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
Showing posts with label NORTH CAROLINA EDITORIAL FORUM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NORTH CAROLINA EDITORIAL FORUM. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
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
Thursday, December 16, 2010
NORTH CAROLINA EDITORIAL FORUM
By James Moeser and Andrea Bazán
In a program known as the UNC Scholars Latino Initiative (SLI), students at UNC-Chapel Hill make a three-year commitment to mentor Hispanic students at Jordan Matthews High School in Siler City. Students sign on as sophomores and work one-on-one with the high school sophomores through their graduation, preparing them to apply successfully for college.
We have seen first-hand the positive effects of this mentoring program on both the high school students as well as our own at UNC. Many of these young people have gone on to enroll in college, including some at Chapel Hill. Most, but not all of these students, are American citizens, but their legal status has not been an issue for the university. UNC’s concern has been its responsibility for the education of all North Carolinians, including the development of their full potential as human beings.However, when students apply to the university, their legal status becomes a matter of grave concern. As non-residents, they are required to pay out-of-state tuition, and are not eligible for either federal or state need-based aid. The Office of Student Financial Aid has had to cobble together aid packages made up entirely of private funds. As a result, UNC has been able to admit only a handful of these promising students. Most of them are being left behind.
But now, it appears that the U.S. Senate is once again considering the passage of the DREAM Act. This bipartisan legislation has the ability to open the doors for our high-achieving Hispanic students, such as the ones in the SLI.
The version of the proposal under consideration by the Senate has been scaled back drastically to increase the chance of passage. Unfortunately, gone are the original provisions that would allow these students to pay in-state tuition. Also removed is any eligibility for federal student aid. Still, this proposal represents a small step forward.
The DREAM Act creates a path toward the ability to earn legal status for undocumented students who came to this country before the age of 16. The proposal has many pieces. Students must have lived here for at least five consecutive years, have graduated from high school or obtained a GED, and have been admitted to an institution of higher education.
We want to stress that this is not an easy path. After the required completion of two years of college or military service, the students will be eligible only for provisional legal status. They would not be eligible for permanent legal status for 10 years.
Some will argue that this proposal encourages more illegal immigration, but that objection has been met by the provisions which apply only to students currently in the U.S. Others will argue that Congress should wait until it can pass comprehensive immigration reform. Still others will argue that the proposal has been so watered down in attempts to win full bipartisan support that it does not go far enough. While we share many of those concerns, this is a case where we cannot let “the perfect” be the enemy of “the good.” In the absence of truly addressing our immigration challenges, passing the DREAM Act is the right thing to do.
Good people can disagree about the ethics and morality of the underlying issues involving immigration and legal status. Ultimately, for us, the best argument for the DREAM ACT is simply this: What best serves the needs of the State of North Carolina and the United States? In the competitive environment of this global economy, is it in our own interests to hold back a whole generation of one sector of our communities from reaching their full potential as job creators and tax payers? The DREAM Act provides an answer to this question. We hope the Senate will have the wisdom to do the right thing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moeser is Chancellor Emeritus of University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Bazán is President of Triangle Community Foundation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
NORTH CAROLINA EDITORIAL FORUM
By Mary Olson
When advisor Dave Freeman helped President Carter navigate the rough waters of the 1970s oil crisis his compass was to find energy that is produced but does not perform a useful function – and stop that waste. Like pumping gasoline on the ground much of our electric power capacity today is effectively wasted.
How is power dumped? An un-insulated roof or leaky old windows cause a furnace to work too hard; newer appliances and industrial motors use a fraction of the juice, paying for themselves many times over (once is savings, more is profit). The trick is that wasted energy when “saved” is “here” and available for another purpose…since it is already generated there is no additional pollution or toxic waste, and also no need to build a new power plant; it is pure “cream.”
North Carolina is awash in power we already have, that is not being used. Imagine an economy nearly twice the size on what we generate today – or alternately a fraction of the power we have now supporting what we do today – possible? Yes. Architects Mike Nicklaus in NC, and Steven Strong nationally, design buildings that not only use less power, they save a system as much energy as they use: net zero.
Unfortunately, our current market is not structured for energy corporations to take advantage of this “cream.” To make more money, they must make and sell more power…even better, build new power plants. NC utilities are rewarded for building new plants on a percentage basis (12.4% guaranteed return on capital investment) so the more they spend, the more “rewarding” this is. Thanks to a 2007 law, NC utilities now charge customers “upfront” for new power plants and still get that return on investment. This may explain why there is such a debate going on about “what kind of power plant we need,” rather than the real question: do we need one at all?
Sadly, President Obama is calling for three times as much taxpayer support for reactor construction than the Bush Administration offered (from $18.5 to $54 billion). The problem is, we don’t need new plants – we have enough wasted energy in our system now to transition to renewables while phasing out both coal and nuclear in the process.
Even without factoring in the real costs (construction, contamination at all fuel cycle sites, waste management or isolation for 100,000 human generations), nuclear is still one of the most expensive forms of power out there, on a par with retail photovoltaic panels – except the solar panel does not need police to protect it, threaten anyone with cancer, or take billions of gallons of water to cool it.
There are many reasons that on February 11, 1985 Forbes Magazine declared nuclear power the “largest managerial failure in history” including the $100 billion default in nuclear loans for the nuclear reactors we have today. A vibrant economy will not result from investment in a dead industry. President Obama and his team are repeating a titanic mistake by pouring billions of dollars into loan guarantees for the all but dead nuclear reactor industry. Thirty years without a new reactor order means that Obama is really trying to resuscitate a cold corpse.
Here in North Carolina we have a better idea: NC SAVE$ Energy would create an independent, non – utility administration for a statewide energy savings program. If you have read this far, read “energy recovery program!” The mandate begins with residential housing stock and would invest in energy upgrades and retrofits. NC SAVE$ Energy will stimulate the NC economy, create three to six times more jobs that investment in new nuclear, reduce air pollution, prevent radioactive waste and oh by the way, free up a significant portion of the power already being generated here and now in NC.
It is discouraging to hear that the Governor’s new Energy Policy Council is going to tour Progress Energy’s Shearon Harris nuclear reactor; this is not progress. It is time to listen to President Carter’s advisor, Dave Freeman again – who later as the head of TVA presided over the cancellation of 7 nuclear power plants because they would have cost too much. We have what we need; we simply need to use it wisely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Olson is the Southeast Regional Coordinator for Nuclear Information and Resource Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by North Carolina Editorial Forum. 4/10
By Mary Olson
When advisor Dave Freeman helped President Carter navigate the rough waters of the 1970s oil crisis his compass was to find energy that is produced but does not perform a useful function – and stop that waste. Like pumping gasoline on the ground much of our electric power capacity today is effectively wasted.
How is power dumped? An un-insulated roof or leaky old windows cause a furnace to work too hard; newer appliances and industrial motors use a fraction of the juice, paying for themselves many times over (once is savings, more is profit). The trick is that wasted energy when “saved” is “here” and available for another purpose…since it is already generated there is no additional pollution or toxic waste, and also no need to build a new power plant; it is pure “cream.”
North Carolina is awash in power we already have, that is not being used. Imagine an economy nearly twice the size on what we generate today – or alternately a fraction of the power we have now supporting what we do today – possible? Yes. Architects Mike Nicklaus in NC, and Steven Strong nationally, design buildings that not only use less power, they save a system as much energy as they use: net zero.
Unfortunately, our current market is not structured for energy corporations to take advantage of this “cream.” To make more money, they must make and sell more power…even better, build new power plants. NC utilities are rewarded for building new plants on a percentage basis (12.4% guaranteed return on capital investment) so the more they spend, the more “rewarding” this is. Thanks to a 2007 law, NC utilities now charge customers “upfront” for new power plants and still get that return on investment. This may explain why there is such a debate going on about “what kind of power plant we need,” rather than the real question: do we need one at all?
Sadly, President Obama is calling for three times as much taxpayer support for reactor construction than the Bush Administration offered (from $18.5 to $54 billion). The problem is, we don’t need new plants – we have enough wasted energy in our system now to transition to renewables while phasing out both coal and nuclear in the process.
Even without factoring in the real costs (construction, contamination at all fuel cycle sites, waste management or isolation for 100,000 human generations), nuclear is still one of the most expensive forms of power out there, on a par with retail photovoltaic panels – except the solar panel does not need police to protect it, threaten anyone with cancer, or take billions of gallons of water to cool it.
There are many reasons that on February 11, 1985 Forbes Magazine declared nuclear power the “largest managerial failure in history” including the $100 billion default in nuclear loans for the nuclear reactors we have today. A vibrant economy will not result from investment in a dead industry. President Obama and his team are repeating a titanic mistake by pouring billions of dollars into loan guarantees for the all but dead nuclear reactor industry. Thirty years without a new reactor order means that Obama is really trying to resuscitate a cold corpse.
Here in North Carolina we have a better idea: NC SAVE$ Energy would create an independent, non – utility administration for a statewide energy savings program. If you have read this far, read “energy recovery program!” The mandate begins with residential housing stock and would invest in energy upgrades and retrofits. NC SAVE$ Energy will stimulate the NC economy, create three to six times more jobs that investment in new nuclear, reduce air pollution, prevent radioactive waste and oh by the way, free up a significant portion of the power already being generated here and now in NC.
It is discouraging to hear that the Governor’s new Energy Policy Council is going to tour Progress Energy’s Shearon Harris nuclear reactor; this is not progress. It is time to listen to President Carter’s advisor, Dave Freeman again – who later as the head of TVA presided over the cancellation of 7 nuclear power plants because they would have cost too much. We have what we need; we simply need to use it wisely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Olson is the Southeast Regional Coordinator for Nuclear Information and Resource Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by North Carolina Editorial Forum. 4/10
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
NORTH CAROLINA EDITORIAL FORUM
By Rev. J. George Reed and Chris Liu-Beers
Across North Carolina, nearly everyone agrees that the current immigration system is broken. So if the system is broken, why do we continue pouring money into it? Instead, we should take this historic opportunity to fix it.
Many politicians are saying that they want to address the root causes of our immigration situation, but they go on to talk only about increased enforcement. Of course, we are a nation of laws and the rule of law should be upheld. But experience and common sense show us that merely building a bigger wall won’t work because enforcement alone does not deal with the root causes. If we’re going to address the causes of immigration, we need to have a serious conversation about factors like American trade policy (including NAFTA) and the lack of opportunity in many “sending” countries. When NAFTA went into effect in the mid-1990’s, its unfair trade provisions allowed U.S.-subsidized corn to flood the Mexican market, bankrupting nearly 2 million Mexican corn farmers virtually overnight. This major economic disaster had a big impact on immigration into the U.S. from Mexico.
The bottom line is that Congress and the President basically have three options for addressing immigration – and only one of them will work. 1) Allow the current immigration mess to deteriorate further, a prospect that frustrates the vast majority the American people. 2) Hold out for the ugly fantasy that we are going to get rid of 12 million undocumented immigrants, a prospect as unrealistic as it is un-American. 3) Move forward with a comprehensive plan that restores the rule of law, gets people in the system, makes employers play by the rules, and creates a stable, sustainable and legal system of immigration.
Since we’re not going to deport 12 million people, we need comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship in order to assimilate new Americans. We already know that building a bigger wall won’t help. We’ve tried that for the last few years with nothing to show for it. What we need is an orderly system that works for both immigrants and our country.
Comprehensive reform is the only practical and sensible way to ensure that all workers are here legally, unscrupulous employers cannot undercut their honest competitors, fairness is restored to the labor market, and enforceability and justice are restored to the rule of law. It will lift wages for workers, restore tax fairness, and create a level playing field for law-abiding employers.
Despite the clamoring of a noisy minority, polling data consistently shows that American voters support comprehensive reform over an enforcement-only approach. A recent national poll found that when voters are given the details of comprehensive reform, 86 percent support Congress passing comprehensive reform, while only 7 percent strongly oppose the plan.
So what should comprehensive immigration reform look like? The solution to our current broken system must include:
- The reunification of families and preservation of our family immigration system;
- A way for people to get in the system with legal status so they get on a path to citizenship, learn English, and become part of society;
- A coherent and fair legal system that respects the value of due process;
- A logical, viable system for regulating legal immigration; and
- Effective, humane border and interior enforcement that respects everyone’s rights and keeps communities safe without forcing people into society’s shadows.
As members of the faith community, we believe that we have the opportunity to fix our nation’s broken immigration system and uphold our deepest values at the same time. The command to welcome the “stranger” echoes in our ears as immigrant families and workers are living in a state of fear due to increased raids, deportations and anti-immigrant sentiment. Our religious traditions call us to love our neighbor as ourselves, and we believe this applies to immigrants as much as anyone else.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed is executive director of the North Carolina Council of Churches, an ecumenical, non-partisan, statewide organization. Liu-Beers is a program associate with the North Carolina Council of Churches and works on immigration issues.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the North Carolina Editorial Forum. 9/09
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
NORTH CAROLINA EDITORIAL FORUM
By Melissa Reed
How reproductive health care is dealt with in national health care reform is no small matter; and who provides this care is still to be determined.
For communities like ours, local health centers are where many people turn for trusted health care. In North Carolina, more than 504,160 low-income women need family planning services. Community health providers, like Planned Parenthood, often serve as an entry point for essential health care needs. And Planned Parenthood isn’t the only health center women rely on for preventive care.
Today, one in four women who receives contraceptive care does so at a women’s health center. One in six who obtains a Pap test or a pelvic exam does so at a women’s health center, as do one-third of women who receive counseling, testing or treatment for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. This basic health care is essential, particularly during difficult economic times, to give women the tools they need to protect and support their families. This is particularly true when you consider that women of childbearing age spend a remarkable 68 percent more in out-of-pocket health care costs than men, in part because of reproductive health-related needs.
As Congress works to enact health care reform, they must make women’s health a priority and ensure that reproductive health care is covered. While this fact should be a given, the truth is that family planning and reproductive health care are still not fully part of mainstream health care, even though 98 percent of women use contraception at some point in their lives.
Two recent reports underscore the need for women’s health to be an integral part of health care reform.
A recent report by the Department of Health and Human Services titled "Roadblocks to Health Care: Why the Current Health Care System Does Not Work for Women" places an important spotlight on the impact that the nation’s health care crisis is having on women, particularly women of childbearing age. The report states that “women are more vulnerable to high health care costs ... [because] women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly Pap tests, mammograms, and obstetric care.”
And a 2009 survey conducted for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found that women are delaying their annual exams as a result of the economic downturn.
These reports demonstrate the importance of ensuring comprehensive health care reform that meets the needs of American women and their families. To do this, health plans participating in any health insurance exchange must include community health providers in their network.
Protecting community health providers is fundamental to solving provider access issues that will come with expanding coverage and ensuring Americans can access trusted providers wherever they live. Each year, Planned Parenthood health centers across the country perform nearly one million Pap Tests, identifying 93,000 women at risk of developing cervical cancer. And we provide more than 850,000 breast exams a year. In North Carolina alone Planned Parenthood provides these preventive health care services to more than 22,490 patients each year at its eight health centers across the state.
Under health care reform, women must have access to reproductive health care and their women’s health provider. Women cannot be worse off after health care reform than they are today.
How essential is your community health provider? The answer is simple -- if Americans want real health reform, community health providers must be part of the plan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed is the vice president for public policy at Planned Parenthood Health Systems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 7/09
How reproductive health care is dealt with in national health care reform is no small matter; and who provides this care is still to be determined.
For communities like ours, local health centers are where many people turn for trusted health care. In North Carolina, more than 504,160 low-income women need family planning services. Community health providers, like Planned Parenthood, often serve as an entry point for essential health care needs. And Planned Parenthood isn’t the only health center women rely on for preventive care.
Today, one in four women who receives contraceptive care does so at a women’s health center. One in six who obtains a Pap test or a pelvic exam does so at a women’s health center, as do one-third of women who receive counseling, testing or treatment for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. This basic health care is essential, particularly during difficult economic times, to give women the tools they need to protect and support their families. This is particularly true when you consider that women of childbearing age spend a remarkable 68 percent more in out-of-pocket health care costs than men, in part because of reproductive health-related needs.
As Congress works to enact health care reform, they must make women’s health a priority and ensure that reproductive health care is covered. While this fact should be a given, the truth is that family planning and reproductive health care are still not fully part of mainstream health care, even though 98 percent of women use contraception at some point in their lives.
Two recent reports underscore the need for women’s health to be an integral part of health care reform.
A recent report by the Department of Health and Human Services titled "Roadblocks to Health Care: Why the Current Health Care System Does Not Work for Women" places an important spotlight on the impact that the nation’s health care crisis is having on women, particularly women of childbearing age. The report states that “women are more vulnerable to high health care costs ... [because] women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly Pap tests, mammograms, and obstetric care.”
And a 2009 survey conducted for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found that women are delaying their annual exams as a result of the economic downturn.
These reports demonstrate the importance of ensuring comprehensive health care reform that meets the needs of American women and their families. To do this, health plans participating in any health insurance exchange must include community health providers in their network.
Protecting community health providers is fundamental to solving provider access issues that will come with expanding coverage and ensuring Americans can access trusted providers wherever they live. Each year, Planned Parenthood health centers across the country perform nearly one million Pap Tests, identifying 93,000 women at risk of developing cervical cancer. And we provide more than 850,000 breast exams a year. In North Carolina alone Planned Parenthood provides these preventive health care services to more than 22,490 patients each year at its eight health centers across the state.
Under health care reform, women must have access to reproductive health care and their women’s health provider. Women cannot be worse off after health care reform than they are today.
How essential is your community health provider? The answer is simple -- if Americans want real health reform, community health providers must be part of the plan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed is the vice president for public policy at Planned Parenthood Health Systems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 7/09
Monday, June 22, 2009
NORTH CAROLINA EDITORIAL FORUM
By Gracia O’Neill
North Carolina faces a critical decision on the growing costs and environmental damage caused by energy production. Announcing a proposed major rate hike recently, to average over $130 per year, per household, Duke Energy says it’s to supply “reliable energy,” which means they’ll generate and sell more power. North Carolina’s utilities want to build $35-40 billion worth of new coal and nuclear power plants, with Duke’s rate increase being a first installment on increases that could total over 50 percent for construction. That approach assumes ever-increasing power demand, despite recent data reflecting flat or even decreasing consumption.
That’s why more than 30 North Carolina social justice, religious, consumer and environmental groups instead support an approach that would create hundreds or even thousands of "green" jobs and crank down our demand for power, through a state-wide energy efficiency program called NC SAVE$ ENERGY.
Energy efficiency is the fastest, cleanest and cheapest way to control energy bills, and the best route to economic, environmental and health benefits. Efficiency costs less than one-fourth as much as new nuclear power and creates more new jobs. Every county has thousands of homes in urgent need of weatherization. Last year, the United Way's western North Carolina “2-1-1” helpline fielded more requests for assistance paying utility bills than any other service.
The 2007-2008 drought was also a wake-up call. Duke Energy and Tennessee Valley Authority plants actually had to power-down operations in August, 2007 for lack of the huge volumes of clean, cool water needed to operate each day. North Carolina's coal and nuclear power plants account for over 80 percent of registered water withdrawals, evaporating over a billion gallons each day. Some utilities are already raising electricity rates, knowing they will compete with households, businesses and farms for water in future droughts.
Although the state’s "caulk gun ready" weatherization programs are getting a boost from the federal recovery package, only a fraction of households will get needed assistance during the next two years. Further, the new jobs created will disappear when the money’s gone. To hold on to those new jobs and continue improving communities’ housing stock, we need an independent (non-utility) state-wide efficiency program with a “public benefit fund.” This assumes long term funding, and reaches more homes, public buildings and eventually businesses.
Efficient use of electricity and natural gas short-circuits the need for new water-hogging, polluting power plants, and keeps money in the pockets of the people who need it most. Efficiency programs run by investor-owned utilities do little (especially for low income households) and favor profits for shareholders over the public.
A 2007 report by Synapse Energy Economics examined six states' independent (non-utility) efficiency programs, which save hundreds of thousands of megawatt hours annually, reducing natural gas use and slashing thousands of tons of air pollutants. In 2007, New York’s low income participants saved an average of $220 per household. Vermont achieved enough efficiency gains to more than compensate for new energy customers. All of the state’s programs are independently audited each year, as NC SAVE$ ENERGY would be.
NC SAVE$ ENERGY's first priority is to reduce energy use in existing housing of low and moderate income residents, with possible future expansion to business and other sectors. Savings on utility bills will quickly pay for energy improvements performed by nonprofit and business contractors certified by the new program.
A small fee on utility bills would be the main funding, but grants, bonds, or selling carbon credits are other possible sources. NC SAVE$ ENERGY would cost an average of less than $2 a household per month, with substantial savings as homes get energy upgrades. Compare that to the $130 increase per year if Duke's rate increase is granted to pay for new power plants that we simply don’t need.
Here's an unparalleled opportunity to respond to the economic downturn without new appropriations in a scary budget year. NC SAVE$ ENERGY will create and sustain new jobs, offer savings for households and yield a safer, more secure energy future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O'Neill is the assistant director at Clean Water for North Carolina (http://www.cwfnc.org/), a statewide environmental justice organization with offices in Asheville and Durham.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 6/09
North Carolina faces a critical decision on the growing costs and environmental damage caused by energy production. Announcing a proposed major rate hike recently, to average over $130 per year, per household, Duke Energy says it’s to supply “reliable energy,” which means they’ll generate and sell more power. North Carolina’s utilities want to build $35-40 billion worth of new coal and nuclear power plants, with Duke’s rate increase being a first installment on increases that could total over 50 percent for construction. That approach assumes ever-increasing power demand, despite recent data reflecting flat or even decreasing consumption.
That’s why more than 30 North Carolina social justice, religious, consumer and environmental groups instead support an approach that would create hundreds or even thousands of "green" jobs and crank down our demand for power, through a state-wide energy efficiency program called NC SAVE$ ENERGY.
Energy efficiency is the fastest, cleanest and cheapest way to control energy bills, and the best route to economic, environmental and health benefits. Efficiency costs less than one-fourth as much as new nuclear power and creates more new jobs. Every county has thousands of homes in urgent need of weatherization. Last year, the United Way's western North Carolina “2-1-1” helpline fielded more requests for assistance paying utility bills than any other service.
The 2007-2008 drought was also a wake-up call. Duke Energy and Tennessee Valley Authority plants actually had to power-down operations in August, 2007 for lack of the huge volumes of clean, cool water needed to operate each day. North Carolina's coal and nuclear power plants account for over 80 percent of registered water withdrawals, evaporating over a billion gallons each day. Some utilities are already raising electricity rates, knowing they will compete with households, businesses and farms for water in future droughts.
Although the state’s "caulk gun ready" weatherization programs are getting a boost from the federal recovery package, only a fraction of households will get needed assistance during the next two years. Further, the new jobs created will disappear when the money’s gone. To hold on to those new jobs and continue improving communities’ housing stock, we need an independent (non-utility) state-wide efficiency program with a “public benefit fund.” This assumes long term funding, and reaches more homes, public buildings and eventually businesses.
Efficient use of electricity and natural gas short-circuits the need for new water-hogging, polluting power plants, and keeps money in the pockets of the people who need it most. Efficiency programs run by investor-owned utilities do little (especially for low income households) and favor profits for shareholders over the public.
A 2007 report by Synapse Energy Economics examined six states' independent (non-utility) efficiency programs, which save hundreds of thousands of megawatt hours annually, reducing natural gas use and slashing thousands of tons of air pollutants. In 2007, New York’s low income participants saved an average of $220 per household. Vermont achieved enough efficiency gains to more than compensate for new energy customers. All of the state’s programs are independently audited each year, as NC SAVE$ ENERGY would be.
NC SAVE$ ENERGY's first priority is to reduce energy use in existing housing of low and moderate income residents, with possible future expansion to business and other sectors. Savings on utility bills will quickly pay for energy improvements performed by nonprofit and business contractors certified by the new program.
A small fee on utility bills would be the main funding, but grants, bonds, or selling carbon credits are other possible sources. NC SAVE$ ENERGY would cost an average of less than $2 a household per month, with substantial savings as homes get energy upgrades. Compare that to the $130 increase per year if Duke's rate increase is granted to pay for new power plants that we simply don’t need.
Here's an unparalleled opportunity to respond to the economic downturn without new appropriations in a scary budget year. NC SAVE$ ENERGY will create and sustain new jobs, offer savings for households and yield a safer, more secure energy future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O'Neill is the assistant director at Clean Water for North Carolina (http://www.cwfnc.org/), a statewide environmental justice organization with offices in Asheville and Durham.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 6/09
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
NORTH CAROLINA EDITORIAL FORUM
By W. Hodding Carter III
Private foundations are among the greatest of American innovations.
They funnel private wealth into tax sheltered institutions that in turn support public institutions and purposes. At their best, they have been catalysts for civic and cultural development, economic revitalization and educational innovation.
North Carolina in particular is singularly fortunate to have a strong philanthropic tradition represented by a number of vibrant foundations with a well-developed sense of mission and focus. While the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation comes immediately to mind, it is hardly alone. Mention community and economic development, educational innovation, environmental protection and racial justice, and you immediately think of the central role played by North Carolina foundations.
But in a world gripped by economic crisis, a jobless rate moving rapidly toward the worst in 60 years, and an ever-widening gap between the few who are rich and the many who are not, philanthropy has to do much, much more. Reflecting on past accomplishments is useful only as an incentive to innovation in the here and now.
In particular, the foundation world needs to refocus its approach to better assist those who are least able to help themselves. One way to do this is to make grants in ways that promote effectiveness. That means providing more unrestricted support so that nonprofits have the flexibility they need to respond to changing conditions. It also means giving longer-term funding and multiyear grants.
Foundations should also spend more to help nonprofits speak with a louder and more effective voice in advocating public policies that directly benefit those with whom they work. At a time when public policies are changing dramatically at both the national and state levels, those who are most affected by them should be given a seat at the deliberative table. What is good for banks in crisis is no less good for average Americans and marginalized communities in crisis.
That is a short version of the recommendations made by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, a Washington-based foundation watchdog group on whose advisory committee I serve. Its recent report “Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best” pulls few punches and goes straight to the moral heart of the issue: If foundations are not going to concentrate more heavily on the most deprived groups and individuals in our society, who will?
Some in the foundation world are threatened by the questions and the recommendations. Some fear that by subscribing to goals for how much should go to those in critical need, the door will be opened to government regulation. Others who have a long and fruitful history as patrons of the arts or higher education or medical innovation resist anything they perceive might diminish their historic commitments.
I respect their concerns. When I was president of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, earlier in the decade, nothing was more contentious than our evolving efforts to reach more deeply into the communities we hoped to serve. But at this moment in the nation’s history, business as usual is no more tenable for the foundation world than it is for government and the private sector.
Asking foundations to devote a greater share of their grant dollars for the common good, the commonweal, is imminently reasonable and long overdue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Carter III is a former president and CEO of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and Professor of Leadership and Public Policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 5/09
Private foundations are among the greatest of American innovations.
They funnel private wealth into tax sheltered institutions that in turn support public institutions and purposes. At their best, they have been catalysts for civic and cultural development, economic revitalization and educational innovation.
North Carolina in particular is singularly fortunate to have a strong philanthropic tradition represented by a number of vibrant foundations with a well-developed sense of mission and focus. While the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation comes immediately to mind, it is hardly alone. Mention community and economic development, educational innovation, environmental protection and racial justice, and you immediately think of the central role played by North Carolina foundations.
But in a world gripped by economic crisis, a jobless rate moving rapidly toward the worst in 60 years, and an ever-widening gap between the few who are rich and the many who are not, philanthropy has to do much, much more. Reflecting on past accomplishments is useful only as an incentive to innovation in the here and now.
In particular, the foundation world needs to refocus its approach to better assist those who are least able to help themselves. One way to do this is to make grants in ways that promote effectiveness. That means providing more unrestricted support so that nonprofits have the flexibility they need to respond to changing conditions. It also means giving longer-term funding and multiyear grants.
Foundations should also spend more to help nonprofits speak with a louder and more effective voice in advocating public policies that directly benefit those with whom they work. At a time when public policies are changing dramatically at both the national and state levels, those who are most affected by them should be given a seat at the deliberative table. What is good for banks in crisis is no less good for average Americans and marginalized communities in crisis.
That is a short version of the recommendations made by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, a Washington-based foundation watchdog group on whose advisory committee I serve. Its recent report “Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best” pulls few punches and goes straight to the moral heart of the issue: If foundations are not going to concentrate more heavily on the most deprived groups and individuals in our society, who will?
Some in the foundation world are threatened by the questions and the recommendations. Some fear that by subscribing to goals for how much should go to those in critical need, the door will be opened to government regulation. Others who have a long and fruitful history as patrons of the arts or higher education or medical innovation resist anything they perceive might diminish their historic commitments.
I respect their concerns. When I was president of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, earlier in the decade, nothing was more contentious than our evolving efforts to reach more deeply into the communities we hoped to serve. But at this moment in the nation’s history, business as usual is no more tenable for the foundation world than it is for government and the private sector.
Asking foundations to devote a greater share of their grant dollars for the common good, the commonweal, is imminently reasonable and long overdue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Carter III is a former president and CEO of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and Professor of Leadership and Public Policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 5/09
Monday, May 4, 2009
NORTH CAROLINA EDITORIAL FORUM
By Richard Fireman, MD
Sometimes the adage "Too many cooks spoil the broth" doesn’t apply -- especially when you are brewing something special outside of the kitchen.
Thirty-two advocacy groups from the consumer protection, housing, justice, civil rights, faith, and environmental communities have been busy cooking up an energy efficiency proposal called NC SAVE$ ENERGY. Now being considered by the state, the plan has support from all sides of the political table, because it serves the economic, moral, health and social needs of their constituents.
The only organizations that seem to be unhappy with the energy plan are the utilities that have failed their public duty with decades of disregard of the mandate from the North Carolina Utilities Commission to "include use of the entire spectrum of demand-side options, including but not limited to conservation, load management and efficiency programs."
The result of this failure from investor-owned utilities is that North Carolina ranked 46th out of 50 states in spending per capita on energy efficiency and conservation measures -- a meager 44 pennies per person or $3.8 million for the whole state.
A 2007 decision to allow Duke Energy to build a huge new coal-fired Cliffside power plant required the company to spend 1 percent of its income on efficiency. Duke proposed "Save-a-Watt" as their efficiency program -- which was widely criticized as "doing too little and costing too much." South Carolina's Utility Commission rejected the proposal outright. In North Carolina, where the Utility Commission historically bends over backwards to do the bidding of the investor owned utilities, the Commission approved Save-a-Watt, but asked Duke to come back with new financing numbers. This attempt by Duke to get into the energy efficiency business would generate only 1.9 percent of energy savings to North Carolina by 2018.
Are we surprised? The facts are clear. Investor-owned utilities have an inherent conflict of interest in promoting conservation and efficiency. They increase their profits by building new plants and selling more electricity. They lose money when consumers use less.
In fact, both Duke and Progress Energy have laid out a very expensive menu for North Carolina citizens. The new Cliffside and four new nuclear power plants will guarantee a 50 to 100 percent rate increase in power bills.
There is a better way. A study by Clean Water for North Carolina found that efficiency programs run by independent public agencies or nonprofits demonstrated that the independent administrators accomplished large reductions in energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions. In New York, participating homes were saving an average of $225 a year on utility bills while reducing the statewide peak demand for electricity by 1,000 megawatts (enough power for as many as 1 million homes). As an added bonus 4,800 jobs were created/retained.
NC SAVE$ ENERGY will provide the same kind of economic and energy savings for North Carolina citizens. For a small surcharge of between $1 to $2 per month on energy bills of residential customers, the nonprofit NC SAVE$ ENERGY administrator will develop, administer, and promote programs that will help transition us to a cleaner, safer, healthier and more economically dynamic energy economy.
Energy efficiency and conservation are the fastest, safest, healthiest and cheapest way to transform our energy economy. The cost for energy efficiency is about 4 to 5 cents per kilowatt hour, while the price for new nuclear power is 25 cents and rising yearly. The green job economy is waiting for our state leadership to step up to the plate.
Every community needs this program. United Way of Western North Carolina revealed that the most common call for assistance was relief for energy bills that couldn't be paid. A 2007 report revealed that over 3 million homes in the state need energy efficiency upgrades.
With NC SAVE$ ENERGY providing long term funding and comprehensive education, training and outreach, all local economies will be stimulated as homes are weatherized, appliances upgraded, and energy efficiency devices are installed. Local businesses will grow. Living wage jobs will be created.
We must face a reality of worsening and extreme weather patterns. We are in a drought and climate change will make it worse. Coal and nuclear electric generation wastefully withdraws more water from our rivers and lakes than all other uses combined. Water must be conserved for agricultural, livestock, and human consumption.
The bottom line is clear. The utilities' way is wasteful of our money, our climate, our water and our health. It makes no sense when a clear, proven, alternative is available.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Fireman is public policy coordinator on North Carolina Interfaith Power & Light, a program of the North Carolina Council of Churches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the North Carolina Editorial Forum. 5/09
Thirty-two advocacy groups from the consumer protection, housing, justice, civil rights, faith, and environmental communities have been busy cooking up an energy efficiency proposal called NC SAVE$ ENERGY. Now being considered by the state, the plan has support from all sides of the political table, because it serves the economic, moral, health and social needs of their constituents.
The only organizations that seem to be unhappy with the energy plan are the utilities that have failed their public duty with decades of disregard of the mandate from the North Carolina Utilities Commission to "include use of the entire spectrum of demand-side options, including but not limited to conservation, load management and efficiency programs."
The result of this failure from investor-owned utilities is that North Carolina ranked 46th out of 50 states in spending per capita on energy efficiency and conservation measures -- a meager 44 pennies per person or $3.8 million for the whole state.
A 2007 decision to allow Duke Energy to build a huge new coal-fired Cliffside power plant required the company to spend 1 percent of its income on efficiency. Duke proposed "Save-a-Watt" as their efficiency program -- which was widely criticized as "doing too little and costing too much." South Carolina's Utility Commission rejected the proposal outright. In North Carolina, where the Utility Commission historically bends over backwards to do the bidding of the investor owned utilities, the Commission approved Save-a-Watt, but asked Duke to come back with new financing numbers. This attempt by Duke to get into the energy efficiency business would generate only 1.9 percent of energy savings to North Carolina by 2018.
Are we surprised? The facts are clear. Investor-owned utilities have an inherent conflict of interest in promoting conservation and efficiency. They increase their profits by building new plants and selling more electricity. They lose money when consumers use less.
In fact, both Duke and Progress Energy have laid out a very expensive menu for North Carolina citizens. The new Cliffside and four new nuclear power plants will guarantee a 50 to 100 percent rate increase in power bills.
There is a better way. A study by Clean Water for North Carolina found that efficiency programs run by independent public agencies or nonprofits demonstrated that the independent administrators accomplished large reductions in energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions. In New York, participating homes were saving an average of $225 a year on utility bills while reducing the statewide peak demand for electricity by 1,000 megawatts (enough power for as many as 1 million homes). As an added bonus 4,800 jobs were created/retained.
NC SAVE$ ENERGY will provide the same kind of economic and energy savings for North Carolina citizens. For a small surcharge of between $1 to $2 per month on energy bills of residential customers, the nonprofit NC SAVE$ ENERGY administrator will develop, administer, and promote programs that will help transition us to a cleaner, safer, healthier and more economically dynamic energy economy.
Energy efficiency and conservation are the fastest, safest, healthiest and cheapest way to transform our energy economy. The cost for energy efficiency is about 4 to 5 cents per kilowatt hour, while the price for new nuclear power is 25 cents and rising yearly. The green job economy is waiting for our state leadership to step up to the plate.
Every community needs this program. United Way of Western North Carolina revealed that the most common call for assistance was relief for energy bills that couldn't be paid. A 2007 report revealed that over 3 million homes in the state need energy efficiency upgrades.
With NC SAVE$ ENERGY providing long term funding and comprehensive education, training and outreach, all local economies will be stimulated as homes are weatherized, appliances upgraded, and energy efficiency devices are installed. Local businesses will grow. Living wage jobs will be created.
We must face a reality of worsening and extreme weather patterns. We are in a drought and climate change will make it worse. Coal and nuclear electric generation wastefully withdraws more water from our rivers and lakes than all other uses combined. Water must be conserved for agricultural, livestock, and human consumption.
The bottom line is clear. The utilities' way is wasteful of our money, our climate, our water and our health. It makes no sense when a clear, proven, alternative is available.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Fireman is public policy coordinator on North Carolina Interfaith Power & Light, a program of the North Carolina Council of Churches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the North Carolina Editorial Forum. 5/09
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
NORTH CAROLINA EDITORIAL FORUM
By Lisa Grafstein
President Obama will soon begin making nominations to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals as four of the 15 seats on that Court are currently vacant. Of the five states that make up the circuit (North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland) North Carolina has the fewest judges on the Court, even as the state has the largest population in the Circuit.
The sole North Carolinian on the Fourth Circuit – Judge Allyson Duncan -- was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2003. Conventional wisdom is that North Carolinians will be appointed to at least two of the open seats, although it would take all four seats to bring the state into relative parity in terms of population. Nevertheless, all seem to agree that we have been woefully under-represented for years.
Senator Kay Hagan has pledged to move nominations forward in a bipartisan way. Senate rules have permitted a Senator from a nominee’s home state to withhold a “blue slip” and thereby impede the nomination process for a particular nominee. She has argued that the era of partisan use of blue slips should end. Although there has long been political obstruction, Judge Duncan’s nomination in 2003 proceeded (and she was confirmed 93-0) during a Republican presidential administration when a Democratic Senator, John Edwards, was in office.
One significant question about the fate of additional North Carolinians on the Fourth Circuit is which route Senator Richard Burr will take – obstruction or bipartisanship? There is some cause to be hopeful. In May 2005, Senator Burr issued a press release calling for an up or down vote on judicial nominees:
“There is no doubt in my mind that I was sent here to work hard and to accomplish solutions to real problems…There is no doubt in my mind the task includes ensuring that the Senate provides judicial nominees an up-or-down vote. I remain hopeful still today that a resolution can be reached. Many of us have worked toward a fair process where all judicial nominees with majority support, regardless of party, receive an up-or-down vote.”
More recently, Senator Burr told the Charlotte Observer that he would like to see an end to the deadlock and is willing to work toward that end.
However, Republican Senators – including Senator Burr -- have sent a letter to President Obama stating that they will block nominees unless President Obama gets approval from Republican Senators in the nominees’ home states:
“Regretfully, if we are not consulted on, and approve of, a nominee from our states, the Republican Conference will be unable to support moving forward on that nominee.”
Senate Republicans appear to suggest that they will reject nominees based not on any qualities of the nominees, but merely because the President fails to obtain pre-approval from them for his nominees. This is an astonishing attempt to hold the judicial nominations process hostage, and suggests that Senate Republicans’ objections will not be based on the perceived short-comings of any as-yet-unnamed nominees, but will derive from an effort to extort power in the nomination process itself. Given Senator Burr’s prior support of up or down votes, and his expressed desire to end the bickering over North Carolina judicial nominees, it is concerning that he signed on to the GOP demand.
The important process of nominating and confirming judges would be well-served by consultation with home state senators, and careful vetting of candidates’ qualifications by all parties. Wholesale rejection of nominees as a political tug of war will not serve the interests of our justice system. Senator Burr can, and should, help our state move past the politicization of appointments so that North Carolina can regain its rightful role in supplying quality judges to the Fourth Circuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grafstein is a private practice attorney in Raleigh.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the North Carolina Editorial Forum. 3/09
President Obama will soon begin making nominations to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals as four of the 15 seats on that Court are currently vacant. Of the five states that make up the circuit (North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland) North Carolina has the fewest judges on the Court, even as the state has the largest population in the Circuit.
The sole North Carolinian on the Fourth Circuit – Judge Allyson Duncan -- was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2003. Conventional wisdom is that North Carolinians will be appointed to at least two of the open seats, although it would take all four seats to bring the state into relative parity in terms of population. Nevertheless, all seem to agree that we have been woefully under-represented for years.
Senator Kay Hagan has pledged to move nominations forward in a bipartisan way. Senate rules have permitted a Senator from a nominee’s home state to withhold a “blue slip” and thereby impede the nomination process for a particular nominee. She has argued that the era of partisan use of blue slips should end. Although there has long been political obstruction, Judge Duncan’s nomination in 2003 proceeded (and she was confirmed 93-0) during a Republican presidential administration when a Democratic Senator, John Edwards, was in office.
One significant question about the fate of additional North Carolinians on the Fourth Circuit is which route Senator Richard Burr will take – obstruction or bipartisanship? There is some cause to be hopeful. In May 2005, Senator Burr issued a press release calling for an up or down vote on judicial nominees:
“There is no doubt in my mind that I was sent here to work hard and to accomplish solutions to real problems…There is no doubt in my mind the task includes ensuring that the Senate provides judicial nominees an up-or-down vote. I remain hopeful still today that a resolution can be reached. Many of us have worked toward a fair process where all judicial nominees with majority support, regardless of party, receive an up-or-down vote.”
More recently, Senator Burr told the Charlotte Observer that he would like to see an end to the deadlock and is willing to work toward that end.
However, Republican Senators – including Senator Burr -- have sent a letter to President Obama stating that they will block nominees unless President Obama gets approval from Republican Senators in the nominees’ home states:
“Regretfully, if we are not consulted on, and approve of, a nominee from our states, the Republican Conference will be unable to support moving forward on that nominee.”
Senate Republicans appear to suggest that they will reject nominees based not on any qualities of the nominees, but merely because the President fails to obtain pre-approval from them for his nominees. This is an astonishing attempt to hold the judicial nominations process hostage, and suggests that Senate Republicans’ objections will not be based on the perceived short-comings of any as-yet-unnamed nominees, but will derive from an effort to extort power in the nomination process itself. Given Senator Burr’s prior support of up or down votes, and his expressed desire to end the bickering over North Carolina judicial nominees, it is concerning that he signed on to the GOP demand.
The important process of nominating and confirming judges would be well-served by consultation with home state senators, and careful vetting of candidates’ qualifications by all parties. Wholesale rejection of nominees as a political tug of war will not serve the interests of our justice system. Senator Burr can, and should, help our state move past the politicization of appointments so that North Carolina can regain its rightful role in supplying quality judges to the Fourth Circuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grafstein is a private practice attorney in Raleigh.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the North Carolina Editorial Forum. 3/09
Thursday, January 22, 2009
NORTH CAROLINA EDITORIAL FORUM
By Lisa Grafstein
In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision which changed the rules for determining how long an employee has to raise a claim of wage discrimination. The plaintiff in that case, Lilly Ledbetter, lost a claim for 18 years of discrimination, but has lent her name to a proposal which would correct the interpretation of federal law and allow victims of wage discrimination to recover a portion of what they have lost.
Before the Ledbetter case, courts -- including the Supreme Court -- had used a “paycheck rule,” which recognized that, when an employee is underpaid on a discriminatory basis, each paycheck that employee receives is affected by discrimination, and the statute of limitations for a claim therefore begins to run when a discriminatory paycheck is issued. In most cases, employees do not become aware of wage discrepancies until well into their employment. Moreover, we know that a pay decision continues to impact a worker over her earning years. The National Women’s Law Center has calculated that women 24 and younger start out earning 6 percent less than their male counterparts, but that gap increases over time, resulting in women 45-64 earn 71 percent of what their male counterparts earn.
A study by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research shows the cost in real dollars: a typical college-educated woman who was between 45 and 49 in 2004 had lost over $440,000 (in 2004 dollars) since 1984 due to the wage gap. As Justice Ginsburg noted in the dissent in the Ledbetter decision: “even minor disparities will increase exponentially over time.” The Bureau of Labor Statistics confirms that women earn 76 percent of what men earn -- a gap that cannot be explained away by women’s career choices or other non-discriminatory bases, and is the cumulative effect of long-term wage disparities.
The Ledbetter decision discarded the paycheck rule, and held that a worker could not complain about wage discrimination that started more than 180 days before the initial complaint was made. The practical impact was that there would be no real remedy for wage discrimination, since very few people discover the wage disparity until well after being hired for a position, and still fewer would opt to sue a new employer over what would initially be a very small amount of money. The Lilly Ledbetter Act would reinstate the paycheck rule, allowing an employee to sue for up to two years of the wage difference, even if the initial salary decision was made earlier.
The central argument against the bill appears to be that it would invite litigation over decades-old claims. The law, however, is clear that no claim for damages can reach back more than two years; in other words, regardless of how many years a woman received lesser pay she cannot claim losses that occurred prior to two years before instituting a charge of discrimination.
Both sides in this debate raise the issue of the struggling economy as support for their argument. Those who oppose the proposal, however, are in the position of arguing that discrimination should be left unremedied because of the current economic crisis -- ignoring the very real impact disparate wages have on women as workers and consumers. Without the Lilly Ledbetter Act, employers have no incentive to examine their wage practices -- past and present -- to determine whether some of their employees are not being fairly compensated.
The Lilly Ledbetter Act has already passed the House and will be voted on by the Senate soon. President Obama has pledged to sign it. It is well past time to end wage discrimination, and to send a firm signal condemning the practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grafstein is a private practice attorney in Raleigh.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the North Carolina Editorial Forum. 1/09
In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision which changed the rules for determining how long an employee has to raise a claim of wage discrimination. The plaintiff in that case, Lilly Ledbetter, lost a claim for 18 years of discrimination, but has lent her name to a proposal which would correct the interpretation of federal law and allow victims of wage discrimination to recover a portion of what they have lost.
Before the Ledbetter case, courts -- including the Supreme Court -- had used a “paycheck rule,” which recognized that, when an employee is underpaid on a discriminatory basis, each paycheck that employee receives is affected by discrimination, and the statute of limitations for a claim therefore begins to run when a discriminatory paycheck is issued. In most cases, employees do not become aware of wage discrepancies until well into their employment. Moreover, we know that a pay decision continues to impact a worker over her earning years. The National Women’s Law Center has calculated that women 24 and younger start out earning 6 percent less than their male counterparts, but that gap increases over time, resulting in women 45-64 earn 71 percent of what their male counterparts earn.
A study by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research shows the cost in real dollars: a typical college-educated woman who was between 45 and 49 in 2004 had lost over $440,000 (in 2004 dollars) since 1984 due to the wage gap. As Justice Ginsburg noted in the dissent in the Ledbetter decision: “even minor disparities will increase exponentially over time.” The Bureau of Labor Statistics confirms that women earn 76 percent of what men earn -- a gap that cannot be explained away by women’s career choices or other non-discriminatory bases, and is the cumulative effect of long-term wage disparities.
The Ledbetter decision discarded the paycheck rule, and held that a worker could not complain about wage discrimination that started more than 180 days before the initial complaint was made. The practical impact was that there would be no real remedy for wage discrimination, since very few people discover the wage disparity until well after being hired for a position, and still fewer would opt to sue a new employer over what would initially be a very small amount of money. The Lilly Ledbetter Act would reinstate the paycheck rule, allowing an employee to sue for up to two years of the wage difference, even if the initial salary decision was made earlier.
The central argument against the bill appears to be that it would invite litigation over decades-old claims. The law, however, is clear that no claim for damages can reach back more than two years; in other words, regardless of how many years a woman received lesser pay she cannot claim losses that occurred prior to two years before instituting a charge of discrimination.
Both sides in this debate raise the issue of the struggling economy as support for their argument. Those who oppose the proposal, however, are in the position of arguing that discrimination should be left unremedied because of the current economic crisis -- ignoring the very real impact disparate wages have on women as workers and consumers. Without the Lilly Ledbetter Act, employers have no incentive to examine their wage practices -- past and present -- to determine whether some of their employees are not being fairly compensated.
The Lilly Ledbetter Act has already passed the House and will be voted on by the Senate soon. President Obama has pledged to sign it. It is well past time to end wage discrimination, and to send a firm signal condemning the practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grafstein is a private practice attorney in Raleigh.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the North Carolina Editorial Forum. 1/09
Monday, December 22, 2008
NORTH CAROLINA EDITORIAL FORUM
By Damon Circosta
As the election fades and the holiday season is upon us, our collective attention shifts away from campaigns and towards more festive matters. But before we put a bow around this past campaign season, let us take a look back at some of the issues surrounding money and politics in 2008.
I don’t know if Santa takes into account campaign finance reports when he makes his list of who has been naughty and who has been nice, but maybe he should. If he did, he might not be climbing down as many chimneys. Sure, the folks who got elected have the opportunity to bring good tidings of great joy when they take office, but the process by which money enters the political system is still more pernicious than stale fruitcake.
Political fundraising broke records this year. Some of this can be attributed to the influx of small donors and the rise of Internet-driven fundraising appeals. And while small donations from everyday citizens is generally a good sign of a healthy democracy, the specter of elected offices being bought and paid for by large contributors still blankets our democracy not unlike a winter blizzard.
Why does this matter? Historically, it is the large donors who are successful at lobbying government officials for special favors. Money buys access and wealthy donors are not giving money to campaigns in the holiday spirit of generosity.
Small donors, on the other hand, are less likely to lobby for a narrow policy interest. The CFI report also acknowledges that large donors are more likely than small donors to give campaign contributions in the interest of advancing their own narrow concerns, as distinct from a more general concern.
The strings that come attached to big campaign contributions isn’t just a Washington, D.C. problem. Right here in North Carolina, those who wish to curry favor with officeholders often contribute the lion’s share to political campaigns.
Take for instance the races for Council of State, the statewide executive offices charged with regulating particular industries. There are plenty of able and capable candidates who run, but they often face the same predicament that the residents of Whoville encountered in “How the Grinch Stole Christmas.”
Much like the Whos who were constantly worried about the Grinch parting with their gifts, Council of State candidates find it almost impossible to run without the political gifts that come from regulated industries. It makes for a rotten system and one that needs changing.
This last year a select number of Council of State races were run under a public financing program. The program permitted candidates to run without having to constantly worry if the Grinches in the industries they regulate would take away their campaign funding. It’s a good idea and one that should be expanded to all Council of State races. This change wouldn’t suddenly make all of the challenges our government faces magically disappear, but it will make our elections more about the people and less about the big donors.
The campaign season is over and with it discussion about campaign reform tends to take a backseat. But this holiday season let us not just pack up reform ideas like old holiday decorations. As we move to the New Year, let’s continue to think about ways of improving our elections. Reform, like the best of holiday offerings, is the gift that keeps on giving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Circosta is the director of policy with the N.C. Center for Voter Education, a Raleigh-based nonprofit and nonpartisan organization dedicated to improving elections in North Carolina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the North Carolina Editorial Forum. 12/08
As the election fades and the holiday season is upon us, our collective attention shifts away from campaigns and towards more festive matters. But before we put a bow around this past campaign season, let us take a look back at some of the issues surrounding money and politics in 2008.
I don’t know if Santa takes into account campaign finance reports when he makes his list of who has been naughty and who has been nice, but maybe he should. If he did, he might not be climbing down as many chimneys. Sure, the folks who got elected have the opportunity to bring good tidings of great joy when they take office, but the process by which money enters the political system is still more pernicious than stale fruitcake.
Political fundraising broke records this year. Some of this can be attributed to the influx of small donors and the rise of Internet-driven fundraising appeals. And while small donations from everyday citizens is generally a good sign of a healthy democracy, the specter of elected offices being bought and paid for by large contributors still blankets our democracy not unlike a winter blizzard.
Why does this matter? Historically, it is the large donors who are successful at lobbying government officials for special favors. Money buys access and wealthy donors are not giving money to campaigns in the holiday spirit of generosity.
Small donors, on the other hand, are less likely to lobby for a narrow policy interest. The CFI report also acknowledges that large donors are more likely than small donors to give campaign contributions in the interest of advancing their own narrow concerns, as distinct from a more general concern.
The strings that come attached to big campaign contributions isn’t just a Washington, D.C. problem. Right here in North Carolina, those who wish to curry favor with officeholders often contribute the lion’s share to political campaigns.
Take for instance the races for Council of State, the statewide executive offices charged with regulating particular industries. There are plenty of able and capable candidates who run, but they often face the same predicament that the residents of Whoville encountered in “How the Grinch Stole Christmas.”
Much like the Whos who were constantly worried about the Grinch parting with their gifts, Council of State candidates find it almost impossible to run without the political gifts that come from regulated industries. It makes for a rotten system and one that needs changing.
This last year a select number of Council of State races were run under a public financing program. The program permitted candidates to run without having to constantly worry if the Grinches in the industries they regulate would take away their campaign funding. It’s a good idea and one that should be expanded to all Council of State races. This change wouldn’t suddenly make all of the challenges our government faces magically disappear, but it will make our elections more about the people and less about the big donors.
The campaign season is over and with it discussion about campaign reform tends to take a backseat. But this holiday season let us not just pack up reform ideas like old holiday decorations. As we move to the New Year, let’s continue to think about ways of improving our elections. Reform, like the best of holiday offerings, is the gift that keeps on giving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Circosta is the director of policy with the N.C. Center for Voter Education, a Raleigh-based nonprofit and nonpartisan organization dedicated to improving elections in North Carolina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the North Carolina Editorial Forum. 12/08
Friday, November 21, 2008
NORTH CAROLINA EDITORIAL FORUM
By Adam Linker
For much of its history North Carolina was known as a state with bold leaders and progressive ideas. It built Research Triangle Park, one of the nation’s best community college systems and created pioneering early childhood education programs. The state was even a leader in expanding health care to its citizens.
In the 1940s a group of influential businessmen and politicians came up with a series of recommendations, dubbed the “Good Health Plan,” to boost the number of doctors in the state, create a teaching hospital at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and expand Blue Cross insurance. At the time, Gov. Gregg Cherry said, “Only less sacred than the right of a child to obtain an education is his right to get a fair chance of health in his youth.”
Despite the work of these early visionaries, there are still more than 250,000 uninsured children in North Carolina.
Our state can’t wait on Washington for reform. Instead, citizens must demand action to ensure that everyone has access to needed care.
The North Carolina Justice Center’s Health Access Coalition has assembled a plan that can serve as a roadmap for reform in the state. It does not rely on the government to provide for all of our care. Nor does it follow the “corporate care” model that strips away consumer protections and caters to insurance companies instead of ordinary families.
Central to the plan is the idea that everyone should have a guaranteed choice of affordable, comprehensive health care options. It is also important that all stakeholders -- hospitals, insurance companies, businesses and taxpayers -- share costs equally.
The first major proposal is to cover all children and parents. To do this, the state should create a sliding scale premium whereby a family of four making more than $63,300 could buy insurance at full cost while lower income households would get a partially subsidized premium. Members of the North Carolina General Assembly get a lifetime right to buy affordable health insurance through the state; shouldn’t families have the same option?
The second step is to create a partially subsidized, affordable health plan, sold on the private insurance market, so that small businesses can offer coverage to their employees. About 78 percent of the uninsured either work full-time or have a family member working full-time. But most people are employed by small businesses that can’t afford to offer insurance. This subsidized health plan would ensure that more working adults can get coverage through their employer.
North Carolina should also set a national example for controlling health care costs. Our state has world-class research universities with extraordinary scientists. We should draw on that expertise to establish an Institute for Health Care Quality, Cost and Research to investigate the effectiveness of new drugs and cutting-edge technologies.
What we often find when novel drugs or medical devices are tested against older, cheaper alternatives is that the existing technology works as well or better than the latest gadgets. Health care providers, public health officials and insurance companies could then make evidence-based decisions instead of relying on marketing hype.
The state should also put a new emphasis on preventive care. Many programs, including colorectal cancer screenings, flu vaccines and smoking cessation counseling, save money over time. But the benefits of prevention extend beyond cost. Prevention helps people to live healthier, fuller lives.
Any reform of the health care system will be complex and expensive. But that is not an excuse to do nothing; in fact, it is a reason to start as soon as possible. For the 1.5 million uninsured residents of the state, every day is critical.
Our state is lagging behind much of the nation in expanding health care coverage. Every citizen should demand reform. With committed leadership North Carolina can make great strides toward building a healthier state. We did it in the 1940s, and we can do it again.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linker is a policy analyst at the North Carolina Health Access Coalition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by North Carolina Editorial Forum. 11/08
Monday, October 20, 2008
NORTH CAROLINA EDITORIAL FORUM
By Bryan Warner
Emerging from the stifling heat of Independence Hall, where the 1787 Constitutional Convention was held in a closed-door, shut-window session, a sweltering Benjamin Franklin was asked by a passing woman, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin replied, “A republic -- if you can keep it.”
Franklin’s challenge speaks to the very foundation of our nation. If we are to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people, it requires that we the people put a bit of effort into choosing those who would represent us.
With a ballot that elects more statewide officials than most other states, North Carolina voters bear that responsibility more than many of their peers. For instance, this fall we will elect nine members of the Council of State, an executive-branch body made up of officials often appointed by the governor in other states, such as the commissioners of agriculture, labor and insurance.
Research by the nonpartisan N.C. Center for Voter Education has found that very few voters can name the members of the Council of State. Our polling has also shown that the No. 1 reason why registered North Carolina voters don’t cast a ballot is for lack of information on the candidates.
This year, North Carolina finds itself with a blockbuster election featuring tight races for the White House, governor’s mansion and U.S. Senate. Our newfound battleground status could drive a record number of voters to the polls, which is marvelous.
However, once their choice is made for the presidency, will voters recognize the names of those vying for the Council of State, N.C. Supreme Court and N.C. Court of Appeals? If past elections are any guide, there could be many ballots left blank at the bottom and on back.
Franklin Roosevelt wisely observed, “Nobody will ever deprive the American people the right to vote except the American people themselves -- and the only way they could do this is by not voting.” Too often we squander our opportunity to vote for down-ballot races, even though state and local officials frequently affect our lives more profoundly than any decree from the Oval Office.
It may seem difficult for voters to learn about low-profile contests when a deafening buzz swarms the races for president, governor and senator. How can voters cut through the clutter and get the facts they need to cast a confident ballot for such contests as the Council of State, appellate courts and the state legislature?
One way that voters can prep for the polls is by visiting www.NCVoterGuide.org, an online voter guide produced in a partnership between UNC-TV and the N.C. Center for Voter Education, featuring candidate profiles and in-depth multimedia interviews with the nominees, along with voting facts and election coverage.
Voters can also watch a series of forums with candidates for the N.C. Supreme Court and N.C. Court of Appeals, along with the contenders for state auditor, commissioner of insurance and state superintendent of public instruction, airing statewide at 1 pm on Sunday, Oct. 26 on UNC-TV.
Our right to vote is a gift, sanctified by the blood of patriots from Lexington to Normandy, made sacred by the resolve of suffragists in Seneca Falls and the courage of marchers in Selma. This election, let’s show Mr. Franklin that we can keep this Republic that he and his fellow founders entrusted with us. Let’s do our homework on all the candidates and then vote the whole ballot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warner is the director of communications for the N.C. Center for Voter Education, a Raleigh-based nonprofit and nonpartisan organization dedicated to improving elections in North Carolina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the North Carolina Editorial Forum. 10/08
Franklin’s challenge speaks to the very foundation of our nation. If we are to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people, it requires that we the people put a bit of effort into choosing those who would represent us.
With a ballot that elects more statewide officials than most other states, North Carolina voters bear that responsibility more than many of their peers. For instance, this fall we will elect nine members of the Council of State, an executive-branch body made up of officials often appointed by the governor in other states, such as the commissioners of agriculture, labor and insurance.
Research by the nonpartisan N.C. Center for Voter Education has found that very few voters can name the members of the Council of State. Our polling has also shown that the No. 1 reason why registered North Carolina voters don’t cast a ballot is for lack of information on the candidates.
This year, North Carolina finds itself with a blockbuster election featuring tight races for the White House, governor’s mansion and U.S. Senate. Our newfound battleground status could drive a record number of voters to the polls, which is marvelous.
However, once their choice is made for the presidency, will voters recognize the names of those vying for the Council of State, N.C. Supreme Court and N.C. Court of Appeals? If past elections are any guide, there could be many ballots left blank at the bottom and on back.
Franklin Roosevelt wisely observed, “Nobody will ever deprive the American people the right to vote except the American people themselves -- and the only way they could do this is by not voting.” Too often we squander our opportunity to vote for down-ballot races, even though state and local officials frequently affect our lives more profoundly than any decree from the Oval Office.
It may seem difficult for voters to learn about low-profile contests when a deafening buzz swarms the races for president, governor and senator. How can voters cut through the clutter and get the facts they need to cast a confident ballot for such contests as the Council of State, appellate courts and the state legislature?
One way that voters can prep for the polls is by visiting www.NCVoterGuide.org, an online voter guide produced in a partnership between UNC-TV and the N.C. Center for Voter Education, featuring candidate profiles and in-depth multimedia interviews with the nominees, along with voting facts and election coverage.
Voters can also watch a series of forums with candidates for the N.C. Supreme Court and N.C. Court of Appeals, along with the contenders for state auditor, commissioner of insurance and state superintendent of public instruction, airing statewide at 1 pm on Sunday, Oct. 26 on UNC-TV.
Our right to vote is a gift, sanctified by the blood of patriots from Lexington to Normandy, made sacred by the resolve of suffragists in Seneca Falls and the courage of marchers in Selma. This election, let’s show Mr. Franklin that we can keep this Republic that he and his fellow founders entrusted with us. Let’s do our homework on all the candidates and then vote the whole ballot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warner is the director of communications for the N.C. Center for Voter Education, a Raleigh-based nonprofit and nonpartisan organization dedicated to improving elections in North Carolina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the North Carolina Editorial Forum. 10/08
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
