If we cut spending, what gets fixed?

While working his first job out of graduate school in Texas, my husband came home with a story about a co-worker at the sheltered workshop where he was employed. This young man had married his high school sweetheart, and they’d recently had their first child. They were very traditional – while Tom was working, his wife focused on the home and child. Even back then, living on a single salary was a challenge.

Unfortunately for Tom, his wife’s parents had never placed any emphasis on her learning to manage money. He soon discovered while she knew how to spend it, she had no idea when the bills came, she and Tom were obligated to pay them. Instead, she thought if she threw them in the garbage, they would go away.

Needless to say, they didn’t. And by the time, Tom discovered what was happening, they had a serious problem. The marriage didn’t survive it either.

I was reminded of this young couple reading a New York Times piece by David Bornstein entitled, “When Paying It Forward Pays Us Back.” Bornstein writes: “But while it’s easy for budget hawks to call for the axe, we have to remember that cutting a program doesn’t make the problem go away. We’ll still have people who are unemployed, unskilled, aging, chronically ill, disabled, living in substandard housing and so forth. In many cases, their problems, if ignored, will become more costly for society over time.”

I’d add calling for more personal responsibility doesn’t make these problems disappear either.

But solutions are out there. Bornstein’s article focuses on the transitional care model (TCM) and its potential to cut Medicare costs for a projected savings of up to $10 billion per year – without cutting benefits. Transitional care saves money by preventing return visits to the hospital through home visits by specially trained nurses. According to the Coalition for Evidence-based Policy, multiple studies of TCM support its potential to not only save money, but effectively care for our seniors.

And the latter is what gets lost when policy matters are reduced to the budget. As a society, we’re too quick to evaluate programs and people based on numbers like a dollar amount or a test score — without looking at more qualitative measures. We want a simple or easy reference.

But people are not numbers. We remember that when it’s personal, but not when we’re talking about policy. Special interest groups have used this tendency to promote policies that have us fighting over crumbs instead of calling for policies that care for people.

As Congress gears up for the next round of budget debates, I encourage everyone to do their homework. Take a look at Bornstein’s article and the work of the Coalition for Evidence-based Policy. Ask yourself what outcomes you want your government to help provide instead of focusing solely on the costs.

Because if all we do is cut spending, nothing will get fixed.

Will cutting taxes really benefit Iowa’s economy?

Now the New Year has arrived, I’m preparing for the Iowa Legislature to convene. And surveying the preliminary media coverage, it looks like the usual battle over taxes vs. spending. The rub this year is an $800 million budget surplus.

Many of our state’s Republican legislators are set to give that money back to the taxpayers in the form of tax cuts, even though the surplus is largely the result of major cutbacks in state services.

But of course there’s the question of which taxpayers benefit. Will cuts benefit working Iowans who really have tightened their belts? Or will it be turned over to corporate interests under the guise of stimulating economic growth? I’ve been hearing about tax cuts stimulating economic growth since I was a kid, and I’m still waiting.

Ronald Reagan promised the miracles of supply-side or trickle-down economics when I was finishing high school. Those tax cuts led to a huge deficit when he left office in 1989. Yet I heard the same thing from state legislators when I served as a school board director after my return to Iowa in 2001. Instead of maintaining a reliable revenue stream to adequately fund state services like education, legislators were more concerned with cutting taxes, often via tax exemptions or deductions for special interests.

This left local public officials like me the task of making up the difference either by cutting services or asking for local tax increases – in most cases via property taxes.

And we’ve all seen the results of the cuts – personnel and positions eliminated in our schools; county services consolidated, limited or discontinued. It’s the flip side of the cutting taxes to create prosperity coin – cutting taxes means less services for the public. The real question is who really prospers from those cuts?

Too often I’ve found it means fatter profits for corporations who’ve used the tax issue as leverage to settle in our state. And as many communities can attest, that doesn’t mean these corporations will stay.

No, my research throughout the last 30 years has indicated that tax cuts, especially on the upper income brackets and corporations do little to stimulate growth. In fact, some of America’s periods of greatest growth were when taxes were much higher than the current rates. Those taxes built the infrastructure we benefit from today. Unfortunately, too many taxpayers accept the line that all taxes and government spending are bad.

One of the most recent studies of income tax rates by the Congressional Research Service [http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/PDF/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf] concluded: “The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth.”

So as our state legislators prepare to debate what to do with Iowa’s budget surplus, I hope citizens will pay attention and ask, “Who’s going to benefit?”

Personally, I’d like to see that money reinvested in Iowa to rebuild infrastructure and restore funding to agencies and services previously cut, like education. And instead of more tax cuts, I’d like to see us bring in more revenue by closing corporate tax loopholes.

This year, let’s not fall for the usual “tax cuts stimulate growth” line.

Look at whole picture to solve violence problem

Since the Newtown, Conn. school shooting, I’ve observed you cannot say the phrase “gun control” without someone launching a hissy fit about Second Amendment Rights and regulations leading to all guns being banned.

Calm down, people.

First, let’s admit we have a problem with violence in this country, and gun violence is part of that. When guns are everywhere (and they are), they become part of the problem. As researchers at Harvard found, more guns equal more homicide. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

Next, let’s be honest about the fact that we’re looking for a solution – any solution. And human nature being what it is, we want that solution to be simple. Just give us the Staples “Easy” button.

It ain’t gonna happen. Did your parents ever tell you life was simple? Or as I like to ask, “Do you see in color?”

See, I studied drawing, which is really the practice of observing, analyzing and problem solving to create, in traditional studio drawing, a two-dimensional depiction of three-dimensional objects. One of the first things you learn is you can’t create a realistic depiction with only black and white. The two extremes alone create an abstraction.

So, you introduce every shade of gray from black to white. With the full range of values, you can create an amazing reproduction of reality.

Except, to complicate things further, we also see in color.

The gun “control” battle is like that. We want to blame one thing for events like the Sandy Hook massacre: guns; mentally ill, crazy or evil people; poor mental healthcare; violent video games and movies; unequal economic opportunity . . . and so on.

But reality is more complicated. The ugly truth is probably that ALL these things contribute to violence in America. Unfortunately, as a consumer society, we’ve had black/white, either/or dichotomies sold to us via infotainment and advertising – to the point we accept them as reality.

As Exhibit A, I give you our Congressional Republicans who determined, with the help of Newt Gingrich in the 90s, Democrats are the enemy. Perhaps this is why Congress can’t pass a budget.

And as Exhibit B, I’d present gun control. Or perhaps it might be better to call it public safety.

Because that’s really the issue – how can we keep each other safe in a society that values, and in many places, needs its guns? How do we balance public safety with regulations to ensure responsible gun ownership?

A full range of options exist, from registration and liscensure, limits on certain types of weapons, buy-back programs, etc. -- or everything from black to white. I like Iowa author Jane Smiley’s suggestion to require liability insurance on guns. She writes: “According to the Public Services Research Institute ‘the average cost of a gunshot related death is $33,000, while gun-related injuries total more than $300,000 for each occurrence,’ some 4.7 billion smackers every year. You and I are paying for most of these costs.”

Smiley has a couple of other suggestions worth reading, too, as she kicks off this conversation. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/a-few-remedies-for-the-ri_b_2323494.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false]

Solving this problem will mean calming down and talking to each other.

It will mean balancing individual rights of gun ownership with the common good of public safety. As Smiley notes, there are remedies, if you’re willing to see them.

So I repeat, “Do you see in color?”

Do you know your home’s radon level?

As I’ve written, my family and I completed a major home renovation this fall. Specifically, we had our farm house, where I grew up, lifted and the old, brick, tile foundation and dirt floor basement replaced with a new-poured concrete foundation and basement. We also addressed a number of other issues like the roof and heating and cooling systems.

But the new foundation was the main event. It wasn’t just the cracks, bowing and moisture. Ever since we moved back into the house, we’ve had questions from some important elders in our life about the radon levels in the house. You see, both my parents developed cancer – pancreatic and colon – after living in that home for nearly 30 years. And radon is a known carcinogen, although it is usually linked to lung cancer.

Never heard of it? Well, it’s a naturally occurring element released into the soil, and it’s related to radium and uranium. Although it may be released anywhere, Iowa has high occurrences of it. So, all buildings should be tested. I had long suspected a problem, given the anxiety of my dad’s brother Bud and Dad’s friend Pastor Bob, not to mention the cancer history in my corner of Montgomery County. So as we made plans to renovate, I picked up a do-it-yourself test kit at the hardware store.

After leaving the test packet in the old basement the allotted amount of time, I sent it to the laboratory in the envelope provided, with instructions to e-mail the test results. About three days later, I received my e-mail. At 4 picocuries per liter (pCi/L), the lab tells you to FIX YOUR HOME (their emphasis). Our results were 12 pCi/L. Consequently, I e-mailed my architect and contractor the results and asked them to include a radon mitigation system in our plans. Seeing those numbers in black and white got us all moving.

And I thought about them a lot as I waited during that late June/early July heat wave for the work to begin. My family had gone on to stay with relatives in Illinois, and I was left alone with two of our cats to finish the plans. Every day I sat in that closed house with the air conditioning running made me wonder about my exposure. It was a relief to sleep at night upstairs with open windows, even if it wasn’t air conditioned.

I felt better when we moved back in over a solid foundation and basement floors, but I wasn’t completely at ease until after the radon mitigation system was installed. I can hear it now, running just outside the corner of the house where my computer sits.

It’s my favorite thing to show off when we tour the basement, even when I get jaw-dropping reactions to the new space like those of my nephews, who visited during Thanksgiving. And it’s a good thing I do include it on the tour, because too many people are unaware of this silent danger.

Most states now require radon testing for real estate transactions. But if your home hasn’t been tested, you should do it now. And I recommend you learn more about radon; the Environmental Protection Agency’s site is a great place to start: http://www.epa.gov/radon/index.html.

Trust me, you’ll sleep easier.

What is the right to work?

Last week as my usual Christmas baking frenzy got underway, the mailman delivered a small box from my brother in Texas. Inside was a stack of CDs — or as I termed them, “music to bake by.”

One of the CDs was Americana artist Dave Alvin’s Eleven Eleven, which includes a song called, “Gary, Indiana 1959.” Written from the viewpoint of a former U.S. Steel employee, the middle of the song reflects much of Middle America today.

“Now the years disappeared in the blink of an eye.
And I feel like a stranger in a world that isn’t mine.
Now my dear wife died, and my kids all moved away
‘cause there ain’t nothin’ here to make ‘em want to stay.
‘Cause the factories are in ruins; decent jobs hard to find,
and you can’t get a break no matter how hard you try.
‘Cause the big boys make the rules; tough luck for everyone else,
and out on the streets it’s every man for himself.”

This song echoes events in Michigan as Gov. Rick Snyder attempts to destroy unions via a “Right to Work” law. Like so many Corporate Conservative maneuvers, Right to Work laws are deceptively named. They have nothing to do with workers’ rights. Instead, they are designed to protect corporate political power and profits by gutting unions.

How? These laws do away with unions’ right to ask non-union members to help pay for the collective bargaining unions conduct to benefit ALL workers — union or non-union. Because the bottom line is, all workers at an organization benefit from the pay, benefits and protections union contracts provide. Employees who do not wish to belong to the union don’t have to pay union dues, simply the portion that covers the cost of bargaining. It’s only fair.

But throughout the years, via corporate control of media and campaign financing, efforts to demonize unions and collective bargaining have paid off. By and large Americans have fallen for these efforts. Union membership has declined, and not coincidentally, worker protections and wages have too. As Colin Gordon, professor of history at University of Iowa, writes on his blog for the Economic Policy Institute: “The wage effect alone underestimates the union contribution to shared prosperity... And unions not only raise the wage floor but can also lower the ceiling; union bargaining power has been shown to moderate the compensation of executives at unionized firms.” [http://www.epi.org/blog/union-decline-rising-inequality-charts/ ]

Many worker protections were won because of hard fought union battles, and today, we take most of them for granted: the 40-hour work week, employee benefits, paid vacation and safety regulations, to name a few. Unfortunately, after years of Corporate Conservative political influence, these benefits are no longer guaranteed.

Snyder’s lame-duck passage of a Right to Work law in Michigan follows a similar drive by Scott Walker in Wisconsin a year ago. In both cases, the initiative has been tied to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and Americans for Prosperity, two organizations funded by the Koch brothers and other wealthy corporate moguls. [http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/michigan-right-to-work-unions.php]

These are the “big boys” Alvin sings about. Their goal is protecting their power and profit, not workers. So we’d best follow Alvin’s protagonist, who sings:

“I still remember where we marched side by side back in Gary, Indiana 1959.”

Because united we stand; divided we fall.

School kids aren’t the only bullies

As one of my Facebook friends noted, October wins the prize for “Awareness” month; among a long list of causes is bullying. Public service announcements, news broadcasts and school events all encouraged us to protect our children from bullying and teach them it is unacceptable behavior. Many programs added it only takes one or two dissenting voices to stop bullies in their tracks.

Fast forward to the election and events following, and I’m hearing an adult voice in my head sneer, “Do as I say, not as I do!”

In case you missed it, prior to the election, a number of corporate CEO’s threatened to lay off employees or cut hours if the president was re-elected. Such intimidation is bullying. And as an aside, such behavior is exactly why unions were formed.

But I digress. Now that President Obama has been re-elected, these same CEO’s are pledging to carry out their threats in public temper tantrums that demonstrate they have zero compassion for employees and customers – the very people who allow them to make a living.

Let’s start with Murray Energy CEO Robert Murray, whose company mines coal. As this Washington Post article outlines http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/after-obama-re-election-ceo-reads-prayer-to-staff-announces-layoffs/2012/11/09/e9bca204-2a63-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_story.html, he blames his decision to lay off employees in Ohio and Utah on voters’ decisive re-election of President Obama. However, as the article also notes, Murray’s business faces fierce competition from other energy suppliers, and his business practices have led to environmental disasters and charges of coercing employees to support Republicans.

Murray also cloaked his decision to fire employees in religion, reading a prayer before discharging them. In it, he slams the U.S. as a “country of redistribution” and selectively quotes scripture to support his action, a practice known as proof-texting. This allows Murray, and many others, to ignore Biblical calls for economic justice, from Moses through the prophets to Jesus and beyond. In fact, Jewish law in Leviticus 25 specifically calls for the return of wealth to the poor every 50 years via a festival termed the Jubilee.

But Murray isn’t the only CEO throwing a tantrum. Papa John’s pizza CEO John Schnatter previously railed against the Affordable Care Act and worked as a supporter and fundraiser for Romney.

This week, Schnatter announced ACA’s requirement for him to insure employees working more than 30 hours per week will require a 10-14 cent increase per pizza. Either that or he’ll be forced to cut employees or their hours, a practice already widely used by retail and service corporations to pad their profits.

Yet Caleb Melby at Forbes Magazine http://blogs.forbes.com/calebmelby/ crunched the numbers and concluded Papa John’s math is off. “So how much would prices go up, under these 50/50 conditions, if they were to fairly reflect the increased cost of doing business onset by Obamacare? Roughly 3.4 to 4.6 cents a pie.”

Melby lays out the entire picture by examining Papa John’s profits, dividends to shareholders, and Schnatter’s salary for the last few years. It left me wondering if Schnatter’s actions are simply an excuse to increase his profits by scapegoating Obamacare -- a business plan cloaked in politics.

So I ask, “How much is enough?” Does corporate America really need the profit margins they’ve been demanding to keep doors open and people working?

And how much intimidation and twisting of figures will citizens take before demanding facts and fairness? I don’t know about you, but I’ve had enough.

Post-election: Where do we go from here?

Regardless of the outcome of this election, Americans need to unite if we expect to solve our collective problems. I have been thinking about that a lot as we approached Election Day, in large part as a consequence of get-out-the-vote canvassing.

Knocking on strangers’ doors to ask them a series of questions and hopefully move them to act is not an easy task. But what strikes me is the difficulty we have in engaging in conversation. I don’t think I have a threatening persona, so I am always bemused by people who refuse to open their doors to me.

I am also curious about the people from the other end of the political spectrum who flatly refuse to speak me. Are they so certain they are correct that they won’t waste time trying to change my mind? Or are they so afraid I might have some valid points they refuse to risk confronting that possibility?

Whatever the reason, I am saddened and disappointed at our society’s inability to converse honestly about our situation.

And yes, I’ve heard it’s “not polite to talk about politics or religion.” But you know, I think that’s flat out wrong. We can only learn and grow when we confront new or different ideas and grapple with them. We wouldn’t have a Constitution if members of the Continental Congress had been unable to meet, discuss (or argue) and negotiate a document for a new government for these United States.

No matter what the shouting talking heads on talk radio and political TV tell you, I’m willing to listen to your point of view. You just need to be prepared that I will ask you lots of questions and expect you to hear out my perspective. You might even be surprised to find we agree on points. This is how we make progress.

Contrast this to our Congress, particularly Conservative members, during the last four years. The entire Republican agenda has been to block the Democratic President at every turn; no negotiating. That is not governing.

Whether you are a Republican, Democrat, Independent or something else, tomorrow we will need to stand together to demand our new representatives work for citizen interests, not corporate dollars. If we expect to get anything out of our government, and the fourth estate of the press (corporate media especially), we are going to have to demand and protest for changes.

Because a citizen’s job doesn’t end with the vote — that’s where it begins. And I think the last 30 years demonstrate clearly my school superintendent friend’s belief “if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.”

I think that’s what Ben Franklin meant when he responded to the woman who asked about the results of the Continental Congress’ deliberations and the kind of government the new nation had.

According to the story, he responded, “A Republic – if you can keep it.”