PO Box 531  •  Durham,NC 27702  •  Telephone: (919) 419-8311  •  Fax: (919) 419-8315

Friday, June 30, 2006

Nat'l Guard troops thin for Bush border assignment

When your solution to everything from foreign policy to immigration and hurricane relief depends on the military, the strain can reach the breaking point. The Associated Press reports:
The Bush administration has been unable to muster even half the 2,500 National Guardsmen it planned to have on the Mexican border by the end of June, officials in the border states said.

But the head of the National Guard Bureau disputed that tally and said the goal would be met by today.

As of Thursday, fewer than 1,000 troops were in place, according to military officials in Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona.

President Bush's plan called for all 50 states to send troops. But only 10 states, including the four border states, have signed commitments. Some state officials have argued that they cannot free up Guardsmen because of flooding in the East, wildfires in the West or the prospect of hurricanes in the South.
In the South, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia are all in. South Carolina is bawking, saying they need the troops for hurricane season (GA and NC, did you think about this?).

The whole episode does raise a question: why does our country has so little infrastructure to handle crisis events that's not a branch of the armed forces?
posted by Chris Kromm at 4:50 PM | Email this post

Friday Culture Edition: The Texas Ice House

NPR's Morning Edition aired a wonderful story today about a legendary cultural phenomenon in Texas: the Ice House, a multi-racial meeting ground that once thrived (and still lives) from mid- to south-Texas.

Here's the intro from the NPR website:
Texas Icehouses. Part town hall, part tavern, icehouses have been a South Texas tradition since the 1920s. Before refrigeration, icehouses stored and distributed block ice for the neighborhood iceboxes.

Over time, they diversified-- iced beer, a little food, maybe some groceries -- a cool, air-conditioned spot where neighbors and families come to sit, talk, play dominoes, turn up the juke box, maybe eat some chicken wings, dance on the slab outside. No two are alike -- Sanchez', Acapulco, Dos Hermanas, Stanley's, La Tuna, The Beer Depot, The Texan.

Once a vital part of everyday local culture -- a cornerstone of every neighborhood in San Antonio and Houston -- they are rapidly diminishing, an endangered species. The Kitchen Sisters take us on a journey into this Mexican-German-Tejano-Anglo tradition.
The piece by the award-winning Kitchen Sisters duo is fantastic, a montage of diverse voices without heavy-handed narration. You can listen to it here.

While you're at it, check out the Sisters' piece "The Club from Nowhere: Cooking for Civil Rights." It tells the story of Georgia Gilmore, a cafeteria worker in Montgomery, Alabama who in the 1950s was fired for her civil rights activism, and went on to form a "secret civil rights kitchen" of women who baked and sold pies, cookies and cakes in beauty salons and on street corners to help fund the Montgomery bus boycott.
posted by Chris Kromm at 1:58 PM | Email this post

The fate of the Voting Rights Act

If the Republican Party still has hopes of reaching African American voters, the antics of GOP Republicans to slow down renewal of the Voting Rights Act can't help. As Reuters reports, renewal is likely dead for now:
Prospects for a swift renewal of the Voting Rights Act faded on Thursday as lawmakers called for new congressional hearings on the landmark civil rights law first approved in 1965.

The House leadership had expected an easy 25-year extension of the act last week but southern Republicans rebelled, objecting that their states would be subjected to special scrutiny based on the legacy of discrimination from the 1960s.
Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), one of the civil rights activists who created the groundswell that led to passage of the Voting Rights Act, tells Atlanta Progressive News that the arguments are suspect, like the claim of Southern politicians that the Act should cover all 50 states:
"That is an argument that came out in 1963, 1964, and 1965. If it's good enough for the Southern States, then it's good enough for all 50 states. But all 50 states don't have a problem. In New York, it might be a certain county," but the greatest trends of discrimination persist in the US South, Rep. Lewis said.
The idea that the Act discriminates is also undermined by two facts: First, the Department of Justice can at any time evaluate which states should or shouldn't be focused on for review.

Second is the reality that the two states which have enacted the most questionable redistricting plans impacting black and Latino voters have been in Voting Rights Act states, Georgia and Texas. So as Lewis notes, the battle clearly isn't over:
"There's a long, rich history of gerrymandering, redistricting mid-census, done primarily for political reasons, to dilute power or influence of African Americans' votes in several Congressional districts," Rep. Lewis said.
The House still seems to be thinking about Latino voters, though. As the News reports,
Last night, the US House defeated an amendment which would have stripped the VRA of requiring funds for the USDOJ to ensure multilingual ballots and multilingual elections assistance, Rep. Lewis told Atlanta Progressive News.

"I call that a modern day literacy test," Rep. Lewis said, adding it was voted down by all Democrats plus 61 Republicans.
posted by Chris Kromm at 11:35 AM | Email this post

Finding new ground in the Duke Lacrosse case

For a long moment, the Duke Lacrosse case was the national story, bursting from the squalid swamps of Nancy Grace sensationalism to dominate news cycles everywhere. Clearly, the story hit a nerve.

The 24/7 coverage by talking hairdos usually brought more heat than light. But issues that needed discussing were finally getting discussed: the prevalence of sexual assault and sexism, still-huge race divides, arrogant class privilege. In some ways, the Duke scandal succeeded more than Hurricane Katrina in stimulating conversation from the street corner to CNN about these fundamental fissures in our society that belie every "United We Stand" bumpersticker.

The public quickly took sides in the Duke case, often based on who they were inclined to believe based on their own gender, race, or class (while everyone, of course, thinking they were "beyond that").

Extreme positions developed at both ends that became increasingly indefensible. Much of the Duke establishment and other defenders of elite and/or jock culture (a bizarre mix in the real world, by the way) went overboard to protect the students, savage the accusers, and belittle the charges as a "witch hunt" (thank you, David Brooks).

Progressives largely fell into the other camp, embracing or sympathizing with the woman making the charges, and linking the incident (both the known events, such as racist taunting, and allegations of rape, still in dispute) to a larger culture of injustice.

But there were clear contradictions here from the beginning, too. I discovered this when talking to one activist, who told me "it doesn't matter if the Duke guys are innocent or guilty." At what level are we talking? It certainly matters to them, and the legal concept of "innocent until proven guilty" matters to, say, Mumia Abu Jamal, or the (often white and privileged) protesters who get routinely locked up while demonstrating against the Iraq war or WTO.

In any event, it became clear there were (and are) two debates going on -- one, about a legal case (which was getting murkier every day, thanks to emerging facts plus the defense team's massively successful media strategy), and the second, a discussion about larger social issues. The two have had points of contact, but in some ways have been unrelated to each other.

Columnist Hal Crowther attempts to navigate this thorny terrain in a thoughtful piece in this week's Independent Weekly (the excellent paper based here in the heart of the Duke scandal beast, Durham, N.C.). It's long and worth reading in full, but here are some interesting snippets:
ON MEDIA REACTION: "What do we make of his unmistakable impulse to worry more about injustice to the white boys than to the woman who says they raped her? To imply that rich white athletes are unsafe in the North Carolina legal system is like saying the Pope can't get a fair trial in Vatican City."

ON LESSONS LEARNED BY THE STUDENTS: "One is about transactions involving sex and money, and the stupidity of imagining that the one who sells surrenders more dignity or moral currency than the one who buys. A race factor compounds the bitterness of this lesson, which many men never learn. But the great lesson they should have learned, if they're able to learn at all, is one that might make them better men and better citizens than the ones they would have become if no charges had ever been filed. It's a lesson learned too late by most children of privilege, blinkered well into adulthood by the myth of the affluent middle class--the myth that elite lives proceed smoothly from triumph to triumph with nothing but glory down the road. But the awful, class-blind truth--ask Duke lacrosse coach Mike Pressler, at the top of his world on Monday, unemployed and invisible on Thursday--is that we live our lives with one foot on the banana peel, on the well-oiled roller skate. How quickly fortunes change, how very quickly it can all slip away."

ON CAMPUS PRIORITIES: "[W]e read that a new contract for the women's basketball coach at Tennessee has pushed UT's budget for two basketball coaches and a football coach past $4 million, enough to hire a whole new faculty and buy half of them new cars. Of course that's chump change to Duke's Coach K--not just a coach, his commercial says, but "a leader." In lieu of leading, the great coach seems to have retreated to an underground bunker with his image engineers, afraid or disinclined to say a word about the scandal that has substantially devalued the turf he rules by divine right, as Duke presidents come and go. ("He's not the power behind the throne; he sits on the only throne there is," said one disenchanted professor.) My god, what if some blue-chip basketball recruit, intimidated by a school so tough that even the lacrosse team commits felonies, should switch to a safer campus like Stanford or Syracuse?"

ON THE DEFENSE SPIN: "Compassion begins with the woman who says she was raped. The shock-and-awe media campaign against her credibility, like those attacks on the district attorney for election-year grandstanding, is the handiwork of defense attorneys on fat retainers. (As were those pro-Duke columns by David Brooks and his Times colleague Nicholas Kristof, which recycled stale spin the defense ladled up two months ago.) They're just doing their job, which isn't always a pretty one. If you feel a compulsion to believe them, you're the one who might catch a glimpse of your inner racist in the mirror."

ON VALUES: "The 18-to-34-year-olds, who made a megamillionaire of the creepy sex ghoul Howard Stern--so much for respecting women--grew up with Jerry Springer, shock jocks, the World Wrestling Federation, Paris Hilton and Ann Coulter. Archaic nouns like shame, dignity and integrity make rare appearances in their vocabulary. Their appetite for "reality" television embraces the most repugnant role models: even Donald Trump, without an atom of shame or a single glowing neuron in his baroquely thatched head, glaring truculently from the duck blind of his personal foliage like a silly crib toy that thinks it's a wolverine. (Do young people understand that all the money in the world doesn't make a jackass less laughable?) But the values these shows advertise -- a feral Darwinian struggle to prevail, to exploit any advantage and vault gleefully over the bodies of the fallen -- are values common to Enron and Al Qaeda."
There's lots more, and although one can find strengths and weaknesses in any piece like this, it seems to be Crowther's attempt at an honest reckoning of the situation, which starts with the progressive values that need to be kept front and center.
posted by Chris Kromm at 9:43 AM | Email this post

Thursday, June 29, 2006

Socially responsible groceries

By way of Interstate4Jamming, here's a nice story about Lakeland, FL based Publix Supermarkets:
Stuck with roughly 650 aging laptops and PCs, Publix Super Markets Inc. wasn't eager to toss them in the landfill or dump them on just any unsuspecting charity.

With the help of United Way and Microsoft, the machines have been refurbished, loaded with new software and distributed in recent months to dozens of Central Florida nonprofit groups with limited means.

Twenty-five PCs went to Girls Inc. of Lakeland, where the machines were instantly put to use for summer computer camps.

[..]

Other machines went to the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, Central Florida Speech and Hearing Center, the Learning Resource Center, Volunteers in Service to the Elderly and other Polk nonprofits.

Outdated computers often aren't worth the hassle or expense of having them upgraded, which is what made the Publix and Microsoft partnership so special, said Kay Fields, executive director of Girls Inc.

"It's better than what we had," she said. "It's a win-win situation for everybody."

Employees of Lakeland-based Publix spent months installing the software and delivering and setting up the computers on their own time, said company spokeswoman Shannon Patten.

"There's such a spirit of giving within Publix. It's part of our culture," she said. "This is the first time we've partnered with someone like Microsoft to make the contribution so much more impactful."
In terms of social responsibility, Fortune Magazine recognized Publix as the leading company in their industry, and fifth overall. Fortune said:
The values of this supermarket chain, which operates more than 800 stories in five southeastern states, were shaped by its founder, George W. Jenkins, who began with a single store in Winter Haven, Fla., in 1930. Jenkins, known as "Mr. George" until his death in 1996, believed in customer service, charitable giving and sharing the wealth of his business with his workers, known as associates.

With more than $19 billion in revenues last year, Publix is one of the largest and fastest-growing employee-owned businesses in the nation. "This is a company where cashiers can retire as millionaires," says spokeswoman Maria Brous. The company gives generously to local nonprofits, and organizes its associates and customers to donate to national charities such as the Special Olympics.
This is one more reason to like Publix. They were our favorite grocery store when we lived in Florida. They are starting to show up in Tennessee, but unfortunately not in the Knoxville area yet. They have 642 stores in Florida, and are expanding around the South in Georgia (163 stores), South Carolina (37), Alabama (27), and Tennessee (13).
posted by R. Neal at 11:54 AM | Email this post

Again with the priorities

Speaking in support of his anti-flag burning amendment, Orrin Hatch said from the Senate floor yesterday:
I was asked this afternoon by a large body of media: Is this the most important thing the Senate could be doing at this time? I can tell you: You’re darned right it is.
This really shouldn't have to be said, but I think the 200,000 or so still displaced residents of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, where more than 400,000 homes were damaged or destroyed by Katrina, might be the most important thing Congress could be working on at this time. It's been almost a year. America is on the verge of losing one of its great cities, if not lost already.

This Gulf Coast Reconstruction Watch report, prepared six months after Katrina, should be required reading for every member of the House and Senate. Nearly a year and billions of dollars later, and despite President Bush's empty promises, little or nothing has been done. Worse, little or nothing has been done to prepare for the next wave of hurricanes. This report should also be required reading.

Voters around the South, and especially the Gulf Coast, are likely far more interested in what Congress is doing about Katrina recovery than they are about trifling with the Constitution to "protect" a symbol -- a symbol which is supposed to represent a nation founded to "insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare," not to mention the First Amendment right to freedom of expression.

Here are the Senators from around the South who think the symbol is more important than the people it represents:

Alabama: Sessions (R), Shelby (R)
Arkansas: Lincoln (D)
Florida: Martinez (R), Nelson (D)
Georgia: Chambliss (R), Isakson (R)
Kentucky: Bunning (R)
Louisiana: Landrieu (D), Vitter (R)
Mississippi: Cochran (R), Lott (R)
North Carolina: Burr (R), Dole (R)
South Carolina: DeMint (R), Graham (R)
Tennessee: Alexander (R), Frist (R)
Texas: Cornyn (R), Hutchison (R)
Virginia: Allen (R), Warner (R)
West Virginia: Rockefeller (D)
posted by R. Neal at 9:52 AM | Email this post

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Priorities in Washington

David Sirota has some thoughts on the current debate raging in the U.S. Senate:
Today, the United States Senate - supposedly the greatest deliberative body in the greatest representative democracy on the planet - spent its precious time having a heated debate over whether to amend the Constitution for the first time in a generation so as to ban flag burning. The U.S. House last year spent its precious time on the same issue.

Regardless of how one feels about this issue, the admission of irresponsibility inherent in Congress spending time on this issue is truly historic ... The U.S. Congress and cynical pundits and political operatives in Washington are polluting our country's political discourse with a debate over flag burning at the very same time that:

- The American Journal of Public Health reports more than 1,700 African Americans die each week because they don't have the same access to health care as other Americans.

- The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports 110 workers die each week in workplace fatalities - many of which could be prevented by better enforcement of basic workplace laws by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (which is being gutted by budget cuts).

- The Pentagon reports roughly 15 American soldiers die each week in Iraq.

- The Institute of Medicine reports 346 Americans die each week because they lack health insurance.

- The Environmental Working Group reports that 192 Americans die each week because of exposure to asbestos.
I'd add neglect of the post-Katrina Gulf Coast to this list, which still doesn't have adequate infrastructure to withstand another hurricane assault, even as the storms gather in the Atlantic basin.
posted by Chris Kromm at 11:54 AM | Email this post

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Tennessee schedules double execution

From Tennessee Independent Media:
Pending Double-Execution Reveals Inherent Flaws in Tennessee's Death Penalty System
by Anna Thompson

Nashville: In the past forty-six years, the state of Tennessee has executed only one man. Now, in one day, it plans to execute two. Both Sedley Alley and Paul Dennis Reid are scheduled to die in the early morning of June 28th and both cases reveal critical flaws in Tennessee’s broken death penalty system.

"This double execution unquestionably reveals more flaws with Tennessee’s administration of the death penalty," said Randy Tatel, Executive Director of the Tennessee Coalition to Abolish State Killing (TCASK). "In the Alley case, we have a 20-year old unreliable conviction where the state is so afraid of the truth that it refuses to release physical evidence for DNA testing. In the case of Paul Reid, we are preparing to execute a severely mentally ill, delusional individual. It shows, yet again, that Tennessee’s death penalty system is broken."
Read more about the two cases at the link. And here's related news from Alabama.

UPDATE: Mentally ill inmate gets stay of execution for competency hearing.
posted by R. Neal at 1:24 PM | Email this post

South fares poorly in Kids Count Study

The Annie E. Casey Foundation's 2006 Kids Count study was released today, and while there are some improvements the findings are not encouraging for the South. The study looks at several indicators of child well-being in every state.

Following are some news reports about the findings from around the South.

Children unwell in N.C.
In an annual report on child well-being issued today, North Carolina ranks 41st among the 50 states. In 10 key indicators, the state did not break into the top half of the rankings.

The report, the 2006 Kids Count Data Book, issued by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, looks at a number of health and welfare categories, including number of children in poverty; single-parent homes, without health insurance; infant, child and teen death rates; and the number of low-birthweight babies.

[..]

North Carolina, which was 40th in the 2005 report, improved in five of the 10 key indicators: infant mortality rate, child death rate, teen birth rate, percent of teens (ages 16 to 19) who are high school dropouts and percent of teens who are not in school and not working. Still, all were in the bottom half of the national rankings.

Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee, South Carolina, New Mexico, Louisiana and Mississippi ranked worse than North Carolina in today’s report, which is based on data from 2003 and 2004.

The state’s teen death rate got worse, as did the percentage of children in single-parent families and the percentage of children in poverty. The percentage of children whose parents don’t have secure employment remained steady at 35.

[..]

Advocates agree that poverty is at the root of the problem — 22 percent of the state’s children lived in poverty in 2004, up 16 percent from 2000.
State kids better off; Alabama now 43rd
After years of hovering among the bottom two or three states, the latest statistics from the Annie E. Casey Foundation's annual survey show Alabama jumping from 48th place among the 50 states to No. 43.

The state improved in the four areas: high school dropout rate; number of idle teens; number of teens having babies; and infant mortality rate. The high school dropout rate improved by 46 percent. Alabama moved from 40th to 20th in the nation from 2000 to 2004, the latest year for which statistics are available. The number of teens not in school or working fell from 13 to 8 percent.

The teen birth rate improved by 15 percent, with 52 out of every 1,000 girls ages 15 to 19 giving birth in 2003 compared to 61 births per 1,000 girls in 2000. That places Alabama 40th in the nation compared to 44th in 2000. The infant mortality rate improved by 7 percent, with 8.7 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2003 as opposed to 9.4 in 2000.

[..]

Despite the good news, Alabama's children are poorer, with 23 percent living in poverty in 2004. That's 10 percent worse than in 2000, reflecting a national trend in which more people are living below the poverty line. The national average of children living in poverty in 2004 was 18 percent, up from 17 percent in 2000.
State way behind in caring for children
Children in Tennessee are more likely to die, drop out of school and live in poverty than kids living almost anywhere else in the country, according to an annual report released today on the health of the nation's youth.

Tennessee was ranked 46th for the overall well-being of its children by the nonprofit Kids Count project. The findings are based on how each state performs in 10 categories that reflect health, social, education and economic welfare.

[..]

Tennessee did not perform better than the national average in any of the 10 categories on which it was judged. And it dropped three slots in the overall rankings this year — from 43rd to 46th.

[..]

Still, the state performed worse than at least 40 others in five of the 10 areas. Its best rating — 29th — was for the percentage of parents who work full time. Yet, the state ranked 36th for the percentage of children living in poverty.

"What that tells me is that even though there are a lot of parents in the work force, they are not necessarily making enough to support their families," Brown said. "There are a lot of working poor in the state."

Tennessee continues to have its worst showing in the area of infant mortality. The state ranks 47th in that category, tied with Louisiana and surpassing only Mississippi and Delaware.

[..]

Kids Count rated New Hampshire, Vermont and Connecticut as the top performers in the nation. The only states ranked below Tennessee were South Carolina, New Mexico, Louisiana and Mississippi.
Ga. places 44th for child well-being
Georgia has slipped in a national ranking of child well-being.

The state ranked 44th in the nation this year, compared to 39th last year in the Kids Count Data Book, which is produced by the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

[..]

…Georgia reported a 17 percent increase from 2000 to 2004 in the number of children under 18 living in poverty. The number of children in Georgia living in families where neither parent has full-time, year-round employment also increased.
Few bright spots for Mississippi kids
A new report paints a dismal picture of children's well-being in Mississippi.

The 2006 KidsCount Databook, an annual report released today by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, ranks Mississippi at the bottom or close to the bottom in comparison to the rest of the country in 10 different indicators of child well-being.

Those indicators are: low-birthweight babies, infant mortality rate, child death rate, teen death rate, teen birth rate, high school dropout rate, percent of teens not working or attending school, percent of children living in homes where parent has no regular employment, children in poverty and children in single-parent families.

Though the state did experience some improvement in five of the 10 categories, in only two categories -decreases in the high school dropout rate and in the child death rate -did Mississippi outstrip the national average, still placing well behind most states in the country.

And in the percentage of children living in poverty, the number of low-birthweight babies born and the infant mortality rate, Mississippi ranked dead last.
New Survey Says Kentucky Ranks Low In Children's Welfare
Kentucky has a poor ranking in an annual survey of children's well-being and experts said it's because of pervasive childhood poverty and a chronic high-school dropout problem.

Kentucky ranked 42nd among the 50 states in the 2006 Kids Count report by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Kentucky also ranked 42nd last year.

The state's rankings for 2005 and this year are the worst overall showings for the state in the 17 years the analysis has been published.

[..]

Kentucky improved in four areas - infant mortality, teen death rate, teen birth rate and the percent of teens not in school and not working, according to the report, which used state data from 2003 and 2004.
It appears that poverty, the source of most of society's ills, is a common denominator in these findings. Access to affordable health care appears to be another common theme. Perhaps this will be a wakeup call, but judging from the South's poor performance in past studies with improvements in only a few areas, maybe not.
posted by R. Neal at 11:31 AM | Email this post

Katrina: it's not about "failures," it's about policy

The one year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina is fast approaching. Through our Gulf Coast Reconstruction Watch project, the Institute has been talking with people across the country about the need to use this window opportunity to talk about the people whose lives are still in limbo, and the larger issues that Katrina raised.

George Lakoff of the Rockridge Institute has an interesting piece shooting around the blogosphere, called "Bush is Not Incompetent." While some may find that header hard to believe, his point is a good one: the problems our country has faced in recent years isn't because of the supposed "failures" of our president, but rather "are the natural, even inevitable result of his conservative governing philosophy."

The Bush White House isn't failing -- it's succeeding all too well in its goal of putting corporate interests in charge, increasing the imbalance between the haves and have nots, and so on. Progressives shouldn't be calling these mistakes, but the systemic problems of right-wing politics, as practicted on both sides of the political aisle.

This has been the missing element of the Katrina debate over the last 10 months. By shouting and cajoling, we've managed to keep Katrina on the national radar, however faint the signal. Anderson Cooper, Kyra Phillips and other TV figures make their regular trips to the Gulf to chronicle the damage and slowness of recovery.

But what we haven't managed to inject into the debate -- despite all the hopes of a "national discussion about race and poverty" -- is the underlying political and moral values that led to Katrina and its aftermath. Lakoff gives some example of how the devastation can be linked to not to just a few bungling individuals, but an entire philosophy that puts a "me first" ethos above the common good:
Given this philosophy, then, is it any wonder that the government wasn't there for the residents of Louisiana and Mississippi in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? Conservative philosophy places emphasis on the individual acting alone, independent of anything the government could provide. Some conservative Sunday morning talk show guests suggested that those who chose to live in New Orleans accepted the risk of a devastating hurricane, the implication being that they thus forfeited any entitlement to government assistance. If the people of New Orleans suffered, it was because of their own actions, their own choices and their own lack of preparedness. Bush couldn't have failed if he bore no responsibility.

The response to Hurricane Katrina -- rather, the lack of response -- was what one should expect from a philosophy that espouses that the government can have no positive role in its citizen's lives. This response was not about Bush's incompetence, it was a conservative, shrink-government response to a natural disaster.

Another failure of this administration during the Katrina fiasco was its wholesale disregard of the numerous and serious hurricane warnings. But this failure was a natural outgrowth of the conservative insistence on denying the validity of global warming, not ineptitude. Conservatives continue to deny the validity of global warming, because it runs contrary to their moral system. Recognizing global warming would call for environmental regulation and governmental efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Regulation is a perceived interference with the free-market, Conservatives' golden calf. So, the predictions of imminent hurricanes -- based on recognizing global warming -- were not heeded. Conservative free market convictions trumped the hurricane warnings.
And there are many more examples where this came from.

How do we inject these issues into the Katrina debate? Progressives need to think about this, because the one-year anniversary may be our last opportunity to put these issues on the national agenda.
posted by Chris Kromm at 10:03 AM | Email this post

Monday, June 26, 2006

Who benefits from a wage increase?

The Senate may have shot down an effort to boost the minimum wage last week, but the movement is still alive in the states. In North Carolina, a bill to increase the state minimum wage by one dollar, House Bill 2174, passed the state House, but the state Senate Commerce Committee has not taken it up yet.

The NC Justice Center has released a brief (pdf) on who would benefit most from the dollar hike in North Carolina -- and it turns out workers in the mountains and coast, as opposed to the urban areas in the center of the state, stand the most to gain:
Eastern and western North Carolina would benefit the most from a one-dollar increase in the minimum wage. About 5% of workers in eastern North Carolina and 4% of workers in the far western part of the state would see a bump up in wages, compared to about 3% of workers in most of the piedmont.
Politically, the areas that would benefit most are also the most conservative regions in the state.
posted by Chris Kromm at 5:00 PM | Email this post

Good news: Senate reins in military predatory lending

One of the few bright spots in the Defense Authorization Bill passed by the Senate last week (SB 2766) was an amendment including protections for military families from predatory lending abuses.

Senator Jim Talent (R-MO) and Senator Bill Nelson (D-FLA) led the way in pushing for the amendment, which was included in the bill that passed the full Senate late Thursday.

This is a big issue for those in military services -- which, as the Institute showed in a recent research study, are disproportionately based in the South. The Center for Responsible Lending describes the problem:
Predatory lenders are targeting young military families, entrapping them in lending schemes that strip them of their hard-earned pay at annual interest rates of 400 percent and higher. One in five active-duty military personnel were payday borrowers last year. Predatory payday lending costs these military families over $80 million in abusive lending fees every year.
The Talent-Nelson Amendment will limit annual interest rates to 36 percent for loans made to military families, allowing our soldiers to keep more of their hard-earned pay. Let's hope Congress enacts this into law -- and better yet, moves to stop loan sharking across the board.
posted by Chris Kromm at 1:22 PM | Email this post

The cost of war

Most of what's said about the "costs" of the Iraq war is about dead U.S. soldiers and squandered billions in money. Both are huge tragedies, but neither come close to the scale of horror inflicted on innocent people in Iraq. Stories like this one in today's LA Times are few and far between:
At least 50,000 Iraqis have died violently since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, according to statistics from the Baghdad morgue, the Iraqi Health Ministry and other agencies — a toll 20,000 higher than previously acknowledged by the Bush administration.

Many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths in the chaotic first year after the invasion, when there was no functioning Iraqi government, and continued spotty reporting nationwide since.

The toll, which is mostly of civilians but probably also includes some security forces and insurgents, is daunting: Proportionately, it is equivalent to 570,000 Americans being killed nationwide in the last three years.

In the same period, at least 2,520 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq.
My sense is that the U.S. media thinks its audience doesn't care, so they largely don't report on it -- which makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy. This self-absorption in an age of supposedly "global" media is perhaps part of the reason why the world image of the U.S. continues to slip.
posted by Chris Kromm at 7:53 AM | Email this post

Friday, June 23, 2006

Haves vs. the have-nots

The Economic Policy Institute has the latest figures on skyrocketing CEO pay, and how it compares to the earnings of average U.S. workers:
US bosses earn an average $11m per year, representing a salary 262 times the average worker's.

The average worker's annual earning was just below $42,000, showed findings from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a think-tank.

Chief executives made more money in one working day than an average worker made in a year, the research showed.
To get a sense of how much the chasm has grown, consider the historical perspective:
The gap is the second biggest in 40 years. In 1965 bosses were earning just 24 times the average worker's pay.

The only time this year's figure was beaten was in 2000, when the ratio hit 300.

Back in 1965, the heads of major US firms earned 24 times more than the average worker.
Meanwhile, the Senate rejected -- for the 9th time since 1997 -- an attempt to increase the minimum wage yesterday.
posted by Chris Kromm at 5:09 PM | Email this post

Momentum builds for people's elections in NC

North Carolina is poised to take a very important step towards "clean elections," reforms that get special interest money out, and a people's voice in.

Democracy North Carolina and N.C. Voters for Clean Elections are leading the charge for legislation to allow public financing of elections in select counties. As the AP reports:
Buoyed by the success of a program for appellate court candidates, campaign reform advocates urged lawmakers Wednesday to approve a similar voluntary public finance pilot for four legislative races in 2008.

Under the bill recommended by the House, candidates in the races who agree to fundraising restrictions from outside contributors would qualify to receive $50,000 to run for a House seat and $75,000 for a Senate seat. Additional "rescue funds" would be available to a qualifying candidate when an outside group or nonparticipating candidate start outspending the candidate.

Twelve of the 16 candidates for the state Supreme Court and Court of Appeals qualified for the voluntary public financing program in 2004. Now it's time to try the concept in legislative elections to attempt to reduce the costs of election campaigns and the influence of special interests, according to speakers at a news conference.

"We believe or campaign finance system is fundamentally flawed," said Beth Messersmith, president of N.C. Voters for Clean Elections. The bill, she added, is "small next step just to see that it works in North Carolina."
As Progressive States points out, polls show that big majorities -- nearly 3/4 of the public -- support public financing of elections. While those in hock to big money claim it will cost taxpayers more money, the public sees the real trade-offs involved:
77% said that special interests would not receive as many favors, tax breaks and deals from politicians [under public financing of elections] ...

Public financing of elections are NOT a policy that will increase government spending; in fact, it's almost guaranteed to pay for itself many times over with less tax and government contract giveaways and more honest, cheaper services. 77% of the public recognize that our present system of legalized bribery costs the public every day, so replacing it with public financing will be a cost-saver.
If you live in North Carolina and want to support this incremental effort at fundamental reform, visit the Democracy NC website for more details.
posted by Chris Kromm at 3:55 PM | Email this post

Labor makes inroads in the South

David Sirota highlights some good news for workers and labor in the South:
The Wall Street Journal reports today that "unions are making inroads in some parts of the historically nonunion South -- organizing call-center workers, janitors, sanitation workers and school-bus drivers -- by tapping frustrations over low wages and benefits and developing new organizing strategies to battle employer opposition." Specifically, "several individual Southern states saw increases in union membership...In Mississippi, the percentage of workers who belonged to a union increased to 7.1% last year from 4.7% a year earlier, while membership grew to 5.3% from 5.1% in Texas and to 10.2% from 9.7% in Alabama."
It's interesting that unions are gaining in the Deep South states, which are historically more conservative, while their presence continues to be weak in, for example, in North and South Carolina, which battle every year for being in the basement for union representation.
posted by Chris Kromm at 12:19 PM | Email this post

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Quote of the day: Racism vanishes in Texas!

When asked to comment on why he and other House Republicans from the South were holding up renewal of the Voting Rights Act, here's how one representative from Texas responded:
"I don't think we have racial bias in Texas anymore," said Rep. John Carter, R-Round Rock.
Is Carter referring to bias in general, like the kind in Tulia, Texas where 15% of the town's black population was framed by an informant one judge found to be "a racist, a liar and a thief, resulting in sentences up to 99 years? (A judge later overturned the convictions, but a similar case came up in 2002 in Jackson County, Texas)

Or the lynching of James Byrd -- a 49-year-old black man beaten by three whites and dragged behind a truck for three miles, dying when his arm and head were severed when the truck hit a bump? Pick your own story.

Or is Carter referring specifically to race bias in voting, such as the way Texas Republicans led an unplanned redistricting in 2002 that dilluted African-American and Latino voting strength so that more Republicans could get into office? For example:
Delay's plan scattered the minority voters of District 24 into five Anglo-dominated, Republican districts in which they lacked opportunities even to influence the outcomes of elections. The DeLay plan deliberately assured that these voters will be represented by members of Congress who do not share their priorities and interests.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram noted on 10 October 2003, "East and southeast Fort Worth (in Tarrant County) are shoved into a district dominated by affluent suburbs and Denton County and extending to the Oklahoma border. This abuse of low-income, minority voters alone should cause courts to reject the map."

There is no justification of such fragmentation ñ not geography, preservation of whole counties or cities, preservation of senior incumbents, unification of communities of interest or retention of the cores of previous districts. To the contrary, the fragmentation of African-Americans in DeLay's plan subverts rather than advances these criteria, demonstrating the racial intent of DeLay's plan.
Either way, Carter's quote is quite revealing.
posted by Chris Kromm at 1:21 PM | Email this post

What's the Fed got to do with it?

It's been said that the President and Congress can dicker all they want about the economy, but it's the Federal Reserve Board that really calls the shots. This isn't entirely true (think of the economic impact of military spending, for example) but economist Dean Baker has a good piece in Truthout showing how the Fed runs things:
The Fed has far more direct impact on the U.S. economy than any other agency of the government. It can control how many people in the United States have jobs. While the media tend to speak of the Fed's actions in euphemisms, when the Fed raises or lowers interest rates (its main policy tools) it is deciding whether the economy should create more or fewer jobs.

Cuts in interest rates are intended to boost the economy. Lower interest rates make it easier for families to buy cars and homes and for businesses to invest. If more cars and homes are sold and more factories or offices are built, then more people are employed. In the opposite case, if the Fed raises interest rates, it makes it harder to buy cars and homes and for businesses to invest. This means that fewer people will be employed.
The point bears repearting: more than any other entity, the Fed has the power to create and destroy jobs. This important but usually ignored fact undercuts the whole basis of social policy from conservatives to the Bill Clinton wing of the Democratic Party, which has argued over the last 25 years that if you just cut people off welfare and give them education/skills, they will find a job.

But what if the Fed is actively destroying jobs? It's called "structural unemployment," and no political leader is willing to challenge it, even as they heap moral and other abuse on the supposedly shiftless and lazy poor unlucky enough to be on the receiving end of this cornerstone of federal policy.

Baker notes that "it is often easier for the Fed to destroy jobs than create them." Lowering interest rates might not boost the economy, but by jacking them up in the name of fighting inflation is guaranteed to put tens of thousands out of work.

Who is hurt most? Well, it's not the CEOs and Paris Hiltons of the world:
It is important to understand that this method of restraining inflation does not affect everyone equally. The people who lose their job when the Fed raises interest rates tend to be factory workers, retail clerks, and custodians, not doctors, lawyers, and CEOs. In other words, the Fed controls inflation by forcing the middle class and poor to face higher unemployment and take pay cuts.

There is also an important racial component to the Fed's inflation fighting. As a rule of thumb, the unemployment rate for African Americans tends to be twice the overall unemployment rate, while the unemployment rate for African American teens is typically six times the overall average. This means that if the Fed pushes up the overall unemployment rate from 4.5 percent to 6.5 percent, it will raise the unemployment rate for African Americans from roughly 9.0 percent to 13.0 percent. It will raise the unemployment for African American teens from roughly 27
percent to 39 percent.
Politicians won't talk about this because (1) it reveals how little their decision-making (aside from choosing the Fed chair) impacts the economy, and (2) it would entail challenging the Wall Street interests.

Far easier (and more politically expedient) to just push the poor and working families deeper into economic insecurity.
posted by Chris Kromm at 9:40 AM | Email this post

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Sen. Dorgan takes on the war profiteers

Ammendment 4230, introduced by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) to establish a "Truman Committee" to oversee military contracts was defeated yesterday. But Sen. Dorgan gave an impassioned speech from the Senate floor about the squandering of billions of taxpayer dollars for military waste and fraud:
The Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia for his courtesy.

This is a vote that we had before in the Senate. It is a vote on the establishment of a type of committee called a Truman Committee. The Truman Committee was established in the early 1940s to try to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in military contracting. That was done when there was a Democrat in the White House, a Democratically controlled Senate, and a Democratic Senator named Harry Truman. He decided there ought to be a special investigation of waste, fraud, and abuse with respect to military contracting. They established a bipartisan committee to do that. They found a massive amount of waste, fraud, and abuse.

I think it is clear that perhaps the most significant amount of waste, fraud, and abuse that has ever occurred in this country is occurring right now. I think the American taxpayers are being fleeced. I don't think the Congress is doing nearly enough about it.

More below ...


Let me go through a couple of charts that I have shown before on the floor of the Senate. This is from the highest ranking procurement official in the Corps of Engineers, which does all the procurement for the Department of Defense. She lost her job. She was demoted for being honest.

She said:

I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to the contracts awarded to KBR represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career.

This from the top civilian contracting official in our Government at the Corps of Engineers. She is being demoted for being honest. She was always given the best recommendations, the highest performance evaluations, and when they saw that the ``old boy'' network decided to give big sole-source contracts, no-bid contracts and do it in a way that violated procurement rules, she spoke out. ``The most blatant and improper contract abuse'' she has ever seen.

Let me describe one contract--the Custer Battles contract. Two guys--Custer Battles--show up in Iraq. They know there is a lot of money. The American taxpayers are funding not only reconstruction of Iraq but also funding Army contracts. Two guys show up in Iraq with nothing. And $100 million later, they got $100 million of the taxpayers' money for contracts. The first contract was to provide security at the Baghdad Airport. There is a criminal inquiry as a result of that.

Here is what Bagdad Airport security said about this company, Custer Battles--Mr. Custer and Mr. Battles.

Custer Battles have shown themselves to be unresponsive, uncooperative, incompetent, deceitful, manipulative war profiteers. Other than that, they are swell fellows.

They received 100 million in American taxpayer dollars.

By the way, they took the forklift trucks off the Baghdad Airport and put them in a warehouse. They painted them blue and then sold them back to the Coalition Provisional Authority--forklift trucks which didn't belong to them. There are now criminal proceedings about this contract. But this is the tip of the iceberg.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to show an item on the floor of the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so

ordered.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, a man named Henry Bunting worked for KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton Corporation, in the area of Kuwait where Henry Bunting was in charge of procurement. He had to buy things.

Let me show the Senate what he bought. He brought this to a hearing we held. This is a hand towel. He was charged, on behalf of Halliburton's KBR subsidiary, to buy hand towels. He would order a hand towel for the American troops at a certain price, but his company said: Don't do that. We want you to have a hand towel that has the embroidered logo on it, the name of our company. So double the price to the American taxpayer for hand towels for the troops. So you have KBR embroidered on the hand towel.

He says: Why should we do that? It doesn't matter. It is cost-plus. The American taxpayer is paying the bill. Don't worry about the cost.

Same guy, $7,500 a month for an SUV; $45, $43 for a case of Coca Cola. He said: Don't worry, be happy. The taxpayer is going to pay for all of this. Don't worry about the cost.

Yes, I know this towel is one small issue. But when you buy thousands and thousands and tens of thousands of towels and double the price so you can put the logo of the contractor on it because it is a cost-plus contract, that relates to $100 million contracts, and it relates, in my judgment, to billions of waste, fraud, and abuse.

Regrettably, the Congress doesn't care enough.

I suggest we remedy this by creating a Truman-type committee. It worked, it was bipartisan, and it began to root out the waste, fraud, and abuse that is so prevalent.

I am not going to go through the whole list again. But let me describe it. If you are in the right place of the country of Iraq, you can stumble onto 50,000 pounds of nails, 25 tons of nails, lying in the sand. Why? Because somebody ordered the wrong size nails. So you throw them out in the sand. Doesn't matter, the American taxpayer is going to pay for that.

Or you can see a brandnew $75,000 truck that was set on fire because it had a flat tire, and they run it off the road. They didn't have the capability to fix it and just left the truck. Doesn't matter, the American taxpayer is going to pay the bill.

I think this is unbelievable. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars at this point.

I understand that our responsibility is to do everything we should do, and must do, to support the troops who are fighting in Iraq.

We cannot send American men and women abroad wearing our country's uniform and not do everything that is humanly possible to provide all of their needs, equipment needs, weapons needs, and so on. I understand that. That is a responsibility we have. I believe the chairman of this committee and the ranking member of this committee have done a great job. I am impressed with that.

The one area where all of us have failed in this Congress, however, is oversight. We have not done the oversight. I think part of it is because we have one-party rule in this town--the White House and the House and Senate. Nobody wants to embarrass anybody. But the fact is there is such massive amount of money that is going out the door in support of these contracts--sole-source, no-bid contracts that have promoted waste. And nobody wants to take a second look at it. Nobody wants to see what is going on.

There are whistleblowers coming forward saying this money is being spent. It is being spent in an unbelievable way.

This is a slightly different picture. By the way, this is $2 million in $100 bills wrapped in Saran Wrap. This money actually belongs to the Iraqi people that was spent by us in something called the Coalition Provisional Authority. That was our responsibility to spend this appropriately. This money went to Custer Battles and is the subject of a criminal inquiry. This $2 million wrapped in Saran Wrap in $100 bills was a part of a substantial stash of cash in the basement of a building where they were standing.

This particular fellow came and testified. He said: We used to throw these around as footballs. We wrapped up $100 bills in Saran Wrap and threw them as footballs in the office because the message in this office was this:

You bring a bag because we pay in cash. Bring a sack. If you want some money, bring a sack, we pay in cash.

The stories are unbelievable.

The American taxpayer is going to pay to air condition a building. It went to a subcontractor, to another subcontractor, and then to another subcontractor, and pretty soon we pay the bill. The American taxpayer paid the bill, and that building now has a ceiling fan--not an air conditioner.

What is going on is unbelievable. Yet nobody seems to care very much. Nobody seems to be willing to do anything. I suggest, given the unprecedented amount of waste, fraud, and abuse, that now is the time for us to decide we are going to take action. We will create a Truman Committee, bipartisan, and sink our teeth into this and investigate on behalf of the American taxpayer--investigate and expose the waste, fraud, and abuse.

The fact is we turned down, regrettably, a bill which I offered previously that would have prevented the no-bid, sole-source, huge contracts going to just a couple of companies. That is one way to solve this problem. We should have accepted that. But notwithstanding the decision by the Senate to turn down that amendment, this amendment stands on its own.

Are we going to decide that when the highest civilian procurement official in the Corps of Engineers responsible for all these contracts says that she can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse she has witnessed during the course of her professional career, are we going to decide that is serious? We are going to do something about it?

I know people will say we have done this or that. The fact is we haven't scratched the surface--not a bit.

It is time for the Senate to ask itself whether it is serious about oversight and doing the job.

I am not standing here trying to pull the ground out from under this committee--or any committee. I am saying we have never spent this much money so quickly, never given the kind of sole-source, no-bid contracts that we have offered. We have never shoved money out the door as quickly as we have for procurement and in support of contracts for the troops.

Again, let me show this towel as a small hand-towel symbol of a massive amount of waste, fraud, and abuse that I believe we ought to correct, and we ought to begin today by approving my amendment.
posted by Chris Kromm at 3:25 PM | Email this post

House Republicans stall Voting Rights Act renewal

After the 2004 elections, the Republican Party talked a lot about their plans to make "inroads" into new constituencies, the two big ones being African-American and Latino voters.

But then came Katrina, immigrant-bashing, and now the latest maneuver that will make appeals to anyone of a different hue from the GOP base difficult:
House Republican leaders on Wednesday postponed a vote on renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act after GOP lawmakers complained it unfairly singles out nine Southern states for federal oversight.
The Voting Rights Act, one of the landmark pieces of legislation in our nation's history, was passed in 1965 and is up for renewal next year. Indeed, the only reason a bi-partisan group of legislators decided to move on renewal a year before the deadline is because it was assumed the bill would sail through. Not so:
The four-decade-old law enfranchised millions of black voters by ending poll taxes and literacy tests during the height of the civil rights struggle. A vote on renewing it for another 25 years had been scheduled for Wednesday, with both Republican and Democratic leaders behind it.

The dramatic shift came after a private caucus meeting earlier Wednesday in which several Republicans also balked at extending provisions in the law that require ballots to be printed in more than one language in neighborhoods where there are large numbers of immigrants, said several participants.
This might play well in the short-term for Republicans seeking to pander to their base in upcoming elections, but it's hard to see it as anything other than long-term suicide the party. Piling up votes like these will make it very difficult to make inroads into those groups that are increasingly becoming the majority across the U.S.

The irony is that much of the Voting Rights Act has been defanged by the Department of Justice's recent policy of shutting out career attorneys and rubbing-stamping "pre-clearance" of Republican proposals, such as redistricting that benefited the GOP in Georgia and Texas (which career staff saw as blatantly illegal).
posted by Chris Kromm at 2:25 PM | Email this post

Senate rejects oversight of military contractors

As loyal readers of Facing South know, the Institute has long supported the creation of an independent oversight body to watchdog military contracts, modeled on the highly successful Truman Commission set up during World War II.

For the last two years, Congress has had before it bi-partisan legislation to set up such an oversite committee to bring some basic level of accountability to the billions of dollars being shoveled to Bechtel, Halliburton and other war contractors. Each time it has voted it down.

This week, they had another chance to ensure taxpayer dollars are being used responsibly -- and again voted "no" on a largely party-line vote. As The Nation reports:
After all the reports of corporate crimes and contract abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan -- including the recent revelation by Halliburton Watch that Halliburton and its KBR subsidiary knowingly exposed thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq to hazardous levels of unhealthy water from the Euphrates River, including human fecal matter -- the Senate was offered an opportunity on Tuesday to restore a measure of Congressional oversight to the process by which tax dollars are distributed to private corporations and the activities of those corporations in regions of the world that are supposed to be of critical importance to the United States.

As part of the Senate debate over the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 -- the Pentagon budget -- North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan proposed a simple amendment "to establish a special committee of the Senate to investigate the awarding and carrying out of contracts to conduct activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and to fight the war on terrorism."

The amendment was rejected.

Fifty-two senators voted "no" -- all of them Republicans, including supposed "straight-shooters" such as Arizona's John McCain and Nebraska's Chuck Hagel.

Forty-four senators voted "yes" -- all of them Democrats, except Rhode Island Republican Lincoln Chafee.
Washington's culture of corruption just got another little boost.

UPDATE: For a reminder of just how badly such oversight is needed, check out this in-depth report from Rep. Henry Waxman's (D-CA) office, "Dollars, Not Sense: Government Contracting Under the Bush Administration." You can read the full report here (pdf).
posted by Chris Kromm at 10:29 AM | Email this post

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

"Tort reform" not helping doctors in Georgia

Over the last two years, one of the issues conservatives have pushed the hardest at the state level (and Democrats have gone along) is "tort reform" -- rolling back the legal penalties and options available to consumers who are hurt by negligence.

Medical malpractice awards are one of the favorite whipping boys of the corporate interests, and tightened caps on awards to patients for non-economic damages have been enacted in many states. One of the selling points -- and the way the "tort reform" lobby has gotten doctors on board -- has been by promising that capping malpractice awards will lower insurance rates for doctors.

But an in-depth story by Greg Bluestein of the Associated Press looks at Georgia's experience with capping medical malpractice, and finds doctors aren't better off -- in fact, their insurance rates are getting worse:
Despite promises that rising medical malpractice insurance rates would be suppressed under new state laws, many of Georgia's insurers have hiked their premiums since the sweeping reforms took effect last year, according to an Associated Press analysis of state insurance records.

Six of the state's top insurers of doctors and dentists have increased their liability rates -- in some cases, by more than a third -- since new restrictions on malpractice cases became law in February 2005, according to state Department of Insurance records obtained by the AP through an open records request.

The reforms passed by the Georgia Legislature last year included a $350,000 limit on jury awards for malpractice victims' pain and suffering, tougher standards for expert witnesses in malpractice trials, and new incentives for patients to settle out of court.

Doctors and hospitals contended the measures, dubbed "civil justice reform," would curb malpractice insurance rates and help lure more doctors to Georgia. Business lobbies, too, threw their weight behind the legislation because it encourages speedy out-of-court settlements and penalizes parties who make frivolous claims.

But trial lawyers and patient advocacy groups argued that limiting damage awards puts an arbitrary price on a victim's life, and that the state's medical insurers have fostered a false crisis by driving up premiums in a market with little competition.

"Our worst fears have come true," said Allie Wall, the director of consumer group Georgia Watch, which vigorously opposed the new laws. "More than a year has gone by, yet Georgia doctors have not saved a penny on their insurance, as promised, and the insurance companies still raking in record profits."
posted by Chris Kromm at 4:41 PM | Email this post

Taking minimum wage national

Congressional Democrats are refusing to give up on the fight to increase the federal minimum wage, the Wall Street Journal (sub only) reports today:
WASHINGTON -- Democrats aim to make the minimum wage a maximum political problem for Republicans this election year.

The minority party fired the first shot last week, when the House Appropriations Committee broke with its Republican leadership and approved a $2.10-an-hour increase as part of a spending bill for labor, health and education programs. Speaker Dennis Hastert responded by putting the measure on hold -- possibly until after the election.

But Democrats are poised to come back this morning and offer the same wage amendment as part of a second appropriations bill funding science and law-enforcement agencies.

"I gave the Republicans fair notice that we will attach it to anything we can," said Wisconsin Rep. David Obey, the committee's ranking Democrat. [...]

Efforts to raise the minimum wage since 1997 have failed under Republican control of Congress, as business groups oppose the measure and lobbied against it. A group of more than 20 business organizations are fighting an increase this year, as part of the "Coalition for Job Opportunities." [...]

Despite business opposition, however, 21 states have enacted minimum wages above the $5.15 federal level, and roughly half the population lives in a state that already mandates higher hourly pay.
Focusing on raising the minimum wage isn't just good policy and morally right -- it's also good politically. As the Pew Research Center showed, 83% of the public support a wage boost -- including 72% of Republicans. Forcing the issue makes conservative lawmakers take the unpopular position of saying people who work should still be poor.

And as encouraging as recent state successes in boosting the wage have been (including North Carolina, which is poised to pass a $1 hike soon), it's a hit-and-miss proposition (witness the recent defeat in Tennessee). And frankly, it's also a questionable use of precious progressive resources to fight this one policy battle in dozens of state legislatures at a time (although there are many benefits for progressives to push this issue beyond the wage hike itself, such as gaining some important moral high ground).
posted by Chris Kromm at 11:06 AM | Email this post

Monday, June 19, 2006

Is our children learning (the bible)?

South Carolina governor Mark Sanford (R) has signed into a law a bill that allows students to receive credit for bible school. As The State reports,
While other students learn how to conjugate French verbs or navigate a musical scale, nearly 6,500 S.C. students a year leave campus and learn about the Bible and its Ten Commandments.

Now South Carolina has became the second state to allow schools to give students academic credit for that instruction.

The South Carolina Released Time Credit Act, signed into law June 2 by Gov. Mark Sanford, permits schools to give students an elective credit for participating in the religion class.
I'm sure similar credit will be available for study of the Koran.

The State's story doesn't quote a single opponent of the measure, which seems like a strange focus for an educational system that seems to have other problems, like these revealed in a documentary last year:
Throughout the hour-long program, viewers will see the result of that struggle: schools without an adequate fire alarm system; schools where raw sewage seeps into hallways following rainstorms; schools where students are forced to wear their winter coats to stay warm in frigid classrooms.
Lord knows they need more than bible study credit to take care of these problems.
posted by Chris Kromm at 3:38 PM | Email this post

One year after Katrina

The Institute was out in force at the Southeast Social Forum held here in Durham, NC this weekend. The gathering is a run-up to the U.S. Social Forum being planned for Atlanta in 2007, part of the World Social Forum movement of the last few years.

It was an interesting gathering of many grassroots and social change groups in the South. A big issue was the lasting importance of Hurricane Katrina, and the Institute sponsored a dinner reception/forum on Saturday, June 17 (along with the African American/Latino Alliance, the New Orleans Network, and other co-sponsors) titled "One Year After Katrina.

The goal of the forum was to jump-start the conversation about what progressives should be doing for the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, which is only two months away. The event was well-attended and there was wide-spread agreement that we needed to build on this landmark moment to:

(1) Support people and groups in the Gulf, as well as those displaced around the country, working to ensure people have the help they need and can return home if they wish; and

(2) Put Katrina back on the national radar, to hold our leaders accountable and again raise the issues of race and poverty that were quickly ignored after the storms.

The forum brought out lots of excellent ideas. Aesha Rasheed talked about the efforts of the New Orleans Network (along with the Institute) to coordinate efforts among New Orleans groups about projecting a clear agenda for change that comes from those affected.

Ajamu Baraka of the U.S. Human Rights Network discussed his group's campaign to raise the issue of Katrina's crimes to the United Nations, especially internationally-recognized standards for helping "Internally Displaced People" -- standards which should apply to the U.S. and its handling of Katrina victims.

I talked about the Institute's plans to release a one-year report on the status of the Gulf, similary to our widely-circulated "Mardi Gras Index," which reported on rebuilding in New Orleans six months after the storms.

Making the one-year anniversary of Katrina a meaningful and powerful moment will require a national, coordinated effort. The Institute will be working with groups in the Gulf, "survivor councils" and other networks of those displaced, and national organizations to ensure this opportunity isn't squandered.

We can't let our nation's leaders forget the unnecessary tragedy and suffering that continues from the storms of 2005.

Are you interested in being part of a national campaign connected to the one-year anniversary of Katrina? Contact us if you have ideas or want get involved.
posted by Chris Kromm at 10:06 AM | Email this post

Friday, June 16, 2006

Follow Institute's Gulf Coast coverage on the air

Two radio stations (both in California) covered the Institute's Gulf Coast Reconstruction Watch project this week:

*** Mother Jones Radio did an excellent interview with the Institute's Sue Sturgis, author of our report "Storm Cloud Over New Orleans," about the lack of federal support for hurricane preparedness in the Big Easy. You can listen to the full interview here.

*** I just finished a spot on Your Call at KALW-FM in San Francisco, talking about the media's coverage of Katrina issues including the bogus story making headlines this week that Katrina victims are supposedly responsible for bilking "a billion and a half dollars" from U.S. taxpayers.

I was joined by Michael Kirk, producer of the Frontline special "The Dark Side," about Dick Cheney and White House politics in the "war on terror," which premiers June 20 (and looks fantastic).

Check out KALW's archives here.
posted by Chris Kromm at 2:25 PM | Email this post

Friday Bird Blogging

I've got nothing new for today. Instead, check this out. And this.
posted by R. Neal at 11:05 AM | Email this post

Unions, the South and Justice at Smithfield

North Carolina has one of the lowest rates of workers in unions in the country. Every year, the Old North state battles with its Carolina cousin to the South for the state with the lowest union density. In 2005, 3.9% of NC's workers were in a union.

Is the low rate of union membership because workers don't like unions -- or, as much research suggests, because so many obstacles are placed in the way of worker's who'd like to join?

An interesting case study is Smithfield Foods, a notorious pork processing plant in southeastern North Carolina, featured in an excellent column today by Bob Herbert of the New York Times