By John Martie
Each year, you receive the same e-mail alerting you that the open enrollment period for your health benefits has arrived. And every year, the e-mail goes from the inbox to the deleted box before you can say “deductible." But this year, it might pay to actually read that email before you hit delete.
This Speakout has not been edited.
By John Martie
Each year, you receive the same e-mail alerting you that the open enrollment period for your health benefits has arrived. And every year, the e-mail goes from the inbox to the deleted box before you can say “deductible." But this year, it might pay to actually read that email before you hit delete.
As health costs continue to rise, employers are beginning to offer new and innovative benefit options that have the potential to save you a lot of money. For example, consumer driven health plans (CDHPs), which typically combine low premiums with a higher deductible and an opportunity to save money tax-free for health care expenses, are showing up more frequently on employers' menu of health plan options.
In fact, a survey conducted by Forrester Research last year estimated that more than a quarter of all employers will likely offer CDHP plans to their employees by 2010.
CDHP plans won't work for everyone. Those who expect to incur high health care costs over the course of the year would likely prefer to pay higher premiums in exchange for more generous coverage. However, employees who would prefer lower premiums as they save their money tax-free for a “rainy day" may find that a CDHP is a wise investment, especially as employers continue to ask employees to cover a larger share of their health costs.
One of the major benefits of CDHP plans is that they are often coupled with new technologies that allow you to take more control over the health care dollars you spend. For instance, some insurers, including Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, provide online personal health records, which allow consumers to “own" all of their health information and share it with doctors as they see fit. These records, which are automatically populated by claims data, give members and their doctors a complete picture of their health and have the potential to save them money by eliminating the need for unnecessary tests or repeat procedures.
In addition, a growing number of CDHP consumers are now able to go online and compare the cost and quality of various services offered by providers in their area. These tools help them to be better consumers of health care and have direct control over how and where their money is spent. By using these tools, a savvy consumer can save plenty of money by managing both their health and finances online.
CDHP plans certainly have a ways to go before they are on par with traditional plans in terms of membership, but the initial data is encouraging. A recent Anthem survey showed that 92 percent of members said they were likely to re-enroll in their CDHP plans.
The health care system is changing rapidly, and your employer is surely doing everything it can to keep up and make sure you have access to the most cost effective, high quality care available. With a little research, you have the chance to benefit. During this open enrollment period, arm yourself with the information you'll need to navigate the sometimes complicated health care terrain. A little time may save you a lot of money.
John Martie is the president of Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Colorado.
Posted by denver-admin at 10:50 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBackRural Revitalization or deeper distress?
By Jon Bailey
For 131 years Colorado has seen both boom and bust. The explosive population and economic growth of Denver and the Front Range, in contrast to the depopulation and chronic economic decline of Colorado's farm and ranch communities is but the current iteration of an old theme.
This Speakout has not been edited.
By Jon Bailey
For 131 years Colorado has seen both boom and bust. The explosive population and economic growth of Denver and the Front Range, in contrast to the depopulation and chronic economic decline of Colorado's farm and ranch communities is but the current iteration of an old theme.
The more interesting story is how entrepreneurs and innovative rural communities have persevered and developed strategies to revitalize their Main Streets and create a better future for small towns as well as family farms and ranches. But local initiative must be matched by public policies that empower rural people rather than undermine them. Sadly, the federal government is not meeting the challenge.
In a recent analysis, we found the U.S. Department of Agriculture spent three times as much in farm program payments to Colorado's 20 biggest farm subsidy recipients as it spent supporting rural development in the 20 Colorado counties suffering the greatest population loss or slowest population gain. The 20 largest farm subsidy recipients received over $18 million in farm program payments over three years. Meanwhile, 20 counties with over 153,000 residents in 66 municipalities received only $6 million over a comparable period for business assistance, community facilities, community and regional development, housing and community infrastructure. Top farm program recipients received an average of over $900,000 over three years while residents of the greatest depopulation counties received about $14 per person per year in federal rural development support.
In other words, our federal tax dollars supported the 20 biggest farmers in Colorado at nearly three times the level of support for the rural development needs of over 153,000 residents in rural communities suffering Colorado's greatest depopulation and economic distress. And the House Farm Bill would only make matters worse.
The House Farm Bill raised the limits on some payments and retains huge loopholes that allow mega-farms to receive unlimited farm payments. It hides behind a means test that purportedly denies payments to millionaires. But it is riddled with loopholes that the nation's largest farms and wealthiest real estate investors can slide right through.
Meanwhile, the House Farm Bill provided virtually no funding for rural development initiatives that would assist rural areas in developing their economies and their communities.
Actions such as those risk continuing the depopulation spiral being witnessed in much of rural Colorado, a spiral that begins with a troubled economy, more migration out of a community, economic and institutional consolidation and eventually little in the way of economic opportunity for remaining residents. The result is a lower tax base, leaving small towns hamstrung by an inability to invest in development or repair vital infrastructure - a key to keeping and attracting people and businesses. Recent events in New York and Minnesota demonstrate how fragile the nation's core infrastructure is. It is no different in rural communities; aging infrastructure in nearly every community harms the quality of life of current residents and limits future development.
But there is hope. Senator Ken Salazar has cosponsored a Rural Entrepreneur and Microenterprise Assistance Act to support rural small business development. Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Tom Harkin (D-IA) has proposed investing substantially more in rural development.
And Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) have proposed legislation to close loopholes and make the limitations on mega farm payments real limits.
Colorado and the nation are well-served with strong and equitable farm programs. But farm programs can and should be reformed to benefit rural communities and all of society. Farm program payments should be strictly limited to benefit small and mid-sized farmers and beginning farmers and their ability to access land. That would make farm programs fairer and save money to invest in the future of rural communities.
Should the federal government provide bigger subsidies to the nation's biggest farms to drive their neighbors out of business? Or, should the Farm Bill focus on supporting family-scale agriculture and investing in the future of rural communities? The answer to this central issue of the 2007 Farm Bill will determine the future path of many rural communities - revitalization or deeper distress.
Jon Bailey is director of the Rural Research and Analysis Program at the Center for Rural Affairs of Lyons, Neb., a private, nonprofit organization working to strengthen family-scale agriculture and rural communities. More information on the report mentioned here can be found at www.cfra.org.
No more ‘Mr. Nice Guv'
By Mark Hillman
So, it appears the honeymoon is over for Governor Ritter, the business community, and even some of his strongest backers in the media.
This Speakout has not been edited.
By Mark Hillman
So, it appears the honeymoon is over for Governor Ritter, the business community, and even some of his strongest backers in the media.
(I know, a “three-way" honeymoon isn't a pleasant image, but you know what they say about politics and strange bedfellows.)
The spat that initially fissured over a union organizing bill last spring erupted into an all-out, yelling-and-screaming, lamp-throwing, talk-to-my-lawyer divorce when Ritter played a little too cute in his latest dance with organized labor.
Last spring's bill, you will recall, would have made it easier for labor bosses to “twist" arms to coerce workers to join unions or lose their jobs. Legislative Democrats lined up unanimously to do the bidding of their union pals, but heat from the business community emboldened Ritter to dig out his lightly-used veto pen.
Since then, the governor has been bending over backward to make it up to Big Labor. Late last Friday, those efforts came to fruition in a so-called “partnership agreement" between Ritter and state-employee unions.
State employees - already protected by a civil service code so anachronistic that the last three governors have tried unsuccessfully to change it - can now choose a labor union to carry their water to the governor.
Given the pull organized labor has with this administration and the Democratic legislature, you have to wonder if these “partnership agreements" aren't entirely too much formality. A simple e-mail seems to do the trick just fine these days.
The irony for a governor who basks in ceremony and symbolism - just try opening a new wind farm without him - is that he tried to slide this landmark labor deal under the door late last week just as newsrooms were emptying for the weekend. No big announcement with photo ops of Ritter arm-and-arm with union bosses on the steps of the state capitol. An otherwise inconspicuous e-mail press release heralded this development.
Business leaders and legislative Republicans, spoiling for a redux of last year's labor debacle, were not only caught flat-footed, but they also questioned why Ritter chose to implement the plan via executive order rather than through the legislature, where it would most surely pass.
The “official" answer from the Ritter administration is that state employees operate under the executive branch. Tell that to the legislature that's responsible for approving the state budget.
The unofficial answer is that Ritter would rather weather what he hopes will be a brief firestorm following his executive order than to face the prolonged agony of being portrayed as a union waterboy for weeks or months while a bill winds through the legislative process.
The same governor who vetoed last spring's labor bill because it lacked compromise and because the debate accompanying it was “overheated," now avoids any meaningful dialogue whatsoever, including input from business leaders who once believed his business-friendly campaign mantra.
Whatever the case, it seems that Bill Ritter has concluded that the most expedient means to an end is the route that most restricts the opportunity for public dissent. No more “Mr. Nice Guv."
That's the way he instituted a $114 million-a-year property tax increase - despite clear constitutional language that requires a public vote on any “tax policy change directly causing a net revenue gain." Incidentally, for anyone who still fantasizes that Ritter is business-friendly, $63 million of that tax increase comes from non-residential (read: business) property owners.
Until now, anyone who pointed out Ritter's various inadequacies - his dearth of legislative experience, his severely limited breadth on issues beyond criminal justice, and his general lack of preparation to lead a state government - was met with, “Well, yeah, but he's such a nice guy."
Now, Colorado can see that when forced to choose between doing what's best for the state's economy and throwing political plums to his labor overlords, Ritter knows where his loyalty must rest.
Perhaps from this point forward we can finally discuss Bill Ritter's merits, not just his pleasing personality.
Mark Hillman is a former majority leader of the Colorado Senate. To read more or comment, visit www.markhillman.com.
In Pakistan, or U.S., lawyers make a stand
By David H. Getches
What a strange sight: demonstrators in dark suits and ties being clubbed by police.
By David H. Getches
What a strange sight: demonstrators in dark suits and ties being clubbed by police. Hundreds of lawyers have been rounded up and held in jails to put down a revolt against Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. The general is supposedly a friend of the United States and President Bush just this week reiterated his commitment to keep sending billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan. So, are these lawyers troublemakers who deserve beatings and incarceration?
The Pakistani lawyers took to the streets after the president suspended the constitution, dissolved the supreme court and four provincial high courts, and shut down privately owned television news channels. This followed the firing of the nation's chief justice. To lawyers here in the United States it is not surprising that their counterparts in Pakistan would stand up for the rule of law. That's what lawyers do.
The Colorado attorney's oath swears support for the U.S. Constitution and the state constitution. It also requires that one not reject “the cause of the defenseless or oppressed" for personal reasons.
Keeping the oath can result in snide lawyer jokes that associate the attorney's work with the deeds of sometimes unsavory clients. How can lawyers who are themselves virtuous and law-abiding stand in court in their nice suits next to Nazi skinheads and tattooed drug peddlers?
Well, they are holding the government accountable to the Constitution. And, in the end, the same rules they enforce against the government in cases involving “the least among us" will apply when the rights being asserted are free speech by a newspaper reporter or freedom against unreasonable search of a good neighbor's home - or our own home.
Of course, some lawyers go too far. And they are disciplined severely. When Mike Nifong, in prosecuting the Duke lacrosse players for rape, withheld exculpatory DNA evidence he departed from the rule of law and he was disciplined - fired, disbarred, prosecuted. Lawyers are held to a high standard for anything they do within the judicial system.
The popular misconceptions of lawyers come not from the occasional ethical lapses of lawyers, which are pursued zealously by the profession itself. Rather they come from a failure to understand the lawyer's commitment to the rule of law. When several lawyers at fancy law firms volunteered their time to represent suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo they were severely criticized. A deputy assistant secretary of Defense even called on corporate clients to boycott the law firms, and questioned the motives of the lawyers doing the apparent pro bono work who, he said, must be “receiving monies from who knows where."
Understanding that those lawyers are really on the right side of the war on terrorism requires understanding that they are fighting for the constitutional principles that terrorists would destroy. If we are intimidated into suspending our constitutional protections of due process, right to counsel, and habeas corpus we concede defeat in the war on terrorism.
Shakespeare understood. In Henry VI, Part 2, one of his comedic characters was plotting a rather silly overthrow. But he knew what stood in the way, and said: “The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
Then as now, the lawyers were the first line of defense of law and order.
What is at stake in Pakistan is of grave proportions. And the outcome matters to the security of the United States and the world. The January elections in Pakistan have been delayed to keep the general in power. The rule of law is being suspended in a country that is a nuclear power, that harbors the Taliban who are resurgent in Afghanistan, that likely is the hiding place of Osama bin Laden, and that is presumed to be our ally in the war on terrorism.
The lawyers resisting Musharraf's edict, like other lawyers, know that freedom and democracy can survive only under a rule of law, not of men. And they know that without constitutional framework, government in Pakistan could spiral into dangerous instability and chaos. And with it could go the safety of much of the world.
David H. Getches is the dean of the University of Colorado Law School.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:00 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBackBy Sandy Lahmann, Silverthorne
I'm a 45-year-old woman disabled from multiple sclerosis.
By Sandy Lahmann, Silverthorne
I'm a 45-year-old woman disabled from multiple sclerosis. It has been my experience that there are a lot of able-bodied people who could use a few lessons in interacting with the disabled population. I continually encounter unknowing persons who keep putting their feet in their mouths and annoy the heck out of me. Or worse.
Rather than always complaining to my disabled friends, I thought I might use this forum to offer a few lessons to the able-bodied.
The first lesson of our course (we'll call it Disability 101) is directed to the woman I met in the grocery store parking lot last Monday who wanted to push me. I was in my wheelchair. I'm not always in my wheelchair. It depends on if I'm having a good day or a bad day and how far I need to go. But Monday, I was in my wheelchair.
I had taken my wheelchair out of the back of my Subaru, plopped my butt down in it, and started organizing my keys, my purse, and the batting gloves I use when I'm interested in speed.
Along comes some woman I'd never seen before who asks if she can push me.
Asking me if you can push me implies that I am helpless and I am stupid. I'd have to be stupid to put myself in a situation where I was by myself in a parking lot and was incapable of moving.
Perhaps I shouldn't complain. At least she asked first and accepted my response of “No, thank you. I'm fine."
I've had other times when people start pushing me without asking. It is the ultimate in rudeness to start pushing me without allowing me the opportunity to choose. Just because I'm disabled doesn't mean I don't have the right to choose.
At other times I've had people ask me if they can push me, but when I say, “No, thank you. I'm fine," they get angry at me for not allowing them to push me. Apparently they want to do their good deed for the day and I'm not cooperating. Guess what? I'm not your good deed for the day.
Find a different one.
There are times I might be struggling with my wheelchair a little. Maybe in the snow. Maybe going up a hill. I've only had this wheelchair for the last year and a half and I'm not in it every day. But I want to struggle and I want to conquer. The more I do it, the better I get, the stronger I become, the more confident I become, the more independent I become. Would you deny me that?
And frankly, your offer to push me sounds a little silly considering I've handcycled up Vail Pass multiple times and I mono-ski (sit-ski) on the blacks on Peak 10 at Breckenridge.
So next time you see me in the grocery store parking lot, instead of approaching me and asking if you can push me, why not instead comment on what a gorgeous day it is? Groan and moan with me about the remodeling work going on in the store, “I don't know where anything is anymore!" In other words, treat me like a regular person, because I am a regular person.
Then, while we're chatting and shooting the breeze, if I need anything, I'll ask you. If I don't ask you for anything, I'm fine. However, you may have some difficulty keeping up with me while I spin around the aisles in the store. Is there a speed limit?
Sandy Lahmann is a resident of Silverthorne.
By Pam Myyers
For many years I have heard, and participated in the discussions on abortion. I have some questions that never seem to get answered.
This Speakout has not been edited.
By Pam Myyers
For many years I have heard, and participated in the discussions on abortion. I have some questions that never seem to get answered.
1. A researcher claims that he has identiifed the genetic marker for homosexuality. Should this prove true, would it be acceptable to permit abortions to prevent the birth of someone who will be homosexual?
2. In vitro technology is improving daily. In animal husbandry is it possible to transport cattle embryos in small animals and then implant them in cows. Were this technology approved for human beings would it be an acceptable alternative to abortion to remove the embryo and implant or freeze it? Should this be the legal replacement for abortion? Should funding to provide this service come from taxes?
3. If a method of birth control were developed that was 100% effective, 100% safe and cheap would it be acceptable if it required that it be administered before menstruation begins?
4. You are the parent of a girl who becomes pregnant. She declares she does not want an abortion and runs away from home to avoid one. She is picked up by social services. Should she be returned to the home or placed in a foster situation?
5. Imagine that the girl in the former example wants an abortion but her family refuses permission. Now what would your decision be?
6. A pregnant girl obtains an abortion without her parents' knowledge or consent. She suffers complications and requires medical treatment. Who is responsible for the cost of this treatment? Should it be legal to charge a clinic for malpractice when the patient is a minor?
7. A new law provides that a man cannot be held responsible for child support if the woman resides in a state where abortion is legal and he offers to pay for it. The catch is that in order to take advantage of this law the man must undergo a vasectomy. Fair or not and to whom?
8. In the example above the man must be held responsible unless the woman has previously had an abortion. The money will be paid to the state even if the woman declines it. She must have her tubes tied during childbirth or immediately afterwards to take advantage of this law. Fair or not and to whom?
9. Children born to mothers unable to care for them will be removed from them at birth and placed in an orphanage situation or foster care. At the end of a year the mother's parental rights are forfeit if she does not show ability to care for her child by then. A tax on all churches and religious communities of 10% of their collections or fifteen dollars per adult member would be used to pay for this along with a fifty dollar surcharge on each abortion. How would this work? How would you change it?
10. National health care is under contemplation. There will be enough votes to pass it only if abortion is not provided as a service. In fact, the main selling point is that no doctor could collect any government funds if they participated in abortions. No coverage for any abortion service other than to save the life of the mother would be allowed. Settle for that or wait for another plan?
Frankly I'm tired of both sides yelling without thinking. Can we please have some answers to these questions based on thought?
Pam Myyers is a resident of Thornton.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:00 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBackGUEST COLUMNIST: A new Russia emerges
By Greg Dobbs
It must be 20 years since I last came to Russia - back then, it was the drab and repressive Soviet Union. So on a trip this week to shoot a documentary for HDNet, I've been watching for what's new and what's not.
By Greg Dobbs
It must be 20 years since I last came to Russia - back then, it was the drab and repressive Soviet Union. So on a trip this week to shoot a documentary for HDNet, I've been watching for what's new and what's not.
There obviously have been changes on major levels: capitalism has taken over, personal freedoms like speech, art and travel can be exercised - the other day I even saw a small public protest over property rights. And the politics of the nation have been like a ride on a roller coaster.
Both on the surface and deep down, this looks like a New Russia: you can spend $100 on a ribeye steak, Dior and Louis Vuitton advertise with bright lights on Red Square. But it would be a mistake to assume that the Russians now look just like us. Or more important, that they think like us.
In mid-October, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was here, and she said in unusually undiplomatic language that President Vladimir Putin has assaulted democracy in Russia. She was right. After the Soviet Union collapsed, democracy truly flourished. People freely elected leaders at local levels, at provincial levels, and for Russia's congress, the Duma. Media flourished too; for the first time in the life of the country, critical questions were openly asked and debates were publicly aired.
But when Putin became president, he put Russia into a political U-turn to the point where, today, Putin appoints provincial governors, and they in turn appoint members of the upper house of the Duma; popular elections were unceremoniously abolished. Likewise the mayors of the two main cities, St. Petersburg and Moscow, are now appointed, not elected. Political parties had grown to number something like 50; today, thanks to Putin's rules about qualifying as a party (rules that favor his own supporters), there are 15. As for the media, enough of it has been shut down that what's left is a lap dog. (A Russian analyst told me Putin hasn't been asked an “unfriendly" question in several years.)
But for many Russians, that's just fine because democracy doesn't mean the same thing to them that it means to us. I interviewed the most outspoken minority member in the Duma's lower house, a liberal who is brave enough to go public with his complaints. When I asked him, “How does President Putin get away with this stuff?" in barely broken English he answered: “Russians in the '90s had problems: economy fell down, incomes fell down, corruption grew up, many things were terrible, and name for that was ‘democracy.'" Often our biggest mistake as Americans - and this goes for American foreign policy too - is to assume that everyone else sees the world as we do. This is a good example of that.
Our documentary focuses on a potentially insidious “youth group" called Nashi, which in Russian can mean “ours." Some members are taking courses to be Russia's next leaders; others are taking martial arts to be Russia's next enforcers. By all accounts, the Kremlin arranges Nashi's funding, which means it asks businesses to contribute; if someone wants to stay in business, he complies.
Some of Nashi's tens of thousands of members seem earnestly interested in a more efficient, more moral society. But today's young Russians are the first generation to come of age since the Soviet Union fell apart. They haven't been told stories about the bad old days of communism so much as stories about the good old days of superpowerism - when the United States could not just have its way around the globe as it seems to today.
It chilled me when everyone I talked to in Nashi defined patriotism as uncritical support for Putin, whose foreign policy is founded on the nationalistic conviction that when Russia rattles a saber, the world should tremble.
There is nothing wrong with nationalism, unless it is misdirected. The fear of some, both inside and outside Russia right now, is that the idealism of the young in this long-strong, long-suffering, long-proud nation will be channeled the way it was channeled in Germany in the years before World War II, to support whoever leads them toward their days of glory, and trample those in opposition. Putin seems to speak their language.
What's more, we've become the target. On a miserably wet and snowy day in a city called Vladimir, we videotaped the performance of a traveling street theater troupe brought in by Nashi. The actors pretended to carry oil from a Russian oil pump to a barrel labeled “For U.S.A." And when Uncle Sam came into the picture, he came out ... of an outhouse. The lesson for Russians was, if we don't support our leader, his enemies will steal our economic assets and make us slaves to the United States. We videotaped a second performance in Moscow; when it ended, some spectators started shouting, “Yankee Go Home."
There isn't a whole lot we can do about the direction Russia is turning because, economically and diplomatically, America needs Russia. Maybe more than Russia needs America. But we shouldn't be surprised if we find ourselves fighting a new Cold War ... on top of the war on terrorism.
Greg Dobbs is a former Rocky Mountain News media critic.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:00 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBackReturning veterans need support
By Rep. John Kefalas
On Monday, I will spend a quiet day with my daughter-in-law and granddaughters, Lillie and Barbara. I have cleared my schedule because I want to pause for a day to honor and remember our veterans. On this Veterans' Day, my wife and I will think about our son, a father and husband, in his fifth month serving in Afghanistan in the U.S. Army.
By Rep. John Kefalas
On Monday, I will spend a quiet day with my daughter-in-law and granddaughters, Lillie and Barbara. I have cleared my schedule because I want to pause for a day to honor and remember our veterans. On this Veterans' Day, my wife and I will think about our son, a father and husband, in his fifth month serving in Afghanistan in the U.S. Army.
This Veterans' Day, I ask you to do more than shop the sales and play with your kids. On this day, let us celebrate the past and present members of our armed forces for their sacrifices made and their courage displayed, as they risk their lives for others' peace and freedom. While we may have different opinions about the foreign policies that have led to the Iraq war, we can agree that our soldiers and veterans deserve our deepest support and respect.
Soldiers and vets face serious challenges today. I don't need to remind anyone about the dangers posed by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are all well aware of the threats on the ground. Unfortunately, amid the ongoing media coverage in those troubled parts, the struggles that soldiers face after they return home from prolonged tours in battle zones are still widely ignored.
Our current military engagements impose a powerful plight and a lasting toll on soldiers and their families. As many as one in six soldiers are diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder upon their return. While accurate numbers are hard to come by, research indicates that returning veterans face much higher risks for depression and substance abuse when compared with their peacetime counterparts. More than 400 troops who served in either Iraq or Afghanistan have committed suicide since those two wars began. Army researchers found that the percentage of soldiers who intended to divorce their spouses increased from 9 percent to 15 percent upon returning from service in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A number of contributing factors are compounded to create the challenges that homebound soldiers face. The nature of the conflict forces soldiers to contend with protracted high-stress conditions. Many soldiers serve in the reserve forces or National Guard and may not be fully equipped to deal with the heavy combat operations or foreign military endeavors required. Finally, soldiers - more of whom are women than in any previous American military engagement - are likely to serve multiple tours-of-duty, which greatly expands the likelihood of both physical and emotional trauma.
My son, Staff Sgt. Harlan Kefalas, currently serves our country in Afghanistan. He served in Iraq from 2004 to 2005 and in Bosnia before that, as part of the peacekeeping forces there. He has chosen a military path to serve his country and I sincerely honor his choice, although I would like him to come home.
I can't bear the thought of him or his colleagues returning to this country and not having access to all the resources he may need to make a healthy transition back into the U.S. But this situation is increasingly likely because resources for mental health for returning soldiers are drained.
Some, like the thoughtful leaders at Fort Carson, are working to solidify and expand the services available to veterans. We must support such efforts, or the soldiers returning from the risks and stress of the front lines may have to cope with more battles on the home front - homelessness, social disorders, substance abuse and family strains - all alone.
Democratic Rep. John Kefalas represents Fort Collins and Larimer County in the General Assembly.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:00 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBackBy Frosty Wooldridge
A man from Castle Rock agreed today in the RMN ‘letters section' on the ‘hoax' of global warming as perpetrated by former Vice President Al Gore.
This Speakout has not been edited.
By Frosty Wooldridge
A man from Castle Rock agreed today in the RMN ‘letters section' on the ‘hoax' of global warming as perpetrated by former Vice President Al Gore.
The writer said, “The climate changes we see today are but pinpricks in the history of the Earth."
Radio jock Mike Rosen, a pretend-intellectual, a man who speaks and writes before researching what he's addressing, stands nostril deep in his own uninformed opinions.
I lived in Antarctica 10 years ago working with top scientists from around the world. I wrote a book: “An Extreme Encounter: Antarctica" about my research where the bolt goes into the bottom of the globe. I knew about global warming at that time from the research arriving from precise scientific study. However, it still hadn't begun its impact like it's happening in this decade.
“The problems in the world today are so enormous they cannot be solved with the level of thinking that created them." Einstein Amazingly, the Castle Rock LTE writer and Rosen write via emotions instead of understanding. They need to refer to Einstein's quote with their anachronistic thinking. Hundreds of the top scientists from around the world find that global warming, in this case, in this time period-is not natural-but man made.
Why? How?
Every day around the planet, human beings burn 84 million barrels of oil that spews countless tons of carbon dioxide into the air annually. How much oil is that? If you take one barrel of oil at 20 inches in diameter at its base, and you place 84 million of them side by side, they will circle the earth at the equator more than 25,000 miles.
When you include that we burn millions of metric tons of natural gas along with billions of tons of coal annually, then, you burn uncounted tons of wood worldwide-voila-you've got massive and unending amounts of carbon dioxide pouring into the atmosphere 24/7. Any fool with a three digit IQ might discern something's got to give with imbalance occurring planet-wide.
That horrific amount of exhaust blocks the ability of the warm air to dissipate into the stratosphere. It's like placing a huge blanket around the planet. It's like you wearing a wool sweater and down coat with gloves and playing basketball all day in Denver at 100 degrees of heat. Result: you'll cook yourself to death.
To top it off, the human race grew from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 6.7 in 2007.
We're on our way to 9.2 billion by mid century. Everything we do multiplies the factors stated above.
In other words, we're destroying the balancing and support systems of this planet beyond its ability to maintain a viable environment for humans and all living creatures.
Whether you think global warming proves man made or nature doing her thing - we're in deep trouble.
Worse, we will add 100 million car driving, coal and home heating oil burning humans to the United States in the next 33 years by 2040. China, now hell bent for leather to place a car in every garage for 1.3 billion people - as well as placing on line every two weeks a new coal-fired electrical plant - adds to this growing planetary nightmare. If you live to that time, you will witness horrible global responses to our burning fossil fuels.
“Can you think of any problem on any scale, from microscopic to global whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way aided, assisted, or advanced by having larger populations in our town, our cities, our states, our nation or the world?" CU's Dr. Albert Bartlett As noted at the front of this column, the Castle Rock writer and Mike Rosen show themselves totally out of touch with reality on global warming. They both need a refresher course in college science and high school critical thinking. Logic might add to their enlightenment. In the case of Rosen, I doubt it. He's locked into his 20th century paradigm and thinking.
Frosty Wooldridge is a resident of Louisville.
School choice the objective solution
By Polly Baca
As a former member of the Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton administrations, I know firsthand how divisive political debate can be. In Washington, D.C., and in state capitols across the nation, few issues are able to transcend the political divide.
By Polly Baca
As a former member of the Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton administrations, I know firsthand how divisive political debate can be. In Washington, D.C., and in state capitols across the nation, few issues are able to transcend the political divide. Whether it is immigration, health care, taxes, or the economy - with virtually every issue, deep political trenches have been dug on either side, making progress in these critical areas next to impossible.
Unfortunately, the issue of education - and specifically education reform and school choice - is no exception.
For our children's sake, we must work to bridge this political divide by setting aside our political bias and viewing the issue objectively. To do so, it might be helpful to answer a simple question:
If you had equal access to a school with a proven track record of success and a school with a proven track record of failure, to which school would you send your child?
Would a parent purposely send their child to a low-performing school over a high-performing one, if they had equal access to both? Of course not. For instance, the vast majority of our representatives in Washington, D.C., have the freedom to choose between a private school and a public school - and most choose a private education for their children. Yet the harsh reality is that many of these same representatives oppose school choice for families without their financial means.
Low-income families have no choices outside of their public schools. They are stuck with a system that has yielded the following results:
More than 1.2 million students drop out each year. That's more than 6,000 kids per school day - one child every 26 seconds.
60 percent of high school dropouts come from low-income families.
Only about half of America's Latino and African-American students graduate from public high school on time.
Add to these numbers the fact that of those students who do manage to graduate from a public high school, the vast majority are still not ready for college:
Nearly one in three freshmen accepted to four-year institutions fail college placement tests and must take at least one remedial course to learn skills they should have learned in high school.
Among community college freshmen, that number jumps to 42 percent.
Consequently, only 56 percent of college freshmen entering a four-year institution directly from high school manage to earn a degree after six years - one of the lowest college completion rates in the world.
These statistics clearly reveal an American education system in crisis. Yet, many refuse to acknowledge this fact, allowing politics to skew their perspective. But with such a track record, is it any surprise that more and more parents are choosing alternatives to public education?
In the past 15 years, charter schools, voucher and tax-credit programs, and private scholarship foundations, such as Denver's Alliance for CHOICE in Education, on whose board of directors I serve, have flourished across the nation, answering the growing cries for help from parents desperate to provide their children with a quality education.
Forty states - including Colorado - allow charter schools ... there are now more than 4,000 such schools across the country, serving more than a million children.
Just last year, 28 states debated school choice legislation ... five existing school choice programs were expanded and five new programs were enacted, bringing the total to 20 school choice programs in 11 states, plus Washington, D.C.
With each passing year, more and more parents choose proven success over proven failure. They don't let politics dictate their decision; they choose what's best for their child. It's time to view school choice objectively, not politically - and give choice to those who have none.
Polly Baca is the executive director of the Latin American Research and Services Agency.
By Kevin Burgess
What a difference seven years makes.
This Speakout has not been edited.
By Kevin Burgess
What a difference seven years makes.
Return for a moment to Washington, D.C., to that somber mid-December evening in 2000. Despite having won the popular vote by more than a half-million ballots, a remarkably composed Vice President Albert Gore graciously, eloquently (some would add prematurely) conceded defeat to rival George W. Bush in the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election, and the bitterly contentious Florida recount which followed.
That same evening, an exultant president-elect Bush, his family and entourage, cheered Gore's concession, celebrating through the night. Never outwardly concerned that an unexpectedly (some would add inappropriately) interventionist, right-leaning Supreme Court might fail to rule in their favor, Team Bush had prevailed.
Yet ironically, now almost two Bush presidential terms later, these men, linked forever by destiny and hanging chads, tread precisely opposite paths, their roles dramatically reversed. Consider: On October 12, 2007, the Nobel committee awarded Vice President-turned-citizen-environmentalist Gore - along with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - its prestigious Peace Prize for his leadership role in bringing to the world's attention the growing threat of global warming. That same day, lame-duck President Bush's approval rating hovered near thirty percent, down from a post-September 11 high of ninety-two percent.
Concurrently, Gore continued politely to deflect a rising chorus of calls from supporters, including former U.S. President and global humanitarian Jimmy Carter, to seek the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. Conversely, President Bush had become the man to avoid among Republican aspirants for the GOP nod, so dismal were his poll numbers, so reviled were his policies.
In May 2007, Gore released yet another cogent, thought-provoking book, The Assault on Reason, dissecting the questionable, often diabolical machinations under which the democratic process grinds on, frequently to its detriment. That same month, in a Memorial Day speech delivered at Arlington National Cemetery, the president referred to this nation's deteriorating situation in Iraq as part of “our destiny…our calling." Eloquently if not convincingly, Mr. Bush again presented his case for a war which, by then, nearly two-thirds of Americans felt had not been justified and was no longer worth the bottomless sacrifice of our troops and treasure.
In February, Gore received an Academy Award, Hollywood's highest honor, for his controversial, smashingly successful documentary on climate change, An Inconvenient Truth. President Bush, meanwhile, was studiously avoiding discussion of Lewis “Scooter" Libby, soon to be found guilty of lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. Libby, Vice President Cheney's disgraced former chief of staff, was one of several administration surrogates responsible for the retributive outing of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame.
The pattern is clear.
Of these two individuals, one reached out to the world, yes, in urgency, but also in goodwill, with compassion and faith, to alert humankind to an escalating worldwide crisis, eliciting its support and ideas to meet daunting challenges. Both in word and deed, the other demonstrated disdain bordering on contempt for the rest of humanity, cynically categorizing both his fellow citizens and those of other nations as “either for us or against us."
The Tennessean sought to unite the world in innovative, proactive opposition to the creeping insidiousness of global warming, as well as a host of attending environmental ills. The Texan, in purely partisan fashion, declared himself “the decider," further cementing an image of an insular, profoundly divisive figure at home and abroad.
One of these men chose to follow his heart, his intuition, his passion, his divine purpose. The other apparently opted for the deeply flawed external guidance of Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, William Kristol and Donald Rumsfeld.
The results of their disparate paths are apparent. The greatest tragedy lies in the precious time, resources and lives our nation has squandered since 2001. Regrettably, none of us can change what has been, but each can affect what is yet to be. Such is the redemptive majesty of human existence. Such is the glory of America.
Kevin Burgess is a resident of Littleton.
Posted by denver-admin at 06:00 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBackMarching to the beat of a different drummer
By Frank Bessinger
On Saturday the City of Denver will once again celebrate Veterans Day with a parade downtown. The public should be aware, however, that not all veterans will be represented in this parade. The organizing committee has selectively excluded Veterans For Peace and other vetsí organizations that would express a message to our leaders, urging them to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their choice is more than a little ironic.
This Speakout has not been edited.
By Frank Bessinger
On Saturday the City of Denver will once again celebrate Veterans Day with a parade downtown. The public should be aware, however, that not all veterans will be represented in this parade. The organizing committee has selectively excluded Veterans For Peace and other vetsí organizations that would express a message to our leaders, urging them to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their choice is more than a little ironic.
The Great War - what we know as the First World War - officially ended at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918. Thus, November 11 came to be known as Armistice Day.
Many states declared Armistice Day a legal holiday.
It was resolved by Congress in 1926 that “the recurring anniversary of this date should be commemorated with thanksgiving and prayer and exercises designed to perpetuate peace." When Congress made Armistice Day a federal holiday in 1938, it declared it “a day to be dedicated to the cause of world peace." Sadly, The Great War was not “the war to end all wars" as had been hoped. In the wake of the Second World War and the Korean War, Congress changed the name of the holiday to Veterans Day to honor those who had served in all wars. Now, those who have served in this nationís many wars and also served the cause of world peace are to be denied the honor due them on both counts. Irony indeed.
We of Veterans For Peace believe that we can best honor those who have died in war by keeping our freedoms at home alive and by working to end war. As a Viet Nam veteran, I believe that it is patriotic to seek peace, not only for the United States, but for the whole world. I believe that this nation is strong enough to lead the world by example rather than attempting to drive it by force.
Those who would “Support the Troops" might consider that such support ought to include not asking those troops to participate in actions that are unworthy of their honor, loyalty, courage and patriotism. Most of us who have sacrificed in service to our country would gladly do so again if such service were truly in self-defense. We must raise our voices in dissent, however, when our military forces are sent abroad in pursuit of a foreign policy that is eager to engage in wars of aggression.
Veterans For Peace and the groups with which we are allied - Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Gold Star Families for Peace, West Point Graduates Against the War and Colorado Veterans for America - will be downtown on Saturday, marching to the beat of a different drummer. We have no desire to disrupt the parade. We will simply be walking among the spectators, distributing flyers, reminding them that we also served.
Frank Bessinger is the co-founder of the Denver chapter of Veterans For Peace.
By Kevin R. Collins, Denver
Xcel Energy's postponement of an advanced clean-coal power plant that captures and buries its greenhouse gas emissions comes at a time when U.S. demand for electricity will increase 17.7 percent in the next decade while supply is expected to grow only 8.4 percent.
By Kevin R. Collins, Denver
Xcel Energy's postponement of an advanced clean-coal power plant that captures and buries its greenhouse gas emissions comes at a time when U.S. demand for electricity will increase 17.7 percent in the next decade while supply is expected to grow only 8.4 percent.
Reserve generating capacity, normally 10 percent to 15 percent, could be down to 1 percent or zero percent in some places, and Yale professor Charles Perrow, who follows power-supply shortfalls, says “I'm prepared to see many more blackouts occurring. ... it's really going to be a freight train running into disaster."
This is not an encouraging scenario, to say the least. While a variety of energy options exist, each possesses its own challenge. Nuclear power has waste issues, coal is associated with greenhouse gases and other emissions, wind and sun are inconsistent, hydropower is tapped out, natural gas costs and supplies are volatile, and conservation, no matter how hard we try, won't close the gap.
Xcel deserves immense credit for its leadership in pursuing clean-coal technologies, but its decision exemplifies the stark economic reality of pursuing leapfrog science to solve today's energy problems.
Converting coal to gas, burning the gas, and capturing and burying the carbon dioxide it creates is the holy grail of clean coal - and we should vigorously pursue it. But as Xcel quickly learned, the costs and uncertainties are barriers to progress. The U.S. government's “FutureGen" project that will use the same technology is already significantly over budget and won't begin operation until at least 2012.
Our country needs a pragmatic effort to construct a workable, achievable national strategy that balances energy supply and demand, environmental protection, and economic stability.
Statesmanship on energy policy must return to Washington and our state capitals. It is imperative that we, through our elected officials, come to the table with a realistic understanding of today's energy realities and a shared commitment to finding appropriate solutions.
That begins with defining a shared goal of meeting our nation's growing energy demands in ways that ensure continued economic growth and afford greater environmental protection. Achieving this balance will not come without costs, but it is more achievable than some would lead us to believe. What will be required is a heightened political will and a backdrop of bipartisan support to take action and make these dual goals a national imperative.
Any comprehensive solution will require an integrated national approach that includes conservation, support for alternative and renewable energies, new technologies and better use of traditional energy sources. A hearty dose of realism is needed about what bridging technologies can help us through the near term while we wait for leapfrog technologies that are decades away.
Here is one decisive piece of realism: Coal supplies more than 50 percent of U.S. electricity and more than 80 percent of Colorado's electricity. Due to its abundance and price stability, coal will - and must - continue to be a major source in meeting U.S. and world electricity demand for decades to come. While proponents of alternative energy are often adamant in their rejection of coal as a continued long-term energy resource, reality dictates otherwise. To dismiss this reality is simply dangerous - dangerous to long-term energy supply and price stability.
Understanding this reality, it is incumbent on us to make coal as clean as possible as soon as possible - and we can. Progress is being made, whether it is near-term solutions, such as refined coal and other precombustion technologies, or more distant solutions such as the government's “FutureGen" program.
There is no single cure for our energy and environmental symptoms. Yet there are specific actions that we can take today to place us on the appropriate path to affordable energy security and a better environmental quality of life. With the energy technology companies already here, Colorado can help chart that course for the nation and perhaps the world.
Kevin R. Collins is president and CEO of Evergreen Energy Inc., a Denver-based refined coal producer.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:00 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBackGUEST COLUMNIST: A bridge too far
By Andrew Wallach, Denver
Fifty years ago, the south bank of Cherry Creek just west of Parker Road was part of the Flowing J Ranch.
By Andrew Wallach, Denver
Fifty years ago, the south bank of Cherry Creek just west of Parker Road was part of the Flowing J Ranch. The Flowing J was a livery stable where many of Denver's baby boomers enjoyed their first horseback riding experiences. Would-be cowboys and cowgirls cantered west along Cherry Creek toward the Rockies, retracing the path of Colorado's first white settlers on the historic trail. Coyotes and songbirds were the nearest local residents, and traffic congestion and rush-hour commutes were problems for big cities far away.
Today the Flowing J is long gone, replaced by suburban development. Now the land where Arapahoe County's South Wabash Street abruptly ends at the quiet creek is the focus of an impassioned political conflict.
The creek's channel here is owned by the city of Denver, and a behind-the-scenes quarrel over the site tests the limits of Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper's well-known commitment to regional cooperation. He'll need to persuade reluctant Denver City Councilwoman Peggy Lehmann to allow Arapahoe County to acquire Denver's land to complete the roadway with a three-lane bridge that would funnel thousands of cars per day through adjacent Denver neighborhoods.
The traffic congestion that sparked the clash results from decades of rapid growth in the suburbs south and east of the site. It has kindled fears on the part of many of Lehmann's (and Hickenlooper's) constituents of an onslaught of commuters using the new bridge to escape nearby arterial routes jammed at rush hour.
The most vocal advocates for the bridge include Arapahoe County's Cunningham Fire District Chief Ira Rhodes and Sheriff Grayson Robinson, who argue the link is vital to ensure provision of emergency services to the residents of the area.
Lehmann, who represents the adjacent Denver neighborhoods, has supported construction of a bridge that would permit only emergency vehicle use. (Access to the bridge would be controlled by the same technology that allows emergency vehicles to change traffic signals during emergency runs.)
But Lehmann has opposed a larger bridge open to general vehicle traffic, believing it would flood nearby Denver neighborhoods with unacceptable levels of traffic. Lehmann has based her opposition in part on the results of a neighborhood discussion of the topic she convened in 2004.
According to Lehmann's counts, local residents approved construction of an emergency-vehicle-only connection, but most of the 90-plus meeting attendees opposed building the bridge for general commuter traffic under any circumstance.
But in a meeting last April, Arapahoe County Commissioners, who have budgeted more than $5 million for the bridge, decided to drop discussion of the “emergency access-only" connection. Referring to Denver's position as “the height of NIMBYism," Arapahoe Commissioner Susan Beckmann declared “I don't want to hear about the safety bridge again."
Instead, the commissioners, who believe the “safety bridge" is too expensive for the benefits it provides, decided to pursue acquisition of the property from Denver “by any means necessary," including condemnation.
Condemnation is local government's “big stick." It permits acquisition of property from unwilling sellers through exercise of “eminent domain," a process not often used in local intergovernmental land use disputes. If the commissioners follow through on their plan, it seems certain to set back progress in regional collaboration.
Some in Denver blame Arapahoe County for a lack of foresight in permitting dense development without sufficient transportation access. However, the county points to repeated assurances from Denver Public Works staff that Denver would cooperate in expanding traffic capacity in the area.
It seems unlikely that real winners will emerge as the Wabash bridge development process lurches forward. Instead, Colorado's sad tradition of uncoordinated and piecemeal local government “growth planning" seems destined to claim another bit of our region's rapidly disappearing natural corridors - and neighborhood peace.
Denver resident Andrew Wallach (awallden@comcast.net) was raised in Arapahoe County.
By Gov. Bill Ritter Jr.
On Friday, I issued an executive order that authorizes state government managers and workers to enter into employee partnerships. Since then, some opponents have incorrectly characterized what this order does and does not do. Some of the criticism borders on hysteria. Here are the facts:
By Gov. Bill Ritter Jr.
On Friday, I issued an executive order that authorizes state government managers and workers to enter into employee partnerships. Since then, some opponents have incorrectly characterized what this order does and does not do. Some of the criticism borders on hysteria. Here are the facts:
A majority of states and scores of municipalities and private businesses have implemented different methods of employee-management engagement over the years. But the framework outlined in this executive order is uniquely Colorado.
The goal is simple: bring managers and employees together to make government services more effective, efficient and reliable for the public, and make government a model employer so we can recruit and retain the highest-caliber work force in the country.
This is another step forward in the reform process we initiated when I took office 10 months ago. The Government Efficiency and Management (GEM) Performance Review is a perfect example of those reforms. As part of the GEM review, we asked employees for their efficiency ideas, and they responded by submitting an incredible 12,000 survey responses, some of which will lead to $145 million in savings and benefits over the next five years.
The partnership agreements authorized by the executive order advance that efficiency mission. We will better utilize employees' knowledge, skills and ingenuity by encouraging snowplow drivers, state troopers, maintenance workers, administrative clerks and others to engage managers in discussions about ways to:
-- Identify and implement efficiency measures and eliminate waste and redundancies.
-- Improve customer satisfaction, such as reducing wait times.
-- Enhance employee recruitment, training and retention.
-- Improve workplace safety.
Innovative companies partner with their employees in this fashion to save money, improve products and enhance services. Employee partnerships reflect best management practices for running an operation in the 21st century. The partnerships authorized in this executive order are grounded in sound management principles, will help government run more like a business and will provide fairness and parity with management practices in the private sector.
Twenty-nine states provide collective-bargaining rights to their employees. What we have crafted for Colorado is not collective bargaining.
This is a moderate approach that allows me to retain full authority over making budget recommendations and preserves the legislature's full authority to set the state budget. Existing laws that require a balanced budget and impose strict spending limits remain unchanged.
The order does not call for binding arbitration and does not require employees to join an employee organization or pay organization fees if they choose not to join.
Prior to this order, employees already had the ability to join an employee organization. This order creates a unique structure that requires state agencies to recognize employee organizations and establishes rules around how these organizations interact with department directors and the administration. The partnership agreements that flow from this order will help us more effectively serve the people of Colorado.
Existing State Personnel Board rules around hiring, disciplining and terminating employees are not affected by the executive order, and the order contains a very clear no-strike provision. Moreover, the order has no impact on private business or local government employees.
This order strikes a uniquely Colorado balance that allows for formal and engaged decision-making involvement by employees. This is about state employees and their workplace. It is about state government and improving the services we provide to the public.
I chose the executive order route rather than pursuing a statutory change after consulting with lawmakers because it allows me the flexibility and fluidity that I, as CEO of the state work force, need to effectively and efficiently manage state government. If the order needs to be altered in the future, it is much more adaptable by executive order.
I initiated this process because I believe it will be a positive step forward for state government, for our work force, and for the people of Colorado. I am confident that it will enable state government to better serve the public and ultimately improve customer - and taxpayer - satisfaction.
Bill Ritter Jr. is Colorado's 41st governor.
By Martin Palumbo
I am a racist. It must be true since so many people, whom I've never met in my life, so informed me on Oct. 6 as I participated in the annual Columbus Day parade in downtown Denver.
This Speakout has not been edited.
By Martin Palumbo
I am a racist. It must be true since so many people, whom I've never met in my life, so informed me on Oct. 6 as I participated in the annual Columbus Day parade in downtown Denver.
While waiting for the police to clear the protesters from the road, I observed one white man walking along the sidewalk carrying a small sign that read, “Would you march for Hitler?" I approached him and asked him, “How can you compare our gathering honoring our country to the hateful behavior of the Nazis?" His reply was the standard response that Columbus was a slaver and history proves he is responsible for genocide.
I told him, “Look, if you want historical accuracy let's look at it like this. Yes, he was a slaver, a despicable part of life at that time all over the world. You want accuracy? You want to tell the truth? Well then let's tell the whole truth and not just revised history. Columbus," I informed him, “stumbled on the island of Hispaniola known today as The Dominican Republic, which at that time was occupied by a band of people numbering a few thousand called the Tainos, who were consequently enslaved, though many also died of European diseases. Because they died of disease, which was not planned, it can hardly be called genocide.
“As for historical accuracy, at the same time this was happening, Indian tribes all over the Western Hemisphere were waging war on neighboring bands and tribes, committing wholesale slaughter, rape and slavery on a level that makes Columbus' forays small potatoes. Let he who is without sin," I admonished. “In fact, the very reason the Indians lost their lands and their way of life is because they were so busy fighting amongst themselves they could not form a cohesive resistance to the European invasion."
I went on to say I came here from Vermont in 1990 with the well-meaning hope of doing something - anything - to address the issue of native rights. In 1991 when the Italians allowed AIM and its supporters to participate in the parade, which they did, it was I and a Hispanic gentleman who carried the AIM banner that year. And, as much as I am and remain sympathetic to the plight of the world's downtrodden, it still serves no purpose to violate the constitutional rights of another person or group of persons.
Besides, I asked, what do the hundreds of protesters hope to accomplish with their one-finger salutes, hysterically shrieking obscenities in front of innocent men, women and children? And, I asked, what are they teaching their own kids? That it's OK to repeat the cycle of hate over and over again? They're doing that in places like the Middle East and look at all the innocents that die every day as a result.
My friend had no answers and in the end we both agreed we were getting tired of the whole thing. We shook hands and wished each other a safe day.
Not only did they hold up the parade for almost two hours that day but, as we finally were allowed to go on, one Indian protester walked up to me and told me “This is gonna stop right now," and tried to wrestle my banner from my hands. I suppose I don't have any rights because I'm a racist. He accomplished nothing other than to get arrested, which brings up a crucial point hinted at in a recent article in Westword in which the current leadership of AIM warily admit they are starting to lose control of the younger faction as I myself can attest.
Will this hateful juggernaut run out of control? Will innocent people be hurt next year because the protesters feel they have “a right to make a statement"?
Will more Indian lives be destroyed because once again a few men would use them to accomplish their own political agenda? There are 47,000 Indians in Colorado alone. What is AIM and its supporters doing about real-life issues in Indian communities like health, education, drugs and abuse?
Will the Hickenlooper administration be soft on AIM's transgressions as they have in the past? I was assaulted and had my rights violated. Who will defend me? I would warn all those protesters flipping me the bird that windy morning of Oct. 6: Beware, lest you become the very monster you once set out to destroy. Racist indeed.
Martin Palumbo is a resident of Wheat Ridge.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:00 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBackReady to fight right-to-work
By James Hansen
Colorado unions have some heavy weapons in their upcoming fight with proponents of a so-called right-to-work law.
By James Hansen
Colorado unions have some heavy weapons in their upcoming fight with proponents of a so-called right-to-work law.
Right-to-work is a proposal that, if enacted, would lower the wages of all working men and women in Colorado. Right-to-work is not a workers' movement. It is supported and primarily funded by out-of-state interests who are by no means concerned with better health care, wages, job security and pensions for working men and women.
Right-to-work laws prohibit unions and management from negotiating for an all-union shop in their labor agreements. All-union shops add strength to the employees' position in collective bargaining.
Government statistics show the average worker in a right-to-work state makes about $5,333 a year less than a comparable worker in a free bargaining, or non-right-to-work, state. In Colorado, the annual average wage is $37,946, nearly $6,500 more than it is in the six states - five of which are right-to-work states - bordering Colorado.
With the exception of one year, right-to-work has been defeated in every session of the Colorado state legislature for the past 20 years, including years when right-to-work proponents controlled both houses of legislature and the governor's office. It doesn't stand a chance of passing in the legislature.
That's why the right-to-work crowd is attempting to gather enough signatures on petitions to put the issue on the Colorado ballot in 2008.
Prevailing union wages in individual states set wage standards for all workers in those states. In order to compete for competent labor, nonunion employers in strong union states must pay higher wages than employers in states where unions are weak.
Stronger unions mean higher wages for nonunion workers. That's why nonunion employers generally support right-to-work laws.
However, a right-to-work ballot referendum could be a serious miscalculation that will hurt employers far more than it helps.
In response, labor might sponsor a referendum that would require employers to prove they have just cause when firing workers. Under present law, workers are fired at the will of their employers. Having to prove just cause would make it far more difficult to fire an employee.
Another weapon in labor's arsenal could be a referendum returning the state's workers compensation to the courts. The present system for compensating workers injured on the job was set up years ago by employers to avoid costly lawsuits.
Over the years, the law has heavily favored employers. But injured and disabled workers would undoubtedly fare far better if a judge or jury decides how much they receive for their on-the-job injuries.
The state of Idaho offers an example of what will happen to wages in Colorado if a right-to-work law is enacted here. Within four years after Idaho's right-to-work law was passed in 2001, the average annual pay was some $8,000 less than in Colorado.
In the third year after Oklahoma passed a right-to-work law in 2001, the median wage fell by nearly 1 percent, and median household income declined by 4.5 percent.
If labor files petitions for any of the ballot issues the unions are presently considering, employers will have to decide if a right-to-work law is worth the trouble.
After all, probably 98 percent of the working population comprises employees who have a stake in all of these issues.
And they will vote in their own best interest.
James Hansen is active in organized labor. He can be reached at jayhans@aol.com.
GUEST COLUMN: Rockies tickets, anyone?
By Don Mayer
The World Series has come and gone and, despite the sweep, Coors Field and Colorado looked vibrant, with masses of standing, towel-waving Rockies fans. Yet both before and after the Series, the ticket sales debacle showed signs of leaving a curse on the Rockies organization (though hopefully, one that will not last as long as the Babe's).
By Don Mayer
The World Series has come and gone and, despite the sweep, Coors Field and Colorado looked vibrant, with masses of standing, towel-waving Rockies fans. Yet both before and after the Series, the ticket sales debacle showed signs of leaving a curse on the Rockies organization (though hopefully, one that will not last as long as the Babe's).
Some fans still complain of “poor treatment," “lack of loyalty" and “dashed dreams," while others promise to boycott the Rockies “for a long, long time." Still others lash out at “corporate greed," the aiding and abetting of scalpers, and the loss, for many local fans, of a fair chance to attend Colorado's first World Series.
An apology is surely due, but at the very least, management should carefully reflect on what went wrong.
Borrowing from James O'Toole's The Executive's Compass, we see four cardinal “compass" values on the field of play: Liberty (north), Equality (south), Community (west) and Efficiency (east). The values on opposite directions are in conflict with each other, and all of the values can be applied to management's ill-starred choices.
The Rockies could have stiffed Community by selling tickets to the highest bidder, maximizing their Liberty to generate the greatest profit for themselves. They could have exercised their own Liberty with complete Efficiency by finding a competent Internet agent (which they clearly did not). But “whatever the market will bear" (Liberty) meets resistance because of the compass value of Community. Also, membership in a larger community (Major League Baseball) held management by setting maximum ticket prices.
Community was partly served by giving some preference to season-ticket holders, and management defended against complaints by noting that “80 percent of the online tickets" went to Coloradans. This reaffirms that Community matters. But the number of tickets resold on eBay and on ticket-scalping sites mainly affirmed Liberty: the liberty of those having lots of money to spare, and the liberty of folks with sufficient tech savvy to use complex computer programs to penetrate past the “countdown."
Liberty is across the compass from Equality. To completely equal (or level) the playing field, why not create a lottery? Each fan could get one number, and numbers would be selected at random to be redeemed for one ticket. Yet this would not reward season-ticket holders, close associates of players or Rockies employees, or give preference to the local and regional fan base. Plus, there are practical problems: people wishing to buy seats together would be frustrated, as many couples, friends, and families would find that they would not be sitting together, or even at the same ballgame.
Some degree of Equality could be achieved by letting fans line up for tickets, with no Internet sales. But lines raise fairness questions, too. They give a big advantage to those who live in town, or who know in-town folks with infinite patience, warm clothing and camping chairs.
Other questions to ponder quickly emerge: should management, to be fair, sell just one ticket per customer, or four? Should it create a system of tickets that cannot be transferred to others? Could it? Can it prohibit one person holding a place for numerous others? Should it? What if one person holds a place for groups of cooperative line-standers?
It's possible that Rockies' management thought it could avoid these issues and create a more efficient, simpler and fairer process through Internet sales. But as a knowing friend predicted on Friday before Crash Monday, “They think they can handle this because of the one-game Padres playoff. But they won't know what hit them." And so it was.
No system will satisfy everyone's preferences and values. Next time - and there will be a next time, Rockies fans - management's chosen method must reflect values as important as liberty and efficiency: the values of equality and community. Internet sales can be done efficiently (other teams have done it), and community and equality can also be served. A two-step system using e-mail to enable season-ticket holders to claim one ticket per game within a certain number of hours, followed by a broader lottery for all remaining tickets, would have been far better.
Don Mayer teaches business ethics and law at the University of Denver.
By John Ellenberger, Grand Junction
The subtle tilt in the sun's angle, a slight cooling in the evening air and the first smudge of changing colors quickens the pulse of many of us just a bit. Hunting, it's often said, gets into one's blood. It's just an old saying, with an element of truth.
By John Ellenberger, Grand Junction
The subtle tilt in the sun's angle, a slight cooling in the evening air and the first smudge of changing colors quickens the pulse of many of us just a bit. Hunting, it's often said, gets into one's blood. It's just an old saying, with an element of truth.
But for many Westerners who cherish our Western hunting traditions and the long heritage they embody, there's also a nagging feeling that the rapidly changing landscape of the Rocky Mountains is already crowding fish and game out of critical habitats.
Northwest Colorado's Piceance Basin is ground zero for natural gas drilling. The Piceance rolls and rises over 2,000 square miles of prime wildlife habitat. Mule deer from the nearby Roan Plateau to as far away as Steamboat Springs follow ancient migration routes each fall back to the Piceance. The basin, also home to sage grouse, elk and dozens of other native species, is the winter range mule deer and other wildlife depend on during the bitterest cold of a Rocky Mountain winter. Without it, the herds cannot thrive.
But the Piceance is changing fast. Some of the world's largest multinational conglomerates have been drawn to the gas deposits beneath these wide-open spaces like a moth to a flame.
ExxonMobil, which has acquired mineral leases on thousands of acres of public and private land in the basin, is betting that a $500 million investment will pay off handsomely when they drill hundreds, if not thousands of new wells. Marathon, British Petroleum and EnCana Energy are also setting their sights on the Piceance.
The attention from these and other major energy companies prompted a top Colorado energy official to predict earlier this year that “The Piceance Basin could very well become known as the largest natural gas field in the United States."
The Piceanace's winter range is so important to Northwest Colorado's wildlife that veteran wildlife biologists dubbed it the deer factory for its role in sustaining the largest mule deer herd in the region. If the Piceance is sacrificed for energy development, we risk losing a wildlife heritage that is the envy of much of the nation and world. Habitat for mule deer, sage grouse, native trout and elk is in even shorter supply than oil and gas. And while there is a growing array of clean, practical and wildlife-friendly renewable energy sources, critical winter range is irreplaceable.
Destroying the habitat is not only a waste; it's a needless waste.
We also risk losing the sustainable economic returns that wildlife recreation provides.
Energy development will continue. Coloradans and the rest of the nation need natural gas for our homes and factories. But that doesn't mean we must sacrifice our lifestyles, traditions and sustainable economies in the rush to exploit a resource.
Some in industry attempt to portray veteran hunters and anglers as “overzealous environmentalists" out to stop energy development. That's simply not true. As a group, hunters and anglers tend to be politically conservative. We've been reluctant to throw our support to what are viewed as “liberal" environmental issues. The fact that, as “sportsmen," we are beginning to raise our voices in opposition to unbridled development underscores our deep concern about energy development's impact on wildlife and habitat.
When this energy play winds down in the West, as it inevitably will, what's going to be left for Westerners and all Americans who cherish our public lands and wildlife? The multinational energy firms will move on to the next hot play, as will their dollars and their employees.
If we're to have the wildlife resource that helps define and sustain a significant portion of the West, it's up to us to demand reasonable protections.
As hunters, we ask that the needs of wildlife and the protection of the habitat our native species need to survive needs to be fully and fairly factored in before energy development begins, not as an afterthought. And energy companies must be required by our state and federal agencies to adhere to regulations that strike the reasonable balance we seek.
To do otherwise is to abandon the very things that make all of us love this land and the natural resources that make the Rocky Mountain West one of Earth's last, best places.
John Ellenberger is Colorado's former big game manager and an avid hunter and angler who lives in Grand Junction.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:00 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBackBy
Denver's Civic Center Park has always been a work in progress. Inspiration for the park is frequently credited to Mayor Robert Speer. However, this reminder of America's “City Beautiful Movement," was not the brainchild of a single individual. It has been the product of many creative minds.
This Speakout has not been edited.
By
Denver's Civic Center Park has always been a work in progress. Inspiration for the park is frequently credited to Mayor Robert Speer. However, this reminder of America's “City Beautiful Movement," was not the brainchild of a single individual. It has been the product of many creative minds.
Today, once again, we have the opportunity to envision Denver's symbolic center. David Owen Tryba Architects and Bill Mosher of Trammell Crow have been retained by the Colorado Historical Society to explore several alternatives for the location of a new Colorado History Museum. The location preferred by the Historical Society is Civic Center Park, situated between the State Capitol and the City and County Building. The Carnegie Library also borders the park. It is a neoclassical building donated to the city in 1909 by philanthropist Andrew Carnegie. The library was converted into office space in the 1950s and the name changed to the McNichols Building.
For over a century, nationally known artists, architects and public officials have engaged in a dialogue about the appearance and use of the civic center area. Early inspiration for the park's design came from the 1893 Chicago World's Fair. Many visitors, including our own Mayor Speer, left the fair with the desire to return home and create public spaces of equal distinction in their own cities. Colorado historian Tom Noel tells us that in1904, Henry Read, then chairman of the Denver Art Commission, began promoting the idea of a well-planned and beautifully designed civic center as a symbol for the city. With the Mayor's support, the members of the Art Commission began the process of searching for nationally known designers and architects to work toward this vision.
Included in the distinguished group were Charles M. Robinson, credited with coining the term
Recently, dialogue about the park has resumed. It has been acknowledged that Civic Center Park is an eyesore in need of public attention. Daniel Libeskind, designer of the new Hamilton Wing of the Denver Art Museum, injected his creative energy into the discussion. Libeskind's recommendations were, predictably, imaginative and considered by some extreme. As a result they have been effective in galvanizing much needed public attention and comment.
A lively, thriving civic center is a metaphor for a vital city. Tryba Architects and Trammell Crow have responded to this challenge by proposing a Civic Center design for the new history museum with the potential to re-vitalize our downtown public space.
At recent meetings, open to the public, Tryba and Mosher presented plans that meet the programmatic requirements for the new museum. This would be accomplished by renovating the Carnegie Library and adding an above ground building to the south. That new building would replicate the library in mass and scale. The idea of creating a twin structure has historic precedent as has been noted. Extensive gallery and office space would be hidden under ground, allowing the space above to remain an open lawn. The plan is remarkable because of its respect for the existing historic structures and landscaping in the park. An added benefit of the proposal is that the Carnegie Library would be returned to its former splendor. By choosing the Civic Center alternative as the location for the new Colorado History Museum we have an opportunity to re-activate this symbolic space in Denver's dynamic urban core.
Claire Shepherd Lanier, Ph.D., teaches architectural history at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Preventing a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S.
By Graham Allison
Before 9/11, most Americans found the idea that international terrorists could mount an attack on their homeland and kill thousands of innocent citizens not just unlikely but inconceivable.
This Speakout has not been edited.
By Graham Allison
Before 9/11, most Americans found the idea that international terrorists could mount an attack on their homeland and kill thousands of innocent citizens not just unlikely but inconceivable.
After nearly six years without a second attack on U.S. soil, some skeptics suggest that 9/11 was a 100-year flood. The view that terrorists are preparing even more deadly assaults seems as far-fetched to them as the possibility of terrorists crashing passenger jets into the World Trade Center did before that fateful Tuesday morning. To assess the threat of nuclear terrorism, it is necessary to answer five questions:
1. Who could be planning a nuclear terrorist attack?
Al-Qaida remains a formidable enemy with clear nuclear ambitions. Former CIA Director George Tenet wrote in his memoirs that al-Qaida's leadership has remained “singularly focused on acquiring WMD" and willing to “pay whatever it would cost to get their hands on fissile material."
2. What nuclear weapons could terrorists use?
They could acquire an existing bomb from one of the nuclear weapons states or construct an elementary nuclear device from highly enriched uranium made by a state. Theft of a warhead or material would not be easy, but attempted thefts in Russia and elsewhere are not uncommon. Once a terrorist group acquires about 100 pounds of HEU, terrorists could conceivably construct a bomb such as the one dropped on Hiroshima.
3. Where could terrorists acquire a nuclear bomb?
If a nuclear attack occurs, Russia will be the most likely source of the weapon or material. A close second would be North Korea.
Pyongyang has boasted that it not only possesses nuclear weapons but might export them, saying, “It's up to you whether we .
4. When could terrorists launch the first nuclear attack? If terrorists bought or stole a nuclear weapon in good working condition, they could explode it today. If the weapon had a lock, detonation would be delayed for several days. If terrorists acquired 100 pounds of HEU, they could have a working elementary nuclear bomb in less than a year.
5. How could terrorists deliver a nuclear weapon to its target?
The illicit economy for narcotics and illegal immigrants has built up a vastinfrastructure that terrorists could exploit.
Based on current trends, a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States is more likely than not in the decade ahead.
As horrific as that vision is, the most important but largely unrecognized truth is that this ultimate catastrophe is preventable.
I have proposed a strategy for a no-loose-nukes agenda under a “Doctrine of Three Nos":
1. No unsecured nuclear weapons and weapons usable material; they should be locked down as quickly as possible.
2. No new domestic capabilities to enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium.
3. No expansion of the nuclear club beyond its current 8.5 members, the half being North Korea.
Faced with the possibility of an American Hiroshima, many Americans areparalyzed by a combination of denial and fatalism. Either it hasn't happened, so maybe it's not going to happen; or, if it is going to happen, there's nothing we can do to stop it.
Both propositions are wrong. Citizens must press their elected officials to adopt a clear agenda for action and then hold them accountable for following through.
Graham Allison, director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, is a former U.S. assistant secretary of defense and author of Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe.
Closures identified: critical next steps for DPS
By Paul Teske
Denver Public Schools leaders are addressing the monumental challenge of turning the lagging urban district into a high performer.
This Speakout has not been edited.
By Paul Teske
Denver Public Schools leaders are addressing the monumental challenge of turning the lagging urban district into a high performer. After months of anticipation, the wrecking ball finally dropped on October 1, but with only 8 DPS schools scheduled to be closed, not the whopping 30-40 thought to be on the chopping block. The Board of Education still has to make the up/down determination on the full package, in November, based upon community input. The reduced scale of closures was partly the result of the district's ability to place the students in closing schools into better, or at least no worse, options. Unfortunately, as in many urban districts, there is now a shortage of high quality options.
So, the next, even more important, phase for DPS under Michael Bennet's leadership needs to focus on creating better schools, both new ones and conversions of existing schools. On balance, national evidence favors the creation of new schools, as better able to create a new culture from scratch, rather than tinkering at the margins.
How should DPS create or re-constitute good schools? The research known as effective schools" emphasizes a few key points, and it has the added benefits of matching common sense, as well as research on effective organizations beyond education.
First, schools need strong leadership (especially a good principal), which DPS is beginning to address by focusing on training and supporting their own excellent principals. This may be the most fundamental task for the district, and doing it well will greatly aid the achievement of these other, following goals.
Second, schools need considerable autonomy (so that the principal can pick the staff s/he wants and lead them appropriately), which is a bit of a chicken/egg dilemma for DPS, because you first need principals trained to utilize that autonomy positively. But, once that mutual trust is established, there is no reason not to give principals more authority to hire staff, more control over the use of their budgets, and the ability to provide incentives and rewards for high performance, in return for accountability for improved outcomes.
Third, schools need a mission or thematic consistency. It may matter less what that is precisely - Montessori, back to basics, Core Knowledge, whatever - than that the mission is believed, shared and lived by leaders, teachers, students, and parents in that school. While the consistency of The Denver Plan for instruction is important in a district with high student mobility, it must also allow enough flexibility and wraparound for schools to maintain their own focus.
Fourth, schools need to be safe and orderly environments for learning. This should perhaps be number one on this list, as it is a fundamental element in urban districts, but DPS has a fairly good record, compared to other cities, on this dimension, that needs to be maintained and improved.
Fifth, there must be adequate time on task and useful feedback loops, so that teachers know in real time what is working with students and what needs more attention. The assessments in The Denver Plan help achieve this, but implementing it well across all schools is no easy task.
Finally, the schools must inculcate a sense of high expectations, not just rhetoric and symbols, but a daily commitment. Principals set this tone within schools, and, for example, Rob Stein and Manual are off to a good start in this regard, which needs to become the norm.
These elements of effective schools may seem obvious, but in urban districts they are rarely implemented well, and when they are it usually flows from strong principals. Implementation can be particularly hard when districts are constrained by rules or agreements that limit their flexibility and the autonomy needed at the school level. While they can change some of this internally, DPS will need some help in freeing up some existing rules, regulations, and practices to give principals true autonomy, to hire and establish their own staff, to direct them with flexibility in terms of time and teaching ideas, and to fully implement their missions. Such help might need to come from the State Board of Education, state legislature, unions, and others.
While the challenge is formidable, DPS has valuable assets to assist them in their transformation. They have strong support from city leaders like Mayor Hickenlooper, from a School Board that is united on promoting quality, and from community groups like A+ Denver, various parent and neighborhood groups, and local foundations, actors that play a critical role in both fomenting change and monitoring results. The pension problem, an anchor holding the district back on many dimensions, might be re-financed, to free up some funds for educational purposes. DPS is well into the implementation of ProComp, the innovative teacher pay plan that rewards demonstrated good teaching financially, which is starting to show some positive results in terms of attracting and retaining top teachers to teach in difficult schools. Bennet has put together a strong leadership team to implement these ideas, including an RFP process to solicit, approve, and oversee proposals for improved schools. If the creation and re-constitution of new schools can be handled as deftly as the closures, Denver can look forward to the stronger public school system it needs.
Paul Teske is professor and director of the Center for Education Policy Analysis at the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:20 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBackHillary health plan could result in crackdown on illegal immigration
By Robert Hardaway
When recently asked whether her proposal to require employees to have proof of health insurance would extend universal health care coverage to illegal immigrants, Hilary Clinton answered with a simple “no."
This Speakout has not been edited.
By Robert Hardaway
When recently asked whether her proposal to require employees to have proof of health insurance would extend universal health care coverage to illegal immigrants, Hilary Clinton answered with a simple “no."
Aside from the fact that excluding 20-30 million illegal immigrants from health coverage would make a mockery of the label “universal" to describe her plan, this answer was almost certainly compelled, since providing health care to all American citizens would be challenge enough; providing health care to every person in the entire world who manages to cross U.S. borders illegally, not a difficult feat today, is quite another.
It is now no secret that the failure of President Reagan's 1986 bill granting amnesty to illegal immigrants can be directly traced to the failure of the government to establish social security verification procedures in order to insure that employees who hired future illegal immigrants would be prosecuted and punished.
As a result there are now millions of illegal immigrants in the U.S. working a jobs which they obtained by forging government issued identification documents such as social security cards, in violation of state felony forgery laws and U.S. Code 18-1028(a) (6) which makes it a crime punishable by five years imprisonment for any person to “knowingly possess an identification document .
Without a social security verification procedure in place, employers greedy to exploit cheap illegal labor have been virtually impossible to prosecute since they can always claim that they had no way of knowing that the social security card presented to them by a job applicant was in fact a counterfeit produced by an act of felony forgery.
Despite the fact that such a social security verification procedure would be no more difficult to implement than current credit card verification procedures currently in place to protect credit card companies from fraud and which cost only pennies per transaction to implement, supporters of giving amnesty to those who committed felony forgery have thus far managed to forestall the implementation of any such social security verification procedure. And for very good reason: it would actually work, and immediately stanch the flow of illegal immigration, obviating the need for walls, raids, arrests, or deportation of illegal immigrants. Without jobs, illegal immigrants would self-deport, since in the vast majority of cases, such illegal immigrants came for the jobs in the first place.
Under such a verification procedure, an employer would be required to submit the social security number of an applicant to a central data bank, which would confirm not only the validity of the number, but the age, birthplace, sex, and mother's maiden name of the valid holder of that social security number, while preserving the privacy of the valid holder. Within minutes, the data bank would provide an authentication number to the employer, who could then use that validation as a defense to any claim that it had knowingly hired an illegal immigrant. Those who hired illegal immigrants without such validation would be subject to severe punishment, which to be effective should go far beyond modest “fines" (now simply paid by employers as a cost of doing business), and include substantial jail terms commensurate with the punishments set forth in the U.S. code for felony forgery.
But until such social security verification procedures are implemented by the pro-amnesty lobby, Hilary's proposed “universal" health care proposal may accomplish the same result. While it is now ridiculously easy for an illegal immigrant to forge a social security card, it would be far more difficult for a job applicant to prove that he is covered by health insurance or qualified for employer-provided health insurance (which can easily cost 1000.00 a month, far more than can be covered by a minimum wage job) as required by the Hilary plan.
So it may be that those who advocate both universal health care and amnesty for immigrant felons can have one or the other. But not both.
Robert Hardaway is Professor of Law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, and the author of fourteen books on law and public policy.