Do you assume your news sources present unbiased facts and information? Do you trustfully consume this news without ever questioning where it came from and who decided what to include and what to leave out?
If so, you’re probably being manipulated.
According to Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), a non-profit organization challenging media bias and censorship since 1986: “But mainstream media are increasingly cozy with the economic and political powers they should be watchdogging. Mergers in the news industry have accelerated, further limiting the spectrum of viewpoints that have access to mass media. With U.S. media outlets overwhelmingly owned by for-profit conglomerates and supported by corporate advertisers, independent journalism is compromised.”
But I don’t just take FAIR’s word for it. I’m speaking from my experience as a public relations practitioner. I help shape news by sending out news releases and contacting media to use them as news stories. And at the end of April I saw the poster-child for how the public relations industry shapes broadcast news.
One of my favorite Omaha news programs ran a story complete with video footage and interviews of a UNL coed who’d been robbed. She and friends had been enjoying a few beers, Pabst Blue Ribbon to be specific, when they were threatened by a thief with what they thought was a knife. After swiping the beer, he ran off only to be apprehended later. The news coverage continued with a PBR representative swooping in to save the day by delivering a new supply of their product to the student – all on camera. The PR person in me says, “Kudos to this PR guy for taking advantage of the situation and leveraging it into a free commercial.”
But the news consumer in me was screaming at the TV – “You call that news? Where is the coverage of the Unicameral, Omaha City Council or, God forbid, our Congress? Where is the editorial judgment?”
This two-minute story summed up for me the current state of our mainstream media. Instead of reporting from our centers of government and researching legislation affecting our common life, they pulled the easy-to-cover press release from the fax machine or e-mail. If you’re going to drive to Lincoln to do a story, why not cover the Unicameral?
It’s been so long since we’ve seen relevant, transparent reporting, based on research, facts and interviews, from our mainstream sources, most of us don’t recognize it anymore. We simply regurgitate whatever is presented, no questions asked. How can people vote responsibly when they don’t know who their representatives are and what legislation they passed?
And I’m serious. When people ask me which party controls each house of Congress, as happened recently, I get worried. I wonder how many people know their state level representatives. Without real information, voters will continue to make choices via fact-free campaign advertising and stump speeches – emotional reactions that will likely do nothing to actually help their situation.
So demand better. Tell media to report on relevant issues like government policies; ask for interviews, research and facts, including sources. And probably not for the last time, I’m telling you – quit reading and forwarding those chain e-mails. My PR colleagues have been creating those for clients, too.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
What about that deficit?
I’ve heard a lot about the deficit and our national debt the last five years. And I’m tired of people trotting out the canard about how irresponsible we’d be if we “ran our household budget like the government budget.” Even President Obama has made this terrible comparison. It’s apples to oranges, to use another cliché.
First and foremost, do we get to print money and set interest rates? I think not. Yet our government can do these things to respond to economic conditions.
Second, how many of us can make it through life without acquiring debt to pay for an education, automobile or house? I congratulate you if you have the resources to simply write a check. But for most of us, this type of debt is reasonable and manageable if we are employed and sensible with our dollars.
But government debt is a completely different beast because government controls monetary policy and government spending is actually independent of government debt. Counterintuitive, isn’t it?
Next, look at history. Deficits simply reflect current economic activity. Because our economy is depressed, our deficit is larger. When economic activity increases, we’ll see the deficit drop.
How to increase economic activity? Well, employing people would help, but we’ve not seen our “job creators” pony up money to expand and hire. Instead, they’re hoarding their money or investing elsewhere.
History shows that in situations like the present, government spending to support people via employment and social programs helps get the economy going. Of course in the 30s, direct employment programs were also effective. And for all you folks who believe World War II, and not FDR’s social programs, ended the Depression, I’d note the war created government spending -- just on the war effort.
Right now Europe is tumbling into a double-dip recession because in their single-minded focus on debt, they have cut spending to the bone. Austerity rules, and it’s creating instability, not growth.
America, particularly our Congress, needs to take note. To keep our economy moving, government is the only entity large enough to take appropriate action.
And as Robert Greenstein of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities notes, stabilizing our economy involves other factors, most notably rising health care costs. “In the long run, the single largest contribution to deficit reduction will need to come from slowing the rate of growth of health care costs throughout the U.S. health care system, in the public and private sectors alike. A slower rate of health care cost growth will produce substantial budgetary savings in areas ranging from Medicare and Medicaid to the tax exclusion for employer-based health coverage,” he writes.
So the whole thing is complicated and simple sound-bite solutions like a balanced budget amendment or cutting social programs or cutting taxes won’t work.
Develop a better understanding of government debt and the deficit by reading -- instead of listening to TV talking heads.
Start with “Deficit Dogma Debunked” by Marshall Auerback at: http://www.salon.com/2012/04/19/deficit_dogma_debunked/. Then dig deeper with Greenstein’s article, “A Framework for Deficit Reduction: Principles and Cautions” at: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3435.
First and foremost, do we get to print money and set interest rates? I think not. Yet our government can do these things to respond to economic conditions.
Second, how many of us can make it through life without acquiring debt to pay for an education, automobile or house? I congratulate you if you have the resources to simply write a check. But for most of us, this type of debt is reasonable and manageable if we are employed and sensible with our dollars.
But government debt is a completely different beast because government controls monetary policy and government spending is actually independent of government debt. Counterintuitive, isn’t it?
Next, look at history. Deficits simply reflect current economic activity. Because our economy is depressed, our deficit is larger. When economic activity increases, we’ll see the deficit drop.
How to increase economic activity? Well, employing people would help, but we’ve not seen our “job creators” pony up money to expand and hire. Instead, they’re hoarding their money or investing elsewhere.
History shows that in situations like the present, government spending to support people via employment and social programs helps get the economy going. Of course in the 30s, direct employment programs were also effective. And for all you folks who believe World War II, and not FDR’s social programs, ended the Depression, I’d note the war created government spending -- just on the war effort.
Right now Europe is tumbling into a double-dip recession because in their single-minded focus on debt, they have cut spending to the bone. Austerity rules, and it’s creating instability, not growth.
America, particularly our Congress, needs to take note. To keep our economy moving, government is the only entity large enough to take appropriate action.
And as Robert Greenstein of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities notes, stabilizing our economy involves other factors, most notably rising health care costs. “In the long run, the single largest contribution to deficit reduction will need to come from slowing the rate of growth of health care costs throughout the U.S. health care system, in the public and private sectors alike. A slower rate of health care cost growth will produce substantial budgetary savings in areas ranging from Medicare and Medicaid to the tax exclusion for employer-based health coverage,” he writes.
So the whole thing is complicated and simple sound-bite solutions like a balanced budget amendment or cutting social programs or cutting taxes won’t work.
Develop a better understanding of government debt and the deficit by reading -- instead of listening to TV talking heads.
Start with “Deficit Dogma Debunked” by Marshall Auerback at: http://www.salon.com/2012/04/19/deficit_dogma_debunked/. Then dig deeper with Greenstein’s article, “A Framework for Deficit Reduction: Principles and Cautions” at: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3435.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
What's changed since 2008?
As a 2008 volunteer, I get mailings from Obama for America.
Last week, the mailing envelope was a 12x18-inch poster headlined: CHANGE IS.
Beneath that was a black and white portrait of President Obama. And under the photo was a list of eleven accomplishments. They included:
Equal Pay for Equal Work
Saving the U.S. auto industry
Credit card reform
Hate Crimes Prevention Act
Affordable Care Act
Student loan reform
Wall Street reform
Middle-class tax cuts
Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
Raising fuel efficiency standards
Ending the war in Iraq
Since I track the president’s record, I’d add the destruction of Al-Quaida and its leader Osama Bin Laden.
Overall, the list just hits the highlights.
How many items were you aware of? How many of these items have made a difference in your life? I’d venture a guess that most of us have seen benefits from almost all of them, whether we’ll admit it or not.
Unfortunately, our mainstream corporate media has failed to cover the actual policies this administration has championed – mainly because they do not overwhelmingly benefit corporate media owners’ interests. Citizen ignorance is their friend.
Why? If you do not understand the Affordable Care Act, maybe you won’t support it – even though it allows your college graduate to stay on your insurance plan while he or she searches for a job.
If you’re ignorant, you won’t support it even though now your insurer can’t cut you off when you hit a certain dollar amount spent to cover your pre-existing condition. Ignorance will allow you to oppose it despite the fact your premiums would have increased more drastically had ACA not been passed.
The fact is that with a higher number of U.S. citizens insured, many of them healthy young people, ACA is already bending the cost curve down. But even with ACA, we’re barely making a dent in rising healthcare costs. We could more effectively control costs and care for people with either a single payer system (like Medicare) or socialized medicine (like the Veteran’s Administration), both of which could be expanded.
Yet, as journalist Chris Hedges points out in a recent column on healthcare, “. . . as long as corporations determine policy, as long as they can use their money to determine who gets elected and what legislation gets passed, we remain hostages.”
Plenty of people I’ve met are also unaware President Obama cut middle class taxes during the worst of the recession. Media didn’t report it that way; instead they reported he wants to “raise taxes,” even though he only wants to raise tax rates on wealthy individuals and large multinational corporations. He’s also decreased the deficit and cut more government spending than his predecessor.
This president has a long list of accomplishments, but listening to media reports you’d think we have seen no change. Where is this “liberal media bias” I hear about?
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again -- the first step to deciding who to vote for is to do your homework. Quit voting on emotion, turn off the TV and radio, and read. And know who pays for your sources. Otherwise you’re just a cog in the corporate machine, and nothing will change.
Because change is not just up to the president; it comes down to us.
Last week, the mailing envelope was a 12x18-inch poster headlined: CHANGE IS.
Beneath that was a black and white portrait of President Obama. And under the photo was a list of eleven accomplishments. They included:
Equal Pay for Equal Work
Saving the U.S. auto industry
Credit card reform
Hate Crimes Prevention Act
Affordable Care Act
Student loan reform
Wall Street reform
Middle-class tax cuts
Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
Raising fuel efficiency standards
Ending the war in Iraq
Since I track the president’s record, I’d add the destruction of Al-Quaida and its leader Osama Bin Laden.
Overall, the list just hits the highlights.
How many items were you aware of? How many of these items have made a difference in your life? I’d venture a guess that most of us have seen benefits from almost all of them, whether we’ll admit it or not.
Unfortunately, our mainstream corporate media has failed to cover the actual policies this administration has championed – mainly because they do not overwhelmingly benefit corporate media owners’ interests. Citizen ignorance is their friend.
Why? If you do not understand the Affordable Care Act, maybe you won’t support it – even though it allows your college graduate to stay on your insurance plan while he or she searches for a job.
If you’re ignorant, you won’t support it even though now your insurer can’t cut you off when you hit a certain dollar amount spent to cover your pre-existing condition. Ignorance will allow you to oppose it despite the fact your premiums would have increased more drastically had ACA not been passed.
The fact is that with a higher number of U.S. citizens insured, many of them healthy young people, ACA is already bending the cost curve down. But even with ACA, we’re barely making a dent in rising healthcare costs. We could more effectively control costs and care for people with either a single payer system (like Medicare) or socialized medicine (like the Veteran’s Administration), both of which could be expanded.
Yet, as journalist Chris Hedges points out in a recent column on healthcare, “. . . as long as corporations determine policy, as long as they can use their money to determine who gets elected and what legislation gets passed, we remain hostages.”
Plenty of people I’ve met are also unaware President Obama cut middle class taxes during the worst of the recession. Media didn’t report it that way; instead they reported he wants to “raise taxes,” even though he only wants to raise tax rates on wealthy individuals and large multinational corporations. He’s also decreased the deficit and cut more government spending than his predecessor.
This president has a long list of accomplishments, but listening to media reports you’d think we have seen no change. Where is this “liberal media bias” I hear about?
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again -- the first step to deciding who to vote for is to do your homework. Quit voting on emotion, turn off the TV and radio, and read. And know who pays for your sources. Otherwise you’re just a cog in the corporate machine, and nothing will change.
Because change is not just up to the president; it comes down to us.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Do we fear the wrong things?
Do we fear the wrong things?
The killing of Trayvon Martin, an African American youth on an errand to buy candy for his little brother in Sanford, Florida, opens up many questions, mostly about what we fear. And does our fear make us vulnerable to other dangers?
I ask because Martin’s death spotlights Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law, which allows anyone who feels threatened to use deadly force. In other words, fear rules. Some version of this law has been passed in 16 states and debated in even more.
Yet I wonder if it’s in the public interest to have an armed populace. Are we safer? And if a family member is killed, you may watch helplessly, just like Martin’s family, as this law allows the killer to walk free without charges or even an investigation.
In addition, the law is based on model legislation, called the Castle Doctrine Act and developed by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC is a secretive corporate-financed organization (Think Koch brothers, Exxon Mobil, and not coincidentally, the National Rifle Association.) that writes corporate-friendly legislation and pushes it through state legislatures nationwide.
The Center for Media and Democracy has done extensive research to expose the work of this influential organization. You can view their work at: http://alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed (Check their list of ALEC politicians for your federal and state representatives.)
Are groups like ALEC using our fears to manipulate us? Fear, or any strong emotion, causes humans to stop thinking and react irrationally. When that happens, we are easily led . . . or misled.
For example, do you fear the government? But in America, aren’t we, ultimately, the government? Don’t we elect and monitor our representatives? Or have we abandoned the process and let corporate and special interests take over without a fight?
Which leads me to ask who really benefits from the Stand Your Ground Law and these other corporate-written model bills? Are they being written as part of some corporate business plan to increase market share and corner public contracts?
For example, will the Stand Your Ground Law help gun dealers and manufacturers sell more guns? Another irony of the Trayvon Martin case is the kerfuffle by Geraldo Rivera over Martin’s hoodie. If, as Rivera claims, only crooks and thugs wear hoodies, why does the NRAstore.com sell a Concealed Carry Hooded Sweatshirt? Check it out for yourself at: http://www.nrastore.com/nrastore/ProductDetail.aspx?c=11&p=CO+635&ct=e
Instead of fearing the young black man or the non-English speaker or the stranger in our community, maybe we should be paying closer attention to the legislation being passed as law in state capitals. Perhaps we should be reading the bills our representatives are debating and demanding our newspapers, TV and radio stations report on the substance of said bills. Maybe we should be looking at where our elected officials get their campaign contributions.
Instead of parking in front of our TV sets, maybe we should be meeting on our front porches and talking. Instead of watching The Bachelor and YouTube videos, maybe we should be reading books, especially history, and daily newspapers or news sites. And we should definitely be asking lots of questions.
Instead of running into our separate corners in fear, we should be meeting and sharing information. Because as the saying goes, “United we stand, divided we fall.”
The killing of Trayvon Martin, an African American youth on an errand to buy candy for his little brother in Sanford, Florida, opens up many questions, mostly about what we fear. And does our fear make us vulnerable to other dangers?
I ask because Martin’s death spotlights Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law, which allows anyone who feels threatened to use deadly force. In other words, fear rules. Some version of this law has been passed in 16 states and debated in even more.
Yet I wonder if it’s in the public interest to have an armed populace. Are we safer? And if a family member is killed, you may watch helplessly, just like Martin’s family, as this law allows the killer to walk free without charges or even an investigation.
In addition, the law is based on model legislation, called the Castle Doctrine Act and developed by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC is a secretive corporate-financed organization (Think Koch brothers, Exxon Mobil, and not coincidentally, the National Rifle Association.) that writes corporate-friendly legislation and pushes it through state legislatures nationwide.
The Center for Media and Democracy has done extensive research to expose the work of this influential organization. You can view their work at: http://alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed (Check their list of ALEC politicians for your federal and state representatives.)
Are groups like ALEC using our fears to manipulate us? Fear, or any strong emotion, causes humans to stop thinking and react irrationally. When that happens, we are easily led . . . or misled.
For example, do you fear the government? But in America, aren’t we, ultimately, the government? Don’t we elect and monitor our representatives? Or have we abandoned the process and let corporate and special interests take over without a fight?
Which leads me to ask who really benefits from the Stand Your Ground Law and these other corporate-written model bills? Are they being written as part of some corporate business plan to increase market share and corner public contracts?
For example, will the Stand Your Ground Law help gun dealers and manufacturers sell more guns? Another irony of the Trayvon Martin case is the kerfuffle by Geraldo Rivera over Martin’s hoodie. If, as Rivera claims, only crooks and thugs wear hoodies, why does the NRAstore.com sell a Concealed Carry Hooded Sweatshirt? Check it out for yourself at: http://www.nrastore.com/nrastore/ProductDetail.aspx?c=11&p=CO+635&ct=e
Instead of fearing the young black man or the non-English speaker or the stranger in our community, maybe we should be paying closer attention to the legislation being passed as law in state capitals. Perhaps we should be reading the bills our representatives are debating and demanding our newspapers, TV and radio stations report on the substance of said bills. Maybe we should be looking at where our elected officials get their campaign contributions.
Instead of parking in front of our TV sets, maybe we should be meeting on our front porches and talking. Instead of watching The Bachelor and YouTube videos, maybe we should be reading books, especially history, and daily newspapers or news sites. And we should definitely be asking lots of questions.
Instead of running into our separate corners in fear, we should be meeting and sharing information. Because as the saying goes, “United we stand, divided we fall.”
Friday, March 23, 2012
Are we a civil society?
Recent news events have me pondering this question. Feb. 27 brought us a school shooting in Chardon, Ohio. Immediately, questions about bullying arose.
In our search to explain the death of three students and the arrest of another, we cast a wide net. Were there signs the killer was violent? Was he bullied? Did the school address bullying?
Within the next week, we witnessed Rush Limbaugh’s vitriolic attack on a relatively powerless individual, Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke, who testified before a congressional delegation about contraception as healthcare.
Fluke simply shared stories of real women whose inability to get contraception was risking their health, livelihoods and life.
Enter Limbaugh whose coverage of Fluke’s testimony descended into the realm of schoolyard bullying. Although Fluke had not referenced contraception as birth control, Limbaugh proceeded to call her a slut and implied female Georgetown students wanted birth control only for promiscuous sex.
Throw into this news mix the sudden death of Andrew Breitbart, a right-wing Internet media mogul who built his career enthusiastically tearing down organizations and people with whom he disagreed. For example, he selectively edited video footage of U.S. Department of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod, speaking about her effort to overcome her own biases when working with white farmers.
Breitbart’s misleading video clips destroyed Sherrod’s career, leading to her early retirement and to a lawsuit against him. But for Breitbart, any means justified his endsand anyone could be collateral damage, including himself. Breitbart’s Internet vitriol and public tantrums are his legacy.
As expected, Breitbart’s sudden death at 43 prompted responses from all sides. Rolling Stones’ Matt Taibbi, who shared Breitbart’s love of inflammatory language, but uses it in service of the liberal perspective, wrote a blog post the title of which I won’t repeat here. However, in Taibbi’s own distinct voice, he paid tribute to Breibart’s relentlessness. Yet Taibbi, and his family, were bullied with threatening phone calls, e-mails, texts and posts.
So in an update to his original article, Taibbi responded to Breitbart’s fans: “But I guess no homage is complete without a celebration of the whole man, and the whole man in this case was not just a guy who once said, ‘It’s all about a good laugh,’ but also someone who liked to publish peoples’ personal information on the internet, hack into private web sites, tell lies in an attempt to get his enemies fired, and incite readers to threats against his targets and their families, including death threats.”
Add to this news mix tales of NFL managers paying players to hurt opposing teams’ key players and our consumption of reality TV shows that promote name-calling, back-biting and humiliation, and I don’t think kids bullying should be any surprise. Instead, I wonder how we can be surprised about it at all.
If we want schools to be safe places, we can’t expect educators to carry the burden alone. We need to ask what behavior the rest of us (parents, grandparents, neighbors) model, too. Do we speak respectfully to and about those with whom we disagree? Are we civil?
And maybe we need to turn off the TV and radio, limit Internet use, and talk through our disagreements. Because last week made it obvious to me our media makes a mockery of civil discourse, and I’m ready to pull the plug.
In our search to explain the death of three students and the arrest of another, we cast a wide net. Were there signs the killer was violent? Was he bullied? Did the school address bullying?
Within the next week, we witnessed Rush Limbaugh’s vitriolic attack on a relatively powerless individual, Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke, who testified before a congressional delegation about contraception as healthcare.
Fluke simply shared stories of real women whose inability to get contraception was risking their health, livelihoods and life.
Enter Limbaugh whose coverage of Fluke’s testimony descended into the realm of schoolyard bullying. Although Fluke had not referenced contraception as birth control, Limbaugh proceeded to call her a slut and implied female Georgetown students wanted birth control only for promiscuous sex.
Throw into this news mix the sudden death of Andrew Breitbart, a right-wing Internet media mogul who built his career enthusiastically tearing down organizations and people with whom he disagreed. For example, he selectively edited video footage of U.S. Department of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod, speaking about her effort to overcome her own biases when working with white farmers.
Breitbart’s misleading video clips destroyed Sherrod’s career, leading to her early retirement and to a lawsuit against him. But for Breitbart, any means justified his endsand anyone could be collateral damage, including himself. Breitbart’s Internet vitriol and public tantrums are his legacy.
As expected, Breitbart’s sudden death at 43 prompted responses from all sides. Rolling Stones’ Matt Taibbi, who shared Breitbart’s love of inflammatory language, but uses it in service of the liberal perspective, wrote a blog post the title of which I won’t repeat here. However, in Taibbi’s own distinct voice, he paid tribute to Breibart’s relentlessness. Yet Taibbi, and his family, were bullied with threatening phone calls, e-mails, texts and posts.
So in an update to his original article, Taibbi responded to Breitbart’s fans: “But I guess no homage is complete without a celebration of the whole man, and the whole man in this case was not just a guy who once said, ‘It’s all about a good laugh,’ but also someone who liked to publish peoples’ personal information on the internet, hack into private web sites, tell lies in an attempt to get his enemies fired, and incite readers to threats against his targets and their families, including death threats.”
Add to this news mix tales of NFL managers paying players to hurt opposing teams’ key players and our consumption of reality TV shows that promote name-calling, back-biting and humiliation, and I don’t think kids bullying should be any surprise. Instead, I wonder how we can be surprised about it at all.
If we want schools to be safe places, we can’t expect educators to carry the burden alone. We need to ask what behavior the rest of us (parents, grandparents, neighbors) model, too. Do we speak respectfully to and about those with whom we disagree? Are we civil?
And maybe we need to turn off the TV and radio, limit Internet use, and talk through our disagreements. Because last week made it obvious to me our media makes a mockery of civil discourse, and I’m ready to pull the plug.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Is education really a priority with the state?
“It’s like déjà vu all over again,” said Yogi Berra. Once again Iowa school finance is caught on the political football field of the Iowa legislature. And education’s cause is not helped by our governor pushing his own version of education reform.
As a former school board director, I know we’ve been down this road before – and relatively recently. Each year, local schools plan their budgets, including setting local tax levies. This requires the state legislature to determine allowable growth (the percentage increase per pupil they can expect from the state). Due to the economy, schools are coming off of a year of 0% allowable growth and hoping to see 2-4% for 2014.
However thanks to the governor’s education reform plan, which includes a study of teacher compensation, Governor Branstad is proposing a delay to setting allowable growth. The governor wants to wait a year to see what the study proposes before he sets allowable growth. This presumes the task force will not only have proposals, but that they will be adopted and effective on July 1, 2013.
Iowa law requires the legislature to set allowable growth within 30 days after the governor submits a budget proposal. Although the Senate met that deadline, passing legislation with 4% allowable growth, the House instead passed a bill to set allowable growth for two years on odd numbered years.
“What’s the problem?” you may ask. Well, by Iowa law, schools must issue contracts and certify their budgets by April 15 each year. And I’ll give you one guess which governor set that policy. Yup – Governor Branstad in his first round as Iowa’s governor.
But how can schools develop a budget and set their tax rates without knowing how much funding they will receive?
If education is really a priority, shouldn’t we be allocating the resources for schools to improve student achievement, implement the Iowa Core Curriculum already underway and prepare Iowa’s kids for the 21st century? These kids are already in school; how do they benefit if we cut funding for these programs midstream? And with Iowa’s economy showing signs of improvement, shouldn’t our children benefit?
Improving student achievement has less to do with making legislative policy changes than with providing the resources to make it happen. In point of fact, public officials’ job is taxing and spending – first and foremost. So I’d like my state legislature to get busy and fund our schools.
Because as a parent, while my daughter is in school, I want the legislature to make sure funds are available to keep her school operating. And before the legislature and governor go making radical changes to how my school operates, I want them to listen to my local teachers, principals and parents. We know our kids and our community, and we have been working together to develop a quality program.
And we’re not alone. Schools across Iowa have been working hard to improve their programs and meet the requirements of the last big school reform plan – No Child Left Behind.
So I think it’s time for the governor and legislature to pony up and put their money where their mouth is. Pass allowable growth, and make sure our kids’ education continues uninterrupted.
As a former school board director, I know we’ve been down this road before – and relatively recently. Each year, local schools plan their budgets, including setting local tax levies. This requires the state legislature to determine allowable growth (the percentage increase per pupil they can expect from the state). Due to the economy, schools are coming off of a year of 0% allowable growth and hoping to see 2-4% for 2014.
However thanks to the governor’s education reform plan, which includes a study of teacher compensation, Governor Branstad is proposing a delay to setting allowable growth. The governor wants to wait a year to see what the study proposes before he sets allowable growth. This presumes the task force will not only have proposals, but that they will be adopted and effective on July 1, 2013.
Iowa law requires the legislature to set allowable growth within 30 days after the governor submits a budget proposal. Although the Senate met that deadline, passing legislation with 4% allowable growth, the House instead passed a bill to set allowable growth for two years on odd numbered years.
“What’s the problem?” you may ask. Well, by Iowa law, schools must issue contracts and certify their budgets by April 15 each year. And I’ll give you one guess which governor set that policy. Yup – Governor Branstad in his first round as Iowa’s governor.
But how can schools develop a budget and set their tax rates without knowing how much funding they will receive?
If education is really a priority, shouldn’t we be allocating the resources for schools to improve student achievement, implement the Iowa Core Curriculum already underway and prepare Iowa’s kids for the 21st century? These kids are already in school; how do they benefit if we cut funding for these programs midstream? And with Iowa’s economy showing signs of improvement, shouldn’t our children benefit?
Improving student achievement has less to do with making legislative policy changes than with providing the resources to make it happen. In point of fact, public officials’ job is taxing and spending – first and foremost. So I’d like my state legislature to get busy and fund our schools.
Because as a parent, while my daughter is in school, I want the legislature to make sure funds are available to keep her school operating. And before the legislature and governor go making radical changes to how my school operates, I want them to listen to my local teachers, principals and parents. We know our kids and our community, and we have been working together to develop a quality program.
And we’re not alone. Schools across Iowa have been working hard to improve their programs and meet the requirements of the last big school reform plan – No Child Left Behind.
So I think it’s time for the governor and legislature to pony up and put their money where their mouth is. Pass allowable growth, and make sure our kids’ education continues uninterrupted.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Are abortion and contraception health care?
I’ve had two abortions. Shocked? I certainly was when I learned D & Cs (dilation and curettage) are often coded as abortions for insurance purposes. Suddenly, abortion became a very personal issue.
When my husband and I were ready for a second child, I went through what was diagnosed as “recurrent miscarriages.” At one point, my body was expelling embryos so fast, the doctor could barely document the pregnancy.
And I carried two babies 12 weeks only to lose them. In both cases, our doctor recommended a D & C to prevent infection and future complications. I credit her care for the eventual birth of our daughter.
These memories come flooding back whenever abortion and contraception re-emerge as political footballs. Both are health care issues best left to individuals and their doctors. And their complicated nature is illustrated by personal stories.
For example, I read an account in Salon Magazine several years ago by a Catholic nurse whose family wanted a fourth child.
However, when they learned (after 20 weeks) their much anticipated daughter had a fatal condition that would precipitate her death shortly after birth – and one in which she would suffer – they felt they must make an unwelcome decision.
As a nurse, this woman did research to locate a facility that would perform a dilation and extraction to allow her family to bury their child and say goodbye.
But the pain didn’t end there. At a time when this family needed love and support, they were ostracized by friends, some family and their faith community.
Even the birth later, of a healthy fourth child, could not ease that pain.
So lately with the manufactured outrage over the decision to require all employers, including faith-based organizations (hospitals, charities, universities) to cover contraception as part of health insurance benefits for employees, I have been remembering all the women I know whose doctors have prescribed contraception to treat conditions like endometriosis or to prevent pregnancies that would endanger their lives due to other chronic conditions.
These memories prompt me to ask how we can deny that contraception (or abortion) is part of women’s health care?
And how can legislators in good conscience limit or deny access to treatments doctors need to care for patients?
With regard to this latest decision on contraception, it’s not really a controversial issue. As a story on ThinkProgress.org notes, DePaul University, as well as a number of other Catholic institutions, offers their employees a contraception benefit with their health insurance in accordance with state and federal law.
ThinkProgress also notes: “DePaul’s home state of Illinois is one of 28 to have adopted a contraception coverage requirement.
Eight of those states provide no opt-out clause for religious institutions and the administration’s new rule would expand conscience protections to those parts of the country.”
The story also referenced a Public Religion Research Institute poll indicating a majority of Americans, including a majority of Catholics, support the new coverage requirement.
So if the Obama administration is waging a “war on religion,” why did their decision “expand conscience protections to those parts of the country?” In other words, this decision allows more groups an exception to providing contraception.
Once again the mainstream media and politicians are using women’s health issues as a political football – to the detriment of women’s health.
So the libertarian in me wants to know, “Why do ‘small government’ Conservatives want to meddle in my health care?”
When my husband and I were ready for a second child, I went through what was diagnosed as “recurrent miscarriages.” At one point, my body was expelling embryos so fast, the doctor could barely document the pregnancy.
And I carried two babies 12 weeks only to lose them. In both cases, our doctor recommended a D & C to prevent infection and future complications. I credit her care for the eventual birth of our daughter.
These memories come flooding back whenever abortion and contraception re-emerge as political footballs. Both are health care issues best left to individuals and their doctors. And their complicated nature is illustrated by personal stories.
For example, I read an account in Salon Magazine several years ago by a Catholic nurse whose family wanted a fourth child.
However, when they learned (after 20 weeks) their much anticipated daughter had a fatal condition that would precipitate her death shortly after birth – and one in which she would suffer – they felt they must make an unwelcome decision.
As a nurse, this woman did research to locate a facility that would perform a dilation and extraction to allow her family to bury their child and say goodbye.
But the pain didn’t end there. At a time when this family needed love and support, they were ostracized by friends, some family and their faith community.
Even the birth later, of a healthy fourth child, could not ease that pain.
So lately with the manufactured outrage over the decision to require all employers, including faith-based organizations (hospitals, charities, universities) to cover contraception as part of health insurance benefits for employees, I have been remembering all the women I know whose doctors have prescribed contraception to treat conditions like endometriosis or to prevent pregnancies that would endanger their lives due to other chronic conditions.
These memories prompt me to ask how we can deny that contraception (or abortion) is part of women’s health care?
And how can legislators in good conscience limit or deny access to treatments doctors need to care for patients?
With regard to this latest decision on contraception, it’s not really a controversial issue. As a story on ThinkProgress.org notes, DePaul University, as well as a number of other Catholic institutions, offers their employees a contraception benefit with their health insurance in accordance with state and federal law.
ThinkProgress also notes: “DePaul’s home state of Illinois is one of 28 to have adopted a contraception coverage requirement.
Eight of those states provide no opt-out clause for religious institutions and the administration’s new rule would expand conscience protections to those parts of the country.”
The story also referenced a Public Religion Research Institute poll indicating a majority of Americans, including a majority of Catholics, support the new coverage requirement.
So if the Obama administration is waging a “war on religion,” why did their decision “expand conscience protections to those parts of the country?” In other words, this decision allows more groups an exception to providing contraception.
Once again the mainstream media and politicians are using women’s health issues as a political football – to the detriment of women’s health.
So the libertarian in me wants to know, “Why do ‘small government’ Conservatives want to meddle in my health care?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
