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.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
