I know a lot of people waiting for help with health care. I have a son who is only insured because the Affordable Care Act (ACA) lets us keep him on our family policy to age 26. I have a brother-in-law, friends and acquaintances with individual policies who want cheaper, more comprehensive coverage. I have many friends with pre-existing conditions who will now be able to get insurance.
But you’d never know it from the daily news. One month into ACA’s initial six-month enrollment period and crisis ensues. Frankly, I’m crisis’d out.
First, did we really think a web site designed to interface with multiple other government AND private organizations’ sites would work seamlessly? How often do Facebook changes gum up its operation, and people threaten to abandon it forever? It hasn’t happened yet.
And, have you ever called your health insurer to get approval for a procedure or medication? How many menus and people did you go through to get an answer? Did we really expect this to be simple?
Second, the web site is not the only way to enroll. People can call to enroll, or print forms off the web site and mail them in. They can also locate a navigator in their area and sit down with a person to go through the process.
But I don’t hear about these options in major media reporting. Instead, they report on the problems with the web site and on individuals whose current policies are being replaced with more expensive (and more comprehensive) plans. Unfortunately, they often leave out the rest of the story . . .
As Joan McCarter writes on Daily Kos: “They're not telling people they can shop around for a better deal. Which is precisely the point of the health insurance exchanges. These insurers are betting that people will go the route of least resistance, and just fork up the money for the plan they're being pushed toward. . . . They're going to squeeze whatever extra money they can get out of people because that's what they do.”
This week’s case in point comes from CBS News. They reported about a woman in Florida, Dianne Barrette, whose $50 a month health “insurance” was replaced with a $591 plan.
Erik Wemple described Barrette’s current policy as a “pray-that-you-don’t-really-get-sick plan” and writes on his blog: “More coverage [reporting] may provide a deeper understanding of the ins and outs of Barrette’s situation: Her current health insurance plan, she says, doesn’t cover ‘extended hospital stays; it’s not designed for that,’ says Barrette. Well, does it cover any hospitalization? ‘Outpatient only,’ responds Barrette. Nor does it cover ambulance service and some prenatal care.”
Yet Barrette, who earns about $30,000 annually, could get better coverage and subsidies to pay for it via the health care exchanges.
Like my friends and neighbors frustrated by the letters they’re getting from their insurers, I’m frustrated by the lack of constructive information coming from media and our politicians. At a time when real people need help, they are rooting for failure. We don’t need shoddy news reports and hearings designed to point fingers. We need information about how to sign up for better, more affordable coverage.
The Affordable Care Act is law like Social Security and Medicare. It is regulation enacted to prevent consumers from being bankrupted by health care emergencies and profit-seeking insurers. Either help or get out of the way.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Senator Grassley's no vote: Who drank the tea?
So I wondered when I awoke Thursday morning to news Congress had narrowly avoided crashing the economy by passing a temporary measure to fund our government and raise the debt ceiling. With this news, local TV stations were reporting Senator Charles Grassley had voted against the measure. (Steve King, unsurprisingly, did too.)
What’s up with that, Senator Grassley?
In a search for answers, I checked the Senator’s web site for a statement about his vote. Here’s a portion: “Government spending has exploded since 2008, increasing the national debt by $6 trillion. Obamacare is a drag on the economy and hurting workers' ability to find full-time jobs.”
This is false, or at best, misleading. Let me count the ways.
1. Government spending: A March 2013 article from the Economic Policy Institute titled, “Forget Spending Cuts, the U.S. Economy Really Needs a $2 Trillion Stimulus,” states:
“This economic forecast [CBO 2013-2023] showcases the results of the misguided framing and resolution of the ‘fiscal cliff’ debate and the more recent sequestration fight. Near-term deficit reduction intrinsically works against restoring full employment, and obsessing with medium- to long-term deficit reduction diverts policymakers’ focus from the jobs crisis at hand.”
2. National debt: In an April 2013 post entitled “Policy Basics: Deficits, Debt & Interest,” the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted: “Raising the debt limit does not directly alter the amount of federal borrowing or spending going forward. Rather, it allows the government to pay for spending on programs and services that Congress has already approved. Nor is the need to raise the debt limit a reliable indicator of the soundness of budget policy.”
3. As I’ve outlined in recent columns, the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is funded mostly by cost savings and new revenue outside the appropriations process. Again, see Sarah Kliff’s post at Wonkblog on Aug. 30, 2012. Additionally, rather than creating a drag on the economy, the regulations under ACA will help control health care costs and thus help the economy grow long term.
4. Obamacare does not limit workers’ ability to find full-time jobs. Again, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities debunks this claim in a report posted earlier this month, stating in one subhead: “Data Don’t Support Claim of Big Shift to Part-Time Work. Instead the report points out: “The fact is, it’s too early to know how health reform will ultimately affect the amount of part-time work. But there’s every reason to expect the impact to be small as a share of total employment.”
Daily Kos diarist Mets102 wrote about voting for default in a post entitled, “162 Republicans to America and World: Drop Dead.” The post explained: “The global economic system is based upon the premise that the debt of the United States Government is, for all intents and purposes, a riskless investment. To call that premise into question is upend the global economy. Overnight, stock markets across the globe would crash. The retirement savings of tens of millions of Americans would begin to disappear, whether those savings are from 401k's and like vehicles or from defined pension plans. . . . The results that would flow from default would be catastrophic.”
Catastrophe – that’s what Senator Charles Grassley and Representative Steve King voted for. Not to stabilize the economy, protect the nation or help their constituents. They voted for the Tea Party.
Time to quit drinking the tea.
What’s up with that, Senator Grassley?
In a search for answers, I checked the Senator’s web site for a statement about his vote. Here’s a portion: “Government spending has exploded since 2008, increasing the national debt by $6 trillion. Obamacare is a drag on the economy and hurting workers' ability to find full-time jobs.”
This is false, or at best, misleading. Let me count the ways.
1. Government spending: A March 2013 article from the Economic Policy Institute titled, “Forget Spending Cuts, the U.S. Economy Really Needs a $2 Trillion Stimulus,” states:
“This economic forecast [CBO 2013-2023] showcases the results of the misguided framing and resolution of the ‘fiscal cliff’ debate and the more recent sequestration fight. Near-term deficit reduction intrinsically works against restoring full employment, and obsessing with medium- to long-term deficit reduction diverts policymakers’ focus from the jobs crisis at hand.”
2. National debt: In an April 2013 post entitled “Policy Basics: Deficits, Debt & Interest,” the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted: “Raising the debt limit does not directly alter the amount of federal borrowing or spending going forward. Rather, it allows the government to pay for spending on programs and services that Congress has already approved. Nor is the need to raise the debt limit a reliable indicator of the soundness of budget policy.”
3. As I’ve outlined in recent columns, the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is funded mostly by cost savings and new revenue outside the appropriations process. Again, see Sarah Kliff’s post at Wonkblog on Aug. 30, 2012. Additionally, rather than creating a drag on the economy, the regulations under ACA will help control health care costs and thus help the economy grow long term.
4. Obamacare does not limit workers’ ability to find full-time jobs. Again, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities debunks this claim in a report posted earlier this month, stating in one subhead: “Data Don’t Support Claim of Big Shift to Part-Time Work. Instead the report points out: “The fact is, it’s too early to know how health reform will ultimately affect the amount of part-time work. But there’s every reason to expect the impact to be small as a share of total employment.”
Daily Kos diarist Mets102 wrote about voting for default in a post entitled, “162 Republicans to America and World: Drop Dead.” The post explained: “The global economic system is based upon the premise that the debt of the United States Government is, for all intents and purposes, a riskless investment. To call that premise into question is upend the global economy. Overnight, stock markets across the globe would crash. The retirement savings of tens of millions of Americans would begin to disappear, whether those savings are from 401k's and like vehicles or from defined pension plans. . . . The results that would flow from default would be catastrophic.”
Catastrophe – that’s what Senator Charles Grassley and Representative Steve King voted for. Not to stabilize the economy, protect the nation or help their constituents. They voted for the Tea Party.
Time to quit drinking the tea.
Obamacare vs. ACA: What works for you?
Last week as the government shut down and enrollment for the new health care exchanges began, I was amused to discover a friend’s Facebook post. In it, a correspondent from the Jimmie Kimmel show asked people on the street: “Which is better, Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act?”
It became obvious very quickly that many people don’t know they are one and the same thing. Consequently, they also had little idea what the duly passed and Supreme Court-upheld law does.
First, the law has been taking effect gradually. As the Department of Health and Human Services outlines on its site:
• 2010 – A Patient’s Bill of Rights and cost-free preventative coverage for most Americans went into effect. These features protect consumers from the worst abuses of insurers and eliminate out-of-pocket expenses for preventive practices like physicals. Young people up to age 26 can stay on their parents’ insurance.
• 2011 – People on Medicare began to receive no-cost preventative care and a discount on brand name drugs in the donut hole.
• 2012 – Programs like Accountable Care Organizations began work to help doctors, hospitals and clinics work together to provide better health care.
• 2013 – Health care exchanges opened and the enrollment period began, allowing more Americans access to affordable health insurance.
• 2014 – Health insurance plans via the exchanges go into effect as early as Jan. 1, and tax credits and subsidies will help small businesses and individuals afford coverage that was previously unaffordable.
I recommend you visit the site to view the full list of benefits for each year.
Additionally, Ezra Klein outlined 11 facts about ACA in a June 2012 post on the Washington Post’s Wonkblog. Some highlights include:
• By 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the ACA will have extended health coverage to 33 million people who were previously uninsured.
• Insurance companies cannot deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.
• Insurance companies are required to spend 80-85 percent of every premium dollar on medical care instead of advertising, administration and marketing.
As Klein notes in his post, much of his information came from the Kaiser Family Foundation and their excellent summary of the law. I also recommend visiting this site, as Kaiser has done much of the earliest, deepest and best research on the law and its effects.
Finally, myths about ACA have been swirling since before it was passed, and as usual, my old standby, Factcheck.org, does some of the best work sifting truth from fiction on its Obamacare Myths page. For example, Factcheck rates the current rumor that Congress is exempt from ACA as “False.”
Factcheck writes: “Congress isn’t exempt from the law. In fact, members and their staffs face additional requirements that other Americans don’t. Beginning in 2014, they can no longer get insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, as they and other federal employees have done. Instead, they are required to get insurance through the insurance exchanges.”
ACA was designed to help people like us, and though it’s far from perfect, it does. To learn more, attend a community conversation on ACA at 5:30 p.m., Thurs., Oct. 10 at the Red Oak Fire Station. Come hear local people, some you may know, share their own health insurance stories and how ACA will affect them.
It became obvious very quickly that many people don’t know they are one and the same thing. Consequently, they also had little idea what the duly passed and Supreme Court-upheld law does.
First, the law has been taking effect gradually. As the Department of Health and Human Services outlines on its site:
• 2010 – A Patient’s Bill of Rights and cost-free preventative coverage for most Americans went into effect. These features protect consumers from the worst abuses of insurers and eliminate out-of-pocket expenses for preventive practices like physicals. Young people up to age 26 can stay on their parents’ insurance.
• 2011 – People on Medicare began to receive no-cost preventative care and a discount on brand name drugs in the donut hole.
• 2012 – Programs like Accountable Care Organizations began work to help doctors, hospitals and clinics work together to provide better health care.
• 2013 – Health care exchanges opened and the enrollment period began, allowing more Americans access to affordable health insurance.
• 2014 – Health insurance plans via the exchanges go into effect as early as Jan. 1, and tax credits and subsidies will help small businesses and individuals afford coverage that was previously unaffordable.
I recommend you visit the site to view the full list of benefits for each year.
Additionally, Ezra Klein outlined 11 facts about ACA in a June 2012 post on the Washington Post’s Wonkblog. Some highlights include:
• By 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the ACA will have extended health coverage to 33 million people who were previously uninsured.
• Insurance companies cannot deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.
• Insurance companies are required to spend 80-85 percent of every premium dollar on medical care instead of advertising, administration and marketing.
As Klein notes in his post, much of his information came from the Kaiser Family Foundation and their excellent summary of the law. I also recommend visiting this site, as Kaiser has done much of the earliest, deepest and best research on the law and its effects.
Finally, myths about ACA have been swirling since before it was passed, and as usual, my old standby, Factcheck.org, does some of the best work sifting truth from fiction on its Obamacare Myths page. For example, Factcheck rates the current rumor that Congress is exempt from ACA as “False.”
Factcheck writes: “Congress isn’t exempt from the law. In fact, members and their staffs face additional requirements that other Americans don’t. Beginning in 2014, they can no longer get insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, as they and other federal employees have done. Instead, they are required to get insurance through the insurance exchanges.”
ACA was designed to help people like us, and though it’s far from perfect, it does. To learn more, attend a community conversation on ACA at 5:30 p.m., Thurs., Oct. 10 at the Red Oak Fire Station. Come hear local people, some you may know, share their own health insurance stories and how ACA will affect them.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Obamacare: Do media have no obligation to facts?
This was my question last Wednesday when I began to see headlines about a conversation on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. According to these headlines, during a discussion about Obamacare, former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell opined citizens didn’t know much about the program because all they’ve heard is misinformation.
In response, MSNBC political correspondent Chuck Todd laid responsibility on the White House for not “selling” a law duly passed by Congress. As Talking Points Memo headlined it, “Chuck Todd: It's not media's job to correct GOP's Obamacare falsehoods.”
I’m sorry, but if I can find facts about Obamacare using my PC and Internet connection, then Chuck Todd and the political media can, too. Instead, corporate media have made a calculated decision NOT to report on the facts of a policy passed by government and designed to help average citizens.
And because corporate media is not providing vital information about this law, we’re now witnessing the battle over defunding Obamacare in the House. Too many tea party and ultra conservative representatives have listened to fact-free media reports and don’t understand how the program works.
As Sarah Kliff reported in the Washington Post’s Wonkblog on Aug. 30, 2012, Congress used two broad ways to fund the Affordable Care Act (ACA): cutting into government spending and creating ways to raise revenue.
According to Kliff, most of the spending cuts come from changes in payments to doctors and hospitals that provide Medicaid and Medicare services. And as the Economic Policy Institute reported on Aug. 27, 2012, the cuts are to spending, not benefits, and they work by:
“1. Reducing reimbursements Medicare currently makes to hospitals—but by less than the gain hospitals would receive from newly-insured patients purchasing hospital services in coming decades.
“2. Reforming the separate Medicare Advantage program, which was supposed to save money, but ended up being more expensive.
“3. Reducing a variety of other payments to providers, such as those designed to offset the cost of providing uncompensated care for the uninsured (unnecessary because now more patients will have insurance and hence the amount of this uncompensated care will plummet).”
To raise revenue, Kliff explains the ACA uses a number of measures:
• A tax penalty for those who choose not to purchase coverage;
• An excise tax on “Cadillac” insurance plans (held by a small percentage of Americans);
• Savings from a reduction in uncompensated care;
• A 3.8 percent tax on investment income levied on those with gross income more than $200,000 annually to help pay for Medicare’s hospital insurance.
Some smaller taxes, like a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning, only affect individuals or larger employers who choose not to offer health coverage.
So because much of the law’s funding is separate from annual discretionary appropriations, the House’s effort to defund Obamacare won’t work. As Sophie Novack reported in the National Journal on Sept. 17, Senator Tom Coburn’s communication director John Hart said, “The idea that we can fully defund Obamacare through the continuing resolution is a Washington gimmick to advance political funding goals.”
It’s time to demand public service – from our representatives and our media.
In response, MSNBC political correspondent Chuck Todd laid responsibility on the White House for not “selling” a law duly passed by Congress. As Talking Points Memo headlined it, “Chuck Todd: It's not media's job to correct GOP's Obamacare falsehoods.”
I’m sorry, but if I can find facts about Obamacare using my PC and Internet connection, then Chuck Todd and the political media can, too. Instead, corporate media have made a calculated decision NOT to report on the facts of a policy passed by government and designed to help average citizens.
And because corporate media is not providing vital information about this law, we’re now witnessing the battle over defunding Obamacare in the House. Too many tea party and ultra conservative representatives have listened to fact-free media reports and don’t understand how the program works.
As Sarah Kliff reported in the Washington Post’s Wonkblog on Aug. 30, 2012, Congress used two broad ways to fund the Affordable Care Act (ACA): cutting into government spending and creating ways to raise revenue.
According to Kliff, most of the spending cuts come from changes in payments to doctors and hospitals that provide Medicaid and Medicare services. And as the Economic Policy Institute reported on Aug. 27, 2012, the cuts are to spending, not benefits, and they work by:
“1. Reducing reimbursements Medicare currently makes to hospitals—but by less than the gain hospitals would receive from newly-insured patients purchasing hospital services in coming decades.
“2. Reforming the separate Medicare Advantage program, which was supposed to save money, but ended up being more expensive.
“3. Reducing a variety of other payments to providers, such as those designed to offset the cost of providing uncompensated care for the uninsured (unnecessary because now more patients will have insurance and hence the amount of this uncompensated care will plummet).”
To raise revenue, Kliff explains the ACA uses a number of measures:
• A tax penalty for those who choose not to purchase coverage;
• An excise tax on “Cadillac” insurance plans (held by a small percentage of Americans);
• Savings from a reduction in uncompensated care;
• A 3.8 percent tax on investment income levied on those with gross income more than $200,000 annually to help pay for Medicare’s hospital insurance.
Some smaller taxes, like a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning, only affect individuals or larger employers who choose not to offer health coverage.
So because much of the law’s funding is separate from annual discretionary appropriations, the House’s effort to defund Obamacare won’t work. As Sophie Novack reported in the National Journal on Sept. 17, Senator Tom Coburn’s communication director John Hart said, “The idea that we can fully defund Obamacare through the continuing resolution is a Washington gimmick to advance political funding goals.”
It’s time to demand public service – from our representatives and our media.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Get the facts: Who's afraid of Obamacare?
On January 3, 2008, I registered as a Democrat so I could caucus for then candidate Obama. During the evening, as voters discussed which candidates to support, I managed to convince a younger Edwards-leaning voter to join the Obama camp. Our discussion centered on our desire to see healthcare reform instituted.
At the time my argument was that Edwards’ more aggressive populism would lead to a divisive and unsuccessful effort on health care. I argued Obama’s history as a community organizer and legislator willing to work with all sides would be necessary to pass healthcare reform.
Fast forward to September 2013, and the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is law. And October 1 marks the beginning of the enrollment period for individuals seeking health insurance via the new insurance exchanges. Unfortunately, opposition to what is now the law of this land remains, based largely on a campaign of disinformation from conservative legislators and media.
So what’s there to be afraid of?
Is it the fact that children up to age 26 can remain on their parents’ insurance plan? I know plenty of families, including my own, that have gladly accessed this feature of the law.
Is it the fact that small businesses can now access tax credits to help them cover the cost of an insurance plan for employees?
Is it the fact that insurance companies must adjust their rates to ensure 80 percent of premiums pay for actual health care expenses, rather than overhead or profits? This has caused insurers to issue rebate checks and premium increases to slow. If you haven’t noticed it on your policy yet, you soon will.
Is it the fact that you can now go get an annual physical with no out-of-pocket expenses because health insurance must cover well checks at 100 percent?
Is it the fact that if you have a pre-existing condition you can no longer be turned down for insurance and your coverage cannot be cut off at a preset limit?
Is it the fact that this plan operates with private insurance? It is not a single payer or socialized system. In fact, this plan is based on one originally developed by the conservative Heritage Foundation and later used by Governor Mitt Romney to develop Massachusetts’ state health insurance plan.
Or have you simply been listening to media talking heads and political opponents of the Obama administration without bothering to find out for yourself what’s in the law?
I was pretty pleased in July when I took my daughter in for a physical. Although the billing clerk noted my plan had a deductible, I explained that under the ACA I owed no out-of-pocket expenses. “If I’m wrong, you can bill me,” I told her.
When the Explanation of Benefits came from my insurer, I was pleased to read, “Amount you owe: 0.”
So what benefits of this law are you missing out on? Learn more at www.healthcare.gov.
At the time my argument was that Edwards’ more aggressive populism would lead to a divisive and unsuccessful effort on health care. I argued Obama’s history as a community organizer and legislator willing to work with all sides would be necessary to pass healthcare reform.
Fast forward to September 2013, and the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is law. And October 1 marks the beginning of the enrollment period for individuals seeking health insurance via the new insurance exchanges. Unfortunately, opposition to what is now the law of this land remains, based largely on a campaign of disinformation from conservative legislators and media.
So what’s there to be afraid of?
Is it the fact that children up to age 26 can remain on their parents’ insurance plan? I know plenty of families, including my own, that have gladly accessed this feature of the law.
Is it the fact that small businesses can now access tax credits to help them cover the cost of an insurance plan for employees?
Is it the fact that insurance companies must adjust their rates to ensure 80 percent of premiums pay for actual health care expenses, rather than overhead or profits? This has caused insurers to issue rebate checks and premium increases to slow. If you haven’t noticed it on your policy yet, you soon will.
Is it the fact that you can now go get an annual physical with no out-of-pocket expenses because health insurance must cover well checks at 100 percent?
Is it the fact that if you have a pre-existing condition you can no longer be turned down for insurance and your coverage cannot be cut off at a preset limit?
Is it the fact that this plan operates with private insurance? It is not a single payer or socialized system. In fact, this plan is based on one originally developed by the conservative Heritage Foundation and later used by Governor Mitt Romney to develop Massachusetts’ state health insurance plan.
Or have you simply been listening to media talking heads and political opponents of the Obama administration without bothering to find out for yourself what’s in the law?
I was pretty pleased in July when I took my daughter in for a physical. Although the billing clerk noted my plan had a deductible, I explained that under the ACA I owed no out-of-pocket expenses. “If I’m wrong, you can bill me,” I told her.
When the Explanation of Benefits came from my insurer, I was pleased to read, “Amount you owe: 0.”
So what benefits of this law are you missing out on? Learn more at www.healthcare.gov.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Immigration reform: If not now, when?
Tomorrow marks the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights March on Washington, at which Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave his famous “I Have a Dream” speech. During this period, Dr. King often echoed the question above, attributed to a famous Jewish religious leader during the reign of King Herod. It’s a question that can be applied equally well to comprehensive immigration reform (CIR).
Before Congress fled Washington D.C. for the August recess, the Senate had passed bipartisan CIR legislation by a vote of 68-32. Then it moved to the House, where a group of inflexible conservative representatives refused to allow a vote on it.
Yet according to a June 13 FOX News poll, 74 percent of Americans support a path to citizenship “as long as they meet certain requirements like paying back taxes, learning English, and passing a background check.”
Of course, Iowa’s perennial embarrassment, Rep. Steve King, blundered into this morass, making some of the most hateful comments issued, which did nothing to advance a solution. Rather his comments simply stoked the fears of those uncomfortable with the changing face of America.
The comments of King and others also distract from the very real benefits comprehensive immigration reform would bring to America – and Iowa. I was surprised to learn that groups as conservative as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the libertarian Cato Institute support the Senate CIR legislation because of its projected economic benefits. These include:
• Reducing the deficit by more than $800 billion over the next 20 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
• Adding more than 3.2 million new jobs, thus strengthening Social Security, according to the Social Security Administration.
And more specifically for Iowa, it’s projected CIR will: • In 2014, add more than $140 million to our Gross State Product and increase personal income by $78 million. By 2045, the expansion would add $1.2 billion to Gross State Product and increase personal income by more than $1 billion. (per Regional Economic Models, Inc.).
• Raise the wage floor for all workers, according to the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy.
• Provide a host of protections for Iowa workers, including new worksite enforcement and border security measures to deter future unauthorized immigration.
We know our current immigration system isn’t working. We’re ready to try to fix it. And we even have legislation that’s been passed by legislators from both parties. So why not now?
That’s the question we need to ask Representative Tom Latham and Senator Chuck Grassley.
With all the projected economic benefits, with the work by legislators on both sides of the aisle, with the support of the majority of Americans, why not pass comprehensive immigration reform?
If not now, when?
Before Congress fled Washington D.C. for the August recess, the Senate had passed bipartisan CIR legislation by a vote of 68-32. Then it moved to the House, where a group of inflexible conservative representatives refused to allow a vote on it.
Yet according to a June 13 FOX News poll, 74 percent of Americans support a path to citizenship “as long as they meet certain requirements like paying back taxes, learning English, and passing a background check.”
Of course, Iowa’s perennial embarrassment, Rep. Steve King, blundered into this morass, making some of the most hateful comments issued, which did nothing to advance a solution. Rather his comments simply stoked the fears of those uncomfortable with the changing face of America.
The comments of King and others also distract from the very real benefits comprehensive immigration reform would bring to America – and Iowa. I was surprised to learn that groups as conservative as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the libertarian Cato Institute support the Senate CIR legislation because of its projected economic benefits. These include:
• Reducing the deficit by more than $800 billion over the next 20 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
• Adding more than 3.2 million new jobs, thus strengthening Social Security, according to the Social Security Administration.
And more specifically for Iowa, it’s projected CIR will: • In 2014, add more than $140 million to our Gross State Product and increase personal income by $78 million. By 2045, the expansion would add $1.2 billion to Gross State Product and increase personal income by more than $1 billion. (per Regional Economic Models, Inc.).
• Raise the wage floor for all workers, according to the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy.
• Provide a host of protections for Iowa workers, including new worksite enforcement and border security measures to deter future unauthorized immigration.
We know our current immigration system isn’t working. We’re ready to try to fix it. And we even have legislation that’s been passed by legislators from both parties. So why not now?
That’s the question we need to ask Representative Tom Latham and Senator Chuck Grassley.
With all the projected economic benefits, with the work by legislators on both sides of the aisle, with the support of the majority of Americans, why not pass comprehensive immigration reform?
If not now, when?
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Get with the program: Why deny science?
A few years ago, I read a novel about the 1889 Johnstown, Penn., flood entitled, “In Sunlight, in a Beautiful Garden.” Through the book and my subsequent research, I learned the captains of industry who owned the South Fork Dam and Resort on Lake Conemaugh chose to ignore or deny a number of reports describing structural weaknesses in the South Fork Dam.
As the National Park Service web site for the Johnstown Flood National Memorial notes, “The life and death of the South Fork Dam is a story of an immense structure that was never given the care such a structure demanded.” The result was the destruction of an entire town and the deaths of more than 2,000 people.
I see a parallel to current attitudes about science. For example, instead of accepting the consensus of 97 percent of scientists (who state our climate is changing due to human activity) and working to institute corrective actions, we have politicians and media pundits denying climate change exists. So . . . are they telling us we should throw our science curriculum out the window? And will they quit going to the doctor?
Speaking of medicine, some of these same science deniers shout loudly about ethical dilemmas like abortion. One of the favorite arguments against it, especially for procedures after 20 weeks, is “fetal pain.” However as a recent Salon article noted, doctors know the nervous system in fetuses is not developed enough to register pain until at least 24 weeks. That is a fact. As the doctor interviewed notes, “Science is not going to get the brain to connect faster.”
So in this case, denials are made to hide the truth.
And ultimately for some science deniers, such protests against reality may reflect a genuine belief tied to their religion of choice. As a Christian, I personally do not believe the tenets of my faith and the facts of science are mutually exclusive.
But in the case of climate change, I suggest the drivers behind the denial narrative are motivated by something more base – money.
If you track the funding behind the few studies refuting global climate change, you’ll find corporations and individuals who make money via the offending pollutants, e.g. coal, oil and chemicals. And the politicians who deny climate change is caused by human activity are financially tied to these companies.
Meanwhile across the world, our denial of facts endangers all life forms. For example, whole hives of honey bees are dying off, and we rely on them to pollinate our crops. If they disappear, how will we sustain our food supply? Or will we be next?
And we know climate change is occurring from our observation of extreme weather events: last year’s drought followed by this spring’s cold, wet weather, not to mention 70-degree temps in August. From the last decade we can add: Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy; massive tornadoes in Joplin, Mo., and Moore, Okla., to name just two; and major winter snow storms, now being named like hurricanes.
So we can continue to deny reality or we can take action. Because the truth is businesses across the world have been adjusting for years. Ask an insurance actuary. They have been re-writing rates according to weather patterns and locations for at least 25 years.
I think it’s time the rest of us got with the program.
As the National Park Service web site for the Johnstown Flood National Memorial notes, “The life and death of the South Fork Dam is a story of an immense structure that was never given the care such a structure demanded.” The result was the destruction of an entire town and the deaths of more than 2,000 people.
I see a parallel to current attitudes about science. For example, instead of accepting the consensus of 97 percent of scientists (who state our climate is changing due to human activity) and working to institute corrective actions, we have politicians and media pundits denying climate change exists. So . . . are they telling us we should throw our science curriculum out the window? And will they quit going to the doctor?
Speaking of medicine, some of these same science deniers shout loudly about ethical dilemmas like abortion. One of the favorite arguments against it, especially for procedures after 20 weeks, is “fetal pain.” However as a recent Salon article noted, doctors know the nervous system in fetuses is not developed enough to register pain until at least 24 weeks. That is a fact. As the doctor interviewed notes, “Science is not going to get the brain to connect faster.”
So in this case, denials are made to hide the truth.
And ultimately for some science deniers, such protests against reality may reflect a genuine belief tied to their religion of choice. As a Christian, I personally do not believe the tenets of my faith and the facts of science are mutually exclusive.
But in the case of climate change, I suggest the drivers behind the denial narrative are motivated by something more base – money.
If you track the funding behind the few studies refuting global climate change, you’ll find corporations and individuals who make money via the offending pollutants, e.g. coal, oil and chemicals. And the politicians who deny climate change is caused by human activity are financially tied to these companies.
Meanwhile across the world, our denial of facts endangers all life forms. For example, whole hives of honey bees are dying off, and we rely on them to pollinate our crops. If they disappear, how will we sustain our food supply? Or will we be next?
And we know climate change is occurring from our observation of extreme weather events: last year’s drought followed by this spring’s cold, wet weather, not to mention 70-degree temps in August. From the last decade we can add: Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy; massive tornadoes in Joplin, Mo., and Moore, Okla., to name just two; and major winter snow storms, now being named like hurricanes.
So we can continue to deny reality or we can take action. Because the truth is businesses across the world have been adjusting for years. Ask an insurance actuary. They have been re-writing rates according to weather patterns and locations for at least 25 years.
I think it’s time the rest of us got with the program.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Immigration Reform: Who is our Neighbor?
When I attended church July 14, one of the readings was the story of the Good Samaritan. Although most people are familiar with the concept of being a good Samaritan, due in part to laws requiring us to stop and render aid at the scene of an accident, some may not be familiar with the beginning of the story. In it, a lawyer asks Jesus a question about Jewish law and what it requires for him to inherit “eternal life.”
When Jesus avoids this verbal trap by answering that he must love God and his neighbor, the lawyer continues with the question, “And who is my neighbor?”
That question got me thinking about the current discussion around immigration reform.
Many people I know get hung up on the idea that immigrants arrive “illegally,” without considering how cumbersome and unresponsive our immigration system is. They use this cheap and easy distinction to ignore the difficult conditions many immigrants flee. It also allows them to separate immigration from other policy issues, such as trade and foreign relations, which help create the conditions driving immigrants to our country. Like so many things, it’s complicated.
I’m sure many Americans experience the fear fed by current events and media talking heads – fear of changing demographics and terrorist acts. Unfortunately these emotions prevent them from seeing the clear benefits of immigration throughout our history.
For example, as retired American diplomat and associate director of the Center for Canadian Studies at Duke University, Stephen R. Kelly, wrote in the New York Times last week, Americans benefitted from our open northern border and the hard work of immigrants throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s. During these years, nearly a million French Canadians flooded across the border to take jobs in textile and shoe mills in New England.
As a result, these industries boomed. Many immigrants stayed and assimilated, some serving in our military during the world wars. We experience similar benefits today; in Iowa, we have communities already revitalized by immigrant populations.
In fact, as the Congressional Budget Office reported on July 3, in a letter reviewing the immigration bill passed by the Senate: “CBO and JCT estimate that enacting S. 744, as passed by the Senate, would generate changes in direct spending and revenues that would decrease federal budget deficits by $158 billion over the 2014-2023 period.” Additionally, they noted: “For the Senate-passed version of S. 744, CBO and JCT estimate that changes in direct spending and revenues would decrease federal budget deficits by about $685 billion (or 0.2 percent of gross domestic product) over the 2024-2033 period.”
Kelly concludes: “What the French Canadian experience shows is that our current obsession with border security is inconsistent with our history, undermines our economic vitality and is likely to fail. Instead of vainly trying to fortify our land borders, we should be working with Canada and Mexico to keep the things we should really worry about — terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, cocaine — out of North America all together.”
Because on this tiny blue marble floating in space, the reality is we’re all neighbors.
When Jesus avoids this verbal trap by answering that he must love God and his neighbor, the lawyer continues with the question, “And who is my neighbor?”
That question got me thinking about the current discussion around immigration reform.
Many people I know get hung up on the idea that immigrants arrive “illegally,” without considering how cumbersome and unresponsive our immigration system is. They use this cheap and easy distinction to ignore the difficult conditions many immigrants flee. It also allows them to separate immigration from other policy issues, such as trade and foreign relations, which help create the conditions driving immigrants to our country. Like so many things, it’s complicated.
I’m sure many Americans experience the fear fed by current events and media talking heads – fear of changing demographics and terrorist acts. Unfortunately these emotions prevent them from seeing the clear benefits of immigration throughout our history.
For example, as retired American diplomat and associate director of the Center for Canadian Studies at Duke University, Stephen R. Kelly, wrote in the New York Times last week, Americans benefitted from our open northern border and the hard work of immigrants throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s. During these years, nearly a million French Canadians flooded across the border to take jobs in textile and shoe mills in New England.
As a result, these industries boomed. Many immigrants stayed and assimilated, some serving in our military during the world wars. We experience similar benefits today; in Iowa, we have communities already revitalized by immigrant populations.
In fact, as the Congressional Budget Office reported on July 3, in a letter reviewing the immigration bill passed by the Senate: “CBO and JCT estimate that enacting S. 744, as passed by the Senate, would generate changes in direct spending and revenues that would decrease federal budget deficits by $158 billion over the 2014-2023 period.” Additionally, they noted: “For the Senate-passed version of S. 744, CBO and JCT estimate that changes in direct spending and revenues would decrease federal budget deficits by about $685 billion (or 0.2 percent of gross domestic product) over the 2024-2033 period.”
Kelly concludes: “What the French Canadian experience shows is that our current obsession with border security is inconsistent with our history, undermines our economic vitality and is likely to fail. Instead of vainly trying to fortify our land borders, we should be working with Canada and Mexico to keep the things we should really worry about — terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, cocaine — out of North America all together.”
Because on this tiny blue marble floating in space, the reality is we’re all neighbors.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Thanks for the discussion, but stick to the facts
On July 1, I attended Sen. Charles Grassley’s Montgomery County Town Hall. Given the moderate turnout, Sen. Grassley offered an open forum. A true town hall discussion ensued.
At first, I sat back to hear what was on the mind of area residents. First, the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) came up in relation to Medicare and the Independent Payment Advisory Board or IPAB, as Sen. Grassley referred to it.
In his effort to explain the panel’s role, Sen. Grassley used the term rationing. Later, he responded to my raised hand, and confirmed my understanding that the IPAB’s role is to examine best practices to provide the most effective treatments, which may be less expensive than newer treatments or technologies, thus helping control Medicare costs.
According to Shawn Kennedy of the American Journal of Nursing, “ . . . IPABs are about reducing costs of programs, not passing judgment on individuals.” And in testimony on Capitol Hill, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius stated: “The statute is very clear: the IPAB cannot make recommendations that ration care, raise beneficiary premiums or cost-sharing, reduce benefits, or change eligibility for Medicare. The IPAB cannot eliminate benefits or decide what care Medicare beneficiaries can receive.”
Yet Senator Grassley opined the panel would come between patient and doctor, to which a member of the audience remarked that insurance companies already do.
Grassley facilitated a civil discussion and moved on to additional topics. However, I was disappointed to hear a number of inaccuracies go unaddressed. These included:
— Decreasing deportations of undocumented immigrants. As the Christian Science Monitor reported last December, “The United States deported more than 400,000 illegal immigrants in 2012, the most of any year in the nation’s history, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reports.”
— Excessive and expensive Presidential trips on Air Force One. According to Factcheck.org, President Obama has traveled no more than previous presidents and less than President Bush. FactCheck addressed this issue two years ago, saying, “These latest chain e-mails are part of a continuing pattern of indignant, anonymous authors spreading false and misleading claims about the travels of the president and the first lady.”
— Extensive use of executive orders. In 2012, FactCheck.org addressed a number of chain e-mails about President Obama’s use of executive orders, outlining the historic and constitutional precedents. They also noted, “He has signed slightly fewer orders than President George W. Bush during this point in his first term, according to the University of California, Santa Barbara, which tracks executive orders.”
— SNAP fraud. In March of this year, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities updated their evaluation of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program under the title, “SNAP is Effective and Efficient. The report states: “SNAP has one of the most rigorous quality control systems of any public benefit program, and despite the recent growth in caseloads, the share of total SNAP payments that represent overpayments, underpayments, or payments to ineligible households reached a record low in fiscal year 2011.”
How can we make good decisions if we do not have good information? Our job as citizens is to call out misinformation wherever we find it, not blindly accept what’s presented. We’re also called to discuss and develop solutions together.
I’d say on July 1, we made a start.
At first, I sat back to hear what was on the mind of area residents. First, the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) came up in relation to Medicare and the Independent Payment Advisory Board or IPAB, as Sen. Grassley referred to it.
In his effort to explain the panel’s role, Sen. Grassley used the term rationing. Later, he responded to my raised hand, and confirmed my understanding that the IPAB’s role is to examine best practices to provide the most effective treatments, which may be less expensive than newer treatments or technologies, thus helping control Medicare costs.
According to Shawn Kennedy of the American Journal of Nursing, “ . . . IPABs are about reducing costs of programs, not passing judgment on individuals.” And in testimony on Capitol Hill, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius stated: “The statute is very clear: the IPAB cannot make recommendations that ration care, raise beneficiary premiums or cost-sharing, reduce benefits, or change eligibility for Medicare. The IPAB cannot eliminate benefits or decide what care Medicare beneficiaries can receive.”
Yet Senator Grassley opined the panel would come between patient and doctor, to which a member of the audience remarked that insurance companies already do.
Grassley facilitated a civil discussion and moved on to additional topics. However, I was disappointed to hear a number of inaccuracies go unaddressed. These included:
— Decreasing deportations of undocumented immigrants. As the Christian Science Monitor reported last December, “The United States deported more than 400,000 illegal immigrants in 2012, the most of any year in the nation’s history, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reports.”
— Excessive and expensive Presidential trips on Air Force One. According to Factcheck.org, President Obama has traveled no more than previous presidents and less than President Bush. FactCheck addressed this issue two years ago, saying, “These latest chain e-mails are part of a continuing pattern of indignant, anonymous authors spreading false and misleading claims about the travels of the president and the first lady.”
— Extensive use of executive orders. In 2012, FactCheck.org addressed a number of chain e-mails about President Obama’s use of executive orders, outlining the historic and constitutional precedents. They also noted, “He has signed slightly fewer orders than President George W. Bush during this point in his first term, according to the University of California, Santa Barbara, which tracks executive orders.”
— SNAP fraud. In March of this year, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities updated their evaluation of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program under the title, “SNAP is Effective and Efficient. The report states: “SNAP has one of the most rigorous quality control systems of any public benefit program, and despite the recent growth in caseloads, the share of total SNAP payments that represent overpayments, underpayments, or payments to ineligible households reached a record low in fiscal year 2011.”
How can we make good decisions if we do not have good information? Our job as citizens is to call out misinformation wherever we find it, not blindly accept what’s presented. We’re also called to discuss and develop solutions together.
I’d say on July 1, we made a start.
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Can we focus government on the common good?
In Book Two of The Lord of the Rings, Theoden King of Rohan wastes away on his throne as evil threatens to destroy his kingdom. At his right hand, a bent and scrawny man referred to as Wormtongue whispers directions in his ear. Bewitched, Theoden and his country flounder and begin to fail.
In the U.S. and Iowa, we have our own corporate version of Wormtongue whispering in our state politicians’ ears. It’s called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
As I learned when I was a school board director, even in the statehouse, schools were battling larger organizational interests – some corporate and some ideological. I also learned these groups often twisted the information they provided legislators, stretching or altering reality (if not outright lying) to serve their own interests.
It was later I heard about ALEC. According to the Center for Media and Democracy’s ALEC Exposed web site (www.alecexposed.org), ALEC is a consortium of wealthy corporate directors and legislators who meet to craft legislation in secret. Most of this legislation is written by corporate attorneys to benefit these same corporations. Then it is introduced to member legislators via conferences at luxury resorts. Records show 98% of ALEC’s funding comes from corporations, corporate foundations and corporate trade groups. And while organized as a non-partisan, non-profit entity, it currently lists only one Democrat out of 104 legislators in leadership positions.
Founded in 1973 by Conservative political strategist Paul Weyrich, ALEC has introduced hundreds of corporate-written bills in statehouses across the nation. A recent episode of Moyers and Company noted Weyrich’s plan to focus on building an entrenched network of corporate, conservative state legislators.
And the plan has worked. Moyers’ program highlighted a couple of ALEC model bills that have been passed in several states. One is the Virtual Schools Act, written by lobbyists for K12 Inc. and Connections Academy, the two leading national corporations developing online schools. Not coincidentally, these two companies operate Iowa’s two pilot online academies in conjunction with local school districts.
I say not coincidentally because the ALEC Exposed web site lists our governor as “involved in its formative years.” It also lists a number of current and former legislators as members of the organization. Additionally, Progress Iowa released an updated list of Iowa politicians earlier this year.
As two state legislators from Wisconsin and Arizona noted on Moyers’ program, while corporations have every right to advocate for their interests, they should not do it in secret under a tax status that specifically prohibits lobbying. Both legislators have been working to shed sunlight on ALEC’s work in their states. Meanwhile, ALEC not only claims it does not engage in lobbying, the group declares outright that it is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
So who represents our interests? Do Iowans want their laws written in secret by corporate lobbyists from who knows where? Because ALEC will continue to work behind the scenes, whispering in our representatives’ ears unless we raise our voices and votes to focus government on the common good -- instead of the corporate good.
In the U.S. and Iowa, we have our own corporate version of Wormtongue whispering in our state politicians’ ears. It’s called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
As I learned when I was a school board director, even in the statehouse, schools were battling larger organizational interests – some corporate and some ideological. I also learned these groups often twisted the information they provided legislators, stretching or altering reality (if not outright lying) to serve their own interests.
It was later I heard about ALEC. According to the Center for Media and Democracy’s ALEC Exposed web site (www.alecexposed.org), ALEC is a consortium of wealthy corporate directors and legislators who meet to craft legislation in secret. Most of this legislation is written by corporate attorneys to benefit these same corporations. Then it is introduced to member legislators via conferences at luxury resorts. Records show 98% of ALEC’s funding comes from corporations, corporate foundations and corporate trade groups. And while organized as a non-partisan, non-profit entity, it currently lists only one Democrat out of 104 legislators in leadership positions.
Founded in 1973 by Conservative political strategist Paul Weyrich, ALEC has introduced hundreds of corporate-written bills in statehouses across the nation. A recent episode of Moyers and Company noted Weyrich’s plan to focus on building an entrenched network of corporate, conservative state legislators.
And the plan has worked. Moyers’ program highlighted a couple of ALEC model bills that have been passed in several states. One is the Virtual Schools Act, written by lobbyists for K12 Inc. and Connections Academy, the two leading national corporations developing online schools. Not coincidentally, these two companies operate Iowa’s two pilot online academies in conjunction with local school districts.
I say not coincidentally because the ALEC Exposed web site lists our governor as “involved in its formative years.” It also lists a number of current and former legislators as members of the organization. Additionally, Progress Iowa released an updated list of Iowa politicians earlier this year.
As two state legislators from Wisconsin and Arizona noted on Moyers’ program, while corporations have every right to advocate for their interests, they should not do it in secret under a tax status that specifically prohibits lobbying. Both legislators have been working to shed sunlight on ALEC’s work in their states. Meanwhile, ALEC not only claims it does not engage in lobbying, the group declares outright that it is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
So who represents our interests? Do Iowans want their laws written in secret by corporate lobbyists from who knows where? Because ALEC will continue to work behind the scenes, whispering in our representatives’ ears unless we raise our voices and votes to focus government on the common good -- instead of the corporate good.
Friday, June 21, 2013
Workforce, government: Who sets our priorities?
One week ago yesterday, I was exiting the parking ramp at 7th and Grand Ave. in Des Moines at 7 a.m. Having parked free all weekend, I wanted to get out before I raked up any parking fees. As I approached the exit, I noticed the gate down and the attendant booth empty.
As I pulled to a stop, I scanned the messages and buttons across the self-serve terminal. Nothing fit except the “Press for assistance” button. So I did.
I immediately heard a dial tone and dialing. Moments later, I was talking to a nameless voice in an office who knows where. I explained my situation and he replied, “OK, I’ll let you out.” After listening to keys punching, I saw the arm rise and exited. Last time I’d used this parking ramp, an attendant had been present to answer my questions and let me through the gate.
This incident brought to mind a response I received to my column about living wages for workers. The reader stated wages reflect the value of the work and claimed the minimum wage drove small businesses to close their doors. His example was the loss of full service gas stations.
I found it a strange coincidence that when I shared this reader’s views the next day with a friend from Clarinda, she retorted, “It wasn’t the minimum wage. It was Casey’s. People decided they wanted soda and cigarettes instead of service.”
She came to her conclusion via the experience of her father and grandfather who owned several service stations in southwest Iowa during the period we went from full to self service gas stations.
Which leads me to ask, who sets our priorities? Did we really decide we wanted to pump our own gas or did someone else decide there was more profit in selling soda and cigarettes? Did the parking company decide they could increase profits with fewer employees? Because I know from my days as a corporate manager and school board director, people (employees) are usually one of the biggest expenses.
But I think maybe we are hitting the law of diminishing returns. If we don’t employ people to work, people will not have money to purchase goods and services.
Unfortunately, Americans have come to see business as the economy, rather than as one sector. Healthy economies also have healthy government, military, non-profit and religious sectors. But we’ve been led to believe business drives everything.
Likewise, we’ve been taught to believe government has a spending problem; in fact, that government IS our problem. But as a recent Facebook infographic of the lastest collapsed bridge notes, “We DON’T have a spending problem. We DO have a priorities problem.”
So maybe we should ask who is setting those priorities. Are we citizens demanding fair wages and government policies to benefit people? Or are we allowing someone else to call the shots? Because as my husband once said to me, “Cherie, I can’t read your mind.”
What we do matters. We can choose to shop locally at stores that employ people to bag our groceries and at farmers markets with products from local growers. We can read news from many sources instead of listening to or watching only our favorite talking heads. We can vote. We can contact our government representatives – local, state and federal – about matters that concern us. If our church and other organizations are important to us, we can support them with our time and money. If we believe workers should be treated fairly, we can join a union.
Simply put, we can act. So, what are you doing to help set our priorities?
As I pulled to a stop, I scanned the messages and buttons across the self-serve terminal. Nothing fit except the “Press for assistance” button. So I did.
I immediately heard a dial tone and dialing. Moments later, I was talking to a nameless voice in an office who knows where. I explained my situation and he replied, “OK, I’ll let you out.” After listening to keys punching, I saw the arm rise and exited. Last time I’d used this parking ramp, an attendant had been present to answer my questions and let me through the gate.
This incident brought to mind a response I received to my column about living wages for workers. The reader stated wages reflect the value of the work and claimed the minimum wage drove small businesses to close their doors. His example was the loss of full service gas stations.
I found it a strange coincidence that when I shared this reader’s views the next day with a friend from Clarinda, she retorted, “It wasn’t the minimum wage. It was Casey’s. People decided they wanted soda and cigarettes instead of service.”
She came to her conclusion via the experience of her father and grandfather who owned several service stations in southwest Iowa during the period we went from full to self service gas stations.
Which leads me to ask, who sets our priorities? Did we really decide we wanted to pump our own gas or did someone else decide there was more profit in selling soda and cigarettes? Did the parking company decide they could increase profits with fewer employees? Because I know from my days as a corporate manager and school board director, people (employees) are usually one of the biggest expenses.
But I think maybe we are hitting the law of diminishing returns. If we don’t employ people to work, people will not have money to purchase goods and services.
Unfortunately, Americans have come to see business as the economy, rather than as one sector. Healthy economies also have healthy government, military, non-profit and religious sectors. But we’ve been led to believe business drives everything.
Likewise, we’ve been taught to believe government has a spending problem; in fact, that government IS our problem. But as a recent Facebook infographic of the lastest collapsed bridge notes, “We DON’T have a spending problem. We DO have a priorities problem.”
So maybe we should ask who is setting those priorities. Are we citizens demanding fair wages and government policies to benefit people? Or are we allowing someone else to call the shots? Because as my husband once said to me, “Cherie, I can’t read your mind.”
What we do matters. We can choose to shop locally at stores that employ people to bag our groceries and at farmers markets with products from local growers. We can read news from many sources instead of listening to or watching only our favorite talking heads. We can vote. We can contact our government representatives – local, state and federal – about matters that concern us. If our church and other organizations are important to us, we can support them with our time and money. If we believe workers should be treated fairly, we can join a union.
Simply put, we can act. So, what are you doing to help set our priorities?
Thursday, June 13, 2013
IRS: More than Boy Who Cried Wolf?
Amidst all the end-of-school and family activity we’ve had this past month, I’ve been following the IRS “scandal” with interest. I can’t help thinking Tea Party conservatives are a lot like the boy who cried wolf.
“Why?” you may ask if you’re outraged the Internal Revenue Service would investigate new conservative non-profit social welfare agencies.
Call me skeptical, but knowing how often groups and individuals massage their tax reporting to minimize payments, I suspect some of these groups have overstepped the boundaries.
Second, and more importantly, IRS staff was wrestling with new, unclear regulations for social welfare non-profits in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling without enough guidance. This ruling allowed corporations and organizations, including non-profits, to engage in electioneering communications. Unfortunately, cuts to the IRS, like other federal agencies, have made proper management and enforcement difficult. (This is part of our current “all cuts, no spending” Congress. I can only chuckle at the irony of our government officials cutting the one agency responsible for bringing revenue into the government. But I digress . . .)
Conservative groups brought the Citizens United lawsuit, so we shouldn’t be surprised that most of the groups under IRS scrutiny were conservative. Robert Maguire on OpenSecrets.org writes: “Of the 21 organizations that received rulings from the IRS after January 1, 2010, and filed FEC reports in 2010 or 2012, 13 were conservative. They outspent the liberal groups in that category by a factor of nearly 34-to-1, the Center for Responsive Politics analysis shows.” I think the media, as they often do, jumped the gun on this story and missed that fact.
So in an update to the story, the New York Times reported on May 26: “But a close examination of these groups and others reveals an array of election activities that tax experts and former I.R.S. officials said would provide a legitimate basis for flagging them for closer review.
“Money is not the only thing that matters,” said Donald B. Tobin, a former lawyer with the Justice Department’s tax division who is a law professor at Ohio State University. “While some of the I.R.S. questions may have been overbroad, you can look at some of these groups and understand why these questions were being asked.”
And in another irony noted by Salon Magazine Editor at Large Joan Walsh, “We knew from the beginning of the IRS mess that the only group actually denied tax-exempt status was the Maine chapter of a Democratic women’s group, Emerge America.”
As Walsh concluded: “The IRS mess is coming to look more like the Benghazi ‘scandal’: a diversion from the genuine policy questions at issue, concocted to embarrass the president.”
I suspect if enough scrutiny is placed on the conservative groups crying wolf about IRS overreach, we may come to find out they are actually the ones breaking the law. And like the boy who cried wolf, they may have outsmarted themselves.
“Why?” you may ask if you’re outraged the Internal Revenue Service would investigate new conservative non-profit social welfare agencies.
Call me skeptical, but knowing how often groups and individuals massage their tax reporting to minimize payments, I suspect some of these groups have overstepped the boundaries.
Second, and more importantly, IRS staff was wrestling with new, unclear regulations for social welfare non-profits in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling without enough guidance. This ruling allowed corporations and organizations, including non-profits, to engage in electioneering communications. Unfortunately, cuts to the IRS, like other federal agencies, have made proper management and enforcement difficult. (This is part of our current “all cuts, no spending” Congress. I can only chuckle at the irony of our government officials cutting the one agency responsible for bringing revenue into the government. But I digress . . .)
Conservative groups brought the Citizens United lawsuit, so we shouldn’t be surprised that most of the groups under IRS scrutiny were conservative. Robert Maguire on OpenSecrets.org writes: “Of the 21 organizations that received rulings from the IRS after January 1, 2010, and filed FEC reports in 2010 or 2012, 13 were conservative. They outspent the liberal groups in that category by a factor of nearly 34-to-1, the Center for Responsive Politics analysis shows.” I think the media, as they often do, jumped the gun on this story and missed that fact.
So in an update to the story, the New York Times reported on May 26: “But a close examination of these groups and others reveals an array of election activities that tax experts and former I.R.S. officials said would provide a legitimate basis for flagging them for closer review.
“Money is not the only thing that matters,” said Donald B. Tobin, a former lawyer with the Justice Department’s tax division who is a law professor at Ohio State University. “While some of the I.R.S. questions may have been overbroad, you can look at some of these groups and understand why these questions were being asked.”
And in another irony noted by Salon Magazine Editor at Large Joan Walsh, “We knew from the beginning of the IRS mess that the only group actually denied tax-exempt status was the Maine chapter of a Democratic women’s group, Emerge America.”
As Walsh concluded: “The IRS mess is coming to look more like the Benghazi ‘scandal’: a diversion from the genuine policy questions at issue, concocted to embarrass the president.”
I suspect if enough scrutiny is placed on the conservative groups crying wolf about IRS overreach, we may come to find out they are actually the ones breaking the law. And like the boy who cried wolf, they may have outsmarted themselves.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Does pay reflect merit?
Although news events like workers’ walk-offs at fast food restaurants in major cities already had me asking this question, personal events in the past week really brought it home.
Late on Mother’s Day, my father-in-law finally succumbed to a rare neurological condition called progressive supernuclear palsy (PSP). Thanks to the love of his wife and kids, a solid medical team and home healthcare workers, he was able to die peacefully, without much pain, at home.
Two days afterwards, as we made plans to join the family in Illinois, my mother-in-law related over the phone an item on her memorial planning to-do list that brought this question back. She was taking a thank-you card and monetary gift to their home health aide, a young woman with a child. Every weekday morning, she came to help my mother-in-law prepare Dean for the day. And in her efforts to care for the caregiver, she frequently shooed Shirley out of the house to take a break.
But as Shirley pointed out, the pay was minimal. “She relied on us for her income,” Shirley said about her errand. She wanted to be sure Addie was taken care of, too.
Why does the pay of home and other health care workers not reflect the importance of caring for our loved ones? Does that work not merit a living wage?
I experienced this vital work 14 years ago here in Montgomery County with my own parents. Hospice workers helped my siblings and I care for our parents at home, allowing them the dignity and peace of dying in the place they loved.
And I know people in care centers and those who work to care for them. It’s vital work. Yet these workers struggle to pay their bills. Why doesn’t their pay reflect the critical importance of what they do?
In one of my son’s many organizing jobs (part of a continuing search for stable full-time employment after college), he spent several weeks helping the Service Employees International Union contact home healthcare workers in the Twin Cities. The goal was to organize these workers to bargain for better pay and benefits. Shouldn’t the work merit better pay?
Coincidentally, a Facebook infographic popped up last week highlighting the pay of state employees. It noted the highest paid state employees were likely college sport coaches. Iowa reflects this trend, as outlined by the Cedar Rapids Gazette’s post on the Iowa State Employee Salary Database. “Iowa Football Coach Kirk Ferentz remained the state’s highest paid employee last year . . . ”
Do we really value sports more than care of each other? What about other types of work?
For example, financial executives at some of the Wall Street firms bailed out by our government have continued paying executive bonuses and bloated salaries. In any other industry, they’d be out of jobs.
If worker pay is to reflect merit (and our values), shouldn’t we demand a living wage for all workers?
Late on Mother’s Day, my father-in-law finally succumbed to a rare neurological condition called progressive supernuclear palsy (PSP). Thanks to the love of his wife and kids, a solid medical team and home healthcare workers, he was able to die peacefully, without much pain, at home.
Two days afterwards, as we made plans to join the family in Illinois, my mother-in-law related over the phone an item on her memorial planning to-do list that brought this question back. She was taking a thank-you card and monetary gift to their home health aide, a young woman with a child. Every weekday morning, she came to help my mother-in-law prepare Dean for the day. And in her efforts to care for the caregiver, she frequently shooed Shirley out of the house to take a break.
But as Shirley pointed out, the pay was minimal. “She relied on us for her income,” Shirley said about her errand. She wanted to be sure Addie was taken care of, too.
Why does the pay of home and other health care workers not reflect the importance of caring for our loved ones? Does that work not merit a living wage?
I experienced this vital work 14 years ago here in Montgomery County with my own parents. Hospice workers helped my siblings and I care for our parents at home, allowing them the dignity and peace of dying in the place they loved.
And I know people in care centers and those who work to care for them. It’s vital work. Yet these workers struggle to pay their bills. Why doesn’t their pay reflect the critical importance of what they do?
In one of my son’s many organizing jobs (part of a continuing search for stable full-time employment after college), he spent several weeks helping the Service Employees International Union contact home healthcare workers in the Twin Cities. The goal was to organize these workers to bargain for better pay and benefits. Shouldn’t the work merit better pay?
Coincidentally, a Facebook infographic popped up last week highlighting the pay of state employees. It noted the highest paid state employees were likely college sport coaches. Iowa reflects this trend, as outlined by the Cedar Rapids Gazette’s post on the Iowa State Employee Salary Database. “Iowa Football Coach Kirk Ferentz remained the state’s highest paid employee last year . . . ”
Do we really value sports more than care of each other? What about other types of work?
For example, financial executives at some of the Wall Street firms bailed out by our government have continued paying executive bonuses and bloated salaries. In any other industry, they’d be out of jobs.
If worker pay is to reflect merit (and our values), shouldn’t we demand a living wage for all workers?
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Have you thanked a teacher today?
Did you know today is National Teacher Day? It’s always Tuesday of the first full week in May.
Being married to a teacher, I am reminded of this observance via the annual arrival of graduation announcements from Curt’s former students. Some of the kids were in his classroom; some of them ran on his cross country team. And they may not know it, but their invitations give my husband great joy as he celebrates their accomplishments and the time they shared.
It also reminds me of the teachers in my life who’ve helped shape my course. On my mind as I write this column are two: my 8th grade social studies teacher and the college professor who taught expository and persuasive writing. They are a study in contrasts.
Some of you may know my Social Studies teacher, Lila Hoogeveen, as she’s still active here in southwest Iowa. A creative dynamo, Mrs. Hoogeveen developed a marvel of integrated learning: the Convention of the Continental Congress.
This activity included a homework assignment to make a powdered wig to wear while the Congress was in session; a reenactment of the Congress’ agenda to create a Constitution for the United States; and ongoing personal journals, written in the voice of our assigned characters. The entire process modeled democracy in a way which still resonates with me.
The hours we delegates spent arguing our positions demonstrated powerfully the difficulty of our founding fathers’ work. It was uncomfortable, messy and slow, much like real governing. And that picture of our democratic process has stuck with me and given me patience during my own work as an engaged citizen.
In contrast, my college professor, whose name I cannot even remember, drilled into me strong skills without much appreciation or awareness from me. A creative writer, I wasn’t excited about the class, but it fit my schedule and fulfilled a credit. So I hunkered down and did the work for the desired grade.
It was a work-intensive course, with assignments for nearly every class. And my instructor marked each assignment with constructive criticism. We also had assigned reading to develop our understanding of logic and persuasion.
While this professor’s low key kill-and-drill style didn’t inspire excitement and admiration at the time, I credit her with my ability to tap out this column every other week without much difficulty.
Of course, these two teachers aren’t alone in my teacher Hall of Fame. I could tell you stories (and probably will) about other influential teachers in my life. I owe them all a debt and honor them for their work.
So today, I’d ask you to thank a teacher in your life. Copious research highlights that learning is anchored in strong teacher-student relationships. That gets lost in all the talk about test scores, accountability and reform.
Because no number can measure the skills, values and understanding teachers like Mrs. Hoogeveen and my writing professor develop when they give students their time, effort and attention. We need to remember that whenever we hear calls for education reform.
Being married to a teacher, I am reminded of this observance via the annual arrival of graduation announcements from Curt’s former students. Some of the kids were in his classroom; some of them ran on his cross country team. And they may not know it, but their invitations give my husband great joy as he celebrates their accomplishments and the time they shared.
It also reminds me of the teachers in my life who’ve helped shape my course. On my mind as I write this column are two: my 8th grade social studies teacher and the college professor who taught expository and persuasive writing. They are a study in contrasts.
Some of you may know my Social Studies teacher, Lila Hoogeveen, as she’s still active here in southwest Iowa. A creative dynamo, Mrs. Hoogeveen developed a marvel of integrated learning: the Convention of the Continental Congress.
This activity included a homework assignment to make a powdered wig to wear while the Congress was in session; a reenactment of the Congress’ agenda to create a Constitution for the United States; and ongoing personal journals, written in the voice of our assigned characters. The entire process modeled democracy in a way which still resonates with me.
The hours we delegates spent arguing our positions demonstrated powerfully the difficulty of our founding fathers’ work. It was uncomfortable, messy and slow, much like real governing. And that picture of our democratic process has stuck with me and given me patience during my own work as an engaged citizen.
In contrast, my college professor, whose name I cannot even remember, drilled into me strong skills without much appreciation or awareness from me. A creative writer, I wasn’t excited about the class, but it fit my schedule and fulfilled a credit. So I hunkered down and did the work for the desired grade.
It was a work-intensive course, with assignments for nearly every class. And my instructor marked each assignment with constructive criticism. We also had assigned reading to develop our understanding of logic and persuasion.
While this professor’s low key kill-and-drill style didn’t inspire excitement and admiration at the time, I credit her with my ability to tap out this column every other week without much difficulty.
Of course, these two teachers aren’t alone in my teacher Hall of Fame. I could tell you stories (and probably will) about other influential teachers in my life. I owe them all a debt and honor them for their work.
So today, I’d ask you to thank a teacher in your life. Copious research highlights that learning is anchored in strong teacher-student relationships. That gets lost in all the talk about test scores, accountability and reform.
Because no number can measure the skills, values and understanding teachers like Mrs. Hoogeveen and my writing professor develop when they give students their time, effort and attention. We need to remember that whenever we hear calls for education reform.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
How did gun sales trump public safety?
“My friends know that I’m a pretty strong constitutional conservative,” wrote one of my Facebook friends last Wednesday afternoon, “But I’m not sure how a law that would have strictly forbidden a national gun registry is supposed to lead to a national gun registry. Feeling lost,” he concluded with a sad-faced emoticon.
He was referring to the fact that despite 90 percent of Americans supporting legislation to institute criminal background checks for all gun purchases, including online and at gun shows, the U.S. Senate was unable to pass it.
How did this happen?
Well for one thing, gun lobbying groups and right-wing pundits smeared the proposed legislation. To manipulate individual gun owners, and more importantly Congress, to protect all gun sales, they misrepresented the bill as mandating a national gun registry.
As the New York Times reported: “The National Rifle Association mobilized members to blanket the Senate with phone calls, e-mails and letters.”
On Fox News, Eric Bolling argued the legislation mandated a national gun registry, even though it specifically strengthened an existing law outlawing such a registry. And on his April 10 program, right wing radio announcer Mark Levin implied the law would create a database of gun owners and perhaps even lead to genocide. Another Fox News contributor, Erick Erickson, tweeted liberal doctors might one day diagnose Christians as “too crazy for gun ownership.”
Where do they get this stuff? They make it up to get credulous voters to advocate for their point of view. And apparently it works on Congress people, too.
As The New York Times article noted, our Senator Charles E. Grassley contributed nothing more to the debate than the tired old saw: “Criminals do not submit to background checks now. They will not submit to expanded background checks.”
Yet a recent NBC news report noted: “The numbers show that background checks do keep guns out of the hands of at least some people who are not supposed to have them. Nearly 1.8 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were denied between the passage of the [Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act] law in March 1994 and December 2008, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The FBI and state law enforcement denied firearm purchases to 153,000 people in 2010 alone, the most recent year for which data is available.”
And another recent New York Times story, titled “Seeking Gun or Selling One, Web is Land of Few Rules,” reported: “A 2011 undercover investigation by the City of New York examined private party gun sellers on a range of Web sites, including Armslist, to see if they would sell guns to someone who said that they probably could not pass a background check. (Federal law bars sales to any person the seller has reason to believe is prohibited from purchasing firearms). Investigators found seventy-seven of 125 online sellers agreed to sell the weapons anyway.”
Ultimately, those sellers chose the money from the sale over the safety of the public. Profit before people.
If that’s what we value, we really are lost.
He was referring to the fact that despite 90 percent of Americans supporting legislation to institute criminal background checks for all gun purchases, including online and at gun shows, the U.S. Senate was unable to pass it.
How did this happen?
Well for one thing, gun lobbying groups and right-wing pundits smeared the proposed legislation. To manipulate individual gun owners, and more importantly Congress, to protect all gun sales, they misrepresented the bill as mandating a national gun registry.
As the New York Times reported: “The National Rifle Association mobilized members to blanket the Senate with phone calls, e-mails and letters.”
On Fox News, Eric Bolling argued the legislation mandated a national gun registry, even though it specifically strengthened an existing law outlawing such a registry. And on his April 10 program, right wing radio announcer Mark Levin implied the law would create a database of gun owners and perhaps even lead to genocide. Another Fox News contributor, Erick Erickson, tweeted liberal doctors might one day diagnose Christians as “too crazy for gun ownership.”
Where do they get this stuff? They make it up to get credulous voters to advocate for their point of view. And apparently it works on Congress people, too.
As The New York Times article noted, our Senator Charles E. Grassley contributed nothing more to the debate than the tired old saw: “Criminals do not submit to background checks now. They will not submit to expanded background checks.”
Yet a recent NBC news report noted: “The numbers show that background checks do keep guns out of the hands of at least some people who are not supposed to have them. Nearly 1.8 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were denied between the passage of the [Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act] law in March 1994 and December 2008, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The FBI and state law enforcement denied firearm purchases to 153,000 people in 2010 alone, the most recent year for which data is available.”
And another recent New York Times story, titled “Seeking Gun or Selling One, Web is Land of Few Rules,” reported: “A 2011 undercover investigation by the City of New York examined private party gun sellers on a range of Web sites, including Armslist, to see if they would sell guns to someone who said that they probably could not pass a background check. (Federal law bars sales to any person the seller has reason to believe is prohibited from purchasing firearms). Investigators found seventy-seven of 125 online sellers agreed to sell the weapons anyway.”
Ultimately, those sellers chose the money from the sale over the safety of the public. Profit before people.
If that’s what we value, we really are lost.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
What do we owe each other?
This question was penned recently by a high school student in Austin, Texas and shared by a friend on Facebook.
Deb’s students come from varied ethnic and economic backgrounds, many with numerous challenges to overcome, and she works diligently with love to give them a safe place to learn, grow and become themselves. She often posts about her classroom encounters.
But this question really stopped me. It echoed a question that popped out of my husband’s mouth during a discussion one evening: “Are we all in this alone?”
Well, are we?
Citizens, we know via polling, want to preserve social insurance programs like Social Security, Medicare and unemployment. But to hear politicians, pundits and even some of these same citizens, talk about these programs, they only serve deadbeat freeloaders.
In addition, plenty of citizens complain about income taxes without recognizing they pay for vital government services. Too many don’t understand our progressive tax system was designed to prevent income inequality because rates rise incrementally according to each level’s ability to pay.
Yet our progressive tax system has been systematically eroded over the last 40 years to benefit the wealthy. So today, we hear proposals for flat taxes as a way to “simplify” the tax code. (It’s a trap, people!)
And to get back to the original question, what’s wrong with paying taxes to help build our national, state or local community? Do we really all go it alone?
Did you build the road you drive to work on? Do you put out your own fires? Do you have your own hospital and school? Do you check your own food supply and develop your own vaccines? Or do you take advantage of all these services via your government?
Generally speaking, we all do better when we ALL do better, including, as they are called in the Good Book, the least among us. In fact, most major faiths call for hospitality or care of others.
How does America do by this standard? According to an article by Paul Buchhelt titled, “Five Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America,” out of 141 countries, we have the 4th highest degree of wealth inequality, ranking behind only Russia, Ukraine and Lebanon.
And a recent YouTube Video titled “Wealth Inequality in America,” laid bare the difference between our beliefs about wealth distribution and the reality. As the video notes, the top 1 percent owns 40 percent of the nation’s wealth; the bottom 80 percent only has 7 percent between them.
So to answer “What do we owe each other?” I think we, first, have to acknowledge our common life. We are connected.
In a recent blog post titled, “On God’s Side: For the Common Good,” Rev. Jim Wallis writes: “That old but always new ethic simply says we must care for more than just ourselves or our own group. We must care for our neighbor as well, and for the health of the life we share with one another. It echoes a very basic tenet of Christianity and other faiths — love your neighbor as yourself — still the most transformational ethic in history.”
Because as Wallis concludes, “Our life together can be better.”
Deb’s students come from varied ethnic and economic backgrounds, many with numerous challenges to overcome, and she works diligently with love to give them a safe place to learn, grow and become themselves. She often posts about her classroom encounters.
But this question really stopped me. It echoed a question that popped out of my husband’s mouth during a discussion one evening: “Are we all in this alone?”
Well, are we?
Citizens, we know via polling, want to preserve social insurance programs like Social Security, Medicare and unemployment. But to hear politicians, pundits and even some of these same citizens, talk about these programs, they only serve deadbeat freeloaders.
In addition, plenty of citizens complain about income taxes without recognizing they pay for vital government services. Too many don’t understand our progressive tax system was designed to prevent income inequality because rates rise incrementally according to each level’s ability to pay.
Yet our progressive tax system has been systematically eroded over the last 40 years to benefit the wealthy. So today, we hear proposals for flat taxes as a way to “simplify” the tax code. (It’s a trap, people!)
And to get back to the original question, what’s wrong with paying taxes to help build our national, state or local community? Do we really all go it alone?
Did you build the road you drive to work on? Do you put out your own fires? Do you have your own hospital and school? Do you check your own food supply and develop your own vaccines? Or do you take advantage of all these services via your government?
Generally speaking, we all do better when we ALL do better, including, as they are called in the Good Book, the least among us. In fact, most major faiths call for hospitality or care of others.
How does America do by this standard? According to an article by Paul Buchhelt titled, “Five Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America,” out of 141 countries, we have the 4th highest degree of wealth inequality, ranking behind only Russia, Ukraine and Lebanon.
And a recent YouTube Video titled “Wealth Inequality in America,” laid bare the difference between our beliefs about wealth distribution and the reality. As the video notes, the top 1 percent owns 40 percent of the nation’s wealth; the bottom 80 percent only has 7 percent between them.
So to answer “What do we owe each other?” I think we, first, have to acknowledge our common life. We are connected.
In a recent blog post titled, “On God’s Side: For the Common Good,” Rev. Jim Wallis writes: “That old but always new ethic simply says we must care for more than just ourselves or our own group. We must care for our neighbor as well, and for the health of the life we share with one another. It echoes a very basic tenet of Christianity and other faiths — love your neighbor as yourself — still the most transformational ethic in history.”
Because as Wallis concludes, “Our life together can be better.”
Monday, April 8, 2013
If you mandate it, why not fund it?
As I was doing my morning reading last week, I did a quick check of my Facebook page to discover a post by a friend and member of a local school board. It linked to a KMA story about the Iowa Senate passing a school radon bill. My friend’s comment noted without the funding, the bill wasn’t much help to schools.
In other words, it’s just another “unfunded mandate.”
From my years tracking state education legislation, I can say this follows the usual pattern of picking issues and pushing through one-size-fits-all fixes. These fixes often turn into political theater, giving legislators issues on which to run their next campaign. But they create headaches for local level officials charged with implementation because they are passed without the funding that would make them work.
In this case, without additional funding to help schools pay for installation of any needed radon mitigation system, requiring it becomes a burden more likely to erode a district’s education program by taking money away from kids’ learning or other district needs. Currently, that’s how the legislation reads.
And such legislation distracts from the real responsibility of legislators to tax and spend for the common good. Their job, first and foremost, is to provide the means (money) for public services, not the details of their operation.
As one southwest Iowa legislator noted when I made a visit to the Capitol in February, from the beginning of his legislative career, he specialized, serving on agricultural and human service committees. Too many issues come before the legislature for him to be an expert in all, he said.
Which leads me to ask why legislators are passing legislation at this level of detail, instead of appropriating adequate education funds to allow local officials to do the job of providing safe schools? Ironically, this same legislator registered a similar complaint about working with the federal government on water quality standards in Iowa.
But getting back to radon, it is very definitely a public health issue, and we want to protect our children. If it’s a priority, then it’s the legislature’s job to appropriate the funds to pay for this public safety law. However, without the funding, it’s simply marketing for the next election.
If legislators are serious about public needs, they need to be willing to fund them. That’s why Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to tax. And our state constitution states: “Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people.” No government can perform these duties without funds.
Likewise, schools can’t fix a radon problem without funds.
So if state legislators really want to protect our schools from radon, they need to provide the funds for it. Either attach appropriations to the radon bill or increase allowable growth to cover it instead of asking schools to cut already tight budgets or local property taxpayers to pick up the bill.
In other words, it’s just another “unfunded mandate.”
From my years tracking state education legislation, I can say this follows the usual pattern of picking issues and pushing through one-size-fits-all fixes. These fixes often turn into political theater, giving legislators issues on which to run their next campaign. But they create headaches for local level officials charged with implementation because they are passed without the funding that would make them work.
In this case, without additional funding to help schools pay for installation of any needed radon mitigation system, requiring it becomes a burden more likely to erode a district’s education program by taking money away from kids’ learning or other district needs. Currently, that’s how the legislation reads.
And such legislation distracts from the real responsibility of legislators to tax and spend for the common good. Their job, first and foremost, is to provide the means (money) for public services, not the details of their operation.
As one southwest Iowa legislator noted when I made a visit to the Capitol in February, from the beginning of his legislative career, he specialized, serving on agricultural and human service committees. Too many issues come before the legislature for him to be an expert in all, he said.
Which leads me to ask why legislators are passing legislation at this level of detail, instead of appropriating adequate education funds to allow local officials to do the job of providing safe schools? Ironically, this same legislator registered a similar complaint about working with the federal government on water quality standards in Iowa.
But getting back to radon, it is very definitely a public health issue, and we want to protect our children. If it’s a priority, then it’s the legislature’s job to appropriate the funds to pay for this public safety law. However, without the funding, it’s simply marketing for the next election.
If legislators are serious about public needs, they need to be willing to fund them. That’s why Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to tax. And our state constitution states: “Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people.” No government can perform these duties without funds.
Likewise, schools can’t fix a radon problem without funds.
So if state legislators really want to protect our schools from radon, they need to provide the funds for it. Either attach appropriations to the radon bill or increase allowable growth to cover it instead of asking schools to cut already tight budgets or local property taxpayers to pick up the bill.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Basic skills testing: What’s in a number?
Education has been on my mind a lot lately. But then, I live with a teacher and student, so it is always front and center at my house.
The past week, my daughter has been sharing about the annual run-up to basic skills testing. We’ve shared conversations about the importance of the tests, how the results affect not only her, but her teachers, school and, by virtue of the school being one of the largest employers, our entire community. We’ve searched the house for pencils to be sure she has a ready supply to thoroughly fill each answer bubble. And it’s been early to bed with a healthy breakfast every morning.
But this year, as I do every year, I wonder what my daughter and her teachers are missing out on while they go through this data-collection process? How many irreplaceable opportunities to experience the joy of learning are missed in the quest for some numbers?
In addition, I’ve been tracking our Iowa legislature as they debate what the governor has termed his education “reform” package and, once again, missed the deadline to pass funding for the next year. This deadline was missed not just because of disagreement about how much the state can afford. It’s also because the governor tied his reform plan (which is really just a repackaging of things many schools are already doing) to the money in an effort to push it through. Some of this plan includes which assessments or tests we’ll be using to evaluate Iowa schools.
That’s when I came across an article comparing our military and education systems. Written by Professor William J. Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Air Force, and entitled “Why Johnny Can’t Read or Win Wars,” this article took a closer look at the misperceptions created when we reduce the results of our actions to numbers. His example compares the use of the body count during recent wars to the new penchant for test scores in education.
“What’s missing is the old-fashioned sense of education as a public good, as essential to democracy,” he writes. “ . . . Instead, today’s ultimate metric of educational success is not empowerment but rather employment. Education is reduced to training and success is measured by a post-college paycheck. Call it another form of body count: the number of (student) bodies who graduate with jobs. Never mind the ideals or morals of those students. Never mind their virtue. Those qualities can’t be readily measured, so we’ll ignore or dismiss them.”
I read this a week after I watched my daughter’s teachers and older school mates band together to provide for the immediate necessities of a student who lost everything in a house fire. What’s the measure for that?
As Astore concludes, it’s up to us to decide whether we want to churn out workers for jobs or people who can think critically, solve problems and lead.
The past week, my daughter has been sharing about the annual run-up to basic skills testing. We’ve shared conversations about the importance of the tests, how the results affect not only her, but her teachers, school and, by virtue of the school being one of the largest employers, our entire community. We’ve searched the house for pencils to be sure she has a ready supply to thoroughly fill each answer bubble. And it’s been early to bed with a healthy breakfast every morning.
But this year, as I do every year, I wonder what my daughter and her teachers are missing out on while they go through this data-collection process? How many irreplaceable opportunities to experience the joy of learning are missed in the quest for some numbers?
In addition, I’ve been tracking our Iowa legislature as they debate what the governor has termed his education “reform” package and, once again, missed the deadline to pass funding for the next year. This deadline was missed not just because of disagreement about how much the state can afford. It’s also because the governor tied his reform plan (which is really just a repackaging of things many schools are already doing) to the money in an effort to push it through. Some of this plan includes which assessments or tests we’ll be using to evaluate Iowa schools.
That’s when I came across an article comparing our military and education systems. Written by Professor William J. Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Air Force, and entitled “Why Johnny Can’t Read or Win Wars,” this article took a closer look at the misperceptions created when we reduce the results of our actions to numbers. His example compares the use of the body count during recent wars to the new penchant for test scores in education.
“What’s missing is the old-fashioned sense of education as a public good, as essential to democracy,” he writes. “ . . . Instead, today’s ultimate metric of educational success is not empowerment but rather employment. Education is reduced to training and success is measured by a post-college paycheck. Call it another form of body count: the number of (student) bodies who graduate with jobs. Never mind the ideals or morals of those students. Never mind their virtue. Those qualities can’t be readily measured, so we’ll ignore or dismiss them.”
I read this a week after I watched my daughter’s teachers and older school mates band together to provide for the immediate necessities of a student who lost everything in a house fire. What’s the measure for that?
As Astore concludes, it’s up to us to decide whether we want to churn out workers for jobs or people who can think critically, solve problems and lead.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Will guns protect us from government?
Since the events in Newtown last December, I’ve engaged in a number of conversations about public safety, specifically about how to responsibly regulate gun ownership. And I’m always amazed at the people who are convinced we need those guns to protect ourselves from our own government.
First, if we are truly a democracy, “we the people” are ultimately the government. So to paraphrase a Frank Zappa song, “If government is the problem, then we’re the problem . . . and maybe even a little ugly on the side.”
Next, these folks never seem to acknowledge that weapons rarely have been the key to resisting government tyranny. Plenty of bloodless coups have occurred via the use of other means. And I propose that, to some degree, folks who are paranoid about our government have already missed the boat.
Why? While they were watching FOX News, a handful of mega-wealthy corporate moguls bought up our press and rigged our system via campaign contributions and lobbying and have already taken over the government.
And to add insult to injury, via groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), they’ve been taking citizens’ membership and purchase dollars to write laws that further decrease our ability to get ahead and lead a secure life. Not only do we serve their interests when we unquestioningly consume the information they present, but we pay the bill for them when we pay our dues or purchase their products. How’s that for a deal?
Government is just the straw man they’ve set up to take the blame while they shift our tax dollars to offshore accounts and steal our resources. We’ve been lulled to sleep with their slogans and infotainment, and we mutely accept that nothing we do can change it.
Poppycock!
The power of people uniting for action has always countered these powerful minorities. Why do you think corporate powers hate unions?
As one reader noted in a response to an earlier column, less than 10 percent of workers belong to unions today. But when media repeats the same tired stories of egregious union workplace requirements without providing the context of labor history in this country, people come to view unions negatively. The more isolated workers feel, the easier it is for business to limit wages, benefits and health and safety regulations. If workers fear losing their job, they’ll be easier to control. And these lowered expectations then extend to other workers in non-union industries.
So you can holler about keeping your guns to fight the tyranny of the government. But I say you’ve already lost the battle to the real power in the U.S. – corporate special interests. And your guns won’t protect you from that – only a united and well informed populace willing to speak up will.
First, if we are truly a democracy, “we the people” are ultimately the government. So to paraphrase a Frank Zappa song, “If government is the problem, then we’re the problem . . . and maybe even a little ugly on the side.”
Next, these folks never seem to acknowledge that weapons rarely have been the key to resisting government tyranny. Plenty of bloodless coups have occurred via the use of other means. And I propose that, to some degree, folks who are paranoid about our government have already missed the boat.
Why? While they were watching FOX News, a handful of mega-wealthy corporate moguls bought up our press and rigged our system via campaign contributions and lobbying and have already taken over the government.
And to add insult to injury, via groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), they’ve been taking citizens’ membership and purchase dollars to write laws that further decrease our ability to get ahead and lead a secure life. Not only do we serve their interests when we unquestioningly consume the information they present, but we pay the bill for them when we pay our dues or purchase their products. How’s that for a deal?
Government is just the straw man they’ve set up to take the blame while they shift our tax dollars to offshore accounts and steal our resources. We’ve been lulled to sleep with their slogans and infotainment, and we mutely accept that nothing we do can change it.
Poppycock!
The power of people uniting for action has always countered these powerful minorities. Why do you think corporate powers hate unions?
As one reader noted in a response to an earlier column, less than 10 percent of workers belong to unions today. But when media repeats the same tired stories of egregious union workplace requirements without providing the context of labor history in this country, people come to view unions negatively. The more isolated workers feel, the easier it is for business to limit wages, benefits and health and safety regulations. If workers fear losing their job, they’ll be easier to control. And these lowered expectations then extend to other workers in non-union industries.
So you can holler about keeping your guns to fight the tyranny of the government. But I say you’ve already lost the battle to the real power in the U.S. – corporate special interests. And your guns won’t protect you from that – only a united and well informed populace willing to speak up will.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
How did I miss this?
That was my reaction last Wednesday morning when I stumbled across a blog post by 2009 National Teacher of the Year (NTOY) Anthony Mullen entitled, “Teachers Should be Seen and Not Heard.” I’d been contemplating the state of education in Iowa as our governor and statehouse Republicans hold education funding (called allowable growth) hostage in an effort to fast-track Governor Branstad’s education reform plan. Mullen’s post, though old, describes what’s wrong with education reform efforts across the nation.
Prior to the NTOY honor, Mullen, a former New York City police officer, taught at an alternative high school in Connecticut, where he worked with students one step away from dropping out. As National Teacher of the Year, Mullen spent a year travelling the country and speaking to educators and reformers about this country’s high dropout rate. Mullen blogged about his experiences.
In his January 2010 post, Mullen describes participating in a small group meeting about education. Around the table with Mullen were three governors, one state senator, a Harvard professor/author and a moderator.
Mullen, who described himself as a “fly on the wall,” recounted the conversation around the table as the politicians and professor expressed their opinions. The politicians swapped comments about the quality of teachers, the need for accountability and the supposed benefits of running a school like a business. The Harvard professor contributed a mini-lesson about chaos theory in education.
Eventually the discussion anticipated teacherless classrooms, in which technology replaces teachers and schools.
Mullen narrated his thoughts as he listened to these ideas from people whose last experience in a K-12 classroom was their final year in high school. People, I’d add, whose own kids were probably grown and out of the house.
Finally, the senator asked Mullen, “What do you think?”
So Mullen shared his thoughts about the health care debate and wondered if he could sit on a panel to create a core curriculum of medical procedures to be used in emergency rooms. Suddenly he had everyone’s attention.
Mullen continued that he knows he’s unqualified for such a role as he’s not a doctor, never worked in an emergency room, nor treated a patient, but so what? “Today I have listened to people who are not teachers, have never worked in a classroom, and have never taught a single student tell me how to teach,” he concluded.
That’s the trouble with education reform – it’s being driven by people who know nothing about teaching. Meanwhile in Iowa, the resources our children and their schools need to continue their work is being held hostage while amateurs argue about reform.
By law (one signed by Governor Branstad during his first round as governor), the Iowa Legislature must pass school funding within the first 30 days of the session to allow schools to plan, certify their budgets and issue contracts. But for the last two years, he and statehouse Republicans have held school funding hostage in an effort to pass his education reform package.
What’s the hurry? Legislators’ job is to publicly and thoroughly examine and debate new policies. It is also to tax and spend for the common good. And first and foremost, it is to uphold state law.
Pass allowable growth for our children and schools. Then look at education reform, building it on the input of the experts and stakeholders – teachers, parents and students.
Prior to the NTOY honor, Mullen, a former New York City police officer, taught at an alternative high school in Connecticut, where he worked with students one step away from dropping out. As National Teacher of the Year, Mullen spent a year travelling the country and speaking to educators and reformers about this country’s high dropout rate. Mullen blogged about his experiences.
In his January 2010 post, Mullen describes participating in a small group meeting about education. Around the table with Mullen were three governors, one state senator, a Harvard professor/author and a moderator.
Mullen, who described himself as a “fly on the wall,” recounted the conversation around the table as the politicians and professor expressed their opinions. The politicians swapped comments about the quality of teachers, the need for accountability and the supposed benefits of running a school like a business. The Harvard professor contributed a mini-lesson about chaos theory in education.
Eventually the discussion anticipated teacherless classrooms, in which technology replaces teachers and schools.
Mullen narrated his thoughts as he listened to these ideas from people whose last experience in a K-12 classroom was their final year in high school. People, I’d add, whose own kids were probably grown and out of the house.
Finally, the senator asked Mullen, “What do you think?”
So Mullen shared his thoughts about the health care debate and wondered if he could sit on a panel to create a core curriculum of medical procedures to be used in emergency rooms. Suddenly he had everyone’s attention.
Mullen continued that he knows he’s unqualified for such a role as he’s not a doctor, never worked in an emergency room, nor treated a patient, but so what? “Today I have listened to people who are not teachers, have never worked in a classroom, and have never taught a single student tell me how to teach,” he concluded.
That’s the trouble with education reform – it’s being driven by people who know nothing about teaching. Meanwhile in Iowa, the resources our children and their schools need to continue their work is being held hostage while amateurs argue about reform.
By law (one signed by Governor Branstad during his first round as governor), the Iowa Legislature must pass school funding within the first 30 days of the session to allow schools to plan, certify their budgets and issue contracts. But for the last two years, he and statehouse Republicans have held school funding hostage in an effort to pass his education reform package.
What’s the hurry? Legislators’ job is to publicly and thoroughly examine and debate new policies. It is also to tax and spend for the common good. And first and foremost, it is to uphold state law.
Pass allowable growth for our children and schools. Then look at education reform, building it on the input of the experts and stakeholders – teachers, parents and students.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
If we cut spending, what gets fixed?
While working his first job out of graduate school in Texas, my husband came home with a story about a co-worker at the sheltered workshop where he was employed. This young man had married his high school sweetheart, and they’d recently had their first child. They were very traditional – while Tom was working, his wife focused on the home and child. Even back then, living on a single salary was a challenge.
Unfortunately for Tom, his wife’s parents had never placed any emphasis on her learning to manage money. He soon discovered while she knew how to spend it, she had no idea when the bills came, she and Tom were obligated to pay them. Instead, she thought if she threw them in the garbage, they would go away.
Needless to say, they didn’t. And by the time, Tom discovered what was happening, they had a serious problem. The marriage didn’t survive it either.
I was reminded of this young couple reading a New York Times piece by David Bornstein entitled, “When Paying It Forward Pays Us Back.” Bornstein writes: “But while it’s easy for budget hawks to call for the axe, we have to remember that cutting a program doesn’t make the problem go away. We’ll still have people who are unemployed, unskilled, aging, chronically ill, disabled, living in substandard housing and so forth. In many cases, their problems, if ignored, will become more costly for society over time.”
I’d add calling for more personal responsibility doesn’t make these problems disappear either.
But solutions are out there. Bornstein’s article focuses on the transitional care model (TCM) and its potential to cut Medicare costs for a projected savings of up to $10 billion per year – without cutting benefits. Transitional care saves money by preventing return visits to the hospital through home visits by specially trained nurses. According to the Coalition for Evidence-based Policy, multiple studies of TCM support its potential to not only save money, but effectively care for our seniors.
And the latter is what gets lost when policy matters are reduced to the budget. As a society, we’re too quick to evaluate programs and people based on numbers like a dollar amount or a test score — without looking at more qualitative measures. We want a simple or easy reference.
But people are not numbers. We remember that when it’s personal, but not when we’re talking about policy. Special interest groups have used this tendency to promote policies that have us fighting over crumbs instead of calling for policies that care for people.
As Congress gears up for the next round of budget debates, I encourage everyone to do their homework. Take a look at Bornstein’s article and the work of the Coalition for Evidence-based Policy. Ask yourself what outcomes you want your government to help provide instead of focusing solely on the costs.
Because if all we do is cut spending, nothing will get fixed.
Unfortunately for Tom, his wife’s parents had never placed any emphasis on her learning to manage money. He soon discovered while she knew how to spend it, she had no idea when the bills came, she and Tom were obligated to pay them. Instead, she thought if she threw them in the garbage, they would go away.
Needless to say, they didn’t. And by the time, Tom discovered what was happening, they had a serious problem. The marriage didn’t survive it either.
I was reminded of this young couple reading a New York Times piece by David Bornstein entitled, “When Paying It Forward Pays Us Back.” Bornstein writes: “But while it’s easy for budget hawks to call for the axe, we have to remember that cutting a program doesn’t make the problem go away. We’ll still have people who are unemployed, unskilled, aging, chronically ill, disabled, living in substandard housing and so forth. In many cases, their problems, if ignored, will become more costly for society over time.”
I’d add calling for more personal responsibility doesn’t make these problems disappear either.
But solutions are out there. Bornstein’s article focuses on the transitional care model (TCM) and its potential to cut Medicare costs for a projected savings of up to $10 billion per year – without cutting benefits. Transitional care saves money by preventing return visits to the hospital through home visits by specially trained nurses. According to the Coalition for Evidence-based Policy, multiple studies of TCM support its potential to not only save money, but effectively care for our seniors.
And the latter is what gets lost when policy matters are reduced to the budget. As a society, we’re too quick to evaluate programs and people based on numbers like a dollar amount or a test score — without looking at more qualitative measures. We want a simple or easy reference.
But people are not numbers. We remember that when it’s personal, but not when we’re talking about policy. Special interest groups have used this tendency to promote policies that have us fighting over crumbs instead of calling for policies that care for people.
As Congress gears up for the next round of budget debates, I encourage everyone to do their homework. Take a look at Bornstein’s article and the work of the Coalition for Evidence-based Policy. Ask yourself what outcomes you want your government to help provide instead of focusing solely on the costs.
Because if all we do is cut spending, nothing will get fixed.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Will cutting taxes really benefit Iowa’s economy?
Now the New Year has arrived, I’m preparing for the Iowa Legislature to convene. And surveying the preliminary media coverage, it looks like the usual battle over taxes vs. spending. The rub this year is an $800 million budget surplus.
Many of our state’s Republican legislators are set to give that money back to the taxpayers in the form of tax cuts, even though the surplus is largely the result of major cutbacks in state services.
But of course there’s the question of which taxpayers benefit. Will cuts benefit working Iowans who really have tightened their belts? Or will it be turned over to corporate interests under the guise of stimulating economic growth? I’ve been hearing about tax cuts stimulating economic growth since I was a kid, and I’m still waiting.
Ronald Reagan promised the miracles of supply-side or trickle-down economics when I was finishing high school. Those tax cuts led to a huge deficit when he left office in 1989. Yet I heard the same thing from state legislators when I served as a school board director after my return to Iowa in 2001. Instead of maintaining a reliable revenue stream to adequately fund state services like education, legislators were more concerned with cutting taxes, often via tax exemptions or deductions for special interests.
This left local public officials like me the task of making up the difference either by cutting services or asking for local tax increases – in most cases via property taxes.
And we’ve all seen the results of the cuts – personnel and positions eliminated in our schools; county services consolidated, limited or discontinued. It’s the flip side of the cutting taxes to create prosperity coin – cutting taxes means less services for the public. The real question is who really prospers from those cuts?
Too often I’ve found it means fatter profits for corporations who’ve used the tax issue as leverage to settle in our state. And as many communities can attest, that doesn’t mean these corporations will stay.
No, my research throughout the last 30 years has indicated that tax cuts, especially on the upper income brackets and corporations do little to stimulate growth. In fact, some of America’s periods of greatest growth were when taxes were much higher than the current rates. Those taxes built the infrastructure we benefit from today. Unfortunately, too many taxpayers accept the line that all taxes and government spending are bad.
One of the most recent studies of income tax rates by the Congressional Research Service [http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/PDF/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf] concluded: “The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth.”
So as our state legislators prepare to debate what to do with Iowa’s budget surplus, I hope citizens will pay attention and ask, “Who’s going to benefit?”
Personally, I’d like to see that money reinvested in Iowa to rebuild infrastructure and restore funding to agencies and services previously cut, like education. And instead of more tax cuts, I’d like to see us bring in more revenue by closing corporate tax loopholes.
This year, let’s not fall for the usual “tax cuts stimulate growth” line.
Many of our state’s Republican legislators are set to give that money back to the taxpayers in the form of tax cuts, even though the surplus is largely the result of major cutbacks in state services.
But of course there’s the question of which taxpayers benefit. Will cuts benefit working Iowans who really have tightened their belts? Or will it be turned over to corporate interests under the guise of stimulating economic growth? I’ve been hearing about tax cuts stimulating economic growth since I was a kid, and I’m still waiting.
Ronald Reagan promised the miracles of supply-side or trickle-down economics when I was finishing high school. Those tax cuts led to a huge deficit when he left office in 1989. Yet I heard the same thing from state legislators when I served as a school board director after my return to Iowa in 2001. Instead of maintaining a reliable revenue stream to adequately fund state services like education, legislators were more concerned with cutting taxes, often via tax exemptions or deductions for special interests.
This left local public officials like me the task of making up the difference either by cutting services or asking for local tax increases – in most cases via property taxes.
And we’ve all seen the results of the cuts – personnel and positions eliminated in our schools; county services consolidated, limited or discontinued. It’s the flip side of the cutting taxes to create prosperity coin – cutting taxes means less services for the public. The real question is who really prospers from those cuts?
Too often I’ve found it means fatter profits for corporations who’ve used the tax issue as leverage to settle in our state. And as many communities can attest, that doesn’t mean these corporations will stay.
No, my research throughout the last 30 years has indicated that tax cuts, especially on the upper income brackets and corporations do little to stimulate growth. In fact, some of America’s periods of greatest growth were when taxes were much higher than the current rates. Those taxes built the infrastructure we benefit from today. Unfortunately, too many taxpayers accept the line that all taxes and government spending are bad.
One of the most recent studies of income tax rates by the Congressional Research Service [http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/PDF/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf] concluded: “The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth.”
So as our state legislators prepare to debate what to do with Iowa’s budget surplus, I hope citizens will pay attention and ask, “Who’s going to benefit?”
Personally, I’d like to see that money reinvested in Iowa to rebuild infrastructure and restore funding to agencies and services previously cut, like education. And instead of more tax cuts, I’d like to see us bring in more revenue by closing corporate tax loopholes.
This year, let’s not fall for the usual “tax cuts stimulate growth” line.
Monday, January 7, 2013
Look at whole picture to solve violence problem
Since the Newtown, Conn. school shooting, I’ve observed you cannot say the phrase “gun control” without someone launching a hissy fit about Second Amendment Rights and regulations leading to all guns being banned.
Calm down, people.
First, let’s admit we have a problem with violence in this country, and gun violence is part of that. When guns are everywhere (and they are), they become part of the problem. As researchers at Harvard found, more guns equal more homicide. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
Next, let’s be honest about the fact that we’re looking for a solution – any solution. And human nature being what it is, we want that solution to be simple. Just give us the Staples “Easy” button.
It ain’t gonna happen. Did your parents ever tell you life was simple? Or as I like to ask, “Do you see in color?”
See, I studied drawing, which is really the practice of observing, analyzing and problem solving to create, in traditional studio drawing, a two-dimensional depiction of three-dimensional objects. One of the first things you learn is you can’t create a realistic depiction with only black and white. The two extremes alone create an abstraction.
So, you introduce every shade of gray from black to white. With the full range of values, you can create an amazing reproduction of reality.
Except, to complicate things further, we also see in color.
The gun “control” battle is like that. We want to blame one thing for events like the Sandy Hook massacre: guns; mentally ill, crazy or evil people; poor mental healthcare; violent video games and movies; unequal economic opportunity . . . and so on.
But reality is more complicated. The ugly truth is probably that ALL these things contribute to violence in America. Unfortunately, as a consumer society, we’ve had black/white, either/or dichotomies sold to us via infotainment and advertising – to the point we accept them as reality.
As Exhibit A, I give you our Congressional Republicans who determined, with the help of Newt Gingrich in the 90s, Democrats are the enemy. Perhaps this is why Congress can’t pass a budget.
And as Exhibit B, I’d present gun control. Or perhaps it might be better to call it public safety.
Because that’s really the issue – how can we keep each other safe in a society that values, and in many places, needs its guns? How do we balance public safety with regulations to ensure responsible gun ownership?
A full range of options exist, from registration and liscensure, limits on certain types of weapons, buy-back programs, etc. -- or everything from black to white. I like Iowa author Jane Smiley’s suggestion to require liability insurance on guns. She writes: “According to the Public Services Research Institute ‘the average cost of a gunshot related death is $33,000, while gun-related injuries total more than $300,000 for each occurrence,’ some 4.7 billion smackers every year. You and I are paying for most of these costs.”
Smiley has a couple of other suggestions worth reading, too, as she kicks off this conversation. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/a-few-remedies-for-the-ri_b_2323494.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false]
Solving this problem will mean calming down and talking to each other.
It will mean balancing individual rights of gun ownership with the common good of public safety. As Smiley notes, there are remedies, if you’re willing to see them.
So I repeat, “Do you see in color?”
Calm down, people.
First, let’s admit we have a problem with violence in this country, and gun violence is part of that. When guns are everywhere (and they are), they become part of the problem. As researchers at Harvard found, more guns equal more homicide. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
Next, let’s be honest about the fact that we’re looking for a solution – any solution. And human nature being what it is, we want that solution to be simple. Just give us the Staples “Easy” button.
It ain’t gonna happen. Did your parents ever tell you life was simple? Or as I like to ask, “Do you see in color?”
See, I studied drawing, which is really the practice of observing, analyzing and problem solving to create, in traditional studio drawing, a two-dimensional depiction of three-dimensional objects. One of the first things you learn is you can’t create a realistic depiction with only black and white. The two extremes alone create an abstraction.
So, you introduce every shade of gray from black to white. With the full range of values, you can create an amazing reproduction of reality.
Except, to complicate things further, we also see in color.
The gun “control” battle is like that. We want to blame one thing for events like the Sandy Hook massacre: guns; mentally ill, crazy or evil people; poor mental healthcare; violent video games and movies; unequal economic opportunity . . . and so on.
But reality is more complicated. The ugly truth is probably that ALL these things contribute to violence in America. Unfortunately, as a consumer society, we’ve had black/white, either/or dichotomies sold to us via infotainment and advertising – to the point we accept them as reality.
As Exhibit A, I give you our Congressional Republicans who determined, with the help of Newt Gingrich in the 90s, Democrats are the enemy. Perhaps this is why Congress can’t pass a budget.
And as Exhibit B, I’d present gun control. Or perhaps it might be better to call it public safety.
Because that’s really the issue – how can we keep each other safe in a society that values, and in many places, needs its guns? How do we balance public safety with regulations to ensure responsible gun ownership?
A full range of options exist, from registration and liscensure, limits on certain types of weapons, buy-back programs, etc. -- or everything from black to white. I like Iowa author Jane Smiley’s suggestion to require liability insurance on guns. She writes: “According to the Public Services Research Institute ‘the average cost of a gunshot related death is $33,000, while gun-related injuries total more than $300,000 for each occurrence,’ some 4.7 billion smackers every year. You and I are paying for most of these costs.”
Smiley has a couple of other suggestions worth reading, too, as she kicks off this conversation. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/a-few-remedies-for-the-ri_b_2323494.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false]
Solving this problem will mean calming down and talking to each other.
It will mean balancing individual rights of gun ownership with the common good of public safety. As Smiley notes, there are remedies, if you’re willing to see them.
So I repeat, “Do you see in color?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
