American Forum Op-Ed

AMERICAN FORUM
By Dr. William Barclay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AMERICAN FORUM

By Patricia West

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AMERICAN FORUM

By Clare Coleman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AMERICAN FORUM

By Clare Coleman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ARIZONA EDITORIAL FORUM

By Serena Unrein

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Riane Eisler

AMERICAN FORUM


By Riane Eisler and Rene Redwood

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

Rene Redwood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

AMERICAN FORUM

By Tsedeye Gebreselassie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NORTH CAROLINA 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

TEXAS LONE STAR FORUM

By Scott Chase

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AMERICAN FORUM

By Susan Shaer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

AMERICAN FORUM

By Rick Weidman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GEORGIA FORUM

By Volkan Topalli

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

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

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

There's more.

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

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

There's even more.

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

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

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


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

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

AMERICAN FORUM

By Chandelle Summer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AMERICAN FORUM

By Doug Pibel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pibel is managing editor of YES! Magazine.

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

AMERICAN FORUM

By Frank Knapp, Jr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These benefits for small business are in place now.

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

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

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

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