter, the police officer or the teacher is likely to tell you their rewards are more about job satisfaction. They are filling a need, helping their community and serving their neighbors.

Just look at the facts. The next time you talk with someone in the public sector, instead of making assumptions, thank them for their service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony works with the Public Good Project of Missouri Jobs with Justice, a nonpartisan coalition promoting issues of workers’ rights and economic justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the Missouri Forum. 3/11

The $635 Million Gorilla: How to Get Unemployment Trust Fund Solvent

2011-03-30T12:36:00.000-04:00

GEORGIA FORUM

By Clare S. Richie

Georgia’s unemployment trust fund is in the red. Since the end of 2009, the state has amassed a $635 million debt to the federal government so that it could provide unemployment benefits to Georgia’s growing number of laid-off workers.

Georgia’s first interest payment of $24 million is due this fall. Already cash-strapped, Georgia’s best option to make this interest payment, repay its loan and avoid federal tax increases on employers is federal relief. A poor alternative would be redirecting state funds from critical services such as education, health care or public safety in order to pay back the loan.

The unemployment trust fund is used to make weekly payments to eligible workers who are laid off due to no fault of their own. Employers contribute to the trust fund through federal and state unemployment insurance (UI) taxes. These contributions are used to build up the trust fund during strong economic times, creating a reserve that can be used to make payments during periods of high unemployment.

The severity and length of the recent recession placed an unforeseen strain on Georgia’s trust fund; yet, it’s not the sole cause behind the state’s need to borrow federal funds. Long periods of employer tax breaks depleted Georgia’s trust fund.

The federal UI tax has been stable at about $56 per employee per year. However, Georgia policymakers have repeatedly cut the state UI tax or suppressed tax increases over the past two decades.

The largest employer tax break came during the 2000-03 “UI tax holiday” during which most of Georgia’s employers paid no state UI taxes and the reserve fund dropped by $1.3 billion. Since 2004, even during strong economic times, legislation suppressed increases to employer contributions needed to build-up the reserves.
Georgia’s insolvency is not a spending issue. Georgia pays lower unemployment benefits than the national average ($269 per week compared to the national average of $296 per week), and for a shorter period of time, roughly 15 weeks. Even more so, only about one in three unemployed workers receive UI benefits. Despite the fact that unemployment payments are oftentimes half of the average employee’s wages, they sustain consumer demand during economic downturns and as the worker looks for another job.

Federal relief, as outlined in the Unemployment Insurance Solvency Act of 2011, would provide a two-year suspension of interest payments, and a two-year suspension of automatic federal employer tax increases. It also would allow for states to develop a plan to return to solvency in exchange for partial reduction in the state’s loan.

Without federal relief, Georgia will need to repay hundreds of millions of dollars to the federal government this fall. Failure to repay $24 million in interest would automatically increase employer federal UI taxes from $56 to $434 per employee starting in 2012. Failure to repay the $635 million loan would result in a $21 increase per employee per year until the loan is repaid.

Given the two options – federal relief or repayment in full – and considering Georgia’s current budget troubles, it seems obvious that federal relief is the best option for Georgia’s future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richie is senior policy analyst for the Georgia Budget & Policy Institute. Analysis and recommendations on Georgia’s unemployment trust fund can be found at GBPI.org.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by Georgia Forum. 3/11

Unemployment Benefits Benefit Everyone

2011-03-30T12:30:00.000-04:00

FLORIDA FORUM

By Emily Eisenhauer

Several bills before the Florida Legislature seek to make it harder for those who are out of work through no fault of their own to get unemployment compensation. Community service requirements, mandatory drug testing, and limiting the number of weeks all seem to be based on the idea that people who are getting benefits don’t deserve them or are not looking hard enough for a job. But in this economy, that doesn’t make sense, and these proposals will make it harder for the system to do its job.

Florida lost almost a million jobs in the recession that began in late 2007, and over 1.1. million people remain unemployed in the state. Last year, 2010, was better, in that the state added 43,500 jobs. But that just means for every job added, there were still 25 people looking for work. Right now almost half of the people out of work have been looking for a job for over 6 months, and over one-third have been looking for more than a year. In recent weeks the media have covered many stories of people who have been applying for any job they can find, and still coming up empty.

Florida already has one of the strictest unemployment compensation systems in the country. In any given week between 15 and 20% of people who submit claims are rejected by the state for not providing sufficient proof of work search or other eligibility reasons. Florida has the fourth lowest maximum weekly benefit in the country - $275 – with an average weekly payment of $230. That means that on average unemployment benefits replace about 38% of a worker’s previous salary. It’s hard to imagine that people surviving on 38% of their salary wouldn’t be out doing everything they can to get a new job.

Unemployment compensation exists for two reasons: 1) to provide support for people who are out of work through no fault of their own, and 2) to stabilize the economy during a downturn. UC functions like an insurance program, and in fact in other states it is referred to as unemployment insurance (UI). Money is paid by employers for each of their employees into a fund so that should a worker lose a job there’s a cushion until he or she finds another. It isn’t welfare, it is money that workers have already earned. Applicants must show they have worked a certain amount in order to draw benefits, and the amount of benefits anyone can is capped.

This insurance program not only benefits laid-off workers, it benefits the whole economy. When thousands lose their jobs within a short time period businesses get hurt too because demand for goods and services declines. UC replaces some of the money that otherwise would have been lost to the economy and puts it into the pockets of people who will immediately spend it on basic necessities. As for the numbers: The

Congressional Budget Office estimated that extending UI benefits would bring a return of investment of as much as $1.90 in increased gross domestic product for every dollar spent, compared with extending the Bush era tax cuts, which brings a return of only 40 cents on the dollar.

This is why it makes so much sense to make sure that everyone who has earned benefits is getting them. Even before the recession the system wasn’t perfect and many people who had earned enough to qualify were excluded because Florida still uses a pre-computer-era system for deciding eligibility. This unfairly denies benefits to many workers because it doesn’t count their last six months on the job, and it hits low-wage and seasonal workers especially hard.

Florida also has refused to modernize eligibility rules to provide insurance for workers who are victims of domestic violence or have to leave work to care for a sick family member. Thirty-two other states allow these workers to qualify.

For these reasons and others, Florida has one of the lowest recipiency rates in the country. A 2004 study by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research and the National Employment Law Project found that only 33 percent of unemployed workers in Florida were receiving unemployment benefits, compared with the national average of 44 percent. Some states, like Connecticut, had rates exceeding 80 percent.

If Florida modernized its system tens of thousands more workers would be able to get the benefits they have earned, and the whole state would reap the economic benefit. Not to mention the $444 million that Florida could receive under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act if it made these changes, and which would more than pay for the additional benefits.

Instead of making the unemployment compensation system even more difficult for workers, now is the time when we should be making sure that everyone who is eligible is participating. Unemployment benefits keep the economy moving, which is exactly what we need right now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eisenhauer is a research associate at the Research Institute for Social and Economic Policy at the Center for Labor Research and Studies at Florida International University.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the Florida Forum. 3/11

Will Iowa Overpay Now for Nuclear Power it May Never Receive?

2011-03-30T12:27:00.000-04:00

IOWA FORUM

By Mark Cooper

Why would anyone pay a $150 for something that costs $100? They wouldn’t if they had a choice, and that’s the problem with new nuclear reactors. Wall Street knows that new reactors cost too much and won’t fund them. But MidAmerican wants to build them, so the company is looking to the Iowa ratepayer to play the fool.

MidAmerican’s 636,000 customers in Iowa are captive customers; they can’t shop for the best power deal. Historically, when a utility wants to add new generating capacity it must build the plant and begin producing electricity before seeking to recover the costs from its customers. They can only recover costs that are reasonable and prudent. And the utility’s rate of return on its investment in the new plant should be commensurate with the risk the utility faces in undertaking the project.

MidAmerican, through HSB 124 and SSB 1144, wants to turn the whole process on its head. As a result, all three of these traditional consumer protections would be dramatically weakened.

The cost recovery scheme that MidAmerican is pushing shifts the risks away from its stockholders and onto its ratepayers. Electric bills rise long before a new power plant even produces one kilowatt. Ratepayers are on the hook even if the new plant costs soar, or the project is canceled or abandoned.

Last year, the Iowa legislature considered cost recovery legislation that had a provision empowering the Public Utility Board to require competitive bidding for new electricity resources. Under that approach, only if nuclear is cheaper can the project proceed, but MidAmerican knows nuclear is much more costly than efficiency, natural gas or wind, so this year’s bill drops that language. In other words, keep out competition – and the beneficial effect it has on prices.

And what exactly does MidAmerican want its customers to underwrite?

Earlier this year, MidAmerican President and CEO William Fehrman told the Iowa Senate Commerce Committee that his company is exploring a plan to build small modular reactors as opposed to one large central generating plant like Iowa’s existing Duane Arnold reactor. Small modular reactors are units that produce tens to hundreds of megawatts versus the 1,200 to 1,600 megawatts of new reactor designs.

Small modular reactors have become something of the darling of nuclear power advocates recently, in part because they claim that these small reactors will solve the major cost problems of large nuclear projects.

But smaller reactors don’t necessarily mean that the electricity produced will be cheaper. In fact, estimated costs for these new and untested designs are purely hypothetical, since none have ever been built commercially.

Meanwhile, utilities are abandoning or delaying proposed new large reactor projects throughout the U.S., because estimated costs for these reactors have soared and can’t compete against cheaper alternatives. In Florida, this has resulted in ratepayers paying almost half a billion dollars so far for new large reactors that that won’t be built until after 2020 – if ever.

Giving MidAmerican advanced cost recovery for totally untested designs is the absolute worst thing to do with ratepayer money. Ratepayers are not merely forced to be investment bankers; they are turned into venture capitalists with a high risk of failure and no projected return on their investment.

MidAmerican is selling its plan to the legislature and Iowans as a way to create jobs and deliver new supplies of energy. That’s just not true. Nuclear reactors produce relatively few jobs for the dollars invested. The costly electricity means consumers have less to spend on other goods and services and add to the cost of doing business. And the equipment vendors often are foreign corporations, sucking U.S. dollars overseas. The alternatives available in Iowa will create at least twice as many jobs as nuclear reactors.

Would Iowans benefit by paying higher electricity rates now for risky reactor projects that may or may not happen a decade or two in the future? The answer is a resounding “no.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper is a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the Iowa Forum. 3/11

Resolution Waltzes around Tennessee Constitution

2011-03-30T12:24:00.000-04:00

TENNESSEE EDITORIAL FORUM

By Phil Schoggen

Tennessee is considering a proposal to amend the state Constitution to prohibit any tax on incomes or payroll. This resolution would render the state forever dependent on our sales tax, now one of the highest in the nation.

Buried deep in the proposal is a provision that would skirt the Constitution and abandon traditional procedure by declaring that posting an internet notice of the amendment on the Tennessee Secretary of State's or the Tennessee General Assembly's web site would satisfy the Constitution's requirement for official public notice. In the past this notification requirement has been met by publishing notices in newspapers across the state. The purpose of changing the publication method is to reduce the cost of providing the notice.

The problem with the proposed method of providing public notice is that 35 percent of Tennessee households do not have internet access at home and 25 percent do not have internet access anywhere. Voters and community leaders are accustomed to receiving notice in the traditional manner, in their local newspaper. No one knows how effective such a notice would be if published on the internet only. If the public remains uninformed about such serious change in the method of providing a notice, it amounts to legislative action without public awareness.

Amending the Constitution is a momentous undertaking with long-lasting consequences. It should not be easy and it should not be attempted without careful consideration. Amending the Constitution in a way that limits the General Assembly's future options for generating revenue is a risky proposition and a statement of exaggerated self-esteem. It says "We, in this General Assembly, know every circumstance that could possibly occur in the future. None of them could justify ever having an income tax and we don't trust our successors in future General Assemblies to not pass an income tax."

It’s not hard to imagine circumstances that would call for an income tax. A depression or another severe recession might reduce revenue to the extent that an income tax becomes essential to the continuation of a state government that serves its citizens adequately.

An earthquake on the New Madrid fault or a severe outbreak of tornados will require funding for relief and reconstruction efforts that exceeds the capacity of the existing tax structure which is so heavily dependent on a very high sales tax. With both of these potential disasters it’s not a question of "if" but "when" they will occur. Even without these disasters, Tennessee revenue is down because an ever smaller part of economic activity is subject to our sales tax. Severe cuts in state services have been imposed in an effort to keep the budget balanced. If the proposed amendment passes, it would take at least three years to amend it out of the Constitution and pass an income tax. How much would Tennessee suffer in the meantime?

This resolution is an insult to the Constitution, its framers and to current and future citizens and their elected representatives. They all deserve more respect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schoggen is a Tennesseans for Fair Taxation board member.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the Tennessee Editorial Forum. 3/11

Who Can Be Blamed for the Unemployment Crisis?

2011-03-30T12:11:00.000-04:00

FLORIDA FORUM

By Jackie Rodríguez

I am not to blame for the unemployment crisis in Florida. Yes, I have been unemployed. And yes, I have collected unemployment to support myself and my family. After two years since I was last laid-off, I finally found a new opportunity just a month ago. It was not easy, and I do not blame myself. But I do point my finger at the economy and the greed of our current economic system that only looks out for those on top.

The news is all a flurry with the idea that unemployed people, like I was just a few days ago, are the ones to blame for the situation we find ourselves in. This round of “blame the victim” is nothing less than despicable, shameful and downright dishonest. Let’s look at the facts behind the blame game.

In Florida, for every job created last year there are 25 people who still need a job. Our state has a whopping 12 percent unemployment rate. While there are one million unemployed people in our state, less than half are receiving unemployment insurance. Nationally, profits have more than recovered from the worst of the economic crisis, raising 12 percent since 2007, but unemployment continues to grow.

So what gives, and why am I to blame?

It’s easier to blame me, the victim of our economic system, than it is to look for the real culprits, the ones with their hands in the cookie jar. And let’s be honest, the real culprits are the unrestrained finance industry focused on the quick buck and greed, rather than building a whole society.

By blaming me, big business and corporate interests are let off the hook. They are playing a dangerous game of taking advantage of public outrage during difficult economic times. By directing my neighbor’s outrage at me, it’s easier for them to slide out of their responsibilities as economic entities in our state.

This redirection distracts my neighbors, and even me, away from real solutions to the current crisis for workers in this state. We are put on the defensive, and more concessions are pushed by big business to offset the toll I am supposedly taking on them. In reality, these policy shifts that the business community is pushing for will harm the public structures in our state that protect not only unemployed workers, but all workers. By blaming unemployed workers, businesses are blaming all workers, when corporate interests are the ones setting agenda in our state.

Rather than blame me, business leaders need to work with legislative leaders and us unemployed workers to craft policies that create fairness, security and equality in our state. Until business stops kicking us while we’re down, we can’t be expected to get up off the ground.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodriguez is now Administrative Assistant of Miami Workers Center.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the Florida Forum. 3/11

Investigating Muslims or Coming Together as Americans?

2011-03-29T15:27:00.000-04:00

AMERICAN FORUM

By Talat Hamdani

As a proud New Yorker and the mother of a first responder who lost his life on September 11, 2001, I am saddened to learn that Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is planning on holding congressional hearings on March 10 on the "radicalization of American Muslims."

My son Mohammed Salman Hamdani was a 23-year-old paramedic, a New York City police cadet and a Muslim American. He was one of those brave 2,976 people who tragically lost their lives in the 9/11 terrorist attacks almost a decade ago. As The New York Times eulogized, "He wanted to be seen as an all-American kid. He wore No. 79 on the high school football team in Bayside, Queens, where he lived, and he was called Sal by his friends... He became a research assistant at Rockefeller University and drove an ambulance part-time. One Christmas, he sang in Handel's Messiah in Queens. He saw all the Star Wars movies, and it was well known that his new Honda was the one with "Yung Jedi" license plates."

Even though my son bravely sacrificed his life to try and help others on that fateful day, after the tragedy there were still some people who smeared his character solely because of his Islamic faith. False rumors were spread that he was in league with the attackers and that he had secretly fled. It was only when his remains were identified that this ugliness finally came to a close.

By explicitly investigating Muslim Americans, the result of Representative King's hearings, whether intentionally or unintentionally, will be to unjustly cast suspicion upon millions of good Americans. And the sad truth is that there are many who will follow the lead of these hearings and capitalize on the opportunity to act upon this prejudice. The implicit message of Rep. King's hearings will be that you should be suspicious of your Muslim neighbors, co-workers or classmates – solely on the basis of their faith.

Rep. King initially premised these hearings on the false claim that the American Muslim community has failed to cooperate with law enforcement officials in our efforts to disrupt terrorism plots here in the United States. But that claim has been directly refuted by law enforcement professionals such as Los Angeles Sheriff County Sheriff Lee Baca, whose jurisdiction includes a large and diverse Muslim community. Baca who serves as a Chair of the Major City Chiefs Association has directly challenged King’s unsubstantiated claim, "If he has evidence of non-cooperation, he should bring it forward," said Baca, "I don't know what Mr. King is hearing or who he's hearing it from."

I have no problem with investigating criminal behavior or watching for patterns of action that indicate that criminal activity is underway, but it is altogether a different thing to divide Americans on the basis of their faith.

In the past, Rep. King has also claimed while providing no evidence whatsoever, that 85% of American mosques have "extremist leadership" and that American Muslims have shown "no moral outrage or condemnation" of terrorist acts. Mr. King seems to conveniently forget that the first person to report the foiled Times Square bomb plot was a Senegalese Muslim named Aloune Niass. He seems to have forgotten that the young man who plotted to bomb a Christmas tree lighting in Oregon was turned in to the authorities by his own Muslim father. The fact of the matter is that like all Americans, American Muslims are committed to the safety of their families, their communities and their nation.

The United States Congress honored the legacy of my son when it wrote in Title I of the USA PATRIOT Act: "Many Arab Americans and Muslim Americans have acted heroically during the attacks on the United States, including Mohammed Salman Hamdani, a 23-year-old New Yorker of Pakistani descent, who is believed to have gone to the World Trade Center to offer rescue assistance and is now missing." If my son were alive today, he would be very concerned by the broad assault on American Muslims that these hearings represent.

As we near the 10th anniversary of the tragic September 11 attacks, I will be thinking of my son and the 2,976 other innocent souls who perished on that terrible day. As a nation, we should use this tenth anniversary of 9/11 to help move our nation towards a healing process. Sadly, these hearings will only divide our country at a time when Americans of all religions and races need to help bridge the divide and come together.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hamdani is the mother of 9/11 first responder Salman Hamdani, a 23-year-old paramedic, a New York City police cadet and a American Muslim first responder who lost his life in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the American Forum. 3/11

Pay Equity Works for Everyone

2011-03-29T15:09:00.000-04:00

Arvonne Fraser

MINNESOTA EDITIORIAL FORUM

By Arvonne Fraser and Aviva Breen

Should Esther, the city clerk in Lake Wobegon, be paid $250 a month less than Joe who shovels the sidewalk and sweeps the floor in city hall? That was the kind of hypothetical question posed when the Minnesota Legislature passed the Local Government Pay Equity Act in 1984. Never mind that the fictional Esther was a widow, taking care of an aged mother, while Joe, the maintenance man, was single and a cousin of the mayor. That was just life. Everybody in town was glad Esther had a job. In those days only the town banker and city council members knew who got paid what.

Twenty-six years later, thanks to the pay equity bill, picture Jolene, now the town's clerk who makes just a bit more than her husband, Brian, who plows the town's streets in winter as a maintenance man. Together they support their three children, pay their property taxes, and are saving to help their kids through college. They are pleased that Aunt Esther's social security is better than it would have been because under the law her pay was adjusted.

Now, there are efforts to repeal this pay equity law. In December, the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce issued a report saying the legislation is too costly and no longer necessary. Some state legislators agreed and have introduced proposals for repeal. Apparently they agree that a penny saved is a penny earned, but where's their sense of proportion when the state's deficit is in the billions of dollars?

When a city administrator earns twice as much as a maintenance worker shouldn't we be worrying about dollars instead of pennies? Shouldn't legislators and taxpayers be worrying about local property taxes going up as local government aid goes down? Let's be fair. With unemployment at record rates, many women are the breadwinners for their families. Minnesota has a long tradition of women working outside of the home. Today they are half of the workforce and generally the lower paid half. Why is a law benefitting them targeted for repeal?

In the past, many local units of government hired consultants to get their personnel and compensation records in order so they could comply with the law's mandates. Now, with the state's user-friendly internet reporting system, it only takes Jolene a couple of hours on the computer every three years to file the required report. The law helped cities, counties, libraries, school districts, and others improve their compensation systems and made them transparent.

Favoritism, nepotism and plain old discrimination were exposed. As one long-time mayor reported to a supporter of pay equity, "We should have paid that gal more a long time ago. Good thing we fixed that." He was referring to his city clerk, a woman like our Esther.

Almost every piece of legislation has unintended consequences. This one has been good; it helped women and it helped governmental units systematize and clarify their compensation plans. But if you think the legislation is no longer necessary, it's important to note that 25 percent of the current reports show there are still problems that need correcting. A few years ago when the reporting mandate was suspended temporarily, it was discovered that a significant drop off in compliance occurred. The age-old beliefs that women's work is less valuable and that women don't need money to support families is still alive and well. Women's pay is generally still not equal to that of men, but groceries cost the same for everyone.

Now is not the time to repeal good laws. Without the required reporting, pay levels could too easily revert to the standards as people retired and new employees are hired. Families and communities would suffer. People like Esther, Jolene and their counterparts in Minnesota's 1,500 local government jurisdictions would then have trouble paying their property taxes, helping their kids through college, and paying for everyday expenses.

What supporters of repeal don't point out is that pay scales under the law aren't set by the state. The law takes into account local pay norms. Repeal supporters also argue that there are federal and state remedies for unequal pay but they don't say that these require employees to file a complaint and take legal action against their employer. That's a tough thing to do, especially in a small town and in a public job. Let's be fair and keep Minnesota's pay equity laws. They work, not just for women, but for everybody.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fraser is senior fellow emerita for the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota. Breen is former director at the Minnesota Legislative Commission on the Economic Status of Women.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2011 by the Minnesota Editorial Forum. 3/11

Follow the Constitution, Raise the Minimum Wage

2011-03-29T14:16:00.001-04:00

José J. Rodriguez

FLORIDA FORUM

By José J. Rodríguez, and Paul Sonn

Since January 1, more than 180,000 of Florida’s lowest-wage workers -- people caring for the elderly, serving food at the local diner, and cleaning and securing our office buildings -- have been denied an annual cost of living adjustment required by law. Acting in violation of the Florida Constitution, the state failed to implement a legally mandated 6 cent increase in our minimum wage for 2011.

Paul Sonn

Back in 2004, Florida voters overwhelmingly supported a constitutional amendment -- by a lopsided 78 to 22 percent margin -- creating a state minimum wage and indexing to inflation so that it keeps pace with the rising cost of food, clothing, electricity and other necessities. Voters realized that without such protection, the ability of minimum wage earners to provide for their families would fall each year as prices rose but the minimum wage remained stagnant.

On New Year’s Day, seven states with laws like Florida’s -- Arizona, Colorado, Ohio, Montana, Oregon, Vermont and Washington -- increased their state minimum wages to keep pace with inflation. Florida did not.

That’s why we recently filed suit on behalf of minimum wage workers against the Agency for Workforce Innovation (AWI), the state agency responsible for setting the minimum wage rate every year, for refusing to properly increase the state minimum wage to $7.31 to take into account last year’s inflation.

The problems started last year. Florida’s laws, constitution and Supreme Court all make one thing crystal clear: the state minimum wage goes up when there is inflation, but never goes down. Despite this clear obligation, however, for 2010 AWI wanted to lower the minimum wage by 15 cents, from $7.21 in 2009 to $7.06. However, two things kept that erroneous wage cut from actually affecting Florida’s workers last year. First, the Agency never published the 2010 rate so no one knew about the mistake. Second, the federal minimum wage was still higher at $7.25.

This year, AWI’s mistake is affecting hundreds of thousands of working people since $7.31, where our 2011 minimum wage should be, is higher than the federal level. AWI has instead kept the Florida minimum wage 15 cents too low and failed to announce the correct increase.

A 6 cent raise may not sound like much, but for Florida’s lowest-paid workers it adds up. A full time minimum wage worker would see about $128 more per year. And unless it’s corrected, the impact of the error will snowball in future years, leaving Florida’s minimum wage permanently 15 cents lower than it should be.

The state’s failure to raise the minimum wage not only defies the constitution and the will of the voters, it also hurts low-wage workers and the statewide economy. The key to getting our economy back on track is boosting consumer spending and raising sales so businesses can grow and start rehiring again. By failing to raise the minimum wage, the purchasing power of the lowest paid workers falls, as does their consumption. If minimum wage workers make a few more dollars a week they will likely put this money immediately back into the local grocery store, barber shop or gas station, thus buoying demand for goods and services.

Floridians are looking to their new governor for leadership. As his administration begins an assessment of state agencies and departments, a top priority should be reviewing the Agency on Workforce Innovation’s blunder on the minimum wage. Rather than forcing the courts to fix the error, Governor Scott should uphold the constitution and help boost Florida’s economy by giving Florida’s low-income workers the raise they are due.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodríguez and Sonn are co-counsel representing minimum wage workers who have filed suit against the state of Florida for failing to raise the 2011 minimum wage. Rodríguez is an attorney with Florida Legal Services. Sonn is legal co-director at the National Employment Law Project.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the Florida Forum. 3/11

A Balanced Approach to Balancing the State Budget

2011-03-29T14:12:00.001-04:00

TEXAS LONE STAR FORUM

By F. Scott McCown

Maybe you’ve heard that our state is short of money because of the recession. Perhaps you think the state can just cut spending or that the problem doesn’t affect you. Well think again.

Our state isn’t just a little short of money. Merely to maintain critical public services, at their current levels, costs at least $27 billion more than we have. In other words, we only have three-fourths of the money we need.

If you try to fill this big of a hole with only cuts in spending, you cut into the state’s muscle and bone.

Instead, Texas needs a balanced approach. That means that instead of only cuts in spending we need to use the state’s Rainy Day Fund while adopting some modest new state revenue measures.

Unfortunately, legislators so far have proposed nothing but cuts. They would rather fire teachers and crowd classrooms and deny financial aid to all new applicants at community colleges and state universities.

Legislators would even make deep cuts to health care for children, the elderly, and people with disabilities. They would reduce payments to doctors, hospitals, and nursing homes -- compromising care and forcing local taxes and private health insurance premiums to go up.

The proposed state budget doesn’t just shortchange education and hurt folks who can’t help themselves, such as the elderly in nursing homes or abused children in foster care. It also seriously undermines the Texas economy -- today and far into the future.
For one thing, the proposed budget would substantially increase unemployment, and not just in the public sector. Cuts this big send a wave of job loss throughout the economy, as the state cancels contracts and reduces payments to people with whom it does business. Before long, folks who think they have no connection to state government are laid off because all of the other newly unemployed are buying fewer goods and services.

We’re talking about a lot of jobs here. Dr. Ray Perryman, a renowned Texas economist, estimates that every job directly lost as a result of state budget reductions takes with it roughly 1.5 more jobs.

The proposed state budget would eliminate over 9,200 state jobs right off the top. Then the chain reaction starts. Reduced state support to school districts, community colleges, and state universities means they too throw people out of work. School districts alone would lay off as many as 100,000 people, one of the state’s leading school finance experts calculates. Using the Perryman formula, this means that merely from reduced spending on public education, 250,000 Texans would be in the unemployment line. That’s enough to push the state’s jobless rate up to over 10 percent (it’s 8.3 percent now). And that’s without even figuring in jobs lost in higher education or health and human services.

The proposed cuts-only budget doesn’t just hurt us today, though. It also fails to create opportunity for tomorrow. When we refuse to raise the money needed for things like public education and higher education, we undermine economic growth and our future as a great state.

If the legislature takes a balanced approach, though, we can both avoid an economic disaster today and promote economic growth tomorrow. The state’s Rainy Day Fund can cover about a third of the shortfall. Some of the rest can come from new revenue, for example, increasing the cigarette tax by a buck a pack. Regardless of what politicians say, raising a little new revenue is vastly preferable to deep cuts in education or health and human services.

Of course, politicians say we have to keep taxes low to attract business. But, businesses care about more than just taxes. They need an educated workforce and a good transportation system, for example -- and Texas is proposing spending cuts so deep that the state’s ability to provide these sorts of economic building blocks would be severely compromised. Besides, Texas businesses already pay lower taxes than in almost any other state, so low that there’s ample room for increases without endangering our competitive advantage.

In the end, our elected officials will do what Texans say they want done. In the last several months, lawmakers have heard mostly from those who offer the bromide that we can balance our budget with cuts alone. But this is one bromide that will kill us. It’s time for the rest of us to make our voices heard. We need to demand a balanced approach.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCown is executive director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the Texas Lone Star Forum. 2/11

Increased Taxes, Unfunded Mandates and Economy Destroying Legislation

2011-03-29T12:35:00.001-04:00

GEORGIA FORUM

By Charles H. Kuck

From the perspective of a lifelong Republican, I am always troubled when the State Legislature starts looking at ways to “fix” a problem by getting the government more involved in the lives of its citizens, rather than less involved. That is absolutely the case with the currently pending legislation on immigration. A detailed review of HB 87 and SB 40 reveals that these bills do not reform illegal immigration nor do they enforce laws related to illegal immigration. What they do is increase taxes on every citizen of Georgia by increasing government regulation, create unfunded mandates for every county, city, town, and village in Georgia, and create new private rights of action against every Georgia polity that will result in hundreds of lawsuits that will drain taxpayer coffers and result in little, if any real change on the issue of illegal immigration.

This type of legislation is popular because it gives the perception that the state is doing something, which the federal government is purportedly not doing—enforcing federal laws on illegal immigration. The problem with this notion is two-fold. First, the federal government is doing more than it has EVER done in enforcing the laws on undocumented immigration. The Obama Administration is spending literally billions of taxpayer dollars building fences, hiring border patrol agents, detaining undocumented immigrants and actually deported 400,000 people last year—a record. Second, these proposals do not create any greater degree of enforcement than already exists under current state and federal law.

By September 30, 2013, everyone arrested in Georgia is going to be run through the Secure Communities program, and if they are unlawfully present in the United States they are being held for ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) to pick up within 48 hours.

Without discussing the deleterious details of this program (DWH—Driving While Hispanic), it has resulted in a record number of cases filling our Immigration Court dockets.

So, if these bills do NOT reform immigration, do NOT effectively increase enforcement, and do NOT make Georgia safer, what will they do? They will increase taxes on Georgians, force cities and municipalities to hire previously unnecessary personnel, and make litigation lawyers smile.

These proposals have as their main thrust a desire to make Georgia like Arizona. The bill is designed to make it so hard to live as an undocumented immigrant in Georgia, that such immigrants will leave the state. If this bill accomplishes its purpose it could result in the departure of more than to one million people from the state, along with their tax dollars, investments, talent, and businesses.

There are also at least two provisions which will never be enforced, and which will be struck down as unconstitutional or preempted before they even go into effect, for the same reasons that similar provisions in the Arizona bill were struck down. Provisions dealing with unconstitutional police stops and non-definitions of reasonable cause beg for a judge to overturn this law. The authorizing of private lawsuits against government agencies looks like a lawyer’s full employment act, and business destroying mandates and penalties best dealt with under federal law will simply shut down businesses and cause greater unemployment.

These proposals are bad public policy and bad for Georgia. If our legislators really want to fix the immigration problem they should all take a day and go to Washington, D.C. and demand that Congress fix our immigration system, rather than trying to put a band-aid on a gaping shotgun wound.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles H. Kuck is an adjunct professor of Law at the University of Georgia, and a past national president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by Georgia Forum. 2/11

Keep the Minimum Wage Missourians Voted for

2011-03-29T12:16:00.002-04:00

MISSOURI FORUM

By Lew Prince

The Republicans in the Missouri Legislature are trying to overturn the clearly expressed will of the people in order to give gigantic welfare checks to some of America’s biggest corporations.

Nearly 1.6 million Missourians voted to raise the minimum wage in 2006. Only 501,657 voted against the proposition. That’s a three to one margin.

To put this in perspective, in the same election, Democrat Claire McCaskill beat Republican Jim Talent by less than 49,000 votes. That means over a million Republican-leaning voters saw the need to raise the wages of the poorest working Missourians. According to exit polls, the minimum wage proposition was favored by Democrats, Independents and Republicans; liberals, moderates and conservatives; urban, suburban and rural voters; low-income, middle- and high-income voters; and voters of all ages.

Missourians voted overwhelmingly to raise the minimum wage and protect the working poor with a cost of living adjustment. This tiny adjustment amounts to pennies an hour. The COLA gives families that are barely keeping their heads above water a fighting chance when prices rise.

Republicans are pushing legislation to undo the cost of living adjustment and prevent the minimum wage from going above the federal rate of $7.25. Why would Missouri Republicans want to hurt workers who today are making just $15,080 if they are paid for 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year? Why would they want to hurt the most vulnerable workers in our state?

They say it’s to help small businesses. Well, I’ve run a small business in Missouri for 32 years and I say, BUNK!

Higher minimum wages help Missouri businesses, large or small, compete with gigantic national and multinational chains. Local businesses compete by being part of the community -- from hiring our neighbors to sponsoring youth leagues – and by providing service that gigantic multinational chains with their feed-more-profits-to-headquarters policies can’t match. In order to do this I need well-trained, long-term employees. I have to pay them more to keep them. My customers know my employees and are loyal to my business because of those employees.

Large Missouri companies like Schnucks and Dierbergs, who pay decent union wages, have to compete with predators like Wal-Mart who pay the lowest wages they can get away with. Why would the Republicans Rin the Missouri legislature want to side with multinational retailers and gigantic restaurant chains in their competition with Missouri businesses?

The minimum wage is a full dollar higher in Illinois -- $8.25 instead of $7.25. That means, for every hour worked in Illinois an extra dollar stays in the state and helps the local economy. Why do the Republicans in our legislature want to see that money end up at Wal-Mart headquarters in Bentonville, Arkansas or Wall Street or in some off-shore bank account instead of buying groceries and car repairs and paying rent here in Missouri?

What’s worse is Missouri taxpayers already subsidize these out-of-state corporate giants.

Did you know that according to the Missouri Healthnet Employer Report, in the 1st quarter of 2009 (the latest data available) Wal-Mart alone cost Missouri taxpayers $4.2 million in Medicaid costs. Casey's General Store cost Missouri taxpayers $884,104 while Tyson Foods, Dollar General and Target combined for another $1.4 million? Why are Missouri taxpayers subsidizing a company like Wal-Mart, the fountain of wealth for America’s richest family?

Who knows how many of these underpaid employees qualify for Food Stamps and other subsidies. These are the costs we pay while large companies and their lobbyists fight against a meager few cents an hour in raises for their Missouri employees for whom those pennies add up to milk or medicine for their children. Remember these same companies pay a dollar more minimum wages per hour in Illinois and still turn huge profits there.

It's time for all of us to write, call, or email our state legislators and remind them that they work for us, not multinational giants. Tell them to keep their hands off the minimum wage we voted for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prince is managing partner of Vintage Vinyl, an independent music store with 24 employees in St. Louis. He is also a member of Business for Shared Prosperity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the Missouri Forum. 2/11

Reforming Education Grantmaking that Transforms Us All into Heroes

2011-03-29T11:26:00.001-04:00

AMERICAN FORUM

By Sherece West

Despite the notion that fixing the nation’s public schools may require an “act of superman,” a coming together of not just educators, education officials, policymakers, parents and students, but education grantmakers as well, might actually be the “force of nature” needed to turn around our failing schools.

A few months ago, I attended the largest gathering of education funders for a conference that focused on “fulfilling the promise of excellence and equity.” I hope that participants of the Grantmakers for Education conference wrestled with some startling findings from a new study. Every year, grantmakers give billions of dollars in grants for education. But only a few of them provide funding to address the specific needs of all students, especially those most in need – lower-income and other underserved students – and an even smaller number supports efforts to solve our education crisis, according to a report recently released by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) (http://www.ncrp.org), a watchdog group based in D.C.

In “Confronting Systemic Inequity in Education: High Impact Strategies for Philanthropy,” Kevin Welner and Amy Farley examine the system-wide issues that feed the cycle of unequal educational access and opportunities faced by students from marginalized communities. Welner, director of the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Farley argue that education reform cannot take place without breaking this cycle, and this requires change in the way philanthropy directs its resources.

It’s a myth to think that schools function as a meritocracy and provide universal opportunities. This is simply not the case. American students face glaring inequities in educational opportunities, and this injustice is tied powerfully to parental wealth, education, ethnicity and race. It’s inexcusable for our nation’s school system to operate as a tide that lifts only those boats not leaking, while leaving others in disrepair to sink to the ocean floor. Education grantmakers can and should use their financial clout to stimulate a rising tide that successfully lifts the most vulnerable to drive system-wide and long-term solutions.

Welner and Farley recommend two high impact strategies for foundations to be more effective at transforming American education: dedicate at least 50 percent of their education grantmaking towards supporting marginalized communities and at least 25 percent towards influencing public policy through advocacy, community organizing and civic engagement.

I support these recommendations because one can’t ignore the large population of students that is disproportionately without access to quality education. And you can’t claim you’re seeking reform without engaging in the policymaking process.

NCRP analysis shows that of the 672 foundations that gave at least $1 million in education grants from 2006 to 2008, only 11 percent devoted at least half of their philanthropic dollars for the benefit of vulnerable schoolchildren. Only 2 percent allocated at least one quarter of their grantmaking for systemic change.

Marginalized communities -- primarily children in low-wealth families and children of color, but also English language learners, gay and gender-nonconforming youth, students with disabilities, immigrant youth, rural students and females in male-dominated fields -- consistently experience public education in much less positive ways than their more-advantaged peers. As a result, they are more likely to not graduate from high school or college and in general have decreased economic potential following school. Sadly, this trend continues from generation to generation.

Collaboration between a foundation and a marginalized community it serves has many benefits. Each advances the goals of the other. But foundations must significantly raise their expectations and address systemic inequities for real, permanent change in our education system to occur.

Grantmakers fund education in a variety of ways, including providing funds for direct scholarships to students, research dissemination and curricular development. They also can prioritize programs through designated giving that advances greater opportunity and equity for marginalized students. As Welner and Farley contend, this type of giving is both targeted and universal and will result in greater impact if these twin priorities were addressed.

The report also claims that grantmakers can and should address both immediate needs and systemic, transformative reform. It’s important to realize that one does not preclude the other. Education funders have at their disposal a variety of tools, from advocacy for a campaign, a particular issue or marginalized group to organizing at the community level, voter engagement, technical assistance and other forms of policy engagement.

All children deserve a future that provides opportunities instead of thwarting dreams and possibilities. Philanthropy needs to be part of efforts to break apart an unjust system that offers better education to those who are wealthy while failing to acknowledge the needs of those in marginalized communities. Equalizing opportunities through education for all children makes us all heroes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
West is president and CEO of Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation. She is a member of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy’s board.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the American Forum. 2/11

A Better Way on Immigration

2011-03-29T11:06:00.001-04:00

NORTH CAROLINA EDITORIAL FORUM

By Chris Liu-Beers

As the legislature returns to Raleigh, all eyes will be on the budget with its projected shortfall of over $3 billion. But observers expect a slew of bills on other issues as well, including one that always attracts controversy: immigration.

No doubt it will be tempting for some lawmakers to try to implement Arizona’s “papers, please” immigration law here in North Carolina. But as we have already learned from Arizona, this approach is shortsighted and misguided.

Anti-immigrant forces want to ban undocumented immigrant families from renting apartments or sending their kids to school. These kinds of policies are unworkable and inconsistent with our values.

What does it mean for our communities when our neighbors are afraid to take their children to school or go to work? What would it mean for our schools to have families ripped apart on a daily basis and kids left behind when their parents are deported? What does it mean for our system of justice when people are serving jail time and prison sentences because they seek a better life and are willing to work hard in the sun to achieve it?

While people are understandably frustrated over the failure of the federal government to fix our broken immigration system, creating a patchwork of potentially unconstitutional, costly and confusing laws is not an answer. If we follow Arizona on immigration, we’re facing log jams in the court systems, overworked prosecutors and public defenders wasting their time, and police distracted from pursuing true criminals.

Instead of pouring billions of dollars into rounding up hardworking immigrant families, we need to fix our system so that immigrants who came here to work, pay taxes and learn English can become legal and contribute fully.

Some places, unlike Arizona, have quietly been moving forward with positive, integrative approaches to new immigrants in their communities. They recognize the long-term benefits gained from having thriving immigrant communities that aren’t forced into the shadows of society.

I’m proud that the city of Durham has been a leader in some of these positive efforts. For example, while the city has implemented the controversial 287(g) program (which essentially deputizes local police to enforce federal immigration law), it has been careful to target primarily serious criminal offenders.

Chief Lopez and other city leaders have consistently communicated with Latino constituents and built trusting relationships among Durham’s immigrant communities.

Durham has not only rejected an Arizona-style crackdown on immigrants -- the City Council called for a boycott of Arizona -- it has also worked to improve civic participation and immigrant integration into mainstream society. This approach improves public safety, creates jobs and helps local economies.

For example, the Durham City Council recently voted to recognize the Mexican government’s matricula consular as a valid form of identification. At that meeting, Chief Lopez stated that “The significance is to garner trust from the [Latino] community.” Elsewhere in Durham, the Latino Community Credit Union has become nationally recognized for its work in realizing the business potential of local Hispanic entrepreneurs.

Humane immigration politics are smart politics in the long-term. Political strategists from David Axelrod to Karl Rove agree that Arizona’s approach on immigration is misguided. n an increasingly diverse nation, there is no long-term political future for politicians pushing Arizona copycat laws. Elected officials who lead with intelligent, humane policies on immigration will both build a stronger economy in North Carolina and win politically over the long haul.

Immigrants -- both documented and those without status -- are already a vital part of the fabric of our society. They are contributing members of our communities; they are our neighbors, classmates, coworkers and friends. We need to make sure they can participate fully in our society and contribute fully to our economy -- through work, in school, for public safety.

Ultimately, we need national comprehensive immigration reform to ensure fairness and accountability in the labor market. Only comprehensive reform will create a level playing field for workers and employers, increase pay for low-wage workers, punish unscrupulous employers who undercut their honest competitors, and increase tax compliance and revenues.

Until Congress enacts such reforms, there are a range of positive state and local policies that can improve the lives of immigrants and raise living standards and public safety for everyone, native and immigrant alike. It’s time for North Carolina to step in the right direction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liu-Beers is program associate for the North Carolina Council of Churches.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the American Forum. 2/11

Egypt: A Warning for U.S. Democracy

2011-02-22T16:28:00.000-05:00

AMERICAN FORUM

By Frank Knapp Jr.

Make no mistake about it -- the peaceful Egyptian revolution was brought about by the workers and small business owners of that country protesting together. They want economic opportunity for all and a democratically elected government that puts its peoples’ interests above the interests of the financially powerful, well-connected oligarchy.

There is a lesson here for our country.

Our government structures are becoming ever more influenced by those with extremely deep pockets at the expense of our citizens and small businesses. And while we have a tradition of a democratic election process to address needed changes in our government, that process is becoming less and less democratic.

This important issue was the topic of many meetings on my recent trip to Washington -- reducing the extraordinary influence of big corporate money in our government. Last year’s Citizens United Supreme Court ruling that corporations are “people” that have a Constitutional right to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections has moved our country rapidly down the road to a far less democratic nation -- a road we were already on.

Our government “of the people, by the people and for the people” is in jeopardy of becoming “of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations.” Real “people” will only be pawns to be manipulated when corporate money totally dominates our elections. Already we’ve seen how corporate lobbyists dominate the legislative process.

Small businesses are and should be very concerned. We know that big U.S. and multi-national corporations are only interested in profits regardless of the consequence to small businesses.

The fact is that what is good for big business is often not good for small business.

That is exactly the reason The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce was founded over 10 years ago. Small businesses must fight for ourselves and not simply rely on paternalistic big businesses to allow scraps to fall off the bountiful table they have bought for themselves.

Right now in Washington big corporate campaign donors are pushing:

• for even more tax incentives for offshoring production and jobs -- lost opportunities for small businesses to supply goods and services to domestic manufacturing and fewer workers buying from our local small businesses.

• to eliminate regulations aimed at protecting us from another financial meltdown causing another great recession -- one that destroys the customers base, credit and loans small businesses need to survive.

• to cripple any chance for comprehensive national energy and climate legislation -- a significant opportunity for jumpstarting a green economy that will both create new small businesses and offer more opportunities for existing ones.

These and other goals of big corporations, many that now have no allegiance to our country or any country, are likely to be successful not on the merits of the ideas but on the size of the corporate campaign chests.

Fortunately, citizens and small businesses across this country are organizing to take back our democracy from these corporate “persons.” We understand that what the Egyptians are demonstrating to get, we are on the verge of losing.

So while our members of Congress publicly express their support for the Egyptian peoples’ desire for real democracy, they need to look at the direction our own country is heading and start listening to the concerns of our citizens and small businesses.

Egypt is a warning to the United States.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Knapp is president and CEO of The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the American Forum. 2/11

Women in Egypt’s Front Line

2011-02-22T16:08:00.001-05:00

AMERICAN FORUM

By Mahnaz Afkhami

A new day has dawned in Egypt. The dictator has been brought down. Euphoria is in the air. How will women fare as euphoria yields to reality?

During the past several days, I have kept in touch with our partners in Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries. They all agree that Egypt forecasts their destiny. They are enthusiastic and their exuberance is contagious.

Having lived through Iran’s 1979 revolution that dashed the hopes of millions, I was skeptical about Egypt’s prospects for a peaceful transition to participatory democracy. And I know revolutions are heady experiences, especially for the young, and especially for young women in repressive Middle Eastern countries. The Cairo air now shimmers with possibility, just as the air of Tehran once did.

Iran’s new regime proved far worse than the old regime, especially for women. What now in Egypt? Enas El Shafei, who leads our partner organization in Egypt, was optimistic, proud that the world hears voices of the Egyptian people for the first time in a generation. She was encouraged by people forming groups to clean and police their communities, to help each other and to provide services. Women, she said, are everywhere in the front ranks of protesters.

"This is about the Egyptian people -- not Christians, Muslims, men or women," she said. And she’s right. This is a popular revolution against autocracy and a desire for justice and dignity.

Other factors also suggest a better outcome. Egypt's opposition is not led by a charismatic and despotic personality with an unshakeable belief that he has a mandate from the Almighty. Second, Iran’s example is a caution to many Egyptians pressing for change. And finally, Egyptian women are fully engaged. “They are the police, they are the doctors -- they do everything,” Enas said. “Tahrir Square might be the media center, but transformation is occurring everywhere.”

Now that the transition is underway, the challenge ahead is to keep women’s rights on the reformers’ agenda. We must keep reminding the negotiators that democracy requires it.

Our Egyptian partner organization, Forum for Women in Development, has been working for a decade to introduce a culture of democracy at the grass-roots level. Democracy is both process and mindset, so our partners have tried quietly to lay the foundation for a culture of tolerance and consensus-building. They press for legislative change because new laws in one Muslim country can bolster arguments for change in others. They show, for example, that laws limiting women’s role in
decisions that govern their lives are in conflict with constitutions that give lip service to equality, as they are with the provisions of the international treaty on women’s rights known as CEDAW, which all area governments except Sudan and Iran have ratified. They have pointed out discrepancies among schools of Islam on the role of women, showing that it is not God's will but society that dictates how women are treated.

They’ve made considerable headway. Tunisia was prodded into eliminating the “reservations” it had placed on its terms for CEDAW ratification. Moroccans have reformed land ownership and family laws that govern women's right to marriage, divorce, work, travel, and child custody. Jordan now requires that 20 percent of political candidates be women. Lebanese women just gained rights for women citizens married to non-Lebanese men, and most countries now have women in cabinets and parliaments, albeit in low percentages.

But today in Cairo, the danger is that reformers will repeat Iran’s mistake and postpone women’s rights issues until “things settle down.” Although women have often participated in demonstrations, faced danger and given full support to opposition movements, they’ve held back on voicing their own aspirations and needs, convinced by movement leaders that somehow their demands were impractical at the moment, or of secondary importance. They accepted assurances that once success was achieved, their rights would be honored.

In Iran and elsewhere, that didn’t happen. Unless women are involved at every step – not just in organizing demonstrations but in shaping opposition demands and strategies, and especially in negotiations that determine the politics of the future – the result will bear no resemblance to the moderate, democratic society that everyone wants. Egyptian women must insist on being part of the political process. They must insist that the issue of women’s rights be on the agenda of every transition discussion.

Like drops of water, if we are persistent, we can bore into rock, uniting into rivulets and then rivers of change on behalf of women and everyone else.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afkhami is founding president of Women's Learning Partnership (WLP), a coalition of 20 organizations, mostly in Muslim-majority countries, that focuses on empowerment of women and democratic leadership. She was also the former Minister of Women’s Affairs in Iran.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Money and Values from Congress and the President – Hard Choices

2011-02-22T16:04:00.000-05:00

AMERICAN FORUM

By Susan Shaer

Are you clued in to the current slashing and burning going on in Washington, DC? The new Congress is trying to settle on a federal budget that should have been voted on last fall. President Obama unveiled his idea for the next budget on Monday. How do you think they are setting priorities? After all, our federal budget shows what we value, doesn’t it? What we care about as a country? So what does our president’s budget care about?

President Obama’s federal budget for our next fiscal year revealed that almost all of Secretary of Defense Gates’ recommended Pentagon “cuts” (really restructuring and a reduction in the rate of increase) will be consumed by increased war spending. The total Pentagon budget planned for 2012-2016 shows virtually no change between this year and last year's projections.

This year, President Obama does face an incredibly steep challenge –growing deficits and debt. The fall election made it clear that fiscal conservatives, Tea Party candidates, and backers demand deep spending cuts to address this. Despite promises from President Obama that everything would be considered for cuts – this is not true for the Pentagon.

Worse, the new Republican-run Congress proposes that this year’s spending be cut back by $100 billion. To do this, they are proposing draconian cuts to everything except military spending.

Yes, we need a strong defense but also a reasonable one. Horrified hoards responded when they learned we sent troops to Iraq without proper body and vehicle protection. Ironically enough, we are currently spending about one hundred billion a year in Afghanistan – the same amount that Congress is proposing we find by cutting needed domestic programs. Critics still remind Congress that we are not protecting our ports or transportation systems here at home. These are not examples of a reasonable approach to defense.

Recent polls show that most Americans would juggle the budget deficit/debt problem differently than what President Obama proposes. Congress, however, does not ordinarily hear this message. They ignore their constituents. On the subject of the military industrial complex, members of Congress heartily agree with the military contractors instead of those individuals who vote for them. Recent analyses acknowledge that military contractors recognized immediately that when the Cold War was over their gravy train had ended. They needed a new strategy for survival and growth. So they developed one by making parts of weapons systems in every congressional district in the country.

There are prices to be paid at every level for this kind of thinking. Job training, science research, higher education, National Institutes of Health, heating aid for the poor, nutrition programs for children - the list goes on and on. These programs will help us to economic recovery. These programs are where we need to invest in order to have a hope of competing in the coming decades. The President’s plan would freeze many of these programs at last year’s spending levels, while the Pentagon is gobbling up way over half of the overall discretionary budget.

We need to stop mindless unchecked spending on bloated Pentagon programs that feed defense contractors while starving real economic and security needs. Let’s be winners with our American values. Do we choose weapons and war, or do we insist on real security, a growing economy and a healthy environment?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shaer is executive director of Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND), a national activist organization working to redirect excessive military spending to unmet human and environmental needs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the American Forum. 2/11

Provide Tipped Workers with Proper WAGES

2011-02-22T15:59:00.003-05:00

GEORGIA FORUM

By Rev. Garrett J. Andrew

I worked as waiter to support myself in seminary. It was one of the more difficult jobs I have had. The hours are always a bit strange. You are on your feet for long periods of time. There are the customers, ah yes, there are the customers. Some were demanding and some were laid back. But no matter, I worked as hard as I could to ensure I did the best job that I could. It was the customers after all that ensured that I could actually survive as a waiter. Without the tips I would never have been able to make it.

The worst nights were when I left with almost nothing. We had to tip others out and they had done their work well so they deserved all I could give them. But one night I remember I was going to leave with just $6 after working for 5 hours. Knowing that I was not going to be getting any more money for food the next day, I went into the kitchen and found some food that was going to be thrown away. I asked the manager if I could have it for dinner. Granted permission, I found myself eating other people’s leftovers and thanking God that I had even that.

I did this all while working in California, a state that requires all tipped employees to be paid minimum wage. Here in Georgia the minimum wage for tipped workers is $2.13 an hour. It’s with first-hand knowledge of the difficulties that tipped workers endure that I implore us all to support the federal Working for Adequate Gains in Employment Services (WAGES) Act, expected to be reintroduced soon in the new Congress.

Should this proposal be signed into law, it would require that tipped workers minimum salary be increased to no less than $5.50 an hour, over several yearly increments. Fifteen percent of all waiters and waitresses live below the federal poverty level. If this proposal becomes law, it would ensure that people who are able to find employment are treated more fairly by their employers, and not as virtual slaves who have to rely on the generosity of others to ensure their own success.

WAGES would strengthen our own economy by providing a better tax base and more disposable income for those who are in the most need. It would also combat poverty in a community where poverty is one of our fiercest enemies.

Practical reasons aside, I support this measure because it’s the right thing to do. Perhaps you disagree and think that the economy will take a hit, or that unemployment will increase, or something else equally awful. I’m not sure about any of that, but I am sure that we are not treating people right.

We are keeping working people from receiving a fair wage and requiring them to live off the generosity of others. We are making working people beg to survive in a land where we say anyone who works hard enough can make it. Let’s live into the vision of our words and make sure hard-working people have a chance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rev. Andrew is the Pastor at First Presbyterian Church in Albany.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by Georgia Forum. 2/11

Americans Will Lose if the Affordable Care Act is Repealed

2011-02-22T14:05:00.000-05:00

TENNESSEE EDITORIAL FORUM

By Chris Coleman

When the newly-elected Republican congressman from Maryland, Andy Harris, was told that his government-subsidized health insurance would not go into effect until four weeks after his swearing in, he was furious. According to an article in Politico.com, he demanded to know why it would take so long and what he was supposed to do without 28 days of health care.

Ironically, Harris, like most of Tennessee’s congressional representatives, campaigned against “government health care,” and remains committed to repealing the new health care law, which would give his constituents and the American people the very same benefits and protections he is demanding for himself. The House of Representatives will soon vote on a proposal to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and nearly all of Tennessee’s representatives intend to vote in favor of repeal. In other words, our representatives will attempt to take away from us what they intend to keep for themselves and their own families.

What are the benefits and protections that the opponents of the Affordable Care Act want to keep for themselves but deny to the American people? Here are a few examples:

• When the Affordable Care Act fully goes into effect in 2014, it will guarantee that Americans will have access to health coverage, even if they have a pre-existing condition. Members of Congress already have guaranteed access to government-subsidized health coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, yet many will vote to take this protection away from American families.

• The Affordable Care Act will provide tax-credit subsidies for millions of Americans to help make insurance premiums affordable. Opponents of the Affordable Care Act hope to deny these subsidies to Americans, even though members of Congress receive subsidies of almost three-quarters of their total health insurance premiums.

• The Affordable Care Act will eliminate the prescription drug benefit gap, the so-called “donut hole,” for people on Medicare. Elimination of the donut hole started last year, when everyone on Medicare who reached the donut hole received a $250 check to help them pay for their medications.

• This year, seniors falling into the donut hole will get a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs and other discounts on generic drugs. These discounts will increase each year until the donut hole is completely eliminated in 2020. Repealing the Affordable Care Act would eliminate this important improvement in Medicare for seniors and people with disabilities, even though Congressional insurance plans include prescription drug benefits without a coverage gap.

There are many other examples of protections and benefits that members of Congress receive that Americans would lose if the Affordable Care Act is repealed, from limits on out-of-pocket costs when they or their family members get sick, to the right to appeal wrongful denials of insurance claims.

Responding to charges that it is hypocritical to accept government-subsidized health insurance while denying it to American families, several newly elected Congressmen—Bobby Schilling and Joe Walsh of Illinois, Bill Johnson of Ohio, and Mike Kelley of Pennsylvania—have honored their campaign rhetoric by refusing to accept congressional health care.

Other representatives reject the charges of hypocrisy. Freshman Congressman Michael Grimm (R-NY) told reporters, "What am I, not supposed to have health care? It's practicality. I'm not going to become a burden on the state because I don't have health care, and God forbid I get into an accident and I can't afford an operation. That can't happen to anyone."

Unfortunately, that happens to people all the time because most people, unlike Reps. Harris, Grimm, and the entire Tennessee congressional delegation, do not have access to government-subsidized health care. And it will continue to happen if opponents of the Affordable Care Act succeed in their efforts to repeal it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coleman is Staff Attorney of the Tennessee Justice Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by Tennessee Editorial Forum. 2/11

Individual Mandates as a Moral Imperative

2011-02-16T16:39:00.002-05:00

TENNESSEE EDITORIAL FORUM

By Raymond H. Feierabend, MD

It’s no secret that the individual mandate is one of the most unpopular and controversial aspects of the new health care reform law.

It’s being challenged legislatively in the Tennessee General Assembly, and legally through lawsuits such as the one recently ruled on in Virginia. Two thirds of Americans say they would like to see a repeal of that provision of the law. Yet, seven in 10 Americans favor restrictions on insurance companies’ ability to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions and to rescind coverage when individuals become ill. Unfortunately, as long as our health care system is based largely on the private insurance industry, we can’t have one without the other.

Politically, passage of comprehensive health care reform would not have been possible with active opposition from the industry. Repeal of the individual mandate alone at this time would be vigorously opposed by health insurers and most health care providers, including hospitals and large health care systems.

Economically, without an individual mandate, the cost of insurance for those in individual and small group markets would continue to skyrocket. As the cost of premiums continues to increase, those who are young and healthy would be more likely to opt out, while those who are older and sicker would have a greater need to stay in the system.

As a form of risk management, health insurance limits each individual’s liability by spreading the cost amongst all those who are insured. The larger the pool of those contributing, the more predictable the costs incurred and the lower the premiums needed to adequately cover those costs. It works only if there is a large enough pool of healthy, lower risk individuals paying premiums into the system. If most of those who participate are ill or at high risk of becoming ill, then the cost of coverage for each individual will be much higher. If individuals wait to begin paying premiums until they become ill, they will reap the benefits of the insurance without having paid into it while healthy.

Most of those who refuse to pay for health insurance even when they are capable of doing so are simply gaming the system. They are willing to take the chance that they won’t get sick; if and when they do, it’s unlikely that they will be able to purchase insurance. But that doesn’t mean that they won’t be taken care of when necessary. If they become seriously ill or have a serious injury they will receive medical care, even if they are unable to pay for it themselves. Most hospitals and emergency departments have moral and legal obligations to provide emergency and lifesaving care to those in need, regardless of their ability to pay.

In 2009, community hospitals in this country provided over $39 billion in uncompensated care; more than half of all emergency room care in this country is uncompensated. Once an uninsured individual has exhausted their own resources, which doesn’t take long for most folks with a serious illness or injury, those who are insured and/or pay taxes end up paying for them. By not requiring everyone who is capable to pay into the system, we allow such folks to take advantage of our expensive health care system without paying for it.

There are only a couple of ways to prevent individuals from abusing the system in this way. First, we can require that everyone participate in the system, either by having insurance or by paying a tax or penalty. This can be accomplished via a single payer system supported by taxes, or by including an individual mandate in the current system. Second, we can require those who are able to obtain insurance but choose not to, to sign a waiver foregoing all medical care that is not paid for up front. Hospitals, emergency departments, physicians and other providers of health care services would then be free to deny any care that isn’t paid for, regardless of the seriousness of the condition.

But is that really the kind of health care system we want in this country?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Feierabend is a professor with the Department of Family Medicine at James H. Quillen College of Medicine at East Tennessee State University.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the Tennessee Editorial Forum. 2/11

Everybody Deserves Smoke-Free Air

2011-02-16T16:16:00.004-05:00

MISSISSIPPI FORUM

By C. David Hill, MD, F.A.A.P.

Everybody deserves smoke-free air. Pediatricians have first-hand experience about what happens when children and babies breathe second-hand smoke.

Smoking is a known cause of preterm birth, low birth-weight and very low birth-weight infants. Exposure to tobacco smoke in the womb causes increased miscarriages and neonatal deaths. And smoking-related health problems result in increased health care costs for all of us.

Mississippi has the nation’s highest prematurity rate and the highest infant mortality rate. Women who work or must do business in buildings where smoking is prevalent suffer an increased risk to their pregnancy even if they do not smoke.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has found that second-hand smoke also contributes to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Approximately 430 U.S. newborns die each year from smoking related SIDS. In 2009, 38 Mississippi babies died from SIDS. The Mississippi infant death rate is about 130 percent of the national rate. SIDS is the third most common reason for infant deaths in Mississippi and account for 12 percent of all infant deaths in our state.

Second-hand smoke also exacerbates upper and lower respiratory infections, asthma and ear problems. Children who accompany their parents into buildings where smoking is prevalent are affected by this elevated risk to their health.

Because children breathe faster, they are twice as likely to be affected by exposure to second-hand smoke. Because the chemicals in tobacco smoke linger in clothing, carpet, cars and furniture, children ingest these chemicals even when no one is actively smoking.

This is why the Mississippi Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics supports smoke-free air proposals this session. We have joined with other health advocates around the state including the State Department of Health, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the State Medical Association and the Mississippi Nurses Association to tell our legislators that it is time to join 26 other states and ban smoking in the workplace and in public places.

We know that smoking bans decrease the likelihood that teens will start smoking. Cigarette companies target teens as potential smokers because people who start smoking as adolescents are most likely to become addicted to nicotine and continue to smoke into adulthood. Cigarettes are designed for addiction via nicotine and 7,000 other added chemicals and compounds. Adolescents’ physiology is more sensitive to nicotine, which is why about 1,000 teens start smoking every day.

The U.S. Surgeon General has determined that there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke. Even low levels of smoke exposure, including second-hand and residual smoke, lead to an immediate dysfunction and inflammation of the lining of blood vessels, which is implicated in heart attacks and strokes. Cities that have adopted smoke-free laws -- including Starkville and Hattiesburg -- have seen a significant decline in the number of heart attack patients admitted to their hospital emergency rooms.

Every year, approximately 550 Mississippians who do not smoke -- including babies and children -- die from exposure to secondhand smoke. According to Communities for a Clean Bill of Health, smoking-related illnesses cost Mississippi Medicaid alone approximately $264 million a year.

Our legislators are reluctant to pass a smoking ban, believing that large and small businesses should be able to decide for themselves whether to keep their facilities smoke-free. If secondhand smoke at any level was not a proven health risk, that might be a good reason to oppose a smoke-free air law. However, our own experience with smoking bans around the state is proving again that there is no safe level of secondhand smoke. It’s time to support smoke-free public places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Hill is Chapter Tobacco Control Champion for the Mississippi Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the Mississippi Forum 2/11

Building a Better Ohio

2011-02-16T16:14:00.001-05:00

OHIO FORUM

By Amy Hanauer

Dear Governor Kasich,

As you begin your term, it is a perfect moment to rethink priorities and map new paths. With high unemployment, big budget shortfalls, and continued erosion of our industrial base, our problems might feel overwhelming.

But during and after our toughest economic time – the Great Depression – Americans created Social Security, wove our safety net, established unemployment insurance and encouraged other innovations that generated the world’s first real middle class, with four decades of improvements to prosperity, equity, living standards, education levels, and life spans. Later we passed the Clean Water Act in response to the burning Cuyahoga, enacted civil rights, and committed resources to public schools and colleges.

Throughout the 20th century, we moved forward. At times far less prosperous than today, we still invested in education, the environment, infrastructure, workers, and families. The result was a state with greater equity, more entryways to the middle class, and cleaner, safer communities.

Good public policy has the power to increase education, productivity, safety, and security. But bad policy can do the opposite. In the past generation, we allowed economic inequality to reach Depression-level heights. We ignored manufacturing and let job quality deteriorate. We deregulated, allowing toxic mortgages, loans, and food to be marketed and sold to Ohio families.

We watched suburbs gobble green space, resulting in an ever-greater need for polluting and imported fossil fuels. We let cities, counties, and states engage in mutually self-destructive competition to slash taxes, starving public budgets everywhere.

Governor Kasich, you can recommit to what made Ohio and America great. At times far less prosperous than today, we nonetheless invested in education, the environment, infrastructure, workers and families. The result was a state with greater equity, more entryways to the middle-class, and cleaner, safer communities. The 20th century moved us forward. Despite new challenges, we must build on past accomplishments, not let them erode. Here are a half dozen ways you can lead us.

1. Restore revenues: Together with other changes, the 2005 remake of the tax system is costing Ohio $2.1 billion in annual net revenue, straining our ability to provide security, education, and basic needs. With the legislature, you can restore the highest income tax bracket, get rid of exemptions and abatements, and ensure that the new corporate tax system generates the revenue that the old one did.
2. Shrink some spending: Most of what the public sector does is needed, and the fiction that we can have a better state while delivering less is just that. Roads, transit, schools, universities, and a safety net cost money and enrich our lives. But some policies cost more and deliver less: sentencing non-violent, low-level offenders to costly prisons, giving new tax abatements despite now-low corporate tax rates, and shifting elderly residents from more economical at-home care to nursing homes. You’ve voiced interest in fixing some of these – we can help.
3. Invest in energy: You are right to support the advanced energy standard, which is creating new markets for Ohio products while reducing emissions. You can also commit to commuter transit. Workers and employers rely on these systems, which vitalize cities and reduce energy use. Ohio could have a great supply chain in transit manufacturing. Also, most buildings remain inefficient so you could put Ohioans back to work on building retrofits. We’d be happy to provide a toolkit for how to renovate communities.
4. Advance assets: Through legislation and referendum Ohioans tried to eradicate exploitative payday loans but these lenders still prey on poor families. Get rid of payday lending once and for all, put in place a state Earned Income Credit to help working families, and establish some structures to help families build savings.
5. Target training, work on work: Too many Ohioans are out of work, as you have rightly lamented. Work with your friend Speaker John Boehner to ensure more federal aid for re-employing Ohio. Retain public workers -- they fill important needs while stabilizing our economy. Strategize with employers and unions about how best to retrain workers for future jobs and guarantee job quality. One first step – bolstering labor law enforcement would improve workers’ lives and ensure that Ohio gets all tax revenue owed by employers.
6. Educate: As you know, about 90 percent of Ohio children attend public schools. Provide solid funding, support innovation and teacher training, and strengthen the public system so that it works for all Ohio students. “Ohio has tremendous parks, neighborhoods, lakes, libraries, and people,” Hanauer concludes. “Governor Kasich, what you do will determine whether these assets thrive or wither.”

Ohio has tremendous parks, neighborhoods, lakes, libraries, and people. What you do will determine whether these assets thrive or wither. Good luck!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hanauer is executive director of Policy Matters Ohio.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by Ohio Forum. 1/11

Public Involvement is Necessary for Fairly Redrawing District Lines

2011-02-16T16:11:00.001-05:00

MISSISSIPPI FORUM

By Elizabeth Crowell

There was some good news at the state Capitol in January.

The Joint Legislative Redistricting Committee met to announce their plans for passage of a redistricting plan this legislative session. It’s good to see that they are listening to Mississippians and are committed to adopting a timely and fair plan.

Once every 10 years, following the release of the U.S. Census Report, every state must draw new lines for the election of local, state and federal officials. A large part of the ability or inability of those elected officials to get anything done rests with the way district lines are drawn.

Both political parties and sitting legislators want district lines drawn to make theirs a “safe seat.” Too often, a “safe seat” means like-minded, more extreme voters who elect the more extreme members of their party.

In this “echo chamber” environment, there is no room for compromise or even listening to what the other side has to say. Working with constituents to solve problems becomes secondary to political grandstanding. The risk is that these elected officials become overly complacent and lose their sense of accountability to the voters. Governing then becomes the fractured, uncivil process that Americans repeatedly say they do not want. Sadly, community problems go unaddressed.

In a worst-case scenario, seen right here in Mississippi, state legislators cannot even agree on a redistricting plan. The process is thrown into court, and elections have to be “re-done,” which ultimately becomes a waste of time and tax dollars.

After hearings around the state, Joint Redistricting Chairman Sen. Terry Burton reported they had heard citizens’ concerns about “One Man One Vote,” the need for citizen input, and the importance of protecting the geographical integrity of precincts.

On a motion from House Redistricting Chair Rep. Tommy Reynolds, the committee unanimously adopted the following guidelines for their process:

1. That each new voting district population number within 5 percent of the mean voting population for all state districts;

2. That each new voting district’s territory be contiguous [hopefully this means compact]; and

3. That the redistricting plan follows all applicable federal and state laws [this would include the federal “One Man, One Vote” provision of the Civil Rights Act, as well as the precinct and county integrity guidelines in current state law].

Both Burton and Reynolds repeated that they plan to see each chamber’s plan adopted by the other without the political posturing and obduracy promised by a few well-placed candidates for higher office.

The Joint Legislative Redistricting Committee plans to hold four public hearings throughout the state the weekend following the Census’s release of the precincts’ population count on February 12. Common Cause Mississippi, the League of Women Voters, the ACLU and other good government groups are urging Mississippians to participate in these forums to provide the community voice necessary to out-weigh partisan pressure to control the process.

Thirteen states around the nation have established nonpartisan or bipartisan commissions whose charge is to redraw their state’s political map to reflect both our racial and ethnic diversity, and to honestly redistribute power based on shifts in in-state population from region to region, and from city to suburb.

If history is any lesson, the political party holding the governor’s office or the balance of power in the legislature will attempt to draw district lines to assure their ascendance and stifle any opposition from the other party. If that happens, the result is bound to be more gridlock.

Mississippians deserve better. We deserve a system where voters choose their elected representatives -- and not one where politicians choose the voters they want to elect them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crowell represents Common Cause Mississippi at the state Capitol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the Mississippi Forum 1/11

Teaching Tolerance in Our Schools

2011-02-16T16:07:00.003-05:00

AMERICAN FORUM

By: Maureen Costello

Sometimes the most important lessons learned at school don’t come from a classroom.

They come from how a school reacts to ugly incidents of bias and prejudice. When a principal learns that nasty slurs are being used in the school or that students are being bullied because of their race or ethnicity, it can be tempting to deny it.

It can be tempting to resort to the old refrain, “That doesn’t happen at our school.”

But it does. And when it happens, it must be addressed.

Recently, a principal in the metro Atlanta area had to address bias on campus. Where other school leaders might have denied or minimized the incidents, this one set a positive example by confronting the situation head-on.

And it wasn’t a pretty situation: A teacher was accused of referring to Latino students as “beaners.” At the same school, which will not be named here due to the nature of these allegations, a student was being bullied because she is Latina.

It’s enough to upset any parent. Not surprisingly, a parent met with the principal about it. She was accompanied by Jerry Gonzalez, executive director of the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials.

The principal and teacher profusely apologized. The teacher said she didn’t realize the term she used was derogatory, noting that she picked it up from the students. It was a remarkable example of how an intolerant atmosphere can grow within a school, even among adults when they don’t recognize a term as hurtful and offensive.

The teacher pledged to stop using the term and the principal agreed to add it to the list of curse words students can’t use at the school. These actions send a clear message to students that such language is not acceptable. The principal also pledged to investigate the behavior of some students to get to the bottom of the bullying issue.

He even indicated that he’s willing to taking additional steps to curb future incidents. The Southern Poverty Law Center’s Teaching Tolerance program has offered free diversity training to the staff as a result.

The school’s quick, no-nonsense response is commendable. The principal recognized a key responsibility for educators -- ensuring all students feel safe and welcome at school.

This includes recognizing hurtful language that singles out students because of their race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. If adults don’t stop intolerant behavior, students will assume it’s acceptable and engage in it. All too often, bullying begins with name-calling and the casual use of slurs.

That’s not to say addressing this issue isn’t difficult. Race and ethnicity are sensitive subjects for people. No one wants to bring negative attention to their school. But children learn -- and learn to use wisely -- vocabulary through instruction. Without direction, these incidents can occur in any school. That’s why it is so important for educators to be prepared to address them.

The greater offense is for a school to deny that there’s a problem and allow an atmosphere of intolerance to take root. That’s something that shouldn’t happen in any school.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costello is Teaching Tolerance Director for the Southern Poverty Law Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by Georgia Forum. 1/11

Where Did All the Haiti Money Go?

2011-02-16T16:02:00.003-05:00

AMERICAN FORUM

By Nicole C. Lee, Esq.

When a 7.0 magnitude earthquake hit Haiti on January 12, 2010 the world community came to its aid. Millions of private citizens in this country and around the world reached into their household budgets and gave generously to the Haitian people who were grappling with the devastation.

We sat in front of our televisions and watched men digging for their families. We gave more. We heard doctors lament the lack of supplies. We gave more. In March, the United Nations member states and international partners met in New York and passionately pledged more than $5 billion over the next 18 months to help Haiti recover.

Despite the billions of dollars pledged from private citizens and world governments, a serious health scare has arisen. With poor sanitation, malnutrition, little safe drinking water and no sewage systems, the over-crowded temporary housing tent communities provide an ideal breeding ground for cholera.

One independent report has conservatively estimated that there is one toilet for every 273 people in the Port-au-Prince metropolitan area. Throughout Haiti, a year after we opened our hearts and wallets, the latrines are not cleaned on a regular basis and human waste spreads into the streams by the frequent rains. Now, a year later, limited water distribution continues, with little development of sustainable, municipal water-filtration systems.

In the face of these conditions, Haiti remains the non-governmental organization (NGO) capital of the world. Before the earthquake, there were more than 5,000 organizations on the ground in Haiti. From the International Red Cross to Save The Children to any number of church and civic organizations, Haiti is replete with people of good will who are there to make it a better place to live. Each of these organizations conducted their own fundraising campaigns after the earthquake and collected millions of dollars.

With millions of dollars at our disposal do we really lack the ability to support basic sanitation and clean water? Do we lack the ability to stop a preventable, deadly water-borne disease right off our coast? What happened to all of the money?

Many of the charities on the ground have reported they are setting aside a portion of their donations (sometimes up to 70 percent) for the “reconstruction” period. It’s clear from the outpouring of support many of those who donated from their own scarce family budgets believed they were giving to save lives immediately. In the face of a preventable public health emergency, like cholera, many will be surprised that more than half of their donations continue to sit in U.S. banks.

My organization has attempted for nearly a year to get the Red Cross to account for the money they collected for Haiti. In a recent meeting, I was told that 70 percent of their donations remain in “reserve” to be used for longer-term reconstruction.

Long-term development to secure transitional and permanent housing, build infrastructure outside of Port-au-Prince and promote public health campaigns are all extremely important issues. But if the Red Cross, whose mandate and expertise lie in emergency and crises management, is not responding to continued immediate emergencies on the ground, then who is? Who is responsible for the deteriorating quality of life and preventable suffering faced by those most affected by the earthquake?

We have asked the House oversight Committee, to hold a hearing on large private NGOs and USAID partner organizations to ask one simple question: “What happened to all of the money?” Though significant promises of donations have been made, many communities of earthquake survivors continue to face challenges in accessing even the most basic of services. Our repeated requests to determine where the money went have fallen on deaf ears.

We need to know who is responsible for coordinating the money donated to Haiti? Who is holding the thousands of NGO’s on the ground accountable for the money they collected from U.S. families and families around the world? Moreover, who is pressuring the international donor nations to make good on their promises to help to Haiti?

Indeed, there is very little coordination of the aid to Haiti. The Interim Commission tasked to coordinate and assure transparency of donations has been nearly silent. There is no central NGO leadership to create a coordinated effort that will assure that there is at least clean water, decent sanitation and proper housing. We all have hope for Haiti’s future. And yet, Haiti’s present is still at risk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee is the President of TransAfrica Forum and a human rights attorney who lived and worked in Haiti.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the American Forum. 1/11