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?
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
