Showing posts with label state policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label state policy. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 24, 2010

ERA: Three States and Nothing More

Posted by American Forum at 4:42 PM

AMERICAN FORUM

By Carolyn Cook

When you're competing against the clock for the Grand Prize, you may not win, but at least you're entitled to your previous winnings.

Not so with the Equal Rights Amendment. Congress gave women the nod they were due, but their blessing came with a seven-year hitch. Constitutional Equality was an all-or-nothing proposition to be achieved within seven years. Considering it took 72 years to obtain a right to vote, a time limit for all other rights was doomed to fail.

ERA was first introduced in 1923 by Alice Paul, a Republican, lawyer and courageous suffragist – who was imprisoned, tortured and force-fed to obtain the vote for women. ERA was essential to acquire all other legal, economic, social and political privileges that were customarily the birthright of men only.

"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."

Forty-seven years of stagnation prompted 20 courageous Pittsburgh NOW members to disrupt a Senate hearing with homemade signs demanding immediate action on ERA. Civil disobedience could have led to their arrest but ultimately freed ERA from congressional stalemate by an overwhelming majority in 1972.

ERA attracted over 450 organizations. People from all walks of life lobbied, petitioned, raced, marched, rallied, picketed and boycotted for its passage. It was favored by a majority of Americans, scoring an impressive 67 percent in a nationwide survey. Women's groups pressed for an extension but were granted only three more years. Despite 35 states approving ERA, it fell three states short of becoming the 27th Amendment. On June 30, 1982, the campaign launched by Congress was ended by Congress.

Does a human's right to equality expire?

My friend's husband told me he supports ERA as long as he doesn't lose his "perks." ERA doesn't apply to the private lives of individuals or business. ERA would eliminate sex discriminatory laws while expanding beneficial laws to both sexes equally. It guarantees that the full range of opportunities exist for all individuals based on their talents, capabilities and preferences, and not limited by gender or stereotype. ERA would ensure that sex discrimination is guaranteed the same protection as race discrimination. It expands individual freedom by limiting government interference.

Will women earn equal pay for equal work? Will public policies provide greater flexibility for parents struggling to balance work and family? Will government be held accountable to eliminate sex-based hate crimes such as rape and domestic violence? At what point will the FCC & FTC determine that violent, hate-filled images and lyrics directed at women and girls crosses the line of entertainment and free speech to jeopardize peace and security? ERA is the foundation to begin to address these questions.

In exile for 27 years, ERA is finally making a comeback. Congress needs to listen. Citizens did not abandon ERA in 1982 - you suspended our campaign. In case you're unaware, women are working 24/7 both inside and outside the home. We are making daily sacrifices for our country, our families, our education, our careers, and our communities. We simply don't have the freedom to organize in our own interests. We're too busy caring for everyone else's.

In 2009, Illinois, Arkansas, Missouri, Florida and Louisiana reintroduced the federal ERA. All five attempts were defeated. How can a handful of legislators control the interests of 157 million women? Behind closed doors with no media attention.

Article 5 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to amend the ratification process. Will Congress hit the reset button on ERA and require all 38 states again or use its powers to jump start the ratification process for the final three states needed?

With an economy struggling to get back on track -- beginning a nationwide ERA campaign requiring 38 states is both unrealistic and unnecessary. Give women a head start and a fighting chance by accepting the 35 states that have already approved ERA and allow us to target the three last states necessary to take that victory lap in 2015. Ready. Get Set. Game On!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cook is the founder of United For Equality, LLC and the DC representative for the ERA Campaign Network.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by American Forum. 8/10

 

Labels: , , , , , 0 comments

Monday, December 14, 2009

States Should Have Flexibility to Develop Own Health Reform Plans

Posted by American Forum at 9:12 AM


NEW MEXICO EDITORIAL FORUM

By Max Bartlett and Jose Aguilar

One issue has generated little discussion during the heated health care reform debate: whether states should have the right to develop their own approaches to universal coverage.

The Health Security for New Mexicans Campaign wants to see language included in the national proposal that gives states flexibility to develop their own approaches to solving rising health care costs and growing numbers of uninsured.
The focus of current health care reform proposals is to create “insurance market exchanges.” These one-stop-shopping insurance exchanges must offer consumers -- primarily the uninsured -- choices of different insurance products, including some type of public option. A less than robust public option is in the proposal passed by the House of Representatives. The Senate is in the process of negotiating an alternative to the House version.

Unfortunately, the health care reform debate has skirted the issue of whether states can take a different path that reaches the same goals. States always have been laboratories for innovation. Women’s suffrage, civil rights, child labor and minimum-wage laws were developed in the states first and then became federal law. Why shouldn’t states be allowed to continue that role in health care reform?

If a state can develop an approach that is not based on the insurance market exchange model, an approach that still provides comprehensive health coverage for its residents and contains rising health care costs, why shouldn’t it be encouraged to do so?

The recently passed House bill contains no language enabling states to develop anything other than an insurance market exchange. The merged Senate bill now under consideration mandates that by 2014, states must set up an insurance market exchange and experiment with it for three years before requesting any waivers.

Why should states be forced to go through a long, expensive, complex and time-consuming process when they already may be working on approaches more appropriate to their circumstances?

In New Mexico, the Health Security Act offers a different solution from that based on an insurance market exchange. It is a “home-grown” solution that has earned enormous public support -- 146 diverse organizations are part of our coalition, and 32 New Mexico counties and municipalities have passed resolutions endorsing it.

The Health Security Act would enable New Mexico to set up its own health care plan that automatically covers most New Mexicans, provides comprehensive benefits and guarantees freedom of choice of doctor even across state lines.

Instead of creating a system of competing insurance plans, each with different provider networks, this proposal would shift the role of private insurance companies to provide supplementary coverage – as they do with the original Medicare program. Any individual, employer or group wishing to purchase additional coverage could do so. A non-governmental, geographically representative citizens’ board would be in charge of the plan.

Two separate studies have concluded that if such a health plan were established in New Mexico, health care costs would be reduced by hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars within five years.

Why is this so? Because this approach simplifies a very complex private insurance system with its hundreds of policies, different benefits, co-pays and deductibles, all of which affect administrative overhead of doctors, hospitals and clinics – and which, in turn, negatively affect health care costs.

In a state such as ours, with a small population, it makes economic sense for most residents to be covered under one health risk pool.

Coalitions in other states -- California, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington and Oregon, to name a few -- have been working on proposals that are not based on an insurance market exchange and are adapted to the particular needs of those states.

Acknowledging these developments, the National Conference of State Legislators recently passed a resolution containing a provision asking that states be allowed to create solutions that go beyond any federal requirements. New Mexico was counted as one of the resolution’s supporters.

In addition, New Mexico State Sen. Dede Feldman and others from the House and Senate sent a letter to our five-member congressional delegation, which included a request that states be given flexibility to develop their own comprehensive plans.

Health care reform should clearly encourage state experimentation. Aside from the need for state flexibility language in the national legislation, the Health Security for New Mexican Campaign believes states deciding to develop their own health plans also should have the right to access the same federal dollars as those states choosing to set up their own insurance market exchanges.

At this critical juncture, Congress needs to tackle this issue.

 

Labels: , , , , 0 comments

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Expanded Medicaid is a Bargain for Georgia

Posted by American Forum at 9:31 AM


GEORGIA FORUM

By Timothy Sweeney, MPA

Leading congressional health insurance reform proposals include expanding Medicaid, which could not only bring coverage to nearly one million low-income, uninsured Georgians, but would provide at least 90 percent of the funding to do so.

Despite the obvious and significant benefits to the state’s economy and its citizens, Gov. Perdue, Lt. Gov. Cagle, and others opposed to reform are arguing that Georgia cannot afford its share of the proposed Medicaid expansion in either the House or Senate proposal.

They claim that expanding Medicaid will cost Georgia more than $2 billion over six or seven years, but they rarely mention the billions in new federal funds that would flow to Georgia’s economy during this time.

But their calculations are misleading. The cost on a yearly basis of expanding Medicaid for hundreds of thousands of uninsured citizens with little access to coverage is not only affordable, but is a bargain for Georgia.

The Georgia government’s own estimate of the House proposal forecasts $93 million in additional state costs the first year (2013). This equates to an increase of less than 5 percent of Georgia’s existing Medicaid budget and less than 1 percent of the overall state budget.

In addition, these state costs would be accompanied by hundreds of millions in new federal funds flowing into Georgia each and every year, contributing to the state’s healthcare sector and local economies.

Over time, these costs would increase as the state’s economy and population grows. As more people enroll, and as medical costs increase with inflation, the Georgia government estimates that costs could reach $500 million a year by 2019. However, this number must be put into perspective as well. Relative to the overall state budget a decade from now, these costs will remain a small percentage and surely will be manageable.

Although Georgians across the income spectrum have seen their access to employer-sponsored coverage decline in recent years, low-income families have been most affected.

A mere one-quarter of Georgians in families with incomes below twice the poverty level ($36,600 for a family of three) have employer coverage, compared to 76.6 percent for families with income above this threshold.

As a result, low-income individuals and families in Georgia are far more likely to be uninsured (35.9 percent) than their higher income counterparts (10.9 percent). In total, nearly 1.7 million non-elderly Georgians (nearly one in five) lacked health insurance in 2007-2008.

Those opposed to expanding health insurance coverage should also consider the likely effects on Georgia’s uninsured children and adults if they remain uninsured. Uninsured people have less access to timely medical care, worse health outcomes, and are more likely to die prematurely than their insured counterparts.

There is plenty of time for Georgia’s leaders to ensure the state has adequate funds to pay what the federal government does not so that we reduce our high number of uninsured citizens. Both proposals give states several years to comply with the new Medicaid eligibility standards, and both provide full federal funding for the first two to three years of implementation.

Our elected leaders should be tackling Georgians’ growing needs, not posturing against national reform. Georgia's uninsured rate is tenth in the nation, approximately one in seven people lived in poverty in 2008, and our job loss rate is fifth in the nation. Vulnerable groups are hit hardest during recessions, and low-income workers are losing employer-sponsored health insurance faster than others.

Rather than using misleading multi-year figures to argue that the state cannot afford to expand Medicaid coverage to its struggling citizens, Georgia’s leaders should realize that we cannot afford to lose out on this incredible opportunity to insure its neediest citizens and bring hundreds of millions of dollars into the state’s economy annually.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sweeney is the senior healthcare analyst for the nonpartisan, independent think tank, the Georgia Budget & Policy Institute.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by Georgia Forum. 12/09

 

Labels: , , , 1 comments

Monday, December 7, 2009

Building a Better Revenue Picture for Mississippi’s Future

Posted by American Forum at 10:25 AM


MISSISSIPPI FORUM

By Lynn Evans

This was certainly not the way Gov. Haley Barbour wanted to end his term in state office. Tax revenues are down $371 million and counting. State budget alternatives are grim, with cuts of at least 12 percent for most agencies, including education.

Seeking opportunity amid crisis, Barbour is recommending major government realignment and simplification, as well as consolidation in K-12 and at the university level. By including such incendiary proposals as combining Alcorn State and Mississippi Valley with Jackson State University, Barbour took the chance that his proposals will be dead on arrival at the Capitol in January. His challenge to support his proposals or “come up with a better way” ought to be taken seriously.

Cuts and consolidation should not be the only options on the table. The kind of cuts the governor is proposing will be a severe shock to the economy, just when Mississippi and the nation are trying to climb out of the Great Recession. This decade’s declining growth in Mississippi’s major revenue sources – personal and corporate income and sales taxes – should have lawmakers looking at the state’s tax structure.

There at least five ways Mississippi could adjust its tax structure to help make it through the current economic troubles and to build a better revenue picture for the future.

1. Mississippi could join the 20-plus other states in the Multistate Tax Commission to prevent large corporations from playing shell games to avoid paying state taxes.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office reported last July that 30 percent of corporations with earnings of $50 million or more paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005. In 2003, the Multi-state Tax Commission found that large corporations avoided $7 billion in state corporate income taxes by, among other tactics, shifting reports of profits from state to state. Corporate income tax revenue accounts for only about 5 percent of overall revenues in Mississippi.

The solution is to join the Multistate Tax Compact and require every multistate corporation to follow uniformity guidelines when reporting income and profits. This will give the state a way to validate corporate returns. It works for other states and it could work here, too.

2. Mississippi could increase the top personal income tax for the wealthiest among us. Personal income taxes make up about 25 percent of state and local tax revenue. The wealthiest 20 percent of all Mississippians take home almost half of all income earned. The real income of top earners has increased 23 percent from 1999-2005, while the bottom 60 percent of Mississippians saw a drop in real income when adjusted for inflation – even while worker productivity increased. Creating a new state income tax bracket of 6 percent for taxable income over $125,000 certainly would be a better alternative than closing 10 mental health crisis centers and hospitals.

3. The National Association of State Budget Officers suggests that each state monitor tax breaks it gives corporations. If the return from these tax breaks falls short of promised benefits to the state economy, a state could choose to impose a surcharge. Hiring more tax auditors also could net millions of dollars.

4. The Mississippi House has tried for a number of years to increase fees and fines to generate revenue, and to ensure that fees for state services actually reflect the cost of those services. Penalties and fines for violations of labor safety and environmental regulations, for example, should be costly enough to deter such practices, to clean up problems, and to adequately support state agency efforts to oversee and enforce regulations protecting the public. DUI fines also could be increased for each succeeding arrest, as is done in Louisiana.

5. Many health advocates support following the lead of Arkansas and other states in taxing sugary soft drinks and nutrition-poor, salty and sugary snacks. Mississippi still has the nation’s highest obesity rate. Making foods that contribute to obesity more expensive will help families choose healthier foods, and help persuade food manufacturers to change ingredients in those unhealthy snacks.

By not including any proposals to increase state revenues, Gov. Barbour is sticking to the GOP playbook of “Government is the problem --Don’t raise my taxes.” But this budget crisis is severe enough that, combined with the devastating farm losses throughout the state, it could send Mississippi’s economy back into recession. Our government should be better than that. It is time to look at the big picture and re-imagine what we expect from state government. There is another way, if only there are enough real leaders to champion it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evans is a Jackson health care activist and writer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Mississippi Forum 12/09

 

Labels: , , , 0 comments

Monday, November 23, 2009

No Turkey and Gravy for All

Posted by American Forum at 9:35 AM


GEORGIA FORUM

By Sarah Beth Gehl

As families gather for Thanksgiving this week, we should consider that in just a decade Georgia has deteriorated from average (ranking 22nd) to 4th highest for food insecurity in the nation.

One in seven Georgia households experienced food insecurity during 2006-2008, according to a recently released report by the USDA. The share of Georgia households lacking resources for adequate meals rose from 10.9 percent during 1996-1998 to 14.2 percent during 2006-2008.

These sobering numbers highlight the importance of focusing solutions on combating hunger and poverty in our communities.

How do we do this? Communities across the state are providing support to hungry families through local food banks and pantries to address just this issue. In metro Atlanta, for example, the Atlanta Community Food Bank has distributed 24 percent more pounds of food through October of this year compared to the same period last year to meet the growing need.

Beyond local responses and resources, another important tool is public policy. By thoughtful budgeting and policymaking, the state government and local advocates have a powerful opportunity to reduce the number of Georgians experiencing food insecurity.

For example, expanding participation rates within the federally funded nutrition programs, especially among the unemployed, should be a top priority. Food stamps, school lunches and breakfasts, and summer programs will reach more than one million Georgians this year, providing critical resources for nutritious meals. Additional benefits are available through the federal stimulus package passed by Congress and signed by President Obama in February, increasing food stamp benefits by 13.6 percent and sending more than $650 million to Georgia tables over the next five years.

However, many more families remain eligible for federal nutrition assistance but are not enrolled. Participation levels in federal food aid programs in Georgia range from only 11 percent to 68 percent, and hit children worst of all — the very people who need adequate nutrition in order to develop their brains and bodies, and the ones least able to advocate for themselves.

The state needs skilled staff to reach and qualify residents who can benefit from the millions of untapped dollars in federal nutrition assistance available to Georgians. Although the federal stimulus package includes funds for state food stamp eligibility workers, lawmakers have chosen to furlough already-stretched eligibility workers to address the daunting loss of state revenues.

Moreover, the Georgia Department of Human Services plans to lay off 733 federal benefit eligibility workers in the coming year if the governor requires an additional 3 percent cut in services, as he states in his contingency plan. As stimulus funds expire next year, programs serving the elderly such as the Meals on Wheels will also be in danger.

At a time when more families are struggling with hunger and food pantries are stressed to the limit, we must all ensure public efforts are not diminished. Donations to food pantries are an essential ingredient, but they must be combined with thoughtful public policy and budgeting. Georgia has made great strides in reducing hunger in the past — we must do so again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gehl is deputy director of the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, an independent, nonpartisan organization engaged in research and education about Georgia’s fiscal health. To find county-by-county estimates of food insecurity, download the Institute’s report Reaching Georgia’s Tables at www.GBPI.org.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Georgia Forum. 11/09

 

Labels: , , , , 0 comments

Taxes are an Investment in Our Future Prosperity

Posted by American Forum at 9:06 AM


MASSACHUSETTS FORUM
By Peter Enrich

Our local and state governments provide many of the vital public structures that build strong communities and ensure opportunity for us and our children such as schools, transportation, public safety, parks, and health and social services.

Yet, the tax structures that enable us to pay the price for a civilized society suffer from two severe flaws. First, state and local taxes are exceedingly volatile, dropping calamitously during economic downturns, when the revenues are most badly needed. State and local governments, unlike the federal government, can only spend what they take in.

Second, unlike the federal income tax, state and local taxes are regressive: households with lower incomes pay a higher share of their incomes for the support of state and local government than do their wealthier neighbors. This regressivity is largely due to heavy reliance on sales taxes; even with exemptions for groceries and other necessities, lower income households spend far more of their incomes on taxable items than do higher income families. A recent study showed that low-income Massachusetts households spent 5.4 percent of their incomes on sales taxes, compared to 1.2 percent for wealthy households.

While we depend on and demand the services of state and local governments, we resist the reforms that would provide a healthy tax system. So, we find the state cutting essential services and turning to gambling, sin taxes, and gimmicks to try to pay its bills.

Instead, there are three directions in which Massachusetts should look to improve our ability to pay fairly and adequately for the service we all need:

• Follow the federal example and rely more heavily on income taxes, especially income taxes designed to require those with greater means to contribute a greater share to the common good. Even here in Massachusetts, where the constitution forbids graduated rates, personal exemptions and differential rates on investment income can build substantial progressivity into an income tax system. And small rate increases can yield impressive new revenues.

• Broaden the scope of our sales taxes to reach, not only sales of goods, but also a wider range of sales of services, such as club memberships, entertainment, personal and property care, and professional services. Many states presently tax some services, but often only a handful. Massachusetts only taxes 18 of the 168 services identified by the Federation of Tax Administrators and is the only state taxing none of 40 household service categories identified by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Extending the tax to more services reduces an irrational inconsistency in the current sales tax, dramatically increases the tax’s revenue yield at a time when a growing share of household spending is on services, and diminishes both the regressivity and the volatility of the sales tax.

• Increase the share of taxes that are collected from businesses, rather than families. By one measure, businesses paid half of all state and local taxes in the 1950s, but only a quarter by the 1990s, and probably substantially less than that at present. By ending some of the tax incentives that have been shown to be ineffective in guiding business location decisions, closing the loopholes that have encouraged increasingly sophisticated corporate tax “management,” and reversing some of the rate cuts granted to businesses during better times, the state could go a long way to providing needed revenues while restoring the historical balance between taxes on individuals and businesses.

Each of these steps will demand courage on the part of political leaders and education of citizens about the workings of the tax system. Most importantly, they will require a revived recognition by all of us that taxes are an investment in, not an obstacle to, our shared future prosperity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enrich is a professor at Northeastern University School of Law, specializing in issues of state and local governance and finance, and a former general counsel to the state’s Executive Office for Administration and Finance under both Gov. Dukakis and Gov. Weld.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Massachusetts Forum. 11/09

 

Labels: , , , 0 comments

Thursday, November 19, 2009

"Cadillac" Health Plans: A Smooth Ride or Bumpy Road?

Posted by American Forum at 11:12 AM


COLORADO EDITORIAL FORUM
By Robin Baker

The excise tax on so-called “Cadillac” plans is a central feature of the Senate Finance Committee's health proposal. Most often, Cadillac plans are described as the "overly generous" or "gold-plated" plans offered to Wall Street types.

In theory, levying a tax on these gold-plated plans will encourage lower spending and help slow the growth rate of health insurance and health care costs.

In addition, the revenue generated from the tax on insurers would provide a significant source of funding for subsidies to help families with low to moderate incomes afford health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates revenues will be about $5 billion in 2013 and increase to $53 billion by 2019.

At the outset, most Americans would not be affected by the tax, but that could change over time.

The Senate Finance Committee's proposal would impose an excise tax on employer-sponsored insurance beginning in 2013 for plans with costs above $8,000 for an individual and $21,000 for a family. In Colorado, the average annual premium cost in 2008 for an individual was $4,900 and $11,952 for a family.

It seems like a reasonable plan, but like so many other pieces of health care, it's complicated.

A brief by Milliman Inc., the world's largest independent actuarial and consulting firm, notes that high-cost plans have as much to do with the beneficiary's geographic location, profession, age, gender and health status as with the richness of benefits.

Milliman uses the example that a typical employer-sponsored plan for a family of four in Miami in 2009 is $20,282. In comparison, the cost of plan for a similar family in Phoenix is less than $15,000. Given that the medical costs have grown between 7 percent and 10 percent over the last few years, it is possible that benefits in some geographic areas could exceed the tax trigger by 2013.

Those in high-risk professions, such as firefighters and coal miners, have higher utilization costs and would easily be subjected to the excise tax. A new provision, however, would increase the allowable benefit amount to $9,850 for an individual and $26,000 for a family.

Age and gender also make a difference in the cost of premiums. Milliman notes that the national average per-member, per-month cost for a 30-year-old male is $155 per month – less than $2,000 per year. But the cost for a 60-year-old female is $717 per month, or $8,604 annually, which exceeds the tax threshold.

Age is a significant factor, especially with the percentage of workers 55 and older increasing and remaining in the labor force longer. It is estimated that 93 percent of the growth in the labor force from 2006 to 2016 will be among workers ages 55 and older.

As people age, health care premiums increase and it is possible that those that did not exceed the threshold in 2013 may be taxed in the future. The cost of plans could become a problem for employers with an older workforce.

In 2014, the taxable amount would increase by inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers (CPI-U). The problem is that heath care inflation has grown at a faster pace than general or consumer inflation for more than a decade. In 2008, CPI-U actually decreased 1.5 percent while health care costs increased 7.4 percent -- the lowest increase in five years.

Because health insurance premiums will outpace the tax threshold, more plans will be subject to the excise tax over time.

The Milliman report argues that the dramatic increase in the CBO's estimates of the tax revenue in a six-year period – from $5 billion in 2013 to $53 billion in 2019 – suggests that the excise tax will "dip substantially further into the mainstream of health plans."

This isn't necessarily bad. The existence of a ceiling will likely encourage insurers to create products that are under the cap. Insurers though may look to create a plan that does not exceed the threshold but instead increases co-pays, co-insurance or deductibles based on minimum benefit levels. How benefits are put together and the ratio of benefit value to the total cost (actuarial value) is something to watch.

In the end, we must ask if we have a societal responsibility to protect the health and well-being of our fellow citizens – this includes making health care accessible and affordable for all. To do this we need to cover the cost. There may be other ways, but an excise tax on insurers offering high-cost plans can provide a significant source of funding for subsidies.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baker, is a senior policy analyst and director of the health project at the Bell Policy Center, a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research center.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Colorado Editorial Forum. 11/09

 

Labels: , , , 0 comments

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Cleaning up Lake of the Ozarks Should be Start of Larger Effort

Posted by American Forum at 12:38 PM



MISSOURI FORUM
By Liz Forrestal and Caroline Ishida

We are gratified that Gov. Jay Nixon has returned Mark Templeton to his job as Director of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Templeton was an unfortunate victim of the recent controversy over elevated levels of the bacterium E. coli in the Lake of the Ozarks. But this flap has distracted from a far more troubling problem: the insufficient monitoring of ALL Missouri waters.

Along with many others, our organizations were dismayed to learn of the serious oversight and bungling of mid-level officials in both the DNR and Governor’s office. The miscommunication between these two offices was inexcusable and deserved to be investigated. Moreover, we completely agree that the lake’s beaches should have been closed to protect public health. But the origins of E. coli in the lake -- and what that says about the water quality monitoring and enforcement program at DNR – should be front and center in this discussion. Furthermore, a large-scale cleanup at the lake like the one Nixon announced is merely a band-aid solution to a larger water quality monitoring and enforcement problem all over the state.

At the root of the problem is that funding for DNR’s water quality monitoring and enforcement program is completely insufficient to protect the health of our waters. General revenue support for DNR was gutted by the Blunt administration, and permit fees have not been raised in more than a decade, even for inflation. These are the problems that should be at the center of the E. coli discussion, and they started well before the arrival of Templeton.

Missouri Coalition for the Environment has commented on hundreds of industrial and point-source pollution discharge permits in the state in the past few years, and a few glaring themes have become obvious about the DNR that Templeton inherited. First, different DNR regions set different limits for dischargers, oftentimes the pollution limits in permits are not adequate to protect water quality, and there is inadequate DNR enforcement of permit limits, renewal, and water quality violations. Second, there is also inadequate enforcement of non-point source pollution, like stormwater runoff from parking lots, building sites, and homes (a large source of E. coli at the Lake).

Gov. Nixon has pledged to undertake and follow-through on the cleanup effort at the Lake of the Ozarks, but we urge him to make this the beginning of a larger cleanup of the water program at DNR.

Missouri must provide adequate funding to the permitting program, take a serious look at septic systems and stormwater runoff, and ensure that permit writers and monitoring and enforcement officials are doing a thorough job upholding Missouri’s Clean Water Law and the federal Clean Water Act.

The Lake of the Ozarks is far from the only water body in this state that needs serious attention from DNR. Without resolving some of the systemic problems, a piecemeal solution that just focuses on the lake alone, is not truly going to protect Missouri citizens or give them confidence that their state officials have public and environmental health and well-being at the center of their agendas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forrestal is the executive director for Missouri Votes Conservation. Ishida is staff attorney for the Missouri Coalition for the Environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Missouri Forum. 11/09

 

Labels: , , , , 0 comments

Monday, November 2, 2009

A Budget Solution that Balances Cuts with New Revenues

Posted by American Forum at 1:34 PM



OHIO FORUM
By State Representatives Mike Foley and Bob Hagan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Labels: , , , , , , , 0 comments

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Nonprofits are Good for New Mexico

Posted by American Forum at 3:49 PM

NEW MEXICO EDITORIAL FORUM
By Ona Porter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Labels: , , , , , , 0 comments

Budget Reform Won't Turn Colorado into California

Posted by American Forum at 11:21 AM

COLORADO EDITORIAL FORUM

By Matt Sundeen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately, the "change makes us California" story overshadows the real threat. Colorado's lawmakers are already hamstrung by many of the budget conditions afflicting California. Look at the similarities:
  • Both states limit residential property taxes. Over time, that's reduced local revenues and shifted much of the public education costs to the states' budgets.
  • Voters in both states passed constitutional budget formulas that guaranteed ever-increasing amounts for K-12 education. That means K-12 funding must grow even when state revenues drop.
  • Both states are experiencing fiscal pressure from other programs that can't be cut, notably corrections and federally mandated Medicaid. Roughly 73 percent of their general fund budgets are consumed by K-12 education, Medicaid and corrections.
  • Although we don't have a supermajority requirement, Colorado's voter-approval requirement in TABOR has a similar effect -- revenue increases to pay for our growing costs aren't impossible, but they are highly improbable.
Those restrictions are creating significant fiscal headaches. This year, the economic downturn forced Colorado lawmakers to close a $1.8 billion budget shortfall. With limited options, the resulting cuts hurt -- layoffs and furloughs for state employees, a closed nursing home and a shutdown of a prison project are examples. And all indications are that next year will be just as painful, if not more so.

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

 

Labels: , , , 0 comments

Friday, October 23, 2009

PBS program asks doctors about health care reform

Posted by American Forum at 12:05 PM

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

 

Labels: , , , , 0 comments

Monday, October 19, 2009

Sensible, Sustainable Food Policy for Virginia

Posted by American Forum at 11:38 AM

VIRGINIA FORUM
By Christopher Mattera

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Labels: , , , , , 0 comments

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)