14 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(07/25/02 8:23pm)
A popular campaign finance reform bill that would ban congressional candidates and political parties for raising unlimited "soft money" contributions and make other changes to campaign funding faces an uncertain future in the House of Representatives today, with a final vote scheduled for no later than Friday.\nHouse support has been dwindling since the Senate passed its version of the legislation, the McCain-Feingold bill, April 2. Republican Senator John McCain (Ariz.) had made campaign finance reform, an idea that polls show is popular among American voters, the centerpiece of an unsuccessful run for the Republican presidential nomination last year. He vowed then to halt all Senate action through procedural motions until the bill he co-sponsored with Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wisc.) passed that body. \nAnd after a fight in the Senate, it did pass, 59-41, with Indiana's Senators Richard Lugar (R) and Evan Bayh (D) voting in favor.\nIronically, the House passed similar measures banning soft money in both 1998 and 1999. But both times members of Congress knew their colleagues in the Senate would keep the measure from becoming law. That meant they could support the reform measure, use it in campaign speeches during election season, and still continue to raise and spend soft money for their political parties.\nLiberal Democrats have been successful in raising soft money in the last few years, especially with the help of former President Bill Clinton, and without it, they would fall even further behind their Republican Party rivals in fund-raising revenue. The bill under consideration would increase the limits on regulated "hard money" contributions, which Republicans have done a vastly better job at raising in the past than Democrats.\nThe lobbying efforts have focused this week on two groups of traditionally liberal groups of Democrats: blacks and Hispanic lawmakers. Rep. Martin T. Meehan of Massachusetts, the Democrats' chief sponsor of the bill, said Tuesday that his coalition was "not only making sure that we appease the black caucus, but making sure we don't create a loophole in the process" that would permit soft money to flow back into campaign war chests. Half of then 36-member Congressional Black Caucus has committed its support to the bill, but that's far fewer votes than in the past from the group. All but three supported the bill in previous years.\nRep. John Lewis (D) of Georgia, an outspoken supporter of the Shays-Meehan bill, said of his fellow Caucus members, "More than any other group in Congress, we should be for reform, for a way to level the political process. I don't understand some of my colleagues."\n"Soft money is polluting the political process," he said.\nBut some analysts argue that the bill would hurt Democrats, who are already millions of dollars behind Republicans each year in contributions, while helping Republicans.\nSoft money revenues from unlimited contributions that are made to the parties by corporations, unions, and individuals have skyrocketed in the last decade.\n"Total soft-money donations grew from about $45 million in the 1988 presidential campaign, when contributors exploited the loopholes in the election law to great effect, to $500 million in the campaign cycle that ended in November's elections," according to a July 10 article in The New York Times.\nOther provisions in the bill may also help Republican candidates.\nLimits on direct contributions to candidates rise under H.R. 380, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform bill. Political action committees (PACs) could contribute $10,000 per election to each candidate, twice that allowed under current law. The current limit of $25,000 per year that individuals can spend on hard money on all candidates combined rises to $30,000.\nA key provision, but little talked about, would limit the amounts candidates could spend on their own campaigns, currently unlimited, to $50,000 per election. Several senators were elected in the last few years having used millions of their own dollars to finance their campaigns, money used mainly for expensive television advertisements.\nSenator Jon S. Corzine (D) of New Jersey was elected last year by doing just that. Many reform-minded voters believe unlimited personal contributions give an unfair advantage to wealthy candidates. If passed, the provision is not likely to stand-up to court challenges based on the First Amendment's right to free speech. The Supreme Court has said Congress cannot limit candidates' expenditures on their own behalf.\nEven if campaign finance reform supporters manage to pass Shays-Meehan this week, it still faces a veto threat from the White House.\nIt's way past time to reform the way our nation funds it's political campaigns. Let's hope enough members of Congress see Shays-Meehan as the vastly better alternative it is to current law.\nOur congressman, John Hostettler (R), can be reached by phone at (202) 225-4636 by fax at (202) 225-3284, or via E-mail at John.Hostettler@mail.house.gov.
(07/25/02 8:23pm)
The central African country of Zaire is plagued by lost opportunities, squandered resources and waste, in journalist Michela Wrong's portrayal of its history during Mobutu Sese Seko's 32-year unencumbered reign over it.\n"In Mobutu's hands, the country had become a paradigm of all that was wrong with postcolonial Africa," Wrong writes in "In the Footsteps of Mr. Kurtz: Living on the Brink of Disaster in Mobutu's Congo," (HarperCollins, 2001, $26.00). "It was a parody of a functioning state. Here, the anarchy and absurdity that simmered in so many other sub-Saharan nations were taken to their logical extreme."\nWrong's book is both a biography of Mobutu and a historical account of the damage he so ably inflicted on his people, just as had been done so well by his predecessors. In fact, Wrong seems to suggest that a long history of exploitation by the West was almost as much to blame as Mobutu.\nMobutu came to power after the Belgian Congo, as Zaire was called under the Belgians' watch, decolonized and he served revolutionary-turned-president Patrice Lumumba as his military commander. Upon Lumumba's death, Mobutu successfully consolidated power -- which was to remain unquestioned for decades, until rebels drove him from power in 1997.\nEven this transition of power was influenced by the West. Although, as the CIA station chief for Zaire tells Wrong, the CIA did plot to remove Lumumba from power via a vial of poison, he ultimately died out of the Agency's hands. Mobutu's ascension to power was supported by the United States and other Western governments, together adding over $9.3 billion in "foreign aid" to Congo from 1975 to 1997.\nBut for the decades before self-rule, on which Wrong spends considerable effort and attention for uninformed readers (say, those not members of Oprah's Book Club, which has featured Barbara Kingsolver's "The Poisonwood Bible," a novel set in the Belgian Congo during its struggle for independence), the people and land of Congo were milked for all they were worth. Originally the private property of a Belgian monarch, King Leopold II, Congo was exploited for its rubber and used to supply a new tire industry, costing the lives of as many as 10 million African workers.\nWrong sets off from the beginning of her book to paint Western colonialists in a negative light, and to set the literary world straight. Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness," a novella written after his time there in the 1890s as a steamship captain, is where the "Mr. Kurtz" in Wrong's title can be found. Wrong notes that many people have come to believe Kurtz's dying words, "the horror, the horror," were regarding the savagery of the African people, some of whom in Congo at least engaged in cannibalism. She writes that Conrad was "more preoccupied with rotten Western values, the white man's inhumanity to the black man, than, as is almost always assumed today, black savagery."\nPerhaps because she's a journalist who has spent years covering Zaire for the BBC, Reuters, and The Financial Times, Wrong does a superb job at recounting events. Her book lacks a complete solution for a renewal and healing of the Congolese landscape. But that wasn't what she set out to give her readers. It seems she wanted to make us aware of our Western governments' collective betrayal of a land and people so abused by our greed and disregard for life.\nZaire is full of copper, cobalt, uranium, diamonds, rubber, and other valuable resources to the West. They are resources that could have been used to feed millions of hungry people, but instead millions died. It's time for the United States and other Western states to come together in an attempt to solve some of Africa's difficult problems. Problems the West certainly helped create.
(07/25/02 8:23pm)
Interns in Washington, D.C., engage in a variety of activities, both at their internships and on their own time in our nation's capital city. But whatever menial or exciting their experiences at the office are, several recent interns from IU agree that Washington is where it's at.\nAnd scandals involving interns and politicians had little effect on their experiences, with only the occasional friend making a snide remark about former White House intern Monica Lewinski, whose relationship with former President Bill Clinton eventually lead to his impeachment.\nSenior Ben Piper, who interned for Congressman Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), said "the Lewinski and Levy matters have hurt the images of politicians, not interns." \n"There are good people in government, but integrity isn't news. The Lewinski scandal didn't affect my internship," he added.\nThe day-to-day work interns perform is varied, from clerical tasks to research and policy development. \n"I wasn't just a lowly intern," said Mitch Mitchell, a SPEA senior who interned for the Health Insurance Association of America spring semester. "I was treated like I was staff. They put me on projects and sent me to meetings."\nEven among students working on Capitol Hill, one could spend her or his days attending committee meetings or doing legislative research, while another answers constituent letters, does the office's filing, and sorts mail. Each day tasks assigned are different for most interns: sometimes exciting, other times not so exciting. \n"Different offices have very different ways they treat interns," Piper said.\nMitchell said the highlight of his time in Washington was meeting the founder of Napster, Sean Fanning. Fanning was at a rally Mitchell attended the day before congressional hearings were scheduled on Napster's future.\nMitchell volunteered the morning of the hearings to pass out t-shirts and coffee to supporters, who marched from a restaurant to Capitol Hill before the hearings. \n"I got a t-shirt and badges saying 'Napster Staff,'" Mitchell said.\nBut most of a congressional intern's time is spent doing clerical tasks. \nLydia Roll, a political science senior who worked for Congressman John Hostettler (R-Ind.), said she spent a day going through old files in cages on the top floor of the Longworth House Office Building. \n"I learned how government really works, not how you read about it in U.S. history books," said Roll.\nShe noted the important role of congressional staff members on public policy. "Congress is not just 535 people. It's a lot more than that," Roll said.\nJunior Ricki Siri, a SPEA public finance major, said that his internship for Indiana Senator Evan Bayh (D), was a great experience.\nSiri said that his most exciting moment in Washington was shaking the hand of Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.), who ran for vice president on the Democratic ticket last year.\n Washington, Siri said, is the center of the universe, because unlike his hometown of South Bend, people read about what happens in Washington every day. \n Many students who choose to intern in Washington face a tough economic situation: almost all are unpaid, and the cost of living in the Washington metropolitan area is one of the highest in the country. Rent alone for shared apartments can run as much as $2,000 per month. \nAdditionally, almost all interns receive academic credit for their internships, for which they pay the University regular tuition.\nOn top of full-time tuition, Mitchell paid $1,900 to live with three other interns in an Alexandria, Va., apartment for four months. That was money Mitchell had accumulated beforehand, anticipating a costly semester with no income. \n"Most (of the money) was from my savings from work," he said. Mitchell added that his mother helped him out with the occasional $50 when needed.\nPiper called the George Washington University dorm in which he lived -- just two blocks from the White House -- expensive. It was around $750 per month.\nDespite the expense, most students who take a summer or semester to intern in Washington, whether for government or another organization, say it was well-worth the time and money spent. \n"I racked up credit card bills, but it was worth every cent," Roll said.
(07/25/02 8:23pm)
The nature of how our military engages in war is changing, Michael Ignatieff convincingly argues in his book "Virtual War: Kosovo and Beyond" (Metropolitan Books: New York, 2000, $23). For all the talk we hear about investing in new technology and weapons by military brass and the Bush Administration, the 78-day NATO bombing campaign waged against Slobodan Milosevic's Yugoslavia during the Clinton years showed just how questionable such seemingly victorious action can be. \nAs in his two prior books, "Blood and Belonging" and "The Warrior's Honor," Ignatieff spends his ink in "Virtual War," as he says, critiquing "the way Western governments have used military power to protect human rights since the end of the Cold War." He blames "the inability of governments to back principle with decisive military force," for our reluctance to engage in humanitarian missions around the world out of fear of casualties among our soldiers.\nThe central issue in Ignatieff's 246-page indictment of Western governments is determining why nations remain so reluctant to wage war at a time when they are more immune than ever from the risks of doing so.\nIn December 1998 the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, of which the United States is a member state, grappled with the question of whether to intervene in what some viewed as a sovereign country's internal affairs and others saw as a conflict with a considerable destabilizing effect on neighboring states, through massive flows of refugees out of Kosovo. Ignatieff, a London-based journalist and author, writes that then-United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan believed that American leadership could bring stability to the Balkans. NATO chose to make one final attempt to broker a peace agreement between the two sides. On January 31, 1999, NATO "authorized air-strikes against Serbia if it did not agree to talks with Kosovar leaders," Ignatieff writes. \nOn March 24, after the negotiations at the French château of Rambouillet failed, NATO began air operations against Serbia. \nIgnatieff guides his readers through the political developments during the conflict and throughout his book questions why NATO chose to bomb. He suggests that if it were not for an almost guaranteed scenario that no Western casualties would be inflicted during the bombings, NATO likely would not have taken the risk to help quell the repression, murder, rape and pillaging of the Milosevic's forces. War, to Ignatieff, is only "virtual," and not real, when one side can expect to have no losses. Even the size of the NATO force was small: 1,500 in air crews and 30,000 technicians, support staff and administrators.\n"Technological mastery removed death from our experience of war," he writes. "But war without death -- to our side -- is war that ceases to be fully real to us: virtual war."\nAnother question Ignatieff presents is whether risk-free warfare reportedly used for humanitarian reasons is perhaps itself a moral contradiction. "The concept of human rights assumes that all human life is of equal value," he writes.\nWhile President Bush wasn't yet elected when "Virtual War" was published last year, it presents several compelling indictments against those who believe that technology and war without casualties for the United States is entirely the way in which our nation's defenses should move. \n"Technologies create possibilities, but whether they are exploited depends on the ability of essentially conservative institutions to embrace them," he writes.\nAmong a myriad of questions for Western governments to ponder when choosing whether to do battle in another theater sometime in the future when events call for action -- or human rights activists demand it -- is a stinging statement. \n"America and its NATO allies fought a virtual war because they were neither ready nor willing to fight a real one," Ignatieff says.\nThe book is well-worth the $23 (or a trip to the public library) for anyone interested in military affairs or foreign policy.
(10/16/01 4:49am)
The Ballet Folklórico de México de Amalia Hernández put on a fun, lively and upbeat performance of Mexican culture and history Thursday evening for a nearly full IU Auditorium.\nAudience members were incessant with their applause, never waiting for scene changes to interject their clapping, many times clapping to the beat of the mariachi band that was present during the show. \nThe Ballet Folklórico is a reflection of the many souls and spirits that make up Mexico and a celebration of life in movement, music and color. Scenes include pre-Hispanic rituals, events in Mexico\'s history and depictions of Mexico's culture and folklore.\nIt's rare that audiences at the ballet are so involved in a performance. The costumes were extravagant, full of the color and vigor that graced the entire performance. The traditionally dressed Mexican women's flowing, bright dresses fit the mood of the music and it seemed at times their dresses were a sea of color around them as they danced.\nSince the ballet was unconventional, it cannot be judged as though it were a "normal" ballet. There was not one overriding theme, except the experience of Mexican culture and history. Each scene stood alone with its own topic, including native Indian hunting, the role of women in the Mexican Revolution of 1910 and cultural events that fuse Mexico's pre-Spanish history with its European influences. The lavish, attractive costumes of each scene added an upbeat feel.\nA little more work could be done on the togetherness that challenged the dancers, with some bringing their arms or legs or guns down ever so slightly -- just noticeably off from the others.\nThe crowd enjoyed the performance so much that a standing ovation came without hesitation. Perhaps the only other change that could make the Ballet Folklórico de México even more enjoyable would be to add a place for the audience members to dance -- something many obviously wanted to do.
(10/15/01 3:50am)
In a time of economic downturn, when state and federal government budgets get tight, the first cuts in spending often come in social welfare programs, which amount to only about 4 percent of federal spending. \nEven in more prosperous economic times, however, programs like food stamps, housing assistance and especially cash payments provided by the government to low-income families through Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, come under attack from conservative groups, according to Michael B. Katz.\nKatz's new book, "The Price of Citizenship: Redefining the American Welfare State," argues that more and more poor Americans are being left behind by a system unable to help them, even temporarily, during such tough financial times. \nHe writes that much of American welfare reform, enacted in the aftermath of the Republican's congressional victories in 1994 as part of the "Contract With America," is propelling society toward "a future of increased inequality and decreased security as individuals compete for success in an open market with ever fewer protections against misfortune, power, and greed." The full rights of citizenship, Katz says, are transformed from a right of birth to one of privilege for those who are fully employed.\nWith passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Reconciliation Act of 1996, Congress and President Bill Clinton "together had ended the nation's 61-year-old federal guarantee of cash assistance," Katz writes, "and the public supported them." The bill shifted focus from lifting families from poverty to making sure parents were employed -- in any job they could find, regardless of whether it included health care benefits, time off for family emergencies, or even a livable wage to support a family. Welfare was now temporary, with time limits for various programs from two to five years.\n"The new law oriented public assistance around the transition to work," Katz writes. And, measured solely in terms of the number of former welfare recipients who moved into at least some sort of job, the reforms were a success -- even though moving recipients into jobs was "expensive and difficult." But measured in terms of actually reducing poverty among former recipients and improving their economic situation, another picture emerges.\n"Finding a job did not end the problems of many former welfare recipients. Their wages were usually low and job loss frequent," Katz writes. "As a result, many of those who left welfare rolls remained in poverty."\nOne factor that can be a measurement of whether the new system is better for society is the plight of the children in these families. Before 1996, most mothers remained at home with their children and were able to care for and spend time with them daily; now those same mothers are at work for the better part of the day. That means putting children in expensive day-care centers or, if possible, with friends or family. Welfare reform does not regard housework and childcare as "work." Work, to welfare reformers, is only that which is done for monetary gain. \nClearly, much more research continues to emerge as the effects of welfare reform are debated. Public policy is ever-changing. Katz's book shows the reader just what effect it has on poor families and what might be done to alleviate some of the harshest effects. \n"The Price of Citizenship" is a well-researched and reasoned book on the plight of America's poor families in the wake of welfare reform. So well-researched, in fact, that pages 361 to 450 are devoted to notes in small font. \nKatz's book is a needed addition to the debate on the effectiveness of the 1996 reform law. It brings a decidedly liberal perspective to the discussion. Much as Charles Murray's 1984 book "Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980" was the defining work on social programs for conservative reformers in the last two decades, perhaps Katz's book will serve the same purpose for liberals who feel more must be done to help the struggling poor and unemployed.
(08/02/01 1:36am)
After several months without a news editor, the Bloomington Independent has appointed graduate student Liz Robertson to fill that void. \nIn her new role, Robertson has been given the responsibility to revamp the paper's news section.\nThe Independent's managing editor, Cynthia Wolfe, said Robertson is trying to redesign the section with news briefs and longer pieces to meet the paper's editorial mission -- to present the news from "a different perspective and in a more in-depth and complex way."\nWolfe said she had anticipated letting Robertson spend some time meeting community leaders and getting acquainted with local government in Monroe County, but events played out otherwise. \nWhen the Brown's Woods development on Bloomington's west side was given final approval and tree-sitters were forced out of their perches by local sheriff's deputies and state police, Robertson jumped in.\n"We had intended for her to have a smooth transition, but that didn't happen," Wolfe said. "In the middle of working on another project and trying to introduce herself to the community -- she got her trial by fire."\nNow that things have calmed down some, Robertson is back at her original task of reworking the news section. \nRobertson graduated with a bachelor's of the arts in communications, with a concentration in journalism, from Westminster College of Salt Lake City. She recently received a master's degree from IU. While in Utah she worked for the Salt Lake City Tribune, first as a newsroom assistant, then as a business reporter. \nRobertson is a now doctoral student in linguistics, for which she was awarded a Fulbright scholarship to study in Helsinki, Finland.\nThe Independent is Robertson's first stint with an alternative newspaper, but she said when she wrote for the Tribune that she "always looked for an angle to shock the sensibilities of the conservative readers in Salt Lake City."\n"This is so exciting," Robertson said. "I've always been interested in the alternative press." \nAs news editor, Robertson feels she has the chance to get to know Bloomington better. \n"It's a reason for me to really invest in the community and get to know it in a more intimate fashion," she said.\nRobertson has big shoes to fill. She replaces the widely popular and lauded Lisa Sorg, who left early this year to edit The San Antonio Current-Focus. But Wolfe is full of compliments about Robertson after just one month on the job.\n"Liz's great strength is her ability to listen," Wolfe said. "It really brings people out." \nOthers at the newspaper echo Wolfe.\nLiz brings a new sense of energy to the paper," associate editor Eric Weddle said. "She can look at local issues with a different eye.\n"The way we interact is good," he said. "We're really excited to have her working with us."\nWolfe says the Independent intends to focus considerable attention in the near future on local planning and growth issues. \n"It's a complex story," Wolfe said of planning and growth in Monroe County. "It's difficult to make into an interesting story, so we have to find specific ways to break it down and write about it, rather than just report what someone did at a Plan Commission meeting"
(11/01/00 12:33am)
Vice President Al Gore has proposed a number of initiatives to continue Democratic efforts on civil rights, including ending racial profiling, discrimination against ethnic minorities and hate crimes. \nOn women's rights, Democrats have worked to expand opportunities for women, by moving to erase the earnings gap between men and women, fighting for quality child care services, increasing funding for women's health care programs and protecting a woman's right to choose.\nCivil Rights\n"I believe that God has given the people of our nation not only a chance, but a mission," Gore said, "to prove to men and women throughout the world that people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds, of all faiths and creeds, cannot only work and live together, but can enrich and ennoble both themselves and our common purpose."\nDemocratic accomplishments on civil rights over the past several decades hardly needs mentioning. Just in the last eight years, the White House has achieved increased funding for civil rights enforcement programs, with a 13 percent rise this year, bringing enforcement funding to $698 million. Without adequate financing, our civil rights laws lack the teeth they need to be effective.\nGore has fought attacks, such as California's infamous Proposition 209, by conservatives to end affirmative action programs that seek to create opportunities -- not quotas -- for minorities and women. Democrats have made two priorities: increased investments in urban areas and lending availability to minority-owned businesses.\nGore will propose legislation to outlaw racial profiling, vigorously enforce civil rights laws and oppose any roll backs of affirmative action. As president, Gore will propose increased penalties for crimes motivated by race, gender or sexual orientation, appoint responsible U.S. Supreme Court justices who are committed to civil rights, and ensure that the federal government's workforce is as diverse as the nation it represents.\nWomen's Rights\nSadly, a 1998 study indicates that, on average, a woman earns 75 cents for every dollar a man earns for the same job. The administration is seeking to double this fiscal year's funding for training and assistance to employers on how to comply with equal pay requirements, launching a public service announcement campaign on wage issues to raise awareness and job training for women.\nSusan Bianchi-Sand, the executive director of the National Committee on Pay Equity, told a group at a White House briefing that "Vice President Al Gore has brought this issue of equal pay to the forefront for working women in this country. If he did not champion this issue ... we would still be in the shadows on (equal pay)."\nDemocrats passed the Family and Medical Leave Act, which covers millions of workers who have benefited from the up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a new baby or sick relative. \nGore supports a woman's right to choose -- a stark contrast to his opponent. Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League said during the organization's endorsement ceremony, "Vice President Gore…(has) always been dedicated to the principles embodied in Roe v. Wade."\nHealthcare:\n• Gore has fought for access to high-quality cancer detection and treatment for women. \n• Gore cosponsored the Women's Health Equity Act, addressing ovarian cancer, infertility, breast cancer and other deadly diseases\n• Gore and the administration fought to expand Medicare coverage of prenatal care annual mammograms.\n• Gore and the administration helped end "job-lock" caused by fears of losing health insurance coverage.\n• Gore worked to enact a real Patients' Bill of Rights, extending it to more than 85 million Americans.\nNov. 7, you have a choice between proven leadership that has brought us a strong national economy, with increasing protections for women and minorities, and well ... the other guy. When you make your choice, look at what candidates have done, not what they promise to do. Democrats have a record of leading the United States in the right direction.\nLet's keep going.
(10/23/00 5:19am)
During the second debate, Democratic candidate Al Gore and Republican candidate George W. Bush spent a great deal of time addressing foreign policy, an issue about which the candidates have distinct differences.\nGore and Bush show their differences most clearly on foreign policy matters when discussing the use of peace-keeping forces to help stabilize potentially volatile regions of the world.\nSaturday, Vice President Gore and Secretary of State Madeline Albright questioned the proposal of the Republican Party's nominee to withdraw peacekeeping troops from the Balkans. Democrats believe in using the military in strategic areas around the world to prevent violence and war. It seems Republicans would rather wait for war to break out, and then use our troops in more dangerous situations. \n The Balkans is an area of Europe that saw a proliferation of violence and killing when the former Yugoslavia began breaking up in 1992, with individual provinces declaring independence. Ethnic hatred between Serbs and Albanians was once again witnessed when then-president Slobodan Milosevic used his police and military forces to massacre thousands of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.\nRight now there are peace keepers from several European countries and the United States on the ground in Kosovo and throughout the once war-torn region. They are there to prevent war and conflict in a region of strategic importance to the United States and our European allies. Pulling out of that region now could lead to further violence and a return to ethnic cleansing. And United States troops would be faced with an even worse situation when called back. \n"Bush's proposal would be more than a major untested shift in America's foreign policy for the last half-century," Gore told supporters at a rally Saturday. "It would be one that could jeopardize fragile alliances. It would be a damaging blow to NATO."\nThe Balkans is but one example of the strategic engagement Democrats believe the United States should use, along with our allies around the world. The isolationistic Republicans preference would allow continued violence and unrest in areas around the world where we have an interest in preventing conflict. Bush has made "repeated statements that American troops should not be used in peacekeeping missions and should instead concentrate their efforts on preparing to fight wars in places like the Persian Gulf and the Korean peninsula," according to the New York Times.\nIs that what we want for foreign policy? War over peace? Clearly a Gore-Lieberman policy of engagement in strategic areas to prevent violence, while maintaining a strong military ready for any conflict, is far superior to the other team's plans to get the United States ready for another round of Korean and Gulf Wars.\nMaintaining a strong military is a key aspect of this peace-keeping use of our troops. Gore will provide the resources, technology and manpower to engage to do so. Gore will also:\n• Reward men and women in uniform with competitive salary and benefits\n• Reform military housing\n• Improve family services, including day care services and educational opportunities for children in military families\n• Invest in health care by fully funding the military health care system\n• Increase the investment in technology and hardware\n• Maintain the United States' nuclear strength\n"Today, the U.S. has the best-trained, best-equipped, most capable fighting force in the world. Al Gore will continue to strengthen the world's greatest military force by investing in people, deploying the most advanced technology, transforming the force to meet future challenges and transforming the Pentagon," according to Gore's Web site.\nGore offers a strong military and a peaceful world, by looking forward and establishing clear military objectives for our men and women in uniform.
(10/16/00 4:27am)
America's priorities can be determined by how we decide to spend our collective resources. This year's election highlights the key distinctions between how Democrats and Republicans spend our money. Democrats support targeted tax cuts focused on our national priorities, such as education and health care, just to name two.\nRight here in Southern Indiana, the candidates running to represent you in Congress have vastly different priorities. Dr. Paul Perry, the Democratic contender, has made health-care reform his central issue throughout the campaign, pledging to keep HMOs and insurance companies from making decisions regarding your health care. \nRecognizing the tremendous burden the costs of prescription drugs can put on working families, he will fight for prescription drug coverage to reduce that burden, so no family will have to decide between life-saving drugs and paying other bills.\nOn the national scene, Vice President Al Gore proposes a college tax credit and a 3 percent increase in national school spending, with increases in teacher salaries and more resources for pre-school programs. Across the country, school districts are in such dire need of teachers and principals they often have to hire college graduates without any teacher education. Teachers are an important part of our future economic viability, and to entice quality college students into a career in education, we must be willing to pay teachers a decent wage.\n"Al Gore is proposing a comprehensive tax plan with more than $500 billion in targeted tax relief for working families. The Gore tax cut will promote economic growth and encourage savings, and will fit within a responsible budget framework, one which ensures America is debt-free by 2012, saves Social Security and strengthens Medicare," according to a Gore-Lieberman press release.\n"Throughout his career, Al Gore has fought for targeted tax relief to help working families. He has fought to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, helped deliver a $500 child tax credit and worked for passage of Hope Scholarships to make the first years of college universally available. The result: the lowest federal tax burden in more than two decades for a typical middle-income family," the release said.\nFor college students and their families, Gore has proposed a $10,000 per person tax credit to help everyone who wants to attend college. The vice president recognizes the global economy in which we now live requires a well-educated and well-trained work force ready to compete one-on-one with any other country.\nImprove Education and Training\n• Tax credits, School Modernization Bonds and Qualified Zone Academy Bonds during two years to modernize as many as 6,000 schools\n• The College Opportunity Tax Cut that allows families to take a $10,000 per student tax credit or tax deduction for tuition\n• Save money for education with Tuition Savings Accounts\n• Create 401(j) Life-Long Learning Accounts that can be withdrawn and used tax-free if they are used for education or qualified life-long learning\n• Assist workers, up to $6,000, in obtaining training courses or certification programs that improve information technology skills\nHelp Families Afford Health Care\n• Making health insurance more affordable and more accessible for small businesses through a 25 percent tax credit for premium costs for each small-business employee that decides to join a purchasing coalition\n• Assuring tax equity through a new tax credit for individual health insurance\n"I am proposing," Gore said, "an economic policy that's tried and tested, and built on our values -- fiscal discipline as the foundation and a new generation of investments to empower our people and unleash their potential. No runaway spending, no paybacks for the powerful interests and no budget-busting tax proposals."\nWe need to decide if we put our focus on health care and education or tax cuts for the wealthy. \nEducation and health care, together with targeted tax cuts for working, low- and middle-income families, are the Democratic plan for a more prosperous economy.
(10/10/00 6:12am)
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Oct. 4 in Ferguson v. City of Charleston, S.C., with potentially notable Fourth Amendment and civil rights consequences for pregnant women. \nAs I waited in line on the Supreme Court's steps that morning, a small group of protesters began to form and spread posters across the sidewalk along First Street, between the Court and the Capitol. At first, there were two lonely women wearing sandwich boards and walking a circle around the signs they had laid on the ground. \nLater, a gray-haired gentleman dressed in a navy suit strolled down the street with a single poster, two baby dolls (one white, one black) and two small American flags. Scribbled on the front of his homemade sign in black marker was: "Test the Mothers, Save the Babies."\nAt issue in the case was whether a South Carolina state law violated the Fourth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.\nNine minority women petitioned the Court to overturn that law, which seeks to stop the use of cocaine during pregnancy. While this is a laudable goal, the method used in South Carolina's hospitals is unacceptable. \nIn 1989, the Medical University of South Carolina, acting under a recently passed state law, began a practice of testing, without consent, the urine of pregnant women suspected of using cocaine, the only drug covered under the law. The MUSC policy used nine indiciacators of cocaine use, including a lack of prenatal care, pre-term labor and birth defects.\nTwo issues of concern arise from MUSC's testing and the subsequent arrest of women who tested positive: the first is the "unreasonable searches and seizures" clause of the Fourth Amendment; the second is found in the racially discriminatory practice of testing only some of MUSC's patients. \nThe Fourth Amendment is generally a constraint on the government's authority to undertake a search, such as a urine test, without either a warrant "particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized" or a particular governmental "special need."\nLacking either of those, consent must be given by the person to be searched. The 30 women arrested under the law, and several dozen more who were also tested, did not consent. Furthermore, Priscilla J. Smith, who argued for the women, noted that an "expectation of privacy" in hospitals is greater than somewhere else the police might engage in random testing.\nIn the absence of valid consent, the drug testing policy did violate the Fourth Amendment. \nThe number of protesters who had gathered in support of the women arrested by Charleston, S.C., police grew from two to eight by 9 a.m. Their signs highlighted the rights of the women, which they claimed were violated. One proclaimed cocaine addicts needed "hospitals, not handcuffs."\nRegarding the testing's discriminatory practices, the policy at MUSC had a racially disparate impact in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. "Thirty women were arrested pursuant to the MUSC policy, all but one or two of whom were African American," according to an amicus brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.\nWhile the relative number of minorities being arrested is not alone sufficient for a law to be a violation of Title VI, it is when an alternate program could be used by the government to ensure fairness to everyone in the law's application. The option MUSC failed to use and should have is simply testing all pregnant women, not picking and choosing particular ones. The urine tests are already required in the hospital's routine care, and hardly represents a prohibitive expense on the government.\nOn the street, protesters for the women and the lone protester supporting South Carolina's law engaged in several short yelling matches. One side mentioned the need to protect babies and the other countered that they weren't babies, but fetuses. "Your Latin is a little off," the navy-suited man shouted to his adversaries only a few feet away. "'Fetus' means 'baby.'" \nThe Court must decide whether the government's need to test particular pregnant women for cocaine use outweighs the women's right to be secure against unreasonable searches.\nWe can all agree women should not use any drugs while pregnant, but the government should take a more appropriate approach to how it combats this problem. Preventative measures and drug treatment and counseling services are far preferable to the jail time 30 women received -- some while still in their hospital gowns.
(10/03/00 5:52am)
Democrats have long stood by lower and middle income Americans in their fight for quality, affordable health care coverage.\nVice President Al Gore's plan for ensuring a continued commitment on health care includes a comprehensive patients' bill of rights, a prescription drug benefit for people on Medicare and expanded health care coverage for children and working families.\nIn an address at the Children's Hospital of Los Angeles, Gore said, "For more than 50 years, we have been engaged in a battle to provide the kind of health care a great nation owes its people. Now, after that long century of effort, conflict and concern, it is time to move past theoretical and philosophical divisions -- beyond a sterile debate about labels and abstractions -- to ask how we can now take concrete, specific realistic steps to improve health coverage for all the American people." Democrats believe decisions on health care should be left to families and their doctors, not HMOs and insurance companies. \nDemocrats have always fought for families. And now is a time for leadership that will do just that during the next four years. President Kennedy said, before passage of Medicare, that, "Whenever the miracles of modern medicine are beyond the reach of any group of Americans, for whatever reason -- economic, geographic, occupational or other -- we must find a way to meet their needs and fulfill their hopes. For one true measure of a nation is its success in fulfilling the promise of a better life for each of its members." \nThe American economy has never been stronger and more vibrant than it is today. More Americans have jobs, can afford to buy their first homes and are better off now under eight years of Democratic leadership than in recent history. But those few who have been left behind must not be forgotten. And there are more than 43 million Americans who lack health coverage today.\nWith today's strong economy, America can afford to propose new initiatives to provide health care coverage for its children, seniors and those of lesser means. A Gore-Lieberman White House would help all of us attain affordable, quality health care. \nFor children and the working poor, Democrats would "expand health care coverage to every child and to millions of adults by building on the existing Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)," according to the Gore-Lieberman campaign. "Because 85 percent of parents in families with children eligible for CHIP are themselves living without health insurance, the Gore-Lieberman plan would expand CHIP to 7 million working parents." \nSeniors would receive increased long-term care assistance in the form of a $3,000 tax credit, in a time when many members of the fast-growing group are in desperate need. \nAll Americans would benefit from an enforceable, meaningful patients' bill of rights that would leave health care decisions to families and doctors and take them away from HMO and insurance company bureaucrats. \n"Al Gore and I will respond to the health care emergency facing America's working families," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Gore's vice presidential running mate. "We will stand up to the pharmaceutical industry to fight for a prescription drug benefit for everyone on Medicare. We will take medical decisions out of the hands of HMOs and make sure every child has access to health care coverage."\nAsk yourself whom you want representing you in Washington -- someone who will fight for your interests instead of special interests? Or the other guy?
(09/18/00 3:13am)
Public funding for congressional campaigns is needed now more than ever. More than $318.4 million was raised and $142.3 million spent as of March 2000 on the congressional elections alone across the United States, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.\n"The additional activity represents a 37 percent increase in fund-raising and a 27 percent increase in spending," according to the Federal Election Commission. Polls show the public is troubled by the massive amounts spent on elections. By capping the funds available to candidates, these strikingly high expenditures will decline sharply. \nDemocracy is strongest with more participation from the public.\nDuring the past several decades, many have come to believe the effects of their votes have been eroded, largely through the influence of money in campaigns. Special interest groups, through their Political Action Committees (PACs), have seemingly managed to put a stranglehold on many elected officials and candidates. It is virtually impossible for a candidate in a contested race to compete successfully if his or her campaign lacks the monetary resources to run TV advertisements, buy campaign literature and yard signs and send mailings. \nUnder the current system, it is expensive to run for office. Accordingly, candidates are forced to accept almost any aid to remain viable candidates. \nNow is the time to enact meaningful campaign finance reform for all House and Senate races. Public funding for qualified candidates would keep special interest groups out of funding campaigns. \nHow Public Funding Would Work\nA candidate for the House would receive, for example, $300,000 for a House general election campaign. Senate candidates would receive around twice that, with the particular amount tied to the size of his or her state. No candidate would be permitted to raise his or her own funds for the campaign, with the exception of personal contributions from the candidate.\nThis reform measure would free all candidates to spend time talking to voters, not attending fund-raisers, making phone calls to potential contributors or sending mailers requesting financial support. Some have estimated this fund-raising to take half of a candidate's time. \nThe voters would have more contact with candidates, whom they knew were not being funded by special interest groups. \nThe candidates would be free to say what they wanted voters, not contributors, to hear. \nFunding required to support all campaigns for the House and Senate could easily be found in the Federal Government's budgets. One B2 bomber would cover the cost for two years. \nFuture Reform Efforts\nCampaign finance reform has, unfortunately, been placed on the back burner this election season. Both Sen. Bill Bradley and Sen. John McCain brought it to our attention early in the primary through bids for their parties' nominations. With their defeat, reform of our campaign finance laws has taken a backseat to other issues.\nBuilding on a traditionally Democratic issue, Vice President Al Gore promised in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention last month that the first bill his administration sends to Congress will be on campaign finance reform. \nWhile publicly-funded campaigns are not likely in the near future, let's hope Gore and a Democratic majority in Congress will make some progress that will eventually lead to public funding.
(09/04/00 4:20am)
Government does for us collectively what we cannot do individually. \nIn 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law an economic security plan that provided assistance to low income families, the unemployed and seniors, protecting them, he said, from the hazards and vicissitudes of life. \nSocial Security retains today its stated purpose of 65 years ago: a commitment to provide economic security to seniors. The government is responsible to safeguard against misfortunes that cannot be eliminated.\nChange and innovation, as with any long-standing system of economic assistance, are needed to protect Social Security's future reliability and solvency. It is with today's young people in mind that Vice President Al Gore has proposed private retirement accounts and tax credits to match an individual's own savings. \n"I am proposing a plan to give families the real help they need to build better lives for themselves and their children," Gore said. "My plan for private savings and investment is very different from what others have proposed in this election. It doesn't come at the expense of Social Security. It comes in addition to Social Security."\nThe retirement accounts, called Retirement Savings Plus, would go beyond Social Security's guaranteed benefit. The accounts would be based in the private sector and not managed by the government. They would build on the solid base Social Security now provides, while allowing one to invest more in his or her retirement, without any chance of losing benefits in poor economic times. \nRoosevelt's plan to assist the elderly in 1935 was in response to a poor economic situation. To allow, through private investment, the potential for people to lose those benefits would nullify the purpose of Social Security. It should be there for seniors when they retire, regardless of their luck, or lack thereof, on the stock market.\nPrivate investments should be in addition to, not part of, Social Security. They should be encouraged, as Gore's plan proposes, allowing seniors the potential for a better fiscal situation upon retirement. \nUnder the current system, everyone gets by on a basic guaranteed benefit. Gore's plan allows for savings and investment, with tax savings, on top of that base benefit. Republican plans for partial privatization of Social Security take away that guarantee and open up Social Security to the ups and downs of the economy. \nWith the strong economic situation we now enjoy, it might sound good to allow individuals to invest their benefits in the stock market. But, the markets can, and do, go down. The Republican plan would create winners and losers. \nWhat happens to seniors who retire when the economy is in a lull or, worse yet, a depression? When they most need the financial assistance now provided by government, it might be much less than what they would get today from Social Security.\nGore's Retirement Savings Plus plan, however, provides for flexibility and increased investment, while maintaining the base benefit of Social Security. Young people would have a lifetime to enjoy the plan's retirement savings program, building on their base benefit without risking it in the process.\nRoosevelt said in a 1934 message to Congress, "Security was attained in the earlier days through the interdependence of members of families upon each other and of the families within a small community upon each other. The complexities of great communities and of organized industry make less real these simple means of security. Therefore, we are compelled to employ the active interest of the nation as a whole through government in order to encourage a greater security for each individual who composes it."\nGovernment, through Social Security, helps ensure we will be secure in our retirement. Let's not allow risky Republican schemes to take away that security.