VOP Newsfeed3/16/10 [VOP] Community Organizer questions Tea Party tactics, respects Tea Party activists
3/15/10 New Yorker audio slides on Martinsville, site of VOP's newest office
3/12/10 Virginia Organizing Project Presents Giant $921.01 Check to Governor’s Office
3/8/10 Virginia Organizing Project - Bake Sales for the Budget
2/26/10 Rising Cost Of Health Insurance
1/22/10 VOP on NPR's Morning Edition
Great New Books on Organizing:
The Virginia Organizing Project tries to find as many ways as possible for people to become more active citizens. This page lists recent opinion columns that individuals have written to push for much needed changes in our communities, our state and our country.
This is a list of articles, please click on each title for details.
Cedar Dvorin Letter to the Editor 3-18-10
http://alextimes.com/media/files/AXT0318LR.pdf
Theresa J. Carter Letter to the Editor 3-8-10
To the editor:
I would like to bring your attention to a new federally funded community jobs program that could put millions to work over the next several years. Congressman
Keith Ellison, D-Minn., has introduced HR 4268, the “Put America To Work Act of 2009” that would create a community job program to reduce unemployment
and help revitalize our communities.
The program would allocate funds based on the Community Development Block Grant formula modified to consider unemployment data.
Local elected officials who are closest to our communities would work with community groups and labor leaders to identify critical projects and connect workers to projects right away.
Jobs could be located in the public sector, community-based not-for-profit organizations, and small businesses that provide community benefits.
At other desperate times in the history of the U.S., our government has instituted public jobs programs as part of the solution to extreme unemployment. Those programs put people back to work, restored dignity and self-esteem, provided real and necessary income and created some of our most lasting and
noteworthy public assets. The world as we know it is changing. Let us change with it and discover even greater sources and resources to prosper.
THERESA J. CARTER
Danville, VA
Christie Hoerneman Letter to the Editor 2-26-10
'Cuts only' approach to shortfall is flawed
Virginia has great public institutions that we can all be proud of, including a first-class higher education system, libraries, health clinics, and public safety offices.
However, a "cuts only" approach to creating a balanced budget puts these institutions at risk.
A sound fiscal approach to the $4 billion shortfall would include modest progressive income tax reform that would result in fewer cuts to institutions that are already in peril.
A "cuts only" budget proposal and adoption would mean that more teachers will be out of work, public servants will see a decrease in their spending power as their salaries stay the same or decrease, fewer students will be able to afford college, and fewer who are experiencing hardships in this economic downturn will get the help they need.
Now more than ever, Virginia needs strong leaders who will ensure that the commonwealth's outstanding institutions are no longer put in jeopardy due to an unsound "cuts only" budget approach.
Christie Hoerneman
Fredericksburg, VA
Charlotte Johnson Jones Letter to the Editor 2-24-10
Forget more cuts, just raise the taxes
There is no dispute that Virginia is in a bind during these extraordinarily hard economic times.
Every day, we hear about proposed cuts to the state's budget. These cuts are further hard hits to important areas that have already been pared to the bone, such as education, transportation, mental health services, health care for our neediest children and elders, and public safety.
Clearly the General Assembly and our governor face real and difficult choices.
It's time to consider what seems to be unthinkable: Raise revenue instead of slashing expenses. Ask our wealthiest citizens to step up and absorb modest increases in their tax rate.
Currently, Virginia's tax structure is one of the most inequitable and regressive in the nation. Those making the most money are taxed at the exact rate as our working class, who struggle to pay tax bills and provide necessities for their families.
Our leaders won't know until they ask. Perhaps they would be surprised to learn that the most fortunate among us would be happy to give up a round of golf and a couple of dinners out so that our fellow Virginians can afford to put a simple meal on the table.
Charlotte Johnson Jones
Stafford, VA
Susan Thacker-Gwaltney Letter to the Editor 2-7-10
I am tired of blanket statements from policymakers that lock us into boxes when it comes to our state budget. We are facing huge economic problems nationwide, and we feel the impact in Virginia. The reason we have made it through this economic crisis slightly better than other states is due to responsible stewardship of our state programs. We always have choices, and this legislature is not looking at all of the choices.
It worries me when policymakers box themselves in a corner and refuse to even consider increasing the amount of money coming in to pay for essential services. Gov. Bob McDonnell and the House of Delegates will not even think about raising taxes. However, the school district where my children attend school faces dramatic cuts that will impact their future.
The answer needs to be a responsible look at our finances. Eliminating choices is rash and makes solutions hard to come by. The rhetoric that prevents creative solutions to ensure a better quality of life for Virginians is uncalled for. Let's look at all of our options and take a balanced approach to the way we spend our state dollars and the way we raise them.
Susan Thacker-Gwaltney
Williamsburg, VA
Kevin Raymond Letter to the Editor 2-6-10
Editor, Times-Dispatch:
As Gov. Bob McDonnell considers options to balance next year's budget, he may wish to consider the proposal by the Virginia Organizing Project (VOP) to take a look at the existing tax structure. Virginia is one of only 10 states that still has a sales tax on food. This is perhaps the most regressive tax on the books right now. People living in poverty pay the same rate as our most wealthy citizens -- 2.5 percent. This raises $350 million a year.
The biggest-ticket item, and perhaps the most inequitable in the entire code, is the graduated income tax structure. Three of the four categories are for people with taxable incomes of $17,000 and less. These provisions go back to 1910 and 1920, a relatively horrific consideration from economic and social perspectives. As a result, the family that makes $17,000 or more in taxable income today pays the same rate -- 5.75 percent -- as the family making $700,000 per year. VOP recommends these rates be graduated to keep up with inflation.
The biggest money-maker in the VOP proposals recommends that deductions on state returns not exceed the state standard deduction. This would raise more than $1.6 billion. McDonnell could make these adjustments simply to bring the tax code into the 21st century, and change rates that were developed when transportation was mainly on horseback. This would also provide equity to Virginia citizens who struggle to make ends meet every day. The process would bring not only common sense into the code, but also billions of dollars into the state Treasury. In this the 100th anniversary of our tax structure, it is time to improve social and economic equity in our tax system and balance the budget.
Kevin M. Raymond
Dale City, VA
Paul Moceri Letter to the Editor 2-5-10
Dear editor,
Who you gonna call? Let's hope it’s not your state Senator or Delegate, because you might have a tough time reaching them.
When I dialed the General Assembly constituent viewpoint line yesterday, I was surprised to get an out of service message. For years I have used an 800 number to communicate with my state representatives in Richmond. With the rapid pace of the General Assembly, I like that I could—easily and without charge—reach out and get a message to my representatives in Richmond. Now, it seems that they have cut the line as a "cost saving measure."
I am in favor of Richmond tightening its belt like the rest of the state, but I think this was an important service that helped constituents hold their Delegates and Senators accountable. I cannot help but wonder if cutting the constituent line was really due to the budget or if the budget served as the perfect excuse to turn a deaf ear to constituents’ concerns.
I will try to find other ways to communicate with my legislators and hope others will as well. However, limiting the ways in which we can hold our legislators accountable is unacceptable, recession or not.
Sincerely,
Paul Moceri
Norton, VA
John Horejsi Letter to the Editor 1-20-10
Dear Editor:
Is George W. Bush continuing to write our nation’s tax policy?
As many readers may already know, the estate tax has been cut five times since 2001, with the result that few people pay it now – only 1 in 400 Americans. A couple can pass on $7 million tax-free, and a single person, $3.5 million.
So, what is the problem with this? For many of us, there are several problems. The first one is this: Repealing the estate tax would increase the federal deficit by $1.3 trillion over 10 years and leave the struggling middle class even worse off. A second problem is that cutting the estate tax again would give a huge tax break to the very same corporate executives and Wall Street speculators who wrecked the economy and then paid themselves multi-million dollar bonuses after taxpayers bailed them out. Do these folks, the people who helped wreck our economy, need more government relief?
What readers may not know is that a few super-wealthy families who own giant companies like Mars Candy, Gallo Wines, and Wal-Mart have funded the anti-estate tax campaign. These folks are not looking out for the common good, not looking out for the most vulnerable as well those of us who work hard for a living and still have problems meeting our financial obligations.
In 2010, debate over the permanent estate tax will be taking place, and the Senate will be the main battleground. There are several plans already on the table. One on the table is The Sensible Estate Tax Plan. Rep. Jim McDermott (WA) introduced a bill — the Sensible Estate Tax Act, HR 2023 - that sets the exemption at $4 million per married couple ($2 million per individual) and establishes a progressive rate structure starting at 45%, with a higher rate of 55% on estates above $10 million. SALT believes that the McDermott bill would result in billions more revenue and would be more effective at reducing economic inequality than the current Obama proposal. The bill is the most fiscally responsible bill of all current proposals.
John Horejsi
Social Action Linking Together (SALT)
Vienna, VA
Susan Fraiman Letter to the Editor 1-12-10
I was heartened by the recent article about groups petitioning Gov. Timothy M. Kaine to restore the voting rights of ex-felons who have paid their debt to society (The Daily Progress, Jan. 6).
The example given — local resident Mike Walker, jailed for eight months and subsequently disenfranchised for 20 years — illustrates to me the gross injustice of current state laws.
In making it difficult, if not impossible, for people like Mr. Walker to regain their voting rights, Virginia is out of step with both public opinion and national norms.
The majority of Americans support the right of ex-felons to regain this basic right of citizenship, and the great majority of states make it possible for them to do so. As the director of the Virginia branch of the American Civil Liberties Union mentioned in the article, only Kentucky has comparable restrictions.
I strongly agree with the broad coalition of state groups — including the ACLU, NAACP, Interfaith Center for Public Policy, Virginia Organizing Project, League of Women Voters, Rutherford Institute and others — that Gov. Kaine should issue an executive order immediately restoring the vote to those Virginians who have completed their sentences.
I was shocked to learn that Gov.-elect McDonnell actually plans to tighten restrictions. Surely we should be moving forward rather than backward on this important matter of civil rights.
Susan Fraiman
Charlottesville, VA
Karen Kallay Letter to the Editor 1-3-10
What if the members of the House and Senate Reconciliation Committee can achieve a compromise on health care reform that keeps the crucial elements of what has been called the "public option" but perhaps without the name?
The crucial elements are those that provide a more affordable choice for insurance by reducing cost while improving health outcomes.
When pigs fly, you say? Think about an advantage that any nonprofit insurance company or the "public option" would have: It doesn't have to use premium dollars to make a profit or compensate stockholders, yet it has to stay competitive.
That may help to explain why currently administrative costs are 3 percent of Medicare, 7 percent of Medicaid, and 15 percent to 30 percent of for-profit health insurance.
Trouble is, the U.S. is the only advanced country that allows for-profit health care insurance companies, and they've become oligopolies.
Maybe even more important are the elements of the proposed "public option" that set a higher standard for cost-effectiveness while improving health outcomes.
Payments would favor care that is "evidence-based" rather than just more procedures and office visits.
If that means more preventive care and earlier intervention, fine. If that means larger practices, more efficient record-keeping, and less duplication of tests, why not?
The logical lessons? Include in the legislation clear supports for nonprofit insurance companies that use carrot-and-stick payment rates to promote these efficiencies in the providers it reimburses.
Let the ingenuity and know-how of incentivized providers figure out the best way to provide service.
Whatever the Reconciliation Committee wants to call them, these elements are crucial to reform. Without them, we have another enabling giveaway to the for-profit insurance industry.
But with these elements, we begin to contain costs and improve health.
Karen Kallay
Fredericksburg, VA
Virginians sacrifice as Wall St. gets rich 1-3-10
The six largest banks will award a record-setting $150 billion in total compensation this year, including many banks that American taxpayers bailed out.
By JANICE JOHNSON
MORE THAN A year has passed since the financial crisis began, and nothing has changed. This month , financial firms announced their yearly bonuses and it’s evident that life on Wall Street is business as usual.
Despite the sacrifices most Americans have made this year because of the economy, Wall Street still managed to award $74.4 billion for bonuses in the first half of 2009. Many banks announced even larger bonuses for 2010, with a 40 percent increase over 2008.
The six largest banks will award a record-setting $150 billion in total compensation this year, including many banks that American taxpayers bailed out. Lehman Brothers went to court to ask for $50 million in incremental bonuses for its highestranking employees. Many of these bonuses will go to the same employees who oversaw Lehman Brothers leading up to the collapse.
While Wall Street celebrates the fact that profits are up $49.7 billion for the first three quarters this year, big banks are still squeezing us dry. Americans will end up paying more than $38 billion in bank overdraft fees this year, amounting to $125 per person.
Recently the U.S. House of Representatives voted in favor of a comprehensive package of financial reforms designed to ensure that the banking and mortgage crisis of the last year will not be repeated. The legislation closes existing loopholes and forces banks, credit card companies and mortgage brokers to be transparent and honest.
The legislation would also create a single Consumer Financial Protection Agency to protect Americans from unsafe financial products and provide clear, concise information so that we can make sound financial decisions.
If this agency had existed prior to the economic disaster, and had the power needed to enforce rules, we would not be in the situation we are in today. In the last decade none of the existing regulatory bodies acted to make rules until it was too late.
And in the past decade, federally charted depositories have been able to ignore state laws with impunity. Thus, if a state tried to enforce laws that applied to a lending institution within its own borders, it was prevented from doing so.
In Virginia, 43 percent of all loans in the state are made by institutions that Virginia cannot regulate. Additionally, states couldn’t regulate any lenders on terms that made mortgages dangerous such as balloon payments, negative amortization, variable rates and other exotic instruments.
A federal floor of consumer protection is critical. Flexibility to respond to a changing marketplace is also critical and can be achieved only by allowing the states to respond to local problems.
The Consumer Finance Protection Agency is under attack by those who benefit from the status quo. The 25 top TARP recipients have already spent $71 million lobbying against common-sense reforms since they were bailed out this year.
A recent poll indicates that 70 percent of Americans believe our financial system needs major reform or a complete overhaul. Meanwhile, members of Congress have asked their constituents to be patient and persevere during these tough economic times. Americans have responded by saving, making more careful financial decisions and working longer and harder.
Now is Congress’ chance to deliver. The House did its job and passed sensible financial reform legislation, and I urge Sens. Jim Webb and Mark Warner to do the same.
Janice “Jay” Johnson is chairwoman of the Virginia Organizing Project.
Retta Robbins Letter to the Editor 12-3-09
Enough is enough: Pass a health care bill now
The time is now; the reasons are many; the need is urgent for America to pass a health care bill.
About 44,000 people die each year in our country because of the lack of adequate care. We all know a family member, a friend, or a neighbor who has not been able to get the care they needed because of a pre-existing condition, has been denied care for a chronic or catastrophic illness, or is simply unable to afford it.
I know four people at this time who have a health crisis and are uninsured or underinsured.
My brother needed a liver transplant but didn't have insurance; he had to raise $30,000 from family, friends, and community just to have his name put on a waiting list to be a recipient.
The health care bill might not meet all your expectations or mine, but we, as a country, need to join the industrialized world that makes health care available to all its people.
This is morally the right thing to do, and it is imperative that, after 50 years of trying, we must pass a comprehensive bill now.
Retta Robbins
Fredericksburg, VA
Retta Robbins Letter to the Editor 11-15-09
To the Editor:
The time is now; the reasons are many; the need is urgent for America to pass a health care bill. 44,000 people die each year in our country for lack of adequate care. We all know a family member, a friend, or a neighbor who has not been able to get the care they needed because of a pre-existing condition, has been denied care for a chronic or catastrophic illness, or is simply unable to afford it.
I know four people at this time who have a health crisis and are uninsured or underinsured. In my family, my brother needed a liver transplant but didn’t have insurance; he had to raise $30,000 from family, friends, and community just to have his name put on a waiting list to be a recipient.
The health care bill might not meet all your expectations or mine, but we, as a country, need to join the industrialized world that makes health care available to all its people. This is morally the right thing to do, and it is imperative that--after 50 years of trying--we must pass a comprehensive bill now.
Retta Robbins
Fredericksburg, VA
Susan Schorin Letter to the Editor 11-5-09
To the editor:
Last Thursday I spent my afternoon visiting the office of The Lewin Group, the health care policy research firm that proclaims the independence of its opinions. I visited the firm’s Falls Church office along with a small group of activists, the purpose being to call attention to The Lewin Group’s complete ownership by United HealthCare, the nation’s largest health insurance company, hardly unbiased in the current health care debate.
Members of Congress from both political parties have often cited the Lewin Group’s reports on health care reform legislation. Although the Lewin Group claims editorial independence, their research largely supports the anti-reform, anti-public option position of their parent company, United HealthCare. Despite this conflict of interest, members of Congress and many members of the media fail to acknowledge that The Lewin Group is wholly owned by an entity of the health insurance industry.
We arrived at The Lewin Group’s offices at lunchtime. Security had been notified of our impending visit ahead of time, and when we got to the front door we found the building locked. We managed to get inside, however, and got up to the executive offices on the eighth floor. We were promptly accosted by an angry receptionist who demanded we leave immediately. He instructed a security officer to escort us out of the building. As we tried to explain to him why we were there, he called the police. (We had brought documented literature describing how its parent company had taken cruel advantage of their clients to show the company’s officers.)
In fact, they were accused by the New York attorney general and the American Medical Association of helping insurers shift medical expenses to consumers by distributing skewed data. In January, UnitedHealth agreed to a $50 million settlement with the New York Attorney General and a $350 million settlement with the AMA, covering unconscionable conduct going back as far as 1994.
No one in the building would allow us to speak and, in fact, everyone we encountered put their hands in front of our video camera to avoid being captured on tape. I was shocked and dismayed that employees of this company took such aggressive measures, especially since I am a non-threatening 64-year-old mother of one and grandmother of one, a university professor emeritus, and a peaceful activist for causes I believe in. I am only trying to inform the general public of the abhorrent tactics and policies of the big insurance companies and to expose their methods of misleading and cheating the insured. The response we got is indicative of the fear they have of being exposed as what they really are.
Over the next several weeks, Congress will be making critical decisions on health care reform that will affect our health care, as well as the health care of our children and grandchildren. I want my members of Congress to make an informed decision based on independent, unbiased research, not based on the pseudo-science of a firm owned by a health insurance company.
Susan G. Schorin
Alexandria, VA
Patti White Letter to the Editor 10-27-09
I am a 50-something single mom of three, and I cannot believe that after hearing about health care reform for the last 30 years, we are still at a standstill as to what to do.
I work for myself and have for the last 30 years or more. I've managed to bring up three kids, send one to college, keep a roof over our heads, and pay all my bills.
In the last several years, I found it necessary to apply for Medicaid because of my inability to purchase affordable health insurance. At first, Medicaid just covered my child, but because of illness, I also applied.
While I am not particularly fond of this turn of events, I was happy to have the coverage when my daughter had a serious health scare.
In my business, I provide a service to people and animals. If I am the only one in the area providing this service, I can increase my rates. But if I am one of several providers, then my rates have to stay competitive.
It makes sense to have other options on the table, especially for health insurance. A public option would keep rates down, and make the insurance companies offer better services.
Congress should not make this a partisan issue. We need help yesterday! We need to pass real health care reform that includes a public option.
I have simplified my life in order to provide for my children and myself. It is time Congress rolls up its sleeves and passes the health care reform I have been waiting for for 30 years.
Patti White
Caroline, VA
Jessica Foster Letter to the Editor 10-25-09
The Oct. 14 editorial, "Voting rights," was an eloquent expression of an ideal that any supporter of the restoration of felons' voting rights can appreciate. It addressed an issue that even the most outspoken of supporters tends to shy away from: the undeniably racist conception of this practice.
As stated in the editorial, Gov. Tim Kaine has taken great strides in the restoration of voting rights, and his efforts should be applauded. However, he has the power to take this action even further, by pushing to automatically restore the voting rights of felons after they have served their sentences. A move like this could help felons see that they can be reintegrated into society, that they can once again have a voice in our democratic process and that all is not lost as a result of their pasts.
Jessica Foster
Newport News
John Horejsi Letter to the Editor 10-23-09
Dear Editor:
Why is Virginia ranked last in stimulus spending? Governor Kaine, as reported in the media--that Virginia Ranked Last in Stimulus Spending--is apparently in no hurry to spend stimulus money, money given to the state of Virginia that could create and sustain jobs.
The stimulus money is available, but is not being used. What is impeding action to infuse the Virginia economy with the stimulus funds to develop and preserve family wage jobs?
The same inertia is manifested with respect to the $79 million in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) stimulus money, more stimulus funds not being used. The state of Virginia runs the risk of loosing the TANF funding if the governor does not act. The TANF funding is intended for Virginia's families that find themselves in deepest poverty and greatest need and most damaged by the recession. The opportunity to lift a heavy burden for the most vulnerable is an opportunity that should not be missed. To do nothing with the funding is unconscionable.
Sincerely,
John Horejsi, Coordinator
Social Action Linking Together (SALT)
Open Letter to Governor Timothy Kaine 10-21-09
Dear Governor Kaine,
As your term as Governor comes to an end, the focus in Virginia turns to the election to select your successor.
As you reminisce on your achievements as Governor of Virginia, you will find that you earned a rightful place in the history of Virginia as a Governor who has left a substantial legacy in areas as diverse as the environment, energy, education, and business. You have worked hard to ensure the economic future of our citizens in a time of national and international economic turmoil. Virginia will remain a state that is a model for others to emulate and a magnet of business and development as well as an ideal place for families.
Of course, the business of governing never ends. Employment, education, transportation, and the environment are the continuing responsibilities of government that will be assumed by your successor and while it is clear that your term has enhanced lives of Virginias in many ways you know doubt intend to build upon your legacy in coming months. In that regard we encourage you to address an issue that remains a stain on the reputation of our great state. This is predatory lending including payday, car title, and open ended lending.
Merchants of usury still operate in Virginia and charge interest rates at or beyond 400% APR. The General Assembly has failed multiple years to enact a reasonable cap, e.g., 36% APR on these loans and fees. Democrats and the Republicans in the General Assembly, a vast majority of the citizens of Virginia, and an overwhelming majority of local government entities have worked hard to support the 36% interest cap. Unfortunately, leadership in the General Assembly, particularly the Senate and Commerce and Labor Committee have an unusually close relationship with these merchants of usury.
We know that you do not enact legislation, but your position as Governor and Chair of the Democratic National Committee gives you an opportunity to speak boldly and prophetically to both candidates for Governor on the need to right this wrong. On behalf of all your grateful constituents we, ask that you take the leadership to lead to the capping of interest and fees on any loan in Virginia at 36%.
Sincerely,
VaPERL, Virginia Partnership for Responsible Lending
Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy
Virginia Organizing Project
Virginia Poverty Law Center
AARP Virginia
Virginians Against Payday Loans
Megan Hicks Letter to the Editor 10-5-09
Dear Editor:
Last December I saw my doctor with what I thought was flu. She sent me straight to the ER. My appendix had ruptured.
The ER folks gave me priority and it took "only" four hours to be seen by a doctor. Four hours waiting, in pain, with a life-threatening condition.
After the ER, though, I received great care. Competent surgeon, incredible nurses, clean comfortable room. At the end of a week, my bills totaled about $30,000.
I am small business owner. Health insurance totals 20% of my net income. It's a catastrophic policy -- $3000 deductible, and then my policy pays between 50% and 80% of the remaining "allowable" charges. The rest, including office visits and tests my doctor orders, is billed directly to me. Bottom line: I owe Mary Washington Hospital, my surgeon, a couple of radiologists, an ER doc, the ER itself, an anesthesiologist, and several other medical entities $7000. Additionally, every time I make eye contact with my doctor, it’s $102 out of pocket; I’m still paying off the blood work she ordered after my surgery and the mammogram she ordered last spring. I’ve put my foot down about having a colonoscopy. I can’t afford it. It'll be 11 years before I’ve paid off my appendectomy. Stupid me. What was I thinking, allowing that little sucker to burst?!
As one who carries health insurance, I am nevertheless awash in medical debt. I desperately hope the healthcare reform package includes a public option.
Megan Hicks
Fredericksburg, VA
Donald Bley Letter to the Editor 9-9-09
Public option: Can a righteous nation do less?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident," wrote Thomas Jefferson, "that all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men "
Health care is vital to life and the pursuit of happiness, and the need for a government-sponsored public option for health insurance is implicit in our founding documents. That other advanced nations cover all their citizens, and the U.S. does not, is a scandal.
If health care reform is not accomplished, two things will follow: It will become a "third rail" for future administrations, and America will be left with a system that will get only worse.
No one I know who opposes a public health care option has ever dealt with a serious illness without insurance. Their opposition to universal coverage is akin to the man who criticizes farmers with his mouth full of food.
Man's first question of God is, "Am I my brother's keeper?" God spends the rest of the Christian Scriptures answering, "Yes, you are."
If, as is so often asserted, America is a nation of Judeo-Christian principles, then our legislators have a moral imperative to provide access to affordable health insurance to all citizens.
Donald E. Bley, M.D.
Fredericksburg, VA
Dr. Bley is site director, Community Health Center of the Rappahannock Region.
Christopher Lillis Letter to the Editor 9-3-09
Rationing? Ask rich insurance CEO about it
As a primary care physician, I cannot help but follow the debate closely in Washington regarding health care reform. It has been quite discouraging to see this debate put into nearly purely partisan political terms when lives are hanging in the balance.
As someone who is in private practice and has long volunteered in free clinics, I have seen a rather disturbing trend: More and more Americans are losing their health insurance.
With some, it's due to costs--entrepreneurs cannot afford the premiums, and those who work for small businesses lose out for the same reason. During this severe recession, many are losing their employer-provided insurance when they lose their job.
However, being "insured" in 2009 is not the greatest. I have at least one insured patient every day inform me that he or she cannot afford a medication because of a high co-payment.
At least one insured patient refused a preventive colonoscopy because of a crushing deductible that had not yet been met.
This leaves me guessing, with every test I order and every prescription I write: Will my patient be able to afford this?
When patients struggle to get care while compensation packages for insurance company CEOs are in the tens of millions, I cannot help but think we are doing something wrong as a country.
Taking medical decisions away from private, for-profit insurers could save $400 billion, according to the organization Physicians for a National Health Plan.
This is not to say I want a "bureaucrat" making health decisions, as some in Washington allege. Fear-mongering about rationing is ludicrous, considering the rationing that private insurers are currently engaging in every day.
What I would like to see is physicians and patients making evidence-based health decisions, grounded in comparative effectiveness research, instead of having decisions made by CEOs with a responsibility to shareholders, not patients.
I took an oath to help people, and I am more interested in the well-being of patients than in politics and profits.
Christopher Lillis, M.D.
Fredericksburg, VA
David Shreve Letter to the Editor 9-3-09
Progressive Tax Changes Will Encourage Growth
Editor,
Times-Dispatch Michael Cassidy's Commentary column, "Virginia Needs a More Balanced Budgeting Approach," reflects a firm grasp of economic reality. He is correct: A "cuts only" approach to the current fiscal crisis would only worsen our economic and fiscal problems. Virginia government, in conjunction with our federal and local governments, must try to carry more weight, not less, during times such as this.
His suggestion to focus on special (or other not so special) tax breaks when raising revenue is also wise. Indeed, the Virginia Organizing Project has recommended a number of potential tax reforms that do this, including one that would raise approximately $1.5 billion without increasing a single tax rate.
In contrast, Don Boudreaux's claims in his Commentary column, "Raising Taxes Now Is a Crazy Idea," are absurd. The whopping tax burden he cites reflects three developments that likely merited even higher expenditures:
* Greater state support for education as massive resistance to desegregation gave way to fuller funding for African-American students and the state began to address special education needs for the first time;
* Greater health care expenditures as health care inflation outpaced general inflation;
* A more expensive transportation network, required by the increasingly national and international scope of Virginia's economy.
Boudreaux's claim that higher taxes stifle economic activity only appears to be true, due to Virginia's regressive tax habits. Progressive tax changes encourage economic activity, boost revenues, and help maintain lower future tax rates. By directing modestly increasing shares of income away from passive investment and speculation, idle savings, and luxuries, and toward more basic needs, a progressive tax code always generates more economic activity than less progressive alternatives. Virginia can do this, with great rewards for all of its citizens.
David Shreve
Charlottesville, VA
Michael T. Cash Letter to the Editor 8-19-09
Northern Virginia Daily August 19, 2009
http://www.nvdaily.com/opinion/2009/08/letters_71-print.html
Sir:
Sen. "Deather" of Iowa, says that Sen. Kennedy would not be treated for his brain tumor in the U.S. under the new health-care reform because he is too old. Blue Cross and Blue Shield refused treatment for my son, 21, for the same kind of brain tumor 15 years ago. So the insurance companies already do what Sen. "Deather" says the new health reform will do. As I read it, the senator is wrong.
I had to threaten to sue them and threaten to perform free concerts at colleges across America to tell Christopher's story and how this insurance company was treating us. We were lucky to have him treated at Duke University Hospital, and his doctor also had to go to bat with us against BCBS, as well.
BCBS was just being arbitrary, saying that the bone marrow transplant was not proper protocol for his cancer, all the while that the doctor was saying that it was proper and to not do it would shorten his life. BCBS finally caved in.
Had BCBS not allowed Christopher to get a bone marrow transplant as part of his treatment, he would have died in six months or less from the date of discovery. As a result of getting the bone marrow transplant, we had Christopher with us for more than a year and half after the tumor was discovered.
I treasured every day of that time. We grew closer than ever, and I saw in him an incredible courage and witnessed amazing maturity that I believe would not have occurred had he not been allowed to live longer than six months.
Our insurance had a $1 million lifetime cap that was not exceeded by allowing the bone marrow transplant. BCBS was just trying to save money, not lives.
I want the government to make it illegal for the insurance companies to arbitrarily decide the proper protocol for the treatment of a disease or illness. The doctors and families should make those decisions, not the insurance companies.
Michael T. Cash
Laura Granruth Letter to the Editor 8-20-09
To the Editor:
Virginia needs tax reform. And regular Virginia citizens—workers who pay income, property, sales and other taxes and fees—sense that the system isn’t working for them. They see critical public services being cut or eliminated. And the cuts have become so broad that they now include everything from public education to the closing of interstate rest areas. Reacting to what ought to be a source of shame, Virginia’s political leaders should see this as a chance to lead and they should not solely blame the national economy.
Do some Virginians pay too much in taxes? Indeed, many do because the tax code is stacked against them. Virginia’s highest income tax bracket is 5.75% and it begins at $17,000. This is essentially a flat tax that produces too little revenue, forcing Virginians to pay higher sales taxes and property taxes—two taxes that hit especially hard those least able to afford it. To add insult to injury, these taxes are usually the first raised in recessions. Thus, we wind up with a tax structure that hurts working families and fails to raise adequate revenue.
But a fairer and more stable system is possible. It can be attained by adopting a more progressive tax code that taxes according to ability to pay. Adam Smith wrote in 1776 that “The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.” Virginia should have little problem adopting a tax reform idea that is as well-founded and as old as the Union itself.
Progressive tax reform will raise taxes modestly on the highest income earners; however it will keep them lower for everyone over time. It will provide a more adequate stream of revenue just as it will allow for the lowest possible tax rates on the greatest number of taxpayers. A progressive state tax code is good social and economic policy and a critical part of any prosperous society. Virginia must consider it now.
Laura Granruth
Centreville, VA
Jim Lindsay Letter to the Editor 8-4-09
To The Editor:
The ongoing debate on Capitol Hill about the public health care insurance option is both mystifying and disturbing. This option is essential to meaningful heath care reform. Polling results consistently show strong public support for this choice. Congress must recognize that legislation that does not include this critical component will not achieve the core objectives of health care reform. Further, it will leave many citizens wondering whether our elected representatives are more committed to protecting the private interests of insurers and maintaining the status quo than they are to serving the public interest.
Our private only system has left 47 million uninsured and tens of millions underinsured, often faced with difficult choices between foregoing treatment or risking poverty. Health care costs are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy.
Our current private only system is barely competitive. Many states are dominated by few private insurers who have limited incentive to lower rates or improve benefits. In Virginia the top two insurers control 62 percent of the market.
The public health insurance option would provide: competition, a benchmark for quality, care regardless of pre-existing conditions and the choice to keep your own doctor.
Consumers have the opportunity to choose between public and private options for other services like college education. Should consumers have fewer options for health care than they do for education?
If our private health insurance industry could provide the solution to our health care system’s problems, why haven't they done it already? The addition of a public health insurance option provides our best hope of achieving quality affordable health care.
Sincerely,
Jim Lindsay
Health Care Committee of the Virginia Organizing Project
Op-Ed: Candidates Should Tackle State’s Outdated Tax System 8-2-09
Absent so far from the 2009 Virginia governor’s race is a forthright appraisal of the state’s tax structure and its impact upon the state’s economy. Instead, we hear either nothing at all or nothing but the faint echo of familiar tax policy myths, tendencies which only harden our state’s reliance upon a regressive and outdated tax structure. The Virginia Organizing Project (VOP) would like to make it clear: Virginia faces bleaker budgetary and economic prospects than it should not just because of a bad national economy, but also because we are unwilling to recognize this policy failure. Tax reform is an important part of VOP’s ongoing organizing efforts. We believe that our gubernatorial candidates should make it an important part of their campaigns. And we think they could begin, auspiciously, by acknowledging the dominant tax policy myths that have locked us into an unfair and unproductive tax structure, of which there are at least five:
Myth Number 1: A progressive structure, built on a graduated income tax, signifies “high taxes.” The reality: Since the revenue from graduated income taxes uniquely tends to outpace economic growth (typically, by 50-80 percent, as numerous studies have revealed), a progressive income tax is the only vehicle that can offer adequate revenue and the lowest possible rates for the greatest number of citizens.
Myth Number 2: Raising revenue with a variety of fees, excises, and sales levies helps to fairly spread the tax load, decrease revenue volatility, and keep overall rates low. The reality: When a government relies significantly upon these taxes, it requires persons of lesser means to pay higher rates. This does not produce fairness, stability, or uniformly low rates.
Myth Number 3: A progressive structure, marked by rates that increase with rising income, stifles investment, entrepreneurship, and productivity. The reality: All of these things—investment, entrepreneurship, and productivity—depend chiefly upon strong and stable demand for the goods and services that investors and workers generate. By directing modestly increasing shares of income away from passive investment, idle savings, luxuries, and speculation and toward more fundamental economic needs, a progressive tax code always generates more demand, induces more private investment, and creates more productivity than less progressive alternatives. This happens directly when taxes buy vital public services, such as education and public safety, but also indirectly when these taxes are used to pay the teachers and police officers who provide these services, fellow citizens whose modest incomes—out of necessity—move quickly back into the economy.
Myth Number 4: Taxes should never be raised during a recession. The reality: This rings true mostly because few states in such a predicament ever raise the right taxes. In recent recessions, state tax increases have come typically in the form of increased sales taxes, fees (including higher college tuition), and less visible excise taxes, all of which fall more heavily upon the least wealthy citizens. This does stifle demand, investment, and economic activity, especially if these taxes are raised only to stave off budget cuts and layoffs. Raising taxes in a progressive manner, on the other hand, does the opposite. In the absence of state government deficit spending—a poorly understood option restricted forcefully by practice and law—such increases are a state’s most effective anti-recessionary tool.
Myth Number 5: Since so many intelligent and creative business leaders oppose progressive income taxes, these taxes must represent bad policy. The reality: These attitudes reflect mostly the prevalent short-term outlook of the nation’s most influential economic actors. Immediate compensation in the form of tax cuts, in other words, tends to be much more obvious to them than the diminished economic activity that such tax cuts ultimately produce. For this reason, few recognize that upper bracket income gains are always higher under regimes that impose modestly higher progressive income tax rates.
For our gubernatorial candidates, the lesson is simple: progressive tax reform can very likely become our state’s most powerful “economic development” tool. With an essentially flat income tax and heavy reliance upon other regressive taxes, Virginia can use it to great effect. It is also the only way we can maintain critical public investments, support economic activity, and keep tax rates as low as possible. Yet, it is a tool left consistently and deliberately in the toolbox, out of timid adherence to powerful economic mythology. More than anything else, we’d like to see a leader emerge who would work to change this, to give Virginia a brighter future, and the nation the example of a thriving commonwealth.
Encourage Your Delegate and Senator to Support Progressive Tax Reform
Click Here For Contact Information:
http://legis.state.va.us/1_cit_guide/contacting_my.html
David Shreve
Charlottesville, VA
Beverly James Letter to the Editor 7-31-09
Congress dropped the ball 16 years ago when it failed to enact health-care reform. I am one of the millions of Americans who has struggled since to pay for rising premiums and co-pays. I am going broke trying to get good health care, and that is why I support the House reform bill, "America's Affordable Health Choices Act."
I am a retired health-care worker for the past three years. For two and a half years, I had to obtain individual health insurance before becoming eligible for Medicare. During that time, I paid approximately $25,000 in premiums with an annual deductible of $3,500. I had to use my retirement monies to pay the premium. Most of the medications for my chronic illnesses were over $100 for a monthly supply.
I think of others who cannot afford the luxury of individual coverage. I remember some of my former patients who were unable to pay for their prescriptions each month. They had to decide which disease to focus on each month. Therefore, they were always a step behind in their care.
The House bill helps people pay for health insurance and caps out-of-pocket expenses. And it lets everyone keep the coverage they have now if they like it or choose a new insurance plan from a range of choices, including a new public insurance option.
We cannot wait any longer to fix health care, and Congress should vote for quality, affordable and accessible health care for all this year.
Beverly James
Hampton
Op-ed: On Predatory Lending, Legislators Say, "Let Them Eat Cake" 7-21-09
This is what it seems some legislators have been telling victims of predatory lending for years. Or put another way, if we take away payday and car title loans at 350 percent interest, where else will these people turn for help? Should we just “Let them eat cake”? Or are there other solutions?
Governor Kaine recently announced that state employees faced with a sudden financial emergency will now have access to a small loan through The Virginia State Employee Loan Program. Small loans from $100 to $500 will be offered to state employees through the Virginia Credit Union and backed by the Virginia State Employee Assistance Fund. "This program will allow our state employees to receive small loans without having to go to predatory lenders," Governor Kaine said. The loans will carry an APR of 25 percent interest and will be payable over six months with no prepayment penalty. The state employee credit union in North Carolina has been offering a salary advance loan at 12 percent interest since 2001.
But what about people that are not employed by the state? Contrary to what the predatory lenders are telling us, there are a lot of options out there. Let’s start with the credit unions in Virginia. Many credit unions are searching for viable solutions, and some have had small loan programs to help their members while educating them on how to get better financial footing. Memberships for most credit unions are only $5 and, unlike a predatory lender, Credit Unions want to help their members pay off their loans. Bayport Credit Union in Newport News, the University of Virginia Community Credit Union in Charlottesville, Call Federal Credit Union in Richmond and many others around the state have small loan programs in place or are starting them. Nearly all Virginians are eligible to join a credit union. Go to www.findacreditunion.com to find a credit union you may be eligible to join.
A bad credit report is not necessarily a bar to a credit union loan. The National Credit Union Foundation just released the results of its survey on the impact of its REAL Solutions program. The REAL Solutions program seeks to arm credit unions with products and services designed to better serve lower income members and communities. The survey found that 91 percent of REAL Solutions participating credit unions make used car loans to borrowers with low credit scores. These non-prime loans from credit unions use a REAL Solutions program called “steer clear of predatory car loans” to avoid bad loans from used car dealers. Fourteen Virginia credit unions participate in the REAL Solutions program.
What about the faith community? The faith community has long been a source for people to turn to in times of financial crisis. Many churches and non-profit organizations are beginning to create their own loan programs to fulfill the needs for small loans in their communities, as well as educating folks on what other services are in place to help them in emergency need situations. What local church, synagogue, temple or mosque doesn’t have an emergency fund to help its members and others in need in their community? More organized efforts have been around for many years: Catholic Charities, Love, INC in the Charlottesville area, The Jewish Federation of Greater Washington, and The Islamic Center of Virginia in Richmond, just to name a few. The United Methodist Church in Virginia is using its credit union to promote even more ways to help those in financial need.
Do we need more alternatives for people in financial emergencies? Yes, and others need to step up and offer assistance. As Governor Kaine said in his recent announcement about the Virginia State Employee Loan Program: "This program will allow our state employees to receive small loans without having to go to predatory lenders.” "If the Commonwealth can offer this kind of program, other large employers may consider similar initiatives of their own."
So, we don’t need to tell those in a financial emergency to eat cake or to go to a predatory lender to get into a much worse situation. Yes Virginia, there are alternatives. Let’s stop asking the wrong question and start asking this: When is the legislature going to cap the interest rate on the wrong answer to a financial problem—payday and car title lending?
Jay Speer
Executive Director
Virginia Poverty Law Center
Mary Narayan Letter to the Editor 7-10-09
Dear Editor:
Unfortunately, the public mistakenly believes that “children who live in families that cannot afford health insurance already get it for free.” In Virginia, as many as 187,000 poor children live without health insurance coverage.
Virginia should and could offer insurance to all kids in Virginia by raising the income eligibility limit for FAMIS coverage, as 28 other states and the District of Columbia have done. According to the Governor’s bi-partisan Commission on Health Reform, raising FAMIS to 300 percent of the poverty line would allow an additional 21,200 children to enroll in the FAMIS program. This expansion would also help reach children in families with lower incomes who are currently eligible for Medicaid and FAMIS, but are not enrolled in these programs.
Despite Virginia’s relative wealth (ranked 9th nationally in per capita personal income), the state’s Medicaid program is extremely limited. Virginia is ranked 48th in per capita total Medicaid expenditures and 50th in per capita federal grants, such as Medicaid.
One of the most glaring deficiencies in Virginia’s Medicaid program is inadequate coverage for very low-income families. In Virginia, a parent with income over $6,000/year doesn’t qualify for Medicaid coverage. This is now ranked the 6th lowest in the nation. Virginia should change its eligibility to – at least – reach the national average of Medicaid income eligibility for parents – 64 percent of the federal poverty level.
Virginia can and should do much more to ensure that its low-income citizens have health care, a right and not just a privilege to be enjoyed by some of our citizens!
Sincerely,
Mary Narayan
Social Action linking Together (SALT)
Vienna, VA
Op-Ed: Can Coal Be Clean? 7-6-09
With all of the controversy surrounding the construction of a coal plant in Wise County, VA it bears repeating that coal is not clean energy. The phrase “clean coal technology” fosters hope that scientists will find a way to take harmful elements, especially carbon, out of coal. Unfortunately this is a lost hope as the harmful elements of coal cannot be simply scrubbed away.
Virginians know that we have an abundance of coal in our region. We would like to believe that clean coal technology could provide the state and the nation with much of the energy needed for the future—all while being environmentally responsible. The problem with putting our hopes for energy independence in clean coal technology is that coal is not clean energy—coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel we have. Scientists have worked for decades to make it clean at a tremendous expense and there are still many unanswered questions and tremendous risks to our health and our environment.
Some progress has been made with the scrubbers that have been put on electrical power plants, successfully preventing the release of much sulfur in our air. However, the federally-mandated scrubbers that have made our air cleaner have also led to higher concentrations of pollutants in coal ash, including arsenic, lead, mercury, thorium and uranium. Subsequently scrubbers have not been able to completely reduce carbon dioxide emission. The problem is that once the carbon dioxide is captured there is no safe way to store it on a large scale. The coal ash sludge left over after the scrubbing process is highly concentrated with harmful pollutants. Some coal plants are experimenting with storing the residue deep in the ocean, and other companies are considering returning it to the mines from which coal has been removed. Yet there are still many troubling, unanswered questions about potential water contamination and harm to aquatic life.
The coal ash sludge spill which occurred in Kingston, TN in December of 2008 is a startling example of the dangers caused by our attempts to make coal clean. Over one billion gallons of coal ash sludge surged over 400 acres of watershed. The coal ash sludge released was enough to fill 1,660 Olympic-sized swimming pools. The non-combustible by-products of coal processing are contained in surface ponds for miles and miles. Currently, it is estimated that only three percent of the Kingston spill is cleaned up to date. The total cost to clean up the spill is estimated between $675-$975 million dollars. When looking at figures like that it is difficult to see coal as a cheap energy source and certainly not a clean one.
Clean coal is dangerous to the environment even without any spills or accidents. US power plants that use coal account for more than 30 percent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions. Time Magazine estimated that the Wise County coal –fired plant will emit 5.3 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, roughly the equivalent of putting a million more cars on the road. We need to develop sources of energy that do not produce carbon dioxide, instead of spending time and money trying to dispose of it. We already know how to harness wind and solar power. Money and resources would be better spent researching alternative energy options that can meet our needs and do not destroy our health and our environment.
Climate Action Alliance of the Valley is a group of concerned citizens in the Shenandoah Valley, working to dispel the myths of clean coal technology. We urge Congress to act swiftly to promote renewable energies that are truly clean. Investment in clean energy will create much-needed jobs and put us on a path towards clean, sustainable energy independence. We must sustain our planet and protect our health by choosing real clean energy—and that’s not coal!
Page Shields
Climate Action Alliance of the Valley
Harrisonburg, VA
Op-Ed: Will Congress Sell Out Americans’ Health Care to Insurance Companies Again? 6-22-09
Will Congress Sell Out Americans’ Health Care to Insurance Companies Again?
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
Benjamin Franklin
The assault on a public option for health care is a mounting obscenity as Republicans, insurance lobbyists, and some Democrats roll out a propaganda campaign designed to scare Americans – and Congress – into turning their backs once again on the American people in favor of corporate greed.
Contrary to industry propaganda, the system we have does not work. High costs are bankrupting families and businesses and our quality of care is abominable. The United States is the richest country in the world but it provides the poorest health care among Western industrialized countries. According to the World Health Organization, The United States ranks 37th – lower than all the Western European countries. We rank lower than Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Israel, and Canada. (France is ranked #1, Italy #2, and Japan #3.) What a miserable shame we can’t – or won’t – do as well
Ranked by “Health System Attainment and Performance,” the U.S. was 72nd, between Argentina and Bhutan!
Nor is the U.S. any better than some Third World countries in average life expectancy. According to the Central Intelligence Agency’s rankings for 2009, the U.S. ranks 50th, (78.11 years), between Wallis and Futuna (You aren’t alone if you never heard of these two tiny islands in the South Pacific.) and Albania. In comparison, Japan’s average life expectancy is 82.12 years, Canada’s 81.23 years, and France’s 80.98 years.
With respect to infant mortality, the U.S. has the worst rate in the Western world, ranking 37th with 6.37 deaths per 1,000 live births, between South Korea and Croatia. In comparison, Sweden’s infant mortality rate is 2.76 deaths per 1,000 live births. Keep in mind that these are average rates. In America’s inner cities, the rates are much worse. In 2007, Washington, D.C., had the highest rate: 12.22 deaths per 1,000 live births. In New York City, the infant mortality rate for black babies was 9.8 deaths for every 1,000 live births compared with 3.9 deaths for every 1,000 live births among white babies. Minnesota had the lowest infant mortality rate in the U.S.: 4.78 per 1,000 live births.
The U.S. maternal mortality rate is scandalous, ranking 41st among 171 countries surveyed by the United Nations. Even South Korea has a lower maternal mortality rate than the U.S. Based on the United Nations’ 2005 estimates, one in 4,800 American women carry a lifetime risk of death from pregnancy, something the anti-choice crowd doesn’t bother to mention. In contrast, among the ten top-ranked industrialized countries, fewer than one woman in 16,400 carry such a risk. The most probable reason is that many European countries and Japan guarantee women high-quality health care and family planning services.
For those who tout the U.S. health system as “the best in the world,” there’s an important qualification – IF YOU’RE RICH. Anyone in the top one percent of wealthiest Americans can buy the best health care in the world no matter where they have to go to get it. But the majority of American citizens have to fight their way through a maze of bureaucratic fine print to obtain health care that, in far too may cases, is no better than that in the Third World. Families have the triple financial whammy of foreclosures, lost jobs, and mounting healthcare costs while insurance executives and pharmaceutical companies rake in huge profits. Paying for health care is the major reason for personal bankruptcies, a situation that analysts say will continue unless Congress passes meaningful health reform.
Our current healthcare system is not only a burden for citizens, it also burdens physicians. By enabling insurance companies to run our healthcare system, Congress usurps physicians’ medical expertise and burdens them with voluminous paperwork and restrictions. The nation’s doctors want to be healers not secretarial assistants to health insurance companies. Doctors – not insurance companies – are the experts in providing medical services, yet in too many cases, insurers dictate medical decisions to doctors and hospitals. Sometimes patients die because an insurer has delayed or denied needed medical care. Yet those who support corporate profits rather than public health don’t seem to give a damn.
President Obama calls for a public option. The message of the last election is that the people support a public option. Now is the best opportunity since Clinton’s failure on health care for Congress to pass a real health reform bill. If our elected officials turn their backs on we-the-people this time, such an opportunity may not come again in our lifetime.
John Reeder Letter to the Editor 6-18-09
To the Editor:
We read news reports that Governor Tim Kaine appointed Arlington state Delegate David Englin to yet another commission to study poverty in Virginia. While we certainly welcome that the Governor’s and the General Assembly’s desire to measure the extent of poverty in Arlington and Virginia, we’re puzzled by the call to “study” what census data and other readily available information already make clear — significant levels of poverty and hunger exist statewide and in Arlington.
It’s time for Virginia Democrats and Republicans, including Kaine and Englin, to change state laws and policies that would actually reduce poverty rather than wasting time and resources trying to “measure” it.
Researchers and advocates for the poor already highlight the steps that would greatly reduce poverty and hunger in Arlington and in far southwestern Virginia:
1. Raise the Virginia minimum wage of $6.55 an hour to the living wage rate of $12.50 an hour (which is based on the federal poverty level for a family of four).
2. Lower the regressive Virginia 9-percent effective tax rate on people making less than $20,000 a year (those making over $200,000 pay only 4 percent).
3. Raise the miserly Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) assistance provided to children ($80 a month), and the disabled, and stop the State of Virginia from using federal TANF funds designed to go to the poor for other state programs, such as highways.
4. Finally, eliminate laws and restrictions that deny unemployment compensation and food stamps to Virginia’s working poor and unemployed.
The Democrats and Republicans (each for different reasons) wish to divert the public’s attention away from concrete steps that would directly reduce poverty and hunger in our state that largely affect children, the working poor, the elderly, and the disabled. The time to study poverty is past; it is time to make Virginia laws and policies work to relieve poverty and hunger, and give our friends and neighbors a helping hand.
John Reeder
Josh Ruebner
Suzanne Sundburg
Arlington, Virginia
Wende Marshall Letter to the Editor 6-4-09
Dear Editor,
In 2007, more than one million Virginians were without any health care coverage and the health care crisis in Virginia is growing. Families USA estimated that in 2006 more than ten working-age Virginians died each week due to lack of health insurance.
Look around at your family, friends and co-workers and ask yourself who will be sacrificed while the U.S. Senate drags its feet. Now is the time to act.
A public health care plan, like the one used by our members of Congress, needs to be part of health care reform. Our Virginia members of Congress know what a good health care plan looks like because our tax dollars provide them and their families with the best. It is time we all have access to the quality, affordable health care our members of Congress enjoy. We need this now — the lives of ten Virginians a week depend on it.
Sincerely,
Wende Elizabeth Marshall, PhD
Charlottesville, VA
Natalie Grossman Letter to the Editor 6-3-09
Dear Editor,
As corporations beg for public tax dollars, workers’ wages have remained stagnant. Wages have not kept up with the cost of living. Working people need a living wage in order to pay for quality education for their children, health care, retirement savings, and rising gas prices.
Unions are a clear path towards giving workers a decent living wage. The Employee Free Choice Act is crucial for giving workers the choice and power to form a union.
As a college student, I see many student groups on my campus advocating for different causes. I recently ran across a table for Jobs With Justice, a workers' rights organization advocating for the Employee Free Choice Act. I signed a petition in support of the Employee Free Choice Act and encourage others to do the same. www.jwj.org/efca
We need to step up and tell Congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act now.
Sincerely,
Natalie Grossman
Fredericksburg, VA
Jon Liss Letter to the Editor 5-29-09
Dear Editor,
I work with low-income workers and day laborers in northern Virginia fighting for fair pay and treatment. Through my work, I have seen some unspeakable abuses of worker’s rights by employers taking advantage of low-income workers.
The workers I deal with have a clear understanding of why their employers treat and pay them poorly: because they can. This simple concept is understood by millions of low-wage workers and is one of the main reasons we need the Employee Free Choice Act. Many employers know that if their employees are not organized they can treat them however they want. The Employee Free Choice Act removes obstacles that make forming a union difficult and punishes employers that harass and intimidate workers trying to form a union. With the Employee Free Choice Act, workers receive better wages and working conditions: because they can.
Sincerely,
Jon Liss
Executive Director
Tenants and Workers United
SALT Letter to the Editor 5-27-09
Letter to Editor:
The recently established Governor's Poverty Taskforce and Poverty Summit, an event held in Richmond on May 7th, has been given extensive coverage.
I find it troubling that not one person on the task force is poor himself, herself. Do the poor have nothing to contribute? It's almost as if we, the well-heeled, should not be listening to the poor, not caring what they are actually thinking. Far better strategies and easier implementation can result by including the community, all segments of the community, in the process of creating strategies and in making the actual decisions. People who live in poverty can understand the concepts of decision-making about resource allocation, based on my experience.
Bringing to the table the indigenous leaders, much to the surprise of the taskforce, once these leaders understand the choices, will have relevant input into some if not most of the service problems.
The point is, inclusiveness works! It’s not just political correctness; it assumes that we all have talents to contribute, regardless of whether these gifts have been attained experientially or via professional training.
We urge consideration of our proposal.
Sincerely.
John Horejsi, Coordinator
Social Action Linking Together (SALT)
Vienna, VA
Taskforce members, and assigned working groups, are:
Co-Chairs
* Marilyn Tavenner, Secretary of Health and Human Resources
* Robert Grey, Attorney
Asset Development
* Jeff Anderson, Virginia Economic Development Partnership
* Richard Grattan, Wachovia Bank
* Delegate Jennifer L. McClellan
* Marsha Shuler, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
* T.K. Somanath, Better Housing Coalition
Individual & Community Resilience
* Dr. Erik Beecroft, Virginia Department of Social Services
* Anthony Conyers Jr., Virginia Department of Social Services
* Trisha Ferrell, United Way of Greater Richmond & Petersburg
* Jill Hanken, Virginia Poverty Law Center
* Michelle Larkin, State Board of Social Services
* Jim Schuyler, Virginia Community Action Partnership
* Senator John Watkins
Kevin Morris Letter to the Editor 4-27-09
Dear Editor,
Do you feel that our profit-driven, fast-paced, .com networking culture is missing something? The value of community work is constantly being ignored, and it’s costing everyone. Our culture has pushed us to focus on getting the most out of every minute and to become centered on economic value. While this is a great attribute to have in the business world, it just doesn’t work to our advantage in our communities. When we become connected in our communities, we care more about what’s going on.
Recently, I spent time volunteering with the Virginia Organizing Project. They are a non-partisan community organizing group that challenges injustices by giving people the power to address issues that affect their lives such as health care. The work I did with the organization was gratifying and helped me feel more connected to my community.
However, you don’t have to target political issues to get connected with your community. There are countless ways to organize your neighbors for the good of the community. Help coach a youth sports team, organize a clean-up of a local park or river bank, or reach out to current organizations as a volunteer. Community organizations are always looking for more volunteers. And you will likely feel more confident and aware just knowing that you have done your part for our communities.
Kevin Morris
Fredericksburg, Virginia
Show Me the Green: Obama’s First 92 Days and Virginia’s Environment 4-24-09
For every new president the preliminary measure of success is the infamous “First 100 Days.”
But maybe this year it’s time to set a new benchmark. Perhaps President Obama should be the first American president to be assessed against the “First 92 Days” measuring stick.
Day 92 falls on April 22, better known as Earth Day.
And this Earth Day, Americans will have plenty to celebrate. That’s because President Obama has, in 92 days, set the nation in a new direction when it comes to transitioning to a clean energy economy, stopping global warming, and protecting the environment.
Take day 6, when President Obama directed his brand new Environmental Protection Agency Administrator to reconsider a contentious Bush administration decision preventing fourteen states from reducing global warming pollution from cars and light trucks. If Virginia were to adopt the stronger standards we could save over 4 billion gallons of gasoline and prevent 36.4 tons of global warming pollution by 2020.
Day 28 sure didn’t fly under the radar. On this day, President Obama signed into law the single largest green funding initiative in American history, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. With a stroke of the pen, the President allocated nearly $80 billion that will double America’s renewable energy production, improve energy efficiency, and invest in green transportation, creating 1.5 million green jobs in the process and achieving his first major policy victory.
But President Obama didn’t stop there. On day 37, President Obama unveiled a budget that incorporates $646 billion in revenues from capping global warming and invests an additional $150 billion in renewable energy like wind and solar. His budget sets the stage for a new energy plan for America that addresses global warming and drives the transformation to a new clean energy economy. Simply put, Obama’s proposed budget means a cleaner, greener, more prosperous America. If implemented, the president’s budget proposal means that Virginia’s ailing sewage treatment plants could be eligible for $40.8 million in funding for upgrades that would protect our water quality and clean up could be accelerated at some of the 31 Superfund toxic waste sites deemed an imminent threat to our communities.
With less fanfare, on day 59, Obama’s EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson moved ahead with a finding that global warming pollution poses a danger to public welfare. A final decision, expected as soon as this week, would allow EPA to speed our transition to a clean energy economy and regulate the worst global warming polluters.
Day 63 too may have slipped notice when the administration announced that it would reconsider the dubious practice of “mountaintop mining,” where companies blow the tops off mountains and dump the debris into nearby waterways.
And then on day 69 the president signed the largest expansion of protected wilderness in 15 years. The Omnibus Public Land Management Act was the result of a bi-partisan coalition of politicians in both the U.S. Senate and House working to protect two million acres of American wilderness—such as Virginia’s George Washington National Forest. This is an amazing victory for any American who’s ever enjoyed a hike through California’s towering Sequoias, backpacked the craggy peaks of Rocky Mountain National Park or spent a night under the green canopy of the Virginia Blue Ridge wilderness area.
So as Americans celebrate Earth Day on April 22, why wait for those last 9 days to evaluate Obama’s progress? The first 92 days look pretty darn good.
And yet, there is more work to do. The latest science makes clear that, to protect future generations from the worst effects of global warming, we must reduce pollution over the next 10 years faster than the president has proposed, cutting emissions by 35 percent below today’s levels by 2020. Capping global warming pollution to the extent needed and ensuring that polluters pay is the right move for our environment and our economy but will face roadblocks from Big Oil, other polluting interests, and their allies in Congress.
After eight years of perhaps the most anti-environmental administration in American history, President Obama is working hard to right the ship and protect our environment and public health—today and for our children and future generations of Americans.
As the slogan says, we should make “Earth Day Every Day.” During his first 92 days, President Obama has shown us that he’s taking this idea to heart and putting it into practice. Here’s hoping that the next 1,333 days are as productive as the first 92!
J.R. Tolbert is the Advocate for Environment Virginia, a statewide citizen-based advocacy organization working for clean air, clean water, and open space.
J.R. Tolbert
212 West 7th Avenue, #125
Richmond, Virginia 23224
Annie Morris Letter to the Editor 4-14-09
Editor:
As a current college student who will be entering the job market within the next few years, my lifestyle has been tremendously affected by the current economic recession. We as Virginians have a duty to help those entering the work force and others stuck in right-to-work states — we have finally been provided with the tools to accomplish this. The Employee Free Choice Act assists in developing strategies to help all citizens deal with the weak economic conditions through its ability to repress corporate intimidation. Today’s labor laws don’t do enough to protect workers.
By calling Senator Jim Webb or Senator Mark Warner and asking them to vote for the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), we as a state would be promoting stronger penalties for those corporations who illegally coerce and intimidate employees in their attempt to form unions. By bringing in a neutral third party to settle contract disputes and establishing majority sign-up (as used successfully by large corporations such as AT&T and Kaiser Permanente), the lower and middle class could take back control of their working conditions.
As a concerned citizen and student, I am asking readers to take an active role in their United States government and promote the Employee Free Choice Act.
Respectfully,
Annie Morris
Fredericksburg, VA
Larry Yates Letter to the Editor 4-9-09
Sir:
William Simpson's letter (April 8 issue) suggests that the Historical Education Movement (HEM) and its president, the Rev. James Kilby, should wait their turn until the School Board has asked them for suggestions about the naming of the former Warren County High School.
I am sure Mr. Simpson's intentions are good. However, citizens of a democracy are not obligated to wait their turn to use legal constitutional processes. In fact, James Wilson Kilby's name has been proposed because he was what Mr. Simpson calls "premature and pre-emptive."
Mr. Kilby did not wait until some agency "established a process" to build decent affordable housing, set up a weatherization program or get clean water out to the Happy Creek community. He went ahead and exercised citizen leadership. Nor did he wait for the state of Virginia's "equitable process" to replace the segregated school system that forced his children to go to an inferior boarding school in another county. Instead, he exercised his right to seek relief in the courts, and we are all better for it today.
Unfortunately, Mr. Simpson inaccurately states that there has been "monopolized lobbying" for naming the school after Mr. Kilby, "to the exclusion of others." In fact, every one has the same rights that the HEM has exercised. He also writes incorrectly "they are lobbying the Town Council." In fact, Councilman Sayre proposed the current resolution on his own. He may have been influenced by the recent highly successful HEM activities, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the integration of Warren County High School, but Mr. Sayre was not lobbied to take this step.
As the local organizer for the Virginia Organizing Project, I am proud that, since 2006, we have supported the HEM in its persistent use of the democratic process. Not everyone shares Mr. Simpson's belief that we must all wait passively for government processes to work out. Some of us believe that each one of us has a right to petition our government and that our system of government is strong enough to handle public opinion and what Thomas Jefferson called "the agitation it produces."
Larry Yates
Maurertown, VA
Jill Hanken Letter to the Editor 3-26-09
Editor:
As we recognize “Cover the Uninsured Week,” we can note the ever-increasing number of Americans who don’t have health insurance as well as those who can’t afford the spiraling costs of health insurance premiums and required out-of-pocket expenses. The average health insurance premiums for family coverage have skyrocketed 90 percent since 2000, leaving millions of Americans struggling to meet their health expenses or facing bankruptcy for medical debt. Three out of five adults having problems paying their medical bills had insurance at the time they incurred their debt.
At the same time, it is heartening to know that the first effort in decades is now seriously underway in Washington to actually reform the health care system in the U.S., with an ultimate goal of offering quality and affordable health care to all Americans. The first step in this effort is consideration of the President’s budget proposal which will make a down payment for health reform over the next ten years. The cost of the proposal is mostly covered by raising taxes on the most wealthy (representing just 1.2 percent of all tax filers) and by eliminating payments to private Medicare plans that are higher than regular Medicare costs.
During his campaign, the President promised to reform health care, and when voters elected him, they expected results. The President is keeping his promise, but opponents and special interests are already working hard to kill his plan. They oppose the funding proposals and complain that health reform is “too much” to tackle during the current recession. I believe the economy can not really be fixed without reforming health care, too. The economic crisis demands action this year.
The President is ready to move forward. His health care budget proposal is on the table. Will our representatives in Congress finally meet this challenge and take action on health care that is long overdue? Ask them!
Jill A. Hanken
Staff Attorney
Virginia Poverty Law Center
Richmond, VA
DeeDee Tostanoski Letter to the Editor 3-18-09
To the Editor:
On Thursday, February 19, Virginia killed Edward Nathaniel Bell in our name. He received the death penalty because he was found guilty for the 1999 murder of Officer Ricky Timbrook in Winchester. Officer Timbrook’s murder is a heinous crime and his murderer deserves severe punishment. However, killing a person who has killed another person to make the point that killing a person is wrong is absolute nonsense. Our humanity is diminished when the Commonwealth kills in our name. Make no mistake: state approved killing is still killing, despite the fact that we name it execution to sweeten it up.
I certainly don’t know whether Eddie Bell killed Officer Timbrook. He claims he did not, including his last words as he was forcibly carried to the execution chamber. I do know that Eddie Bell was most likely retarded (the Supreme Court has ruled that mentally retarded people cannot be executed), but was prevented from presenting that evidence at his trial. His legal counsel in the sentencing phase was so poor that the appeal court commented on the absolute failure of counsel to provide any mitigating information. The case against Eddie Bell was completely circumstantial, and the only witness against him has admitted to lying in his testimony. These irregularities make it possible that Virginia has killed an innocent man in my name.
Over 130 death row inmates have been exonerated by the Innocence Project, which has proved that they did not commit the crimes for which they were found guilty. Unless and until we have a fool-proof legal system, incapable of error, I do not want any state-approved killing carried out in my name. How about you? Please let the Governor and your state legislators know how you feel.
DeeDee Tostanoski
Alexandria, VA
Liz Riggin Letter to the Editor 3-6-09
Dear Editor,
The current health care system is not meeting the needs of most Americans. Individuals and families are faced with overwhelming financial burdens when treating both “typical” medical needs and unexpected medical traumas. Due to the high cost of health care, many Americans are not seeking treatment. Delayed treatment usually leads to further health complications and requires more costly medical assistance.
I worked as a social work intern in a high-risk obstetrics unit for four months. I saw first hand the effects of the inadequate health care system, especially on low-income families. I worked with a mother who was unable to seek treatment because she did not qualify for Medicaid and her husband’s employer did not provide affordable health insurance. It wasn’t until she was six months pregnant with twins that the complications became life threatening for all three of them. Because they were so desperate for necessary medical care, the husband lowered his income in order to be eligible for Medicaid which would cover the mother's medical costs during the last three months of her pregnancy. In this case, there were three lives in danger because of inaccessible and unaffordable health care.
I believe that everyone in the United States deserves affordable, accessible health care. Often vulnerable populations are not properly represented in the health care debate. Health care should not be a luxury but a service that is available regardless of socio-economic status.
I urge you to contact U.S. Senators Jim Webb and Mark Warner in support of a comprehensive health care reform that will include all Americans.
Liz Riggin
Harrisonburg, Virginia
Ranna Zirakparvar Letter to the Editor 2-24-09
Dear Editor,
I am in the social work program at Virginia Commonwealth University. I recently joined 15 other individuals from the Richmond area to rally on Lombardy Street outside a payday lending facility. This action was part of a statewide effort to put an end to predatory lending practices.
All of us presented signs and our voices to the passing vehicles and pedestrian traffic to raise awareness on the destruction that these companies’ open-end loan products are causing. Because payday lenders do not have to acknowledge regulations that larger loan companies are subject to, people are being taken advantage of with 360 percent interest rates, membership fees, and unethical business tactics. Most recently some companies have begun offering open-end loans by exploiting a loophole in the law.
When Virginians have requested legislative changes to protect themselves in the past, these companies figured out how to reinvent their overall image and offer new (harmful) products to the public. Because of the unchecked interest rates, people who borrow money are likely to be unable to cover the initial amount borrowed as well as interest with their future paychecks. This allows the payday and car title lending companies to trap Virginians and bury them in debt.
People borrow because they are in tough financial situations and are fooled by the images these companies project of themselves as majestic financial knights. They are in fact far from being knightly in their villainous endeavors.
Please, fellow Commonwealth residents, help close the loophole in the law that allows such exploitation by contacting your state legislators and sharing what you know.
As one of our posters read: don’t let predatory lenders romance you!
Ranna Zirakparvar
Richmond, VA
Don Manning Letter to the Editor 2-10-09
Dear Editor,
One of the first headlines I noticed last Sunday morning and gave much thought to during the course of that day was “Crafting a Plan B for tough economic times: What's your Plan B if your current job becomes another casualty of the recession?”
Specifically, as certain congregational members stepped forward to light a candle, this headline took on real meaning during Joys and Concerns at church when I learned that the very next day would bring an end to their jobs.
But what if we find ourselves with no time to craft a Plan B and must resort to a desperate loan through Car Title lending? Then, I believe our financial troubles would really begin. Recently, I read that one out of 16 such loans results with the vehicle being repossessed and sold.
Without our vehicles, those of us who become victims of Car Title loans may lose our jobs because of missed work or may have to shred Plan B as we find we have no means to drive to an interview for a new job.
We can do better than this for fellow citizens. My day brightened up a bit when I discovered “Close the open-end credit loophole,” a plan prepared by the Virginia Partnership to Encourage Responsible Lending (VaPERL), a coalition of organizations and individuals working to reduce the damage of predatory lending to Virginia citizens and the state’s economy.
Can we take action to regulate such loans? I plead with all in our great state to get behind the efforts to stop the abuses of the Car Title lenders, support VaPERL, and advocate for the passage of critical legislation that would correct these wrongs.
Sincerely,
Don Manning
Lynchburg, VA
Sue Capers and John Horejsi Letter to the Editor 2-9-09
Editor:
The newspapers continue to tell us of the shortfalls in the Virginia State budget and of the drastic cuts our Governor has been forced to make due to our failing economy.
The media keeps reporting on more and more programs that are on the chopping block. Many of these programs are essential to the health and welfare of Virginia’s most vulnerable populations.
In addition, churches and food pantries are running out of food, while job losses, evictions and foreclosures are increasing for Virginia’s families.
Cutting needed programs or denying assistance is a heavy price to pay for a balanced budget especially when there is another way. Several legislators put in bills to restore the Virginia Estate Tax. This legislation would have exempted estate taxes up to $5 million, as well as small businesses and farms.
Restoring the Estate Tax would have generated nearly $100 million, which could have been doubled with federal matching funds.
Restoring the Estate Tax would not have met all needs or save all programs, but could have made a big difference. Unfortunately, Virginia legislators were not willing to take steps in the right direction to restore the Estate Tax.
Sue M. Capers
Alexandria, VA
John Horejsi
Coordinator, Social Action Working Together (SALT)
Vienna, VA
Veronica Guitierrez Letter to the Editor 1-30-09
Dear Editor:
Recently, the phrase 'predatory lending' has taken on a new meaning for me. I've always thought that predatory lenders were bad businesses. They plant themselves in low-income communities, offer fast cash, and then charge ridiculous interest rates, inevitably trapping people in a cycle of debt. Last Saturday, I joined in the Virginia Organizing Project’s door-to-door canvass effort in Fredericksburg to talk to folks about this issue. By the end of the afternoon, we had knocked on more than 2,000 doors in the area. But there was one door in particular that helped me to put a face on the issue.
It was the door of a young woman. She had taken out a car title loan for $450 just to make ends meet, and while she managed to make a payment each month, she could never get the loan entirely paid off. To make matters worse, the car used to make the loan recently broke down. It has been at the auto shop for a month because she has not been able to collect the $475 needed to fix the car. No car means no trips to the grocery store, no way to get to work, and no way to pay off the car title loan she took out in the first place! After she told me her story, her six-month-old daughter came to the door wearing clothes for a three-month-old baby. The young woman explained to me that she hasn't been able to afford new clothes for her daughter or her young son.
I'll never forget the conversation I had with this woman. She showed me that predatory lending institutions are not just burdens on your wallet — they can infiltrate all parts of your life. Predatory lenders are in the business of taking advantage of the most vulnerable members of our community. They hurt our community as a whole, and we must call on our legislators to make laws that regulate them!
Veronica Gutierrez
Ivy Main Letter to the Editor 1-30-09
Dear Editor,
Two years ago the Virginia legislature took a major first step towards verifiable voting by passing a law banning localities from buying any more of the paperless electronic voting machines known as DREs — the computers that most of us have been voting on, but which have been shown nationwide to be prone to failure, subject to programming errors, and vulnerable to manipulation.
Since then, some jurisdictions have begun to purchase optical scanning machines, which read paper ballots filled out by voters. The paper ballots are retained to be available in the case of a recount, and could be used to audit the accuracy of the machines. This is precisely what lawmakers intended to have happen, and what voters and election security advocates have demanded from their legislators. And the optical scanning machines have done more than provide verifiability; one can do the work of many DREs, so they eliminated waiting times for voters where they were used in this past election.
Now, incredibly, committees in the House and Senate are considering a reversal of the ban. SB 988 and HB 2422 would make Virginia the only state to reverse course and embrace a technology that other states have been abandoning. Even Florida, which bought new DREs after the 2000 election debacle, has since scuttled the machines following a second disputed election, and after regulators determined that optical scan machines would save the state money.
So why would Virginia go backwards? Lawmakers are experiencing a full-court press from local registrars, many of whom never liked the ban and see their chance now to reverse it, while voters aren’t paying attention.
The registrars say they can’t afford to change over all their machines at once, and they don’t want to use DREs in some precincts and optical scan in others. But allowing them to buy more of a bad technology now would simply push the problem down the road. Meanwhile, these officials run the risk of making Virginia the next Florida.
Legislators should not cave into these shortsighted appeals, but should vote no on SB 988 and HB 2422.
Yours truly,
Ivy Main
McLean, VA
Ivy Main is the Policy Director of the New Electoral Reform Alliance for Virginia (New Era), a member of the Verifiable Voting Coalition of Virginia.
Car Title Lending? What is it Really? 1-14-09
When someone gets a car title loan, the lender is fully secured by the borrower's automobile. And here are more details:
* The interest rate is at least 300%. Yes, 300%.
* The loan has no maturity date because it is structured as a "line of credit."
* The monthly payment pays little to no principal on the loan.
* When an individual borrows $1,000 at 300% interest, the borrower pays $250 a month and that only covers the interest.
* After a year, the borrower will have paid $3,000 in interest.
* Oh yeah, after a year of faithful payments, the borrower still owes the full amount $1,000 borrowed.
This is the world of car title lending. It is a black hole, from which the consumer cannot escape. It is predatory and it is unconscionable.
As an attorney, I have seen my clients in this situation over and over: Doing their best to make payments over nine to twelve months, they have paid two to three times the amount they borrowed but still have not reduced the principal owed. After paying all of this money, one missed payment puts their vehicle in danger of being repossessed. The loss of a vehicle to the average Virginian is disastrous because of the need for transportation to work and for family responsibilities.
The legal loophole used by car title lenders is the "line of credit" used by car title lenders that allows them to charge the immoral rate of 300 percent interest. Virginia General Assembly, it is time to work for your constituents and close the loophole. Make car title lenders subject to the Consumer Finance Act, like every other small loan lender, which caps the interest rate at 36 percent.
I would ask our legislators -- why is this lending good for our economy? Why is this unending "line of credit" at 300 percent interest a sound product? It is not. It has no justification. It drains precious dollars from citizens of the Commonwealth. We have seen enough toxic loans and its disastrous effects on the housing market. Failure to respond decisively on behalf of consumers is to appease predatory lending in the Commonwealth.
Last year, some in the Virginia General Assembly and Governor Tim Kaine decided to give in to the payday lenders and provide minimal consumer protections. In response, payday lenders are setting up "lines of credit" designed precisely to circumvent the few consumer protections of the new payday lending law. Let's not take the approach of appeasement toward another predatory lender.
Jeremy P. White
Lynchburg, VA
Karen Kallay Letter to the Editor 1-6-09
Phil Kent, communications director for Fast Auto Loans, made several pertinent and interesting points in his Dec. 18 op-ed, especially noting the value of car-pawn loans in these credit-strapped times ["Consumer credit that is insane!"].
He also observes that the car-title pawn business is "an honest transaction between two willing parties."
Whoa! It's really more like taking candy from a child, or standing at the lifeboats on a sinking ship, keeping out everyone but those willing to sign on for a high risk of future financial ruin.
The child in this case is that part of us that comes to the foreground when we're desperate, that yields to wishful thinking, and that doesn't think too clearly.
Otherwise, we'd see that the full balloon payment that is due within a few months (or less) probably wouldn't be payable, and that we'd be trapped in a very expensive financial sinkhole.
According to the Center for Responsible Lending, "Although high-priced title loans are illegal in most states, the title lending industry has grown tremendously in recent years in states that have failed to take adequate steps to protect borrowers.
"Title lenders have made generous campaign contributions, and industry-friendly laws have passed in some states at breakneck speed."
Yes, there's a place for car-title loans, but not at interest rates annualized at more than 300 percent, and where the car at risk of repossession is the family's access to employment.
I hate to say it, but during this next legislative session in Virginia, any legislator who resists closing down this loophole on predatory lending will make me suspect that some personal advantage rather than community benefit is motivating him.
Karen Kallay
Fredericksburg, VA
Karen Beiber Letter to the Editor 12-22-08
To the Editor,
I am concerned about the Inmate Phone System in our Commonwealth. Under the current system, families of inmates are assessed a surcharge of $2.85 per call in addition to the usual collect call rates. One phone call, which is limited to twenty minutes, can easily cost between ten and twenty dollars. If a mother wished to speak with each of her two daughters once a week, it could cost her family one hundred sixty dollars each month -- not including any conversations with her husband or parents!
At such rates, Virginia's General Fund has received over six million dollars in revenue from some of our state's most vulnerable families, and has effectively prohibited others from maintaining contact with their loved ones (over 80% of our women in prison are mothers). Studies have shown that children who maintain contact with their incarcerated parent are less likely to become incarcerated. With the epidemic of incarceration in our nation, changing the current inmate phone system is a way we can actively interrupt the generational cycle of those who enter prison.
Other states and our federal prisons have phone systems that are far more family friendly. Perhaps a system akin to the federal inmate phone system could be implemented. Federal inmates purchase phone cards from the inmate canteen for three cents per minute. Equipment maintenance could be assessed to the inmate as a surcharge on the phone card. With so many creative people in Virginia, surely there is a way to implement a socially just system.
Karen Beiber
Lovingston, VA
Brenda G. Manns Letter to the Editor 12-15-08
I think we should make insurance more affordable in this community. We need insurance here so that medical bills don’t become a burden to our family members and community. Over the last five weeks, medical bills have become a big issue in my family, and this problem can happen to anyone. There are more than one million people in this state who don’t have insurance. Why don’t our legislators do something to fix this problem?
On top of the insurance, the cost of medicines is too expensive. The system is messed up, and we need to change it. We need to be better informed about how we can access the insurance we need. We also need to come together as a community to figure out ways we can decrease this big insurance problem.
Thanks to all of those who are trying to help, but we need to do more to help those in need. Thank God and keep praying.
Brenda G. Manns
Martinsville, VA
Matt Caterine Letter to the Editor 11-26-08
On November 4, the people of Virginia sent a loud and clear message to elected officials in Congress: they want leadership that will bring about real change in Washington. Despite misleading attacks from anti-worker special interests, voters elected Mark Warner to work with a pro-worker majority in Congress and a pro-worker president to take a critical step toward reinvigorating the middle class and turning around our crumbling economy.
Through continued support of the Employee Free Choice Act -- bipartisan legislation making it easier for workers to form unions -- Senator-elect Mark Warner will help more Americans join and stay in the middle class. Union membership guarantees opportunities for better wages, access to health care, job security, and the ability for those who work hard and play by the rules to achieve the American Dream.
I hope as our new U.S. Senator, Mark Warner will use this new opportunity, through supporting the Employee Free Choice Act, to create positive change that will affect Virginia’s working families and future generations to come.
Matt Caterine
Williamsburg, VA
Op-Ed: What did Virginia learn about voting systems in 2008? 11-21-08
The election is over. But is it? What can we learn from the election itself?
First, optical scan systems are the voter's friend. Forward-looking localities that added optical scan systems had far shorter lines than localities with only DRE ("touch screen") machines. If lots of voters show up and you're using optical scan, you hand out more pens and voting continues; if you're using a DRE you're out of luck and lines may result. We need optical scan systems uniformly across the commonwealth.
Second, complex rules about who can vote early caused unnecessary confusion. Virginia law permits only excused absentee voting. Localities interpreted the law differently. Thus, what constituted an excuse varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Virginians need no excuse in person absentee voting, so everyone has the opportunity to vote when it is convenient.
Third, electronic pollbooks are not ready for prime time, as shown by the failures in Chesapeake, where entire precincts were shut down for hours due to problems, with no backup paper pollbooks. If we're going to use electronic pollbooks, they need to be thoroughly tested before being used, particularly if there will not be paper backups.
Fourth, localities need to do better ballot review and testing. There were reports from around Virginia of missing races – including some localities that didn't show the presidential race. Ballots could be published for public comment; problems could be identified and corrected upfront and ballot design could be improved.
Fifth, like most states, Virginia had many problems with voters who claimed to have registered at DMV but weren't listed on the rolls, or who were dropped from the rolls for unexplained reasons. Virginia needs to do a better job of ensuring that voter registrations are processed correctly, including ensuring that applications are forwarded in a timely fashion to the State Board of Elections for distribution to the applicable registrars, and purging is done under procedures mandated by law and isn't used for partisan purposes. The State Board of Elections should continue to encourage voters to verify their registration before showing up at the polls.
Sixth, if localities continue to use only DREs, the State Board of Elections should provide direction concerning the use of emergency paper ballots. This would include the number of paper ballots required to be on hand, and when they must be handed out. Fortunately, there were only relatively isolated equipment failures, but had the level of failures been as high as in some states, this lack of preparation could have disenfranchised voters in localities that did not have emergency ballots on hand.
Last, and perhaps most importantly, we need to fix Virginia's inadequate audit and recount laws. Auditing is a good practice after every election to make sure that the machines counted votes correctly, but in Virginia it's illegal except when the margin of victory is greater than 10 percent -- so there's no question who really won -- and even then it’s optional. A majority of states have mandatory random audits after elections, and it's time for Virginia to catch up.
Most voters would be surprised to learn that in Virginia a recount doesn't actually hand count the ballots, rather optical scan ballots are rescanned and DREs are not recounted at all; there is nothing to recount (or audit). Virginia has had a number of very close races recently including the still undecided 5th Congressional race, the 2005 Attorney General race (McDonnell vs. Deeds), and 2006 Senate race (Allen vs. Webb) -- showing that both parties are impacted by poor recount laws. The point of an election is to let the voters choose, not the technology, so we need technology that helps us count, but does not change the count. Real audits and recounts ensure that result.
The State Board of Elections and the local boards and staffs are hardworking people who struggle with several unmovable deadlines every year. It's time for the General Assembly to give them the authority and resources they need to do a better job -- so every voter in Virginia can have their vote counted accurately.
Jeremy Epstein
Fairfax, VA
The author is a computer security expert and co-founder of the Verifiable Voting Coalition of Virginia, a non-partisan advocacy group for fair and accurate elections in Virginia.
Larry Yates Letter to the Editor 11-20-09
Editor:
We have an unprecedented situation in this country, with the election of Barack Obama to the presidency. For some of us, this is a wonderful moment. But we all know that for some Americans, this election result is painful, even hateful.
Given our economic crisis, President Obama and his administration will have plenty of opportunity to show that they are working for the benefit of all Americans. But in these first few months, the raw emotions stirred up by the election are still very much with us.
As a fervent supporter of free speech, I generally support the expression of any criticisms, even outrageous ones, of an elected official. Americans have a proud tradition of saying outrageous things, going back to our outrageous Declaration of Independence.
But I hope each of you will think carefully about what you say and do about Barack Obama, not for his sake, but for our country's sake. We could wound this country in ways that cannot be repaired. Acts of violence -- even threats of violence -- will not be forgiven or forgotten, either by those of all colors who have placed deep hope in a President Obama, or by the rest of the world.
Fifty-six times, the United States of America has elected a president. Each time some of us have been bitterly disappointed by the result. But the vast majority of us have been fair and self-disciplined, and controlled any urge towards violence or hatred. Let us show each other -- and the world -- that we can do it again.
If your friends or relatives express threats or urge violence, ask them, for the sake of our country, to stop, to think, to pray if appropriate, and to look beyond this moment to our common future. In the gracious words of Senator John McCain, let us offer "our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together." We do owe this self-restraint to our duly elected President -- but we owe it to our country first.
Larry Yates
Maurertown, VA
Op-Ed: Cost of the crackdown 11-8-08
The illegal immigrant crackdown in Prince William County continues. County officials insist that it is fair. Some see a great success -- others see a travesty. Many immigrants are leaving the county, thinking that police are targeting Hispanics. They see individuals being detained and separated from their families. Even legal immigrants, like Federico, have been caught in the net.
Federico has been a resident since 1990. He is married with four children. He’s a member of All Saints Catholic Church. He has worked for the same firm for years. This summer, Federico and his wife, Maria, were on their way to register their daughter in kindergarten. They stopped to answer the phone. Maria stepped out of the car to take the call. They were about to be late. As he tugged at Maria to get in the car, a passing witness called police. Within minutes the police pulled them over. Federico was arrested for assault and abduction despite Maria’s objections that nothing happened.
Federico was held in the Prince William County jail for two months before his case was heard. Predictably, the charges were dropped at the hearing. However, PWC had already transferred him to immigration custody for a prior conviction. In 2002, on his lawyer's advice, he pled guilty to assault charges in exchange for probation and a suspended sentence. He was unaware the plea could result in deportation.
Prior to immigration charges against Federico being filed, Catholic Charities submitted a bond request for his release, pending the outcome of his case. The request was denied. It appears DHS is determined to deport Federico for his previous conviction.
Federico paid his debt to Virginia, but immigration law allows him to be held for his 2002 assault conviction under Virginia law. His only hope of remaining in this country is to have his 2002 felony conviction reversed. Federico doesn't have the resources to reopen his case.
Federico needs legal assistance that he cannot afford. Catholic Charities has done all it can do. However, in our opinion, Federico should not have been charged for assault and abduction in the first place. This frivolous arrest caused an insurmountable problem for Federico. The human cost of PWC's immigration enforcement for Federico and his family has been enormous. Is this how we want to deal with immigration problems?
RICHARD QUINTANA
Chairman, Peace & Justice Committee, All Saints Catholic Church.
Manassas, Virginia
DANIEL McGUIRE
Staff Attorney, Catholic Charities
Washington D.C.
Cheryl Talley Letter to the Editor 11-14-08
Editor:
It was early on election night. I, along with fellow Democrats, had come to the Blue Nile Ethiopian Restaurant in downtown Harrisonburg to watch the returns. A big tent had been erected in the parking lot. One of the organizers lowered the TV sound briefly and announced that cars parked in the municipal parking lot next door had to be moved immediately.
It was then that I glanced out of the nearby plastic window. Ten feet in front of me was a police car. Two policemen were trying to get a handcuffed man in a gray hoody into the back seat of the squad car. I was close enough to see the policemen’s faces straining with effort as they tried to fold the man’s rigid body into the back seat. After a few moments, one of the officers went through the other back door and helped pull the unwilling rider into the car. The entire incident took less than three minutes. I didn’t know who the man was or what he had done. However, I did I notice my reaction to the incident. After scanning the scene I immediately searched the face of the hooded man in order to identify his race. I couldn’t see him clearly, it was dark, he had a hood over his head and the incident lasted only a few moments but in my mind’s eye I saw clearly two white cops and a Black man in handcuffs, an image so familiar that I could construct it out of a dimly lit scene.
As each ensuing moment of the Obama presidency is photographed, filmed, downloaded and broadcast a new image, an unfamiliar image will be presented to the American psyche. For those of us already trained to expect to see Black men in handcuffs more so than in business suits, it may require some time to get used to the image of Barrack Obama sitting in the Oval Office, shaking hands with world leaders or boarding Air Force One. It undoubtedly will be difficult for some Americans to think of him as “our” president when we have been used to our leaders being white men. But President-elect Obama was indisputably elected and if his election does indeed usher in a new political era it will also create a unique opportunity to examine ourselves as a member of a race, as a citizen of a nation and a part of what has never existed in the world, one nation of many races.
Although it is tempting to consider Obama’s victory as an inevitable result of American’s upward march toward racial equality, the history of American race relations shows that negative reactions, setbacks and backlashes often follow victories. Reconstruction was followed by fifty years of legislated Jim Crow in the South, defacto Jim Crow in the north as well as unprecedented violence against Black people. Just as civil rights laws did not change all hearts and minds, neither can the election of an African-American address continued racial disparities or racist notions. The thoughts and feelings that are spurred by images of white policemen and a Black man in handcuffs; of a group of brown men climbing a border fence or for that matter, images that render Asian-Americans invisible and Native Americans virtually absent, all point to a need for the substantive dialogue on race that we, as a nation, have never had. The power of images is that they elicit feelings, feelings influence beliefs and beliefs can eventually become public policy. Hence, there are reasons that Black men are disproportionately jailed in our country and that a fence is being built on our southern border. It will be left to historians to debate whether Barrack Obama could have been elected president under anything less than the direst of national circumstances. However, the real legacy of the first African-American president will be how personal attitudes, community actions and legislative policies that adversely affect people of color will change in America as a result of his election. That is the change we all need.
Cheryl Talley
Harrisonburg, VA
Martha Hicks Letter to the Editor 9-23-08
Dear Editor,
I retired three years ago after teaching for 30 years in Virginia's public schools. I have a pension, for which I am grateful, through the Virginia Retirement System. The benefits from that pension were partly paid for by me when I began to teach, then my school system took over the payments. While teaching I did pay for part of my health insurance.
Now I pay all my health care premiums, as well as dental, and the costs have risen dramatically in just three years. The total cost for both health and dental are nearly a quarter of my pension (and continuing to rise yearly). The costs are only a quarter of my pension because I have had to increase my deductible to afford it.
I work a part-time job to make ends meet and I cannot imagine not being employed or active. I am so lucky to be able to continue to work, collect a pension that I deserve and live life to the fullest. While lucky, I am, like many other Americans, an accident or illness away from bankruptcy and financial ruin.
My sister is in her second year post chemotherapy and radiation and I know she is concerned about her health care coverage as well. She is still employed and has great insurance but she couldn't leave her job because her new health care program might deny her coverage due to pre-existing health conditions.
My sister and I are not just isolated exceptions but part of the growing trend that unfortunately has become the norm in health care coverage in this country. About 50 days from now, my sister and I will be joining with millions of others in making the most important choice of elected leaders in more than a generation. I hope everyone will educate themselves on the health care plans of the Presidential candidates. Health care needs to be affordable, accessible, and comprehensive.
Martha Hicks
Lynchburg, VA
Op-Ed: Community organizing is no joke 9-11-08
Community organizing is no joke
By Karen C. Waters
I am a community organizer. I make change.
I am my brother's and my sister's keeper. This is one heck of a big responsibility; one I believe is no laughing matter. Thousands of others like me understand we are in this together, and shoulder the heavy burden to create healthy, just and inclusive communities by harnessing the collective wisdom, energy and efforts of folks willing to sacrifice for the common good. We forgo high-paying jobs, evenings and weekends at home, fancy offices, big expense accounts and public recognition. You can find us in church basements, community centers or walking neighborhoods that others are content to drive past, or on rural back roads that are sometimes impassable.
In big cities and small towns all across America, we solve problems, find resources, manage tight budgets, motivate and mobilize people to rise above their own expectations of themselves, their neighbors, and even those with whom they fundamentally disagree. The job title is one you may not have heard, but the functions are certainly familiar -- working with everyday people to activate a communications network like Paul Revere, organizing peaceful demonstrations like Mahatma Gandhi, speaking truth to power like Martin Luther King, changing policies to benefit children like Marian Wright Edelman, advocating for the poor like Mother Theresa, and partnering with others to get things done like Bush 41's thousand points of light.
While recently some have mocked and laughed at my life's work, I am deeply privileged to work with residents to improve their quality of life as Executive Director of the Quality Community Council and to serve on many community boards and task forces. Helping teachers to make sure that parents, even if they're homeless, disabled, or unable to read well, understand how we can work together to make our schools the best they can be; knocking on hundreds of doors to tell residents how to save our planet by recycling and conserving precious natural resources; teaching families miles from the nearest grocery store to work cooperatively, organically growing the vegetables they need to reduce their risk for obesity, diabetes, and cancer; showing the mother of a murdered youth how to convert her plea for safety to action, challenging City Council to adequately fund the police department before she has even buried her son; empowering a teenager to educate her neighbo rs on gun violence prevention; organizing forums and dialogues to forge consensus on our community's needs; plus registering enough voters to hold leadership accountable should those needs go unmet.
Although the pay is not much, the rewards are great, and well worth being the butt of petty political punchlines. It was no joke when a low-income retired veteran thanked me for "bringing back America like it used to be -- everyone helping each other." It was no joke when I was told by a teacher that a middle schooler wrote an essay naming me as his hero. It was no joke when a graduate of our leadership program was sworn in as the mayor. At the Quality Community Council, we know that Community Values are American Values, and we believe it takes Courage to Make a Difference.
Karen Waters
Charlottesville, VA
Kara West Letter to the Editor 9-10-08
Dear Editor,
I am a very lucky woman and I know it. I have no out of pocket expenses for healthcare thanks to the forward thinking of my progressive employer. Unfortunately many working Virginians don’t enjoy this basic benefit. I haven’t always been in this position, and while it feels luxurious, it should be commonplace. Every Virginian deserves comprehensive, affordable and portable healthcare.
As a former small business owner I struggled with providing health insurance for my four employees, and I simply wasn’t able to do it and provide a living wage at the same time. In the first year of the business I wasn’t even able to buy insurance for myself.
My guilt over not being able to provide this benefit was alleviated somewhat by the fact that three of my employees were either still in school or young enough to be covered by their parents’ policies, but this is not an excuse for our lack of healthcare options. The fourth employee, a single mom, had insurance (at a premium which took a sizable portion of her wages) through her other full-time job. Her sad reality was that she had to work one and a half jobs to provide the basics for herself and her son.
The time is now for our elected officials to make quality healthcare for every Virginian an affordable reality.
Sincerely,
Kara West
Charlottesville, VA
Clarence Shelton Letter to the Editor 9-8-08
I think it is really important that we start having politicians listen to the serious problems that we have here in Martinsville and Henry County. Our officials keep talking about what they are doing, but we need to have better communication from them. We need to be told the truth about what is happening here.
When politicians don’t listen, people keep struggling every day with how they are going to pay their light bill, feed their kids and buy fuel. Every person here has been affected by NAFTA, and when they lost their jobs, they didn’t just lose their paychecks. They also lost their benefits. This hurts them and their families, and it is very real.
We need to help these displaced workers and the elderly who are on fixed incomes. We need to raise the minimum wage area jobs, and we need to provide health care for the people who do not qualify for Medicaid because right now, they are on their own.
Whatever category you fall in, we should all come together to make sure that our politicians hear our message all of the time, not just when they are up for election. If they are going to talk the talk, we need to make sure they walk the walk.
The Virginia Organizing Project is working in our community to help give people tools to help people form this unity. I think this is really important to make sure our politicians follow through on their campaign promises. I want to encourage everyone who can to join in with this group to form a stronger voice.
Clarence Shelton
Martinsville
Fred Glover Letter to the Editor 9-8-08
Dear Editor:
In these trying economic times, there are a great number of concerns. Well-publicized is the price of gas at the pump, and how it has caused a ripple effect on things like the price of food. I think just as critical of an economic emergency is the cost of health care in today’s economy, and how our teachers have great difficulty caring for their families.
Up until the first of the year, I was a teacher in Bedford County. I was quite proud to be a teacher in Bedford County, but found myself financially struggling with my choice of profession, especially when it came to caring for my family. By putting my wife and infant daughter on the family health care plan 4 years ago, it took a $625 chunk out of my pay. On top of that, when my daughter was born we were billed by the hospital for more than $1500. On a teacher’s salary, and with a new mouth to feed and care for, these bills were quite staggering. I had to leave teaching, but I have spoken recently with former colleagues now that say that the family plan for Bedford County is now in the range of $700 per month coming out of the employees’ pockets. And to be fair to my former employer, these conditions exist across the state in many places.
While these are economic hard times, we need to make sure we are taking care of the people that pave the way for our children’s future. My hope is that lawmakers will make a commitment to ensure that the people who will be teaching my daughter next school year will afford to care for their own children when they get home from taking care of mine.
Sincerely,
Fred Glover
Lynchburg, VA
Blair Smith Letter to the Editor 9-8-08
Dear Editor,
As a new member of the Virginia Organizing Project, a statewide grassroots social justice group, I was drawn to the work VOP is doing to make health care access affordable for everyone. When I was growing up, health care never seemed to be a big issue for my family. It wasn’t until I grew older that I realized how the health care system and insurance companies charged absurdly high rates for hospital bills, visits to the doctor, and other essential services.
In 2002, my father was diagnosed with kidney failure and multiple myeloma cancer. He had just begun a new job with an exceptionally good pay rate, but when he became terminally ill, the medical bills went sky high, and he was no longer able to work. My mom made less than $30,000 a year, so she could not afford to pay the bills on her own. Insurance paid for most of the hospital bills, but prescriptions were almost $80 per bottle, and my father had to take multiple medications.
In 2004, my father passed away, and the money we received from his life insurance policy had to be used to pay for his medical bills. We ended up losing our house, and had to move. The health care system failed my family at a time when we needed affordable health care the most.
Just recently, I had surgery for a pilonidal cyst, and because of rising health care costs, my mom had to pay a $200 co-pay plus medicine and surgery fees. With the amount of money she makes each year, it is almost impossible for her to even afford a yearly physical. At my mother’s age, health problems may start to arise and going without a physical for years in the long run may result in even more health care problems.
My personal experiences with the health care system have opened my eyes to the changes that need to be made. For many, insurance is too expensive to afford and too limited in its coverage. Please contact your elected officials and remind them that everyone deserves access to quality and affordable health care.
Blair Ebony Smith
Williamsburg, VA
Murray Whitehill Letter to the Editor 9-5-08
Sirs,
Summer has now passed and the school season is upon us. Perhaps one thing that our school system could focus on is everyday math. Our children need to be taught that when a store has a 30% off sale, you are not 'saving' anything -- you are spending less. If you have the mindset of spending less you have a better chance of not falling into the clutches of one of our societies most fiscally vicious parasites, the payday and car title lenders.
There were some laws passed recently that quieted the loudest of the complaints about this industry but it is still there, sending many into what is essentially indentured servitude. That is something most thought we outlawed decades ago. But no, our state lawmakers accepted over half a million dollars in 'political contributions' last year from this industry, and surprise, it is still ruining lives and collecting great profits.
The industry claims it would be put out of business should it be forced to become less of a loan shark business and more like a reputable lender. They also claim that people would suffer greatly were they not able to borrow at usurious rates. I wonder how the residents of WV, MD, and NC where these 'lenders' have been banned are managing.
Communities have an obligation and duty to help those in trouble and to educate them to avoid problems. The failure of our legislators to control this industry is making if difficult if not impossible for our communities to do so.
Sincerely,
Murray Whitehill
Ivy, VA
Op-Ed: There are big holes in our health insurance system 9-2-08
There are big holes in our health insurance system
I know because I'm an insurance agent
by Jessica O'Brien
As an independent health and life insurance broker in Williamsburg, I deal with people looking for health insurance coverage on a daily basis. It is very satisfying to be able to help folks find affordable, comprehensive coverage that offers them security in the event of a medical problem, and many of the health insurance plans available in Virginia do just that. However, for many people, the search for affordable coverage is a painful process. There are several common scenarios which leave Virginians in very difficult situations. Here are some examples.
Employees with employers who offer health insurance and who then pay a portion of the premium out of their own paychecks -- Depending on the health rating of the whole pool of employees (including all insured dependents) assigned by the insurance company, the health insurance premiums may have been increased to a level that is unaffordable to many employees.
When offered a job, wouldn't it be a good idea to ask your potential employer about the cost of the company's health coverage before accepting the job?
Employees whose employers do not offer health insurance and individuals who do not have traditional employment -- Depending on the health of the employees or individuals and any dependents they wish to insure, individually bought health insurance may be rated high (multiples of the "healthy" rate) or declined. Each insurance company has different criteria for accepting new clients and must be applied for separately. In the worse-case scenario, a "guaranteed-issue" policy is available from Virginia's Blue Cross Blue Shield. This policy is often quite expensive and does not cover any pre-existing conditions for one year.
Does it make sense that the employee will be paying a high premium for a plan which, for the first year, will not cover the very condition which caused him to take the plan in the first place?
Dependents of employees who cannot afford the employer's group dependent coverage -- These Virginians face the same obstacles as employees and individuals who are not offered employer coverage -- their health determines what coverage they can get. A "healthy" dependent will be offered standard premiums, while an "unhealthy" dependent faces high rates or the "guaranteed-issue" policy with its high rates and a one-year wait on pre-existing conditions.
Isn't that a risky and frightening situation for lots of families?
Employees leaving their job -- While federal laws such as COBRA exist (guaranteeing the availability of continuous coverage for employees who leave their employment or lose their coverage, and which help many people when they are between jobs), the cost of a COBRA plan is often beyond the reach of many families -- often way more than what they were previously paying.
In the situation where an employee leaves his or her employment and has not found employer-group coverage by the time COBRA runs out (18 months), though continuous coverage is guaranteed to that person no matter what his health condition, do you think it is fair for the insurance company to charge its highest premium (which it often does)?
These are some of the difficulties facing Virginians today. In my practice, I often cannot help those people who most are in need of health coverage.
When I began working as a health insurance broker many years ago, my manager always said, "The only thing that buys good health insurance is good health." While this is true and exactly the right message for an 18-year old who doesn't think he needs to bother with health insurance right now, being immortal, it is little comfort to those who are not so lucky.
"SO, WHATCHA GOT THERE?" 8-21-08
The day was over, the boss man asked, "So, whatcha got there?"
"Two-hundred eighty five bundles," I replied.
He screamed, "You're cheatin'. Can't count good."
At the age of 10, I protested, "Count them yourself. There are 285 bundles."
My brother was only six and a half. I don't know why we did this along with three neighborhood friends. This incident has stuck in my craw all these years. I chew on stuff. I've been masticating for almost six decades about this.
Joliet, Illinois, 1949. Some truck farmers wanted help getting stuff ready for market. Did our parents see a 'help wanted' notice and sign us up?
Bushel baskets of thousands of unpeeled, dirt encrusted scallions were dumped at our feet. We peeled off the outer skin to make the scallion clean for the market. With 24 we tied them together. That was a penny's worth. We kept good count and stacked the onions into custom-made cardboard boxes.
The big old boss man scoffed, spit and repeated, to me, "You cheat."
At that moment, Mr. Smith, our ride home, showed up. We five dirty, hot little kids piled into the car and left, unpaid.
We didn't get the $2.85 owed to us on our last day. We had 285 bundles of 24 scallions each or 6,840 onions or 1,368 per kid if we peeled at the same rate. We evidently had no recourse. That number 285 has stuck with me all these years.
The 'cheat' was hiring little kids. That was illegal even in 1949. He paid way below the 40 cents/hour minimum wage. We returned home stinking of onions. Mom and Dad talked about 'ethics' at dinner. This guy was the first dishonest adult I met.
This is a small, insignificant story from the last century -- peeling onions for a two-bit truck farmer.
Now, move into the 21st century. Inhumanity is rampant where work ethics are concerned. Think about the injustices in our own communities done by us to other ethnic groups -- namely those people without documentation -- those 'illegal' immigrants who are being cheated at every turn. They're 'illegal' just like we were as kid laborers in 1949. We weren't feeding destitute families. We were making money to buy bubble gum and baseball cards.
"So, whatcha got there?" Whatcha got is 37 million undocumented people in the US today -- some working under the table for low wages often cheated by boss men looking to make a faster buck. Who's the culprit? The employer? The employee? I believe that answer is simple. Think of all the stuff stuck in craws today.
"So, whatcha got there?" Whatcha got is a serious moral dilemma which needs to be addressed before another half century goes by. In 1949 we see middle class kids with white privilege screwed. Today, much harsher penalties await 'undocumented' human beings who share our planet who are here now working to alleviate dire poverty. They are being cheated here and now. So, whatcha gonna do?
Sandra Brian Lore
Op-Ed: Transportation funding plan going down the wrong path 6-6-08
Transportation funding plan going down the wrong path
By Dave Shreve
The Virginia Organizing Project and its Tax Reform Committee commend Governor Tim Kaine for his recent efforts to publicize and push for expanded investment in the state's transportation network. There is little doubt that Virginia faces an ongoing road maintenance funding deficit, that there is ample need for public spending on innovations beyond automobiles and asphalt, and that there must also be significant roadway improvements undertaken throughout the Commonwealth.
We also applaud the Governor's contention that higher gasoline taxes not be included, for, as he has explained it at several Town Hall meetings in recent weeks, this would "hit the hardest those who have already taken the hardest hits" at the hands of our "stagflationary" national economy. Yes, the gas tax is simple and it appears to be a logical choice for roadway funding, but it is also one of the most regressive choices. As a percentage of income -- the only sound way to assess tax equity (and on one critical level, tax soundness as well) -- gasoline taxes take the most from those who have the least. First adopted by all states in the 1910s and 1920s when only 30 to 40 percent of American families owned automobiles, the gasoline tax was something of a luxury tax that quickly became a much more regressive user fee. Moreover, when Virginia adopted its first gasoline tax, a highest-in-the-nation three cents in 1923, no state had yet to adopt a sales tax and only eleven had individual or corporate income taxes. Sounder alternatives, in other words, had yet to be established or tested very effectively.
Out of VOP's decade-long study of the state's tax system, we contend that no public official -- including Governor Kaine -- has put forth a transportation funding proposal that adheres to sound public finance principles, including the critical concern for equity reflected in the Governor's rejection of new gasoline taxes. Asking localities to shoulder the full responsibility ignores ongoing state funding deficits and encourages the fragmentation of what ought to be a state system, but also compels transportation funding at a place where it is certain to be regressively financed. Relying on sales tax increases at any level is to rely upon the most regressive of the three major tax vehicles employed by the Commonwealth and its municipal governments. User fees, including tolls and higher vehicle registration levies, are even more regressive choices, if also seductively less prominent or visible. Financing any public investment in this fashion may well serve to plug short term deficits, but it will also force the state to rely upon taxes that grow less slowly than the economy, that dampen economic activity by depressing the consumer demand of those who spend virtually all that they earn, and that will most assuredly force taxpayers to address recurring funding shortfalls.
The Virginia Organizing Project has proposed as an alternative a two-part transportation funding plan. First, we would raise new revenue by imposing a small income tax surcharge. A five percent surcharge (not a 5 percent rate increase but a 5 percent charge added to existing tax liabilities) would raise approximately $450 million. We recommend using up to $400 million of this amount to finance ongoing maintenance deficits, with the balance dedicated to interest payments on newly issued revenue or general obligation bonds in the amount of $600 million. The proceeds from these bonds should be sufficient to finance the new transportation investments for Northern Virginia, Hampton Roads and throughout the Commonwealth. Such an approach would also finance these investments as they should be financed -- on the basis of ability to pay -- and it would rely on the state's sterling credit where it should be counted upon -- to finance relatively long-lived state assets.
As we see it, there is no compelling reason not to finance this or any other investment on this kind of a moderately progressive footing. Often expressed concerns that transportation needs not compete for the same general funds as education and health care assumes, illogically, that all revenues aren't paid out of personal or corporate income. The critical question ought to be not which categories of spending fall under which dedicated tax vehicle, but whether or not any new investments are financed in an equitable and efficient manner. As we have witnessed many times before, the prospective pinching of one priority to pay for another occurs only when we rely upon regressive taxation.
We urge Governor Kaine and all interested parties to consider our more progressive and sustainable proposal.
Shirley Rothman Letter to the Editor 05-29-08
Is there anyone out there who can help us in Mecklenburg County? The Planning Commission and the County Board of Supervisors are ignoring the citizens. Osage Bio Energy LLC from Glen Allen is forcing an ethanol plant down our throats. This is the same outfit that is attacking Hopewell. Osage has never made a drop of ethanol, but the Tobacco Commission (TICR) approved $1,000,000.00 to run a water pipeline 13 miles to the site, a beautiful farm on the edge of Chase City that Osage wants rezoned heavy industrial.
Meanwhile, Governor Tim Kaine visited South Boston, 30 miles down the road, to promote his program of land conservation and preservation. Then he awarded our county $650,000 in grants to help pay for the water pipeline to this ethanol plant, that will spew 700,000,000 (7 hundred million) pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the air.
Over one thousand four hundred (1,400) people from Chase City, Clarksville, Boydton, Skipwith and the county have signed statements of opposition to the location of this plant. We have 700 acres of industrial parks sitting empty in the county without rezoning this beautiful 600 acre farm right next to a town.
All the national news concerning ethanol is negative. The taxpayers are paying twice for this insane federal program providing subsidies to the manufacturers and then the taxpayer pays taxes at the pump. The state is also paying subsidies.
People in Mecklenburg County need to find an organization, a good law firm, or a hero/heroine to come to our rescue right away. We have a war chest pledged to help with the fight. Please email us at info@preservemecklenburg.org or call 434-372-8363. Do it now.
Ida O'Sullivan Letter to the Editor 04-21-08
Editor:
Recently Governor Tim Kaine hosted the Governor's Forum on Land Conservation in South Boston at the Prizery to focus on land and family farm conservation in Virginia. Judging by the standing-room only turnout, there was a great deal of interest by both the public and private sectors from across the state.
Participants were welcomed by Virginia State Senator Charles Hawkins and Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources L. Preston Bryant, Jr. The keynote luncheon speakers were Governor Kaine and Ward Burton, NASCAR driver and creator of the Ward Burton Wildlife Foundation. Additional speakers with varied and extensive expertise addressed the benefits and tools to be used for land conservation and the financial incentives available. The advantages of open space, water quality and wildlife habitat protection were also stressed.
"Our land is too precious to lose," stated Senator Hawkins in his opening comments. This all sounds well and good. If Governor Kaine, Senator Hawkins, Secretary Bryant and other officials are so concerned about land preservation and conservation, they need to stop the proposed ethanol refineries in Virginia. They need to provide action, not just talk about it. Here in Mecklenburg County hundreds of acres of pristine farm land of woods, fields, a pond and stream next to Chase City are under threat of being developed into an ethanol refinery. Presently attempts are being made to rezone the area from agricultural to heavy industry.
So we have this to say to Governor Kaine: You stand to be known as the one that allowed the destruction of the rural charm that is the heart of Virginia. If you so love Virginia and the way of life you treasure, you MUST put a stop to the ethanol train wreck.
Let's hope one of the governor's aides brings this to his attention.
Ida O'Sullivan
Chase City, VA
Judith Jae George Letter to the Editor 03-18-08
Dear Editor:
The time has come to take a serious look at why Virginia has one in 44 adults in the prison system and why they are kept there so long. A top-to-bottom review of our entire parole system seems in order, giving serious consideration to releasing those who clearly have demonstrated they pose no threat to society.
Holding the dubious distinction of having the lowest levels of approval in the nation, the Virginia Parole Board, in 2007, had a 5 percent release rate -- we Virginia taxpayers continue to pay mightily to keep those eligible inmates behind bars.
Virginia currently houses an estimated 9,000 persons who pre-date the 'no parole' law. With their limited resources, the three full-time and two part-time Parole Board members determined eligibility to an estimated 6,000 inmates in 2007, resulting in deliberating an estimated 6.5 minutes per prisoner.
Currently, there is no "risk assessment" given to those eligible. In other words, any prisoner, regardless of his rehabilitation progress or lack thereof, is considered equal --and we continue to pay. The $31,000 estimated annual cost per inmate doesn't include the cost the state supplements many of these families due to the year after year loss of that incarcerated loved one's income.
How much is too much? Prior to abolishing Virginia Parole in 1995, our parole release rate was as high as 45 percent. Is the answer to build more prisons? At your expense, the estimated cost to build each prison is $100 million, and don't forget the operating costs.
No Virginia, I don't want bad people on the streets, I only want those who have done their time back in the community, earning their own keep.
Judith Jae George
White Stone
Sarah Thomas Letter to the Editor 2-27-08
Dear Sir,
I am a fourth year student at the College of William and Mary, majoring in history and Jefferson Studies. I support President Gene Nichol, a man who stood up for what he believed in. Gene Nichol is and will always be an important part of the Tribe.
President Nichol's tenure as President marks the shortest in our long and varied history. With the oldest continually operating academic building in the country, our College represents the promises that higher education offer America. The values that Nichol represented at William and Mary -- integrity, equality, diversity, and justice -- are to be followed. On the other hand, the Board of Visitors' actions -- full of cowardice and betrayal -- are examples of actions that should not be followed. People look to us for example. I say we should look to President Nichol. He did the right thing. He is an honorable man.
In the past months, the media have reported on "Nichol's controversial presidency" of the College. Nichol did not bring about the controversies. Others -- a vocal and wealthy minority of alumni and politicians -- have brought controversy upon our great President.
All that Nichol did was to try to make William and Mary a welcoming and open place for everyone. He fulfilled his oath of office by protecting our first amendment right to free speech. He continued Thomas Jefferson's important legacy by attempting to make the Wren Building a place of religious freedom. He opened the College's doors to low income, underprivileged students by providing full tuition scholarships through the Gateway Program, which in turn has increased Pell eligible students by 20% over the last two years.
As a student, I am saddened by the actions of both the Board of Visitors and the Virginia Assembly. I have, however, never been more proud of my historic institution when thousands gathered and sang the alma mater in support of President Nichol. Like him, we did what we thought was right. It's high time that others in this country do the same.
Lisa Catterton Letter to the Editor 2-25-08
Dear Editor,
As quoted in the article, "A useful service or trap?" which appeared in the February 12th Richmond Times Dispatch, a payday loan borrower stated, "I don't mind paying $15 for a $100 loan if my kid has shoes on his feet and there's food on the table." A person in need of a short-term loan for basic necessities such as shoes and food has a crisis. People in crisis can only think about the immediate dilemma. If children are involved, the dilemma is heightened and the need to find a solution is even more immediate.
Why deny an opportunity to get cash fast from a payday loan, when a credit check is not needed? Many low-wage workers do not pass up the opportunity to get a payday loan when they are in need of money fast, especially when the payday loan industry can offer cash in about ten minutes.
In survival mode, thinking of making ends meet is priority, not the consequences that would follow after making a decision. Unfortunately, the consequences of obtaining a payday loan will most likely worsen the situation. Payday loan borrowers are not really aware that they are about to enter into a cycle of debt after obtaining a loan.
Supporters of the payday loan industry say the payday loan industry helps low-wage workers. With interest rates as high as 390% that are not regulated like other small business loan offices throughout the state, the only people the industry is helping is their employees. Many loan borrowers take out more than one loan. Additional loans are most likely used to pay for the initial loan borrowed, because of lack of funds. At such high interest rates and the probability to get additional loans to pay back the first one, borrowers enter a cycle of debt from which they cannot escape.
Reforming the payday loan industry is the only answer to helping these citizens. Reforming the payday loan industry respects the dignity and worth of a person. Justice can only be reached by regulating interest rates (APR) for the payday loan industry.
Larry Yates Letter to the Editor 2-21-08
Editor:
Payday lending is not just an issue for those who get caught in the debt trap. For many of us Virginians who don't expect to use payday loans ourselves, it is still deeply disturbing to see these stores proliferate faster than fast food or fancy coffee franchises. This generates an uneasy feeling that the social contract just doesn't work, that things are coming apart in some hard to define way. After all, even baby boomers were born in a day when usury laws (which of course reflect Biblical values) kept legal loans under a strict limit. Back then only a thug could dream of squeezing unwary debtors dry the way that payday lenders do now with the legal sanction of the General Assembly.
It makes sense, then, that the Republican leaders of the House of Delegates have taken the lead on this issue. They are standing for conservative principles; Virginia law prohibited payday lending as we see it now from colonial times through 2002. Though their proposal -- House Bill 12 -- will certainly protect many Virginians from the debt trap, it may be more important as a signal to their Republican core constituency that they hear how uneasy those constituents are about payday lending. It is also a signal to those who are younger or more socially liberal that there is more to the conservative moral agenda than enforcing sexual rules.
Of course, House Bill 12 is a compromise. It keeps the opportunity open for those who want to get an occasional loan and are willing to pay the high price. But the legislation sends a clear message that a business model whose survival depends on trapping and bleeding consumers is unacceptable.
After the House's passage of House Bill 12, the real battle is in the Senate. The pro-payday industry positions taken by key Democratic leaders are an education for those who think that one party is always "the good guy." A good outcome in the Senate will require principled conservatives and principled liberals to override the opportunistic middle.
All of Virginia's state legislators must hear the growing unease of the people, to which they have been a bit deaf. Though not all Virginians are caught in the payday trap, every Virginian is living in a society where that trap is condoned by law. And most of us don't like that a bit.
Michael Ahern Letter to the Editor 02-20-08
To The Editor:
Over the next several days the state legislature will consider legislation intended to reform the payday lending industry. The House of Delegates has passed a bill that would stop many of the predatory practices typically inflicted on Virginia citizens who can be categorized as the neediest among us. The Senate version is a watered down bill that allows these evil predators to get around many of the measures intended to protect our citizens from industry procedures intended to create a circle of debt from which there is no end and inflict economic harm upon their victims with interest rates which when compounded can rise to hundreds of percentage points. Loan sharking is too nice a word to attribute to these predators.
It is disturbing to hear that many of our legislators, particularly those in a Democratic led Senate, would accept the feeble rationalization justifying these practices offered by the payday lending industry and their lobbyists. At a recent state Senate Commerce and Labor Committee meeting I attended in Richmond, the "industry" paid 50 or so employees to come to Richmond wearing signs urging a "no" vote on the House legislation. Much more disturbing is the likelihood that they also paid many, many times that amount in campaign contributions to the legislators who should be serving the public and not an industry who inflicts so much harm on our neighbors and members of our community who need our help the most.
I have personally spoken to several of our legislators who could only offer the weakest excuses for their "no" votes in support of the industry. The excuse heard most often by the industry and legislators is that the poor would have no other place to go for necessary loans from time to time. Can these inhumane people actually hold themselves up to be some kind of benevolent social service agency, helping the poor while literally stealing what little assets they own? If there was ever an anti-Robin Hood, or for that matter an anti-Christ, here you have it!
I would urge you to state an editorial position that would encourage your readers to support the stronger House version of this bill and not to be fooled by the "industry supported Senate version.
Sincerely,
Michael Ahern
Oak Hill
Robert L. Tripp Letter to the Editor 2-19-08
To the editor:
As Democrats and residents of Fairfax County for 34 years, my wife and I are appalled at the role Senator Richard Saslaw has taken to undermine efforts to put a cap on the interest payday lenders can charge to people in desperate need of a loan -- almost always the most vulnerable of our fellow citizens.
Saslaw's willingness to bend to the wishes of the lenders' lobby is a disgrace. Surely he can live without the campaign money the lending industry has given him -- about $48,000! Why must he support the greed of the lending industry?
So much for being a so-called liberal! Saslaw is betraying the liberalism he generally proclaims. So much for the hope aroused by the Democratic take over of the State Senate.
Denise Smith Letter to the Editor 02-14-08
Editor:
I guess Governor Tim Kaine figures that it's best to get a whole lot of white men together to figure out ways Virginia can take on "climate change." It's a gigantic topic, with lots at stake for all of us. So why is Governor Kaine afraid to have a diverse group around the table?
When the Governor initially appointed 32 people to the Commission on Climate Change, he named four women and a handful of people of color — most of the people sitting around the table when they convene will be white guys. The Governor has since added five more people to the commission, including one more woman and one person of color. Three more white men.
Though a Commission is comprised of people for what they can bring to the table, I am sure there are people of color and more women who have the interest and the qualifications to sit on this Commission. Diversity is the key, bringing all citizens and communities together to find solutions to Virginia's problems. Maybe the Governor needs to get a briefing on Virginia demographics. Virginia's population includes 50 percent women. But the Commission on Climate Change will be 14 percent women.
For someone who was a civil rights lawyer, it sure seems a bit odd that so few people of color were named by the Governor to the commission. Again, back to a note about Virginia demographics: 20 percent African-Americans, more than 6 percent Latinos/Latinas, and 4 percent Asian-Americans. Not even close. And are there any Native Americans at the table?
And while any politician could rationalize having six state legislators and six representatives from local governments, it seems like the Governor would be hard pressed to justify having thirteen corporate folks and only five representing citizens groups.
The Commission on Climate Change is expected to issue a report, with recommendations, by December 15, 2008. Maybe, just maybe, they will at least have a open process so women, people of color and citizens groups will have a chance to be heard.
Sincerely,
Denise Smith
Rocky Gap
Patricia Chafee Letter to the Editor 02-06-08
Editor:
Back in the 1950s as I was trying to earn money in the summer to help with college expenses in the fall, I worked for a printing firm alongside two little old ladies, bent almost double from the hard labor they had experienced even as children when there were no child labor laws.
Also, as I was growing up, I remember Tennessee Ernie Ford singing, "I owe my soul to the company store" -- expressing the enslaving cycle of payday money going to take care of past bills and workers never getting ahead.
Now there are payday lenders charging exorbitant interest rates so the poor end up borrowing money over and over again to pay their debt. One loan calls for another to pay the last loan.
Lately, I've read of a possible interest cap of 36 percent. Granted that 36 percent is better than 72 percent but where did the "low" rate of 36 percent come from? Doesn't sound like a low figure to me.
As Americans we can be proud that in the past, laws have been passed to aid the helpless, but we need to be ever vigilant to have laws and policies to help the poor and abased.
The golden rule that Jesus taught, "to do unto others as you would have them do unto you," is an excellent guide for any age and time.
I am only one person with one voice and one pen, but I ask for mercy for the poor, and I implore the powers that be to think long and hard about this situation and act to make changes for the better.
Patricia Chafee
Afton
J. Horejsi Letter to the Editor 2-1-08
Dear Editor:
Governor Tim Kaine is to be commended for proposing an increase in Virginia's Foster Care program benefits. This is encouraging. Virginia should also say "yes" to a long-overdue increase in TANF benefits. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program provides time-limited assistance so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives. Virginia has allowed benefit payments for TANF to lag far behind inflation. Currently a family of three receives less than one-fourth of the amount needed for a minimal standard of living, as set by the Federal poverty level.
Why are TANF benefit levels important? Because poverty harms children. Poor children are more likely to have health problems and developmental disabilities; they are less likely to succeed in school; and they are at greater risk for abuse and neglect. Additionally, the cost to the state would escalate tremendously if Virginia does not adequately fund TANF and children in TANF households are transferred to the Foster Care program.
TANF benefits have increased only one time since 1985, a 10 percent increase in 2000, compared to a 95 percent inflation increase over that same period. Imagine the outrage if Social Security recipients had received only one modest increase in benefits since 1985. Under Welfare Reform, TANF families leave the program after a maximum of 2 years. TANF caseloads have declined by 58 percent since 1995, while federal funding has remained constant. We need to invest these considerable savings in helping the hard-to-serve families who remain on the rolls. As a matter of basic fairness, we owe it to Virginia's needy families to restore at least a portion of the buying power they have lost to inflation.
Under Welfare Reform, setting payment levels for TANF is primarily a state responsibility. As the Governor and General Assembly complete Virginia's biennial budget over the next month, they must address the needs of Virginia's neediest children by using TANF funds for their most fundamental purpose, providing a temporary safety net for families working toward financial independence.
Harvey Yoder Letter to the Editor 01-30-08
Editor:
I want to thank payday lending institutions for all of their recent newspaper and other ads. They have enlightened me so much about why we should not compare their rate of interest, over 350 percent as computed on an annual basis, with the typical amount of interest charged, which they insist is not exorbitant at all for an emergency two-week loan. Their logic is so persuasive I'm thinking of using it the next time I'm charged with speeding, as follows:
Judge: Mr. Yoder, you're being charged with going 350 mph in a 35 mph speed zone. What do you have to say for yourself?
Me: Your Honor, please understand I have never traveled anywhere near 350 miles for an entire hour. That would be inexcusable, of course. I was going at that rate of speed for only a half mile stretch, and for 5 seconds at the most, and only then because otherwise I would have been really, really late getting to work.
Judge: Yes, yes, of course, Mr. Yoder. That makes perfect sense. Case dismissed.
Harvey Yoder
Harrisonburg
Laura Granruth Letter to the Editor 01-29-08
Editor:
According to Benjamin Franklin, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
Well, Virginia, here we go again with another year of an erratic state budget. Are you tired of it yet? When will we learn that we can raise revenue in a more stable and predictable manner than we do now?
Like many states, Virginia relies heavily on sales taxes and property taxes to fund services. In a good economy, this can be good news as consumers buy things and property values are good, meaning that state revenues can be decent -- maybe not always sufficient, but decent. But, let the economy stall and we are in a jam. Revenues that legislators thought would be there do not materialize as consumers stop spending and housing values plummet; programs and policies they promised and planned to implement falter. So, instead of Virginia making good, steady progress, we have fits and starts of progress and retrenchment.
We can do better. Much better. And the good news is that we know how to do better and the economic theory is sound.
The Virginia Organizing Project believes that one way to keep Virginia moving forward is to scrap our reliance on unstable property and sales taxes in favor of a progressive income tax. Incomes are more stable overall, even in challenging economic environments, than are sales and property taxes. Shifting our emphasis for revenue collection to income taxes would allow state and local legislators to plan more efficiently and effectively for community needs and remove us from the guessing game of annually estimating wildly fluctuating sales and property taxes.
We are in an economic slump and currently there are no plans in the 2008 General Assembly session to change the tax code. We need to encourage our state legislators to make some changes -- and quickly -- before the slump completely overwhelms us.
Sincerely,
Laura Granruth
Centreville
Annette E. Blankenship Letter to the Editor 1-28-08
Editor:
It has come to my attention through family members and friends of incarcerated individuals in the Commonwealth of Virginia that correction officers of the opposite sex are strip searching inmates in our prison facilities. As of January 1, 2008, a new procedure that allows strip searches by the opposite sex went into effect, according to the state Department of Correction's operating manual.
Another concern is that inmates' showers and toilets are wide open and we have correction officers of the opposite sex watching over them, around them and/or above them depending on what correctional facility it is. This is happening in men's and women's state prisons.
I know if I was caught looking in a window at unclothed people I would be considered a "peeping tom" and charged, don't you think? What is happening needs immediate attention. It is a very cruel and inhumane thing to happen to men and women. They are already sexually violated over and over just to see their families when they go out to visiting rooms and at the end of the visit because of the worry of contraband.
Our prisons should be run better by starting to treat the inmates as human beings instead of treating them like caged animals.
Op-Ed: Those payday loan ads are very misleading 01-25-08
By Jacqueline Phillips
I would like to respond to some of the things I hear payday lenders saying in their misleading ads on TV, radio and in the newspaper. I can answer these statements because I work with consumers who have experienced the "debt trap".
I work with people through an asset building tool called an Individual Development Account (IDA). In the IDA program, individuals are taught financial literacy and learn new money management skills they never received anywhere else. They were often treated poorly by the lender, even harassed and threatened. Until I explained to them that they had options, they did not know what to do. I thank God I could help them.
More than 95 percent of payday lending customers pay back their loans on time.
Response: They do this by paying off the first loan and getting another one, sometimes for a second loan or a larger amount minus the fees so they can pay their current expenses.
Most use payday loans to cover unexpected expenses or a temporary reduction in income.
Response: The first time, but subsequently, many end up in debt and don't know how to get out. Let's set the record straight: MOST borrowers cannot pay them back without taking out a new loan. Do you realize that with the "COMPROMISE" of reform you will just be prolonging the inevitable?
Banks and credit unions, unlike payday lenders, typically do not offer $100 to $500 loans for short periods.
Response: This is not true. Locally-owned smaller banks do provide these, and credit unions have special products specifically for this.
In fact, credit unions even require a membership and a minimum balance to qualify for a loan.
Response: Yes, but membership is free and usually the balance is only $5.00. I am a member of one.
Before payday loans, many people were forced to borrow from family or friends, unregulated off-shore Internet lenders, illegal loan sharks, or bounce checks and fall into bankruptcy.
Response: Why would you not borrow from family or friends with no interest or fees and a longer payback period, rather than pay over 300% APR and find yourself in a situation and have to revert back to that anyway? How do you think people get out of debt if and when they do? It certainly isn't something that the industry does to help them. (I also notice you put "illegal" in front of loan sharks. So, you agree there are "legal" loan sharks? I can assume we all know who they are.)
Unlike credit cards, payday lenders may only charge $15 for every $100 borrowed; the average late fee for $100 dollars on a credit card is $37.
Response: I thought we were talking about paying "on time"? Why would we have a late fee, the credit card cash advance is only 3%, not 15% right up front, and they give you 20-30 days to pay. Isn't that more than 2 weeks? Are you really looking at the TRUE figures?
If payday lenders close down, many people will lose their jobs.
Response: And where did these employees come from? More than likely another job. Can you provide information that implies these people were unemployed when the payday industry opened their doors?
Payday lenders are willing to work with customers to allow several months to repay the loan without added interest.
Response: Why all this generosity now? There has been a payment plan option, but no one ever volunteered to give this information to the consumer. Why do you think that is?
Some people use payday loans irresponsibly and get themselves into trouble.
Response: I know first hand that the industry takes advantage of the least financially educated and most times, those with the least capacity to pay back the loans. I am against payday lending and car title lending being the most ridiculously and outrageously expensive option. I can't see where a service is being offered; it is more like a disservice.
So, nothing really makes sense other than having the Payday and Car Title Lending Industry come under the same regulations as the rest of the lending world. At least the consumer will have a fair chance to pay back what they borrow and not be trapped like a mouse in a maze, searching to and fro to see where the next payment to the PREDATOR will come from.
Please support the 36% cap on payday lending.
Jacqueline Phillips
Cedar Bluff
Op-Ed: I-81 Plans: A Cautionary Tale for All Virginians 01-07-08
By Kim Sandum
Just before Christmas, some of the people I work with sued the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) over plans to expand I-81. It needed to be done. The story of I-81 is a cautionary tale for the rest of Virginia about a state agency that too often won't listen to the locals.
That doesn't have to be the case. Because for nine years, government officials, business leaders and citizens in Harrisonburg and Rockingham County worked with local VDOT staff to address transportation needs in our region. Ideas for a north-south bypass around the City were set aside, in favor of much-needed east-west road connections between homes and jobs, which also would reduce local traffic on I-81.
But in the case of the I-81 study, VDOT planners ignored our hard work and sent to the FHWA a single, incompatible approach for I-81: widening the scenic highway to eight lanes through 79 percent of the Shenandoah Valley, at a cost of $11 billion, funded by tolls.
That is bad enough. But Rockingham County is one of two locations on the entire I-81 corridor to be burdened with a new highway bypass, a concept rejected during our regional planning process. The bypass could plow through Rockingham's agricultural reserve and two Civil War battlefields.
There was tremendous public outcry over VDOT's I-81 plans in April, 2006. More than 1,000 people attended six hearings. Ninety percent of them spoke out against tolls and highway widening, in favor of options like moving truck freight to rail. VDOT reports that it received 2,600 written comments, 80 percent opposed to tolls and 78 percent in favor of rail.
VDOT even ignored our state legislators. Senators Emmett Hanger and Mark Obenshain and Delegates Matt Lohr, Steve Landes, Chris Saxman and Todd Gilbert staunchly opposed massive widening and I-81-only tolls by introducing numerous bills in the General Assembly since 2002.
But VDOT's final I-81 plan was little changed. It rejects the multiple lower cost, lower impact options supported by local governments and citizens groups like mine: select safety improvements, diversion of truck freight to rail, better speed limit enforcement, increased transit and improvements to local road networks.
In response to our complaints (and to the lawsuit filed last month by conservation groups) VDOT's spokeswoman soothingly insists that only spot improvements to the highway are being pursued and that there isn't any money for major widening.
Well, I'm not sure what plans they are reading in Richmond. But it certainly isn't the four-inch-thick report we read, the I-81 Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), submitted by VDOT to the federal highway administration for approval.
In their document, you'll find eye-popping diagrams showing 12 lanes as the "Maximum Width Template" for widening and 20 lanes for the "Maximum Width Cloverleaf Template" for interchanges. A chart outlines that most of the I-81 corridor gets four or more new lanes and the rest gets two new lanes.
VDOT also failed to study obvious community impacts from their proposals. Buried in a footnote in the FEIS Executive Summary, it says: "The potential effects in this Tier 1 study … do not include the impacts from potential corridors on new location." The document does not address the residences, businesses, battlefields, recreational facilities, schools or anything else in the way of the proposed bypass in my community.
VDOT's final report also grants them the authority to pursue their application to toll I-81. When federal officials approve the application, VDOT will have plenty of money for highway widening and bypasses. Locals like me will pay for a road we don't want.
The deadline to challenge VDOT's I-81 plans was December 17, 2007. Without legal action, the only I-81 proposals to move forward to the next phase of study would be major widening and tolls. The lower cost, lower impact options we supported would have been excluded, legally, from further consideration.
Reluctantly, several conservation groups filed suit to stop the clock and give citizens, legislators and local governments time to convince VDOT to reopen the FEIS document, address its flaws and incorporate more balanced options for addressing congestion and safety problems on the highway.
Expansion of an interstate highway will have major impacts on any community. We can do better than the current I-81 plan, beginning with VDOT listening to the locals.
Kim Sandum of Harrisonburg is executive director of the Rockingham Community Alliance for Preservation Inc.
Kim Sandum
Harrisonburg
Maura Ubinger Letter to the Editor 12-18-07
Editor:
I'd like to call attention to a segment on NBC Nightly News on December 14. It was about Darryl Hunt, a man from North Carolina, wrongly accused of murder, now exonerated and using the money awarded him to create The Darryl Hunt Project, www.darrylhuntproject.org, which works to help people recently released to society to be rehabilitated, find jobs, etc.
Most people generally don't think about the fact that a lot of recidivism is caused because rehabilitation programs don't exist within the prison, while people are incarcerated. There's still too much of a "lock 'em up; throw away the key" mentality, when, in reality, most prisoners are eventually released, come out with no skills, no money, usually no homes to return to, and no job prospects. Prison is seen as punishment (not that it oughtn't be that too) but also needs to be a place of rehabilitation and looking toward what will happen to a person upon his/her release. There is a move in this direction with such things as "The Second Chance Act", a bill now awaiting passage by the U.S. Senate. The public needs to be aware of such efforts and contact their legislators on these important issues. This is true on both the federal and state level.
To learn more about what's out there, contact such groups as "The Sentencing Project" www.sentencingproject.org, and The Justice Project, www.justiceproject.org, as well as Virginia CURE, www.vacure.org.
Maura Ubinger
Abingdon, VA
Larry Yates Letter to the Editor 12-17-07
Dear Editor:
We should all welcome the recent decision by the U.S. Sentencing Commission to allow crack cocaine sentences to be reduced retroactively. But we should also pause to recognize what it means. This decision is a clear statement about a social phenomenon that most Americans want to deny -- institutional racism.
This decision is a recognition that thousands of our fellow citizens were given outrageous mandatory sentences on the basis of their race. While the current decision is welcome, most of these people -- and their families -- have already suffered irreparable damage. A climate of fear, despair and cynicism has been promoted in African-American communities. All this happened without the involvement of any Klansmen or "hate groups." It was carried out by ordinary legislators, judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement personnel in full public view, mostly without ill intent.
It is this same type of racism that leads to disparate experiences in health care, employment, access to housing and education, and voting rights, and to other continuing denials of human rights to African-Americans. Until the white majority in particular recognizes that its actions and inactions, regardless of any conscious prejudice, continue to have these impacts, we cannot begin the next stage of our healing. In 1995, the Southern Baptist Convention joined other denominations in this process, when it "apologize(d) to all African-Americans for condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime," and pledged to work to "eradicate racism" from their Convention. I hope that all denominations, political leaders and anyone with a claim to leadership among whites in the USA will join and continue such efforts. Nothing is more critical to the improvement of our nation's moral and civic values.
Larry Yates
Maurertown, VA
Op-Ed: Congress Pardons Corporate-Farm Turkeys 11-20-07
By Rev. C. Douglas Smith
The nightmare haunts the greatest of cooks and strikes fear in the youngest of turkey basters among us; the guests arrive for Thanksgiving dinner but a tragedy has struck that will rumble even the most patient of stomachs. The table is set for everyone to celebrate and give thanks for the blessings around us but someone dropped the butterball leaving everyone wondering when they will be served.
This scene strikes fear in all of us, but it is a scene recently played out in that parallel universe of Congress just last week.
The Farm Bill, a mainstay of agricultural policy, is a once every five years piece of legislation that speaks to the core American belief that investments in the underdog are always a winning strategy. The massive legislative exercise includes allowances for small farmers, nutrition support for poor families, and important conservation programs that protect national resources like Virginia's own Chesapeake Bay.
All of these initiatives speak to the shared responsibility we have as a community to help lift vulnerable families and ecosystems out of the mire that traps them each day. 2007 is likely the last opportunity Congress has to reform the Farm Bill before 2012, but partisan bickering has meant that this has become one among many of half-baked legislative packages left incomplete.
The Farm Bill titles are important for agriculture, food production and rural support. With well over 504,000 Virginians relying on Food Stamp benefits each month, Virginia is directly impacted by reforms in the Farm Bill. At a mere .97 cents per meal, Food Stamps are an important subsidy but hardly provide enough for families in need. This bill is important for our neighbors in need and should not be put on the back burner any longer.
Additionally, with small farmers under pressure each passing year, most of us can imagine how important it is that we offer programs and innovations that help local farmers provide nutritious food to local school programs. Water sources, agriculture, school programs and even rural development are impacted by the Farm Bill and they all need attention from our decision makers.
But in a nightmarish turn of events, Congress was unable to cook up even a vote on the Farm Bill last week. The table was set and all of the guests had arrived, but a much too partisan Congress could not end debate on the over 200 amendments weighing it down, sending their sweet potatoes home for a two-week break without closure on the bill.
So what's the rub, you ask? Big corporate farms, owned by those icons of the agricultural industry like David Letterman and basketball player Scotty Pippin. It seems that from 2003-2005, Pippin pigged out on $78,945 in government handouts for land he controls in Arkansas and he is just one of a long list of multi-gazillionaires who are milking the government of farm subsidies.
Corporate commodity programs are taking advantage of large loopholes and commodity price supports that were meant for small farmers back in the 1930's. They are participating in a kind of corporate-farm welfare that not only increases land prices for small farmers, but reduces available resources that could go to conservation and the Bay.
Like Uncle Louie who serves himself all of the green beans before anyone else can get them, the big corporate farms suck up our tax dollars leaving table scraps for rural communities and other important programs.
The solution to the Farm Bill conundrum is simple. Congress should reduce big-farm commodity payments to groups like the rice, corn, wheat, soybean, and cotton growers and shift the savings to conservation, rural development, and nutrition. This plan would provide a fairer and more equally balanced opportunity for Virginia's farmers to stay competitive, and at the same time, protect vulnerable families who are now facing record gas prices, rising mortgage defaults, and higher food costs.
There is no excuse for Congress's inability to take a bite out of corporate-farm commodity payments. These payments are anti-market and distort trade here and abroad. Let's hope that Congress can take the next two weeks to eat a few slices of humble pie, get some resolve, and come back with their energies set on doing the work of the people to run the government. This is what Americans expect and need. Washington does not need to be a series of nightmares, it needs to be providing a fair and efficient legislative system and it can do that by reforming the Farm Bill this year. They should not pardon a few corporate turkeys who are gobbling up our tax dollars.
Rev. C. Douglas Smith
Executive Director
Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy
Richmond
Maura Ubinger Letter to the Editor 11-13-07
Editor:
Indeed, I agree with those who say, "Let's repeal the Payday Loan Act! -- Now!" It's incomprehensible to me how any company can be so unconscionable as to charge $15 in interest per pay period, even when one is paid weekly, on every $100 borrowed. Talk about usury!
I understand that state Delegate Harvey Morgan, chief patron of the original authorizing legislation in 2002, is so disturbed about how things got so out of hand that he is actively seeking to have the law changed.
I agree with the Virginia Partnership to Encourage Responsible Lending that we should impose a 36 percent cap on the interest rate for "payday" loans, just like all other small loans in Virginia.
Maura Ubinger
Abingdon
F. W. Richards, Jr. Letter to the Editor 10-23-07
Dear Editor,
Could someone out there please help me? I am so confused!! I attended the Tobacco Commission meeting July 11 in Danville. At that meeting, Senator Frank Ruff and Delegate Tommy Wright voted to award $1,000,000 to run a water pipeline from Boydton, Va. to the middle of a farm field near Chase City, VA to provide water for a company, Osage Bio Energy LLC, that has never produced a drop of ethanol. Even County Administrator Wayne Carter had to tell the committee that the company had no financial report to present and only distributed ethanol. One member of the committee said it was unprecedented to give out money like that, but he was ignored. Senator Ruff asked former mayor Charles Duckworth if Chase City had any problems with its wells and Mr. Duckworth alluded to there being some problems with our water supply, but no specifics, as I recall. So, the politicians gave away $1,000,000 for a water line if the ethanol plant gets built. They made it sound as if it were for the needs of Chase City's water problems. Do you see why I am confused? Please read on.
On September 23, I had the pleasure of seeing Senator Ruff at Prestwould, where he told me the pipeline was for Chase City's water needs, again. On October 7, I had the pleasure of seeing Senator Ruff at the parade and stew in Skipwith, VA, and he told me that Chase City really needs the pipeline for its water needs so it can hook up if needed in the future. I was still not convinced!! Guess what? I went to the Chase City Town Council meeting on October 8 and without anyone asking about the water, Mayor Duke Reid announced that Chase City has no problems with its wells or water quality even during this long drought suffered by this area of the country. Of course, he did remind us that all citizens should conserve our natural resources at all times for generations to come, but we have no water problems!!
Do I listen to Senator Ruff and Mr. Duckworth or Mayor Duke Reid?
I'm so confused!! Can you help me, please?
Maybe I'll just ask the politicians to give me $1,000,000 to run a pipeline to my backyard for an irrigation system and new swimming pool. I do not have a financial statement either and have never owned a pool. That should qualify me!!
Sincerely,
F. W. Richards, Jr.
Chase City
Rhonda Seltz Letter to the Editor 10-16-07
Dear Editor:
The vote to override President Bush’s veto for the additional funding for SCHIP will be Thursday, October 18. I implore the thousands of families who have children covered by FAMIS (SCHIP) to call Congressmen Virgil Goode (202-225-4711), Bob Goodlatte (202-225-5431), Randy Forbes (202-225-6365), Eric Cantor (202-225-2815) and Congresswoman Thelma Drake (202-225-4215) to ask them to change their votes to now support SCHIP. I also ask working families with uninsured children who cannot afford health insurance to call these U.S. Representatives.
I have worked tirelessly over the last eight years to improve access to health care for our children. As both a health care advocate and taxpayer, I know the additional funding for SCHIP is a vital investment. Do not believe the false information being circulated. SCHIP will not and has never covered illegal immigrants. SCHIP does not cover families who can afford health insurance.
I have looked directly into the eyes of families who are embarrassed to ask for government help but have no other choice when faced with monthly family premiums in excess of $1,000 per month or when private insurance companies tell the families their children are uninsurable due to pre-existing medical conditions. This bill does not create government run health care; it creates cost effective protection for our nation’s children until a new federal administration can come up with something better. The Bush Administration has had seven years, and now Bush has vetoed the only hope of doing something positive for health care in this country. I urge Virginia’s representatives in Congress to please listen to your constituents and vote to override the veto!
Rhonda Seltz, M.S.
Riner, Virginia
Who Shall Live & Who Shall Die? 10-16-07
By Jack Payden-Travers, Director
Virginians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty
October 16, 2007
Once again Virginia is the site of national death penalty news. Two years ago it was a question of whether the Commonwealth would execute Robin Lovitt and earn the dubious distinction of holding the 1,000th U.S. execution since the reinstatement of capital punishment in 1976.
On Wednesday, October 17, 2007, Virginia is likely to be the state where the true impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision to review lethal injection as a method of execution is determined. Is there to be a national moratorium on executions or merely a stay that the Court intends only to affect certain states? Some 13 states have halted executions pending the Court’s ruling by June or July 2008 in Baze v Rees, a case wherein two Kentucky death row inmates have challenged their state’s use of lethal injection. The U.S. Supreme Court has stayed one Texas execution since deciding to hear the Baze challenge, but the states of Virginia, Georgia, Mississippi and Nevada have failed to stay executions already scheduled.
Executions are on hold in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, and Tennessee. Even Texas, with an execution record that quadruples Virginia’s, appears to have halted executions last week after the U.S. Supreme Court stayed their execution of Carlton Turner on September 27 and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stayed the execution of Heliberto Chi on October 2.
Meanwhile, back home in Virginia, Chris Scott Emmett is scheduled to be the 99th “legal homicide.” Although Governor Timothy Kaine is personally opposed to the death penalty, his office has stated he believes lethal injection to be constitutional. A clemency petition is presently before the governor, and a ruling on Emmett’s lethal injection appeal in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals is awaited. It is unlikely that any final determination will be forthcoming until late in the day on Wednesday the 17th.
The question in my mind as I prepare for a Fill the Field vigil that evening in front of the death house at the Greensville Correctional Center is this: Why should it be legal to execute someone by lethal injection in Virginia but not in Maryland or North Carolina or Tennessee? What is peculiar to Virginia that permits us to proceed when other states are proscribed from using the same three-drug protocol? Indeed how can anyone be allowed to kill a human being with this chemical combination when the American Veterinary Medical Association in the year 2000 banned it as “cruel and inhumane” for use on cats and dogs? Is a human life worth less than a dog’s? Do not justice and common decency require that a human being be treated at least as well as an animal?
If the courts fail to stay Wednesday night’s execution, it will be up to Governor Kaine to decide if equal justice and fair play are to be the hallmarks of his administration or if an indefensible Virginia exceptionalism will continue to call the shots.
Bruce Elder Letter to the Editor 10-03-2007
Letter to the Editor:
The City of Staunton, Virginia recently unanimously passed a resolution requesting that the Governor and the General Assembly of Virginia strongly consider an interest rate cap on consumer loans. The resolution was distributed to every city, town and county government in the Commonwealth.
In an effort to provide some background information on why such an action has been taken, I provide this explanation. From 1732 until 2002 the General Assembly of Virginia provided usury protection for her citizens. This protection vanished with the Payday Loan Act. The floodgate was opened and thousands of quick cash outlets suddenly showed up overnight. In fact business is so good that there are two payday lenders for every McDonalds in our state. These lenders offer two-week loans on postdated checks for a fee of $15 for every $100 borrowed. This is an interest rate of 384% APR. If this is the first time you have ever heard this, please read the last sentence again -- it is not a misprint. These loans often trap borrowers in a nearly unbreakable cycle of debt.
The situation created is not unique to Virginia; in fact, predatory lending to service members led to the adoption of the Talent-Nelson amendment by the U.S. Senate that limited the amount interest a military family could be charged to 36% APR. This law took affect nationwide on October 1.
The General Assembly has the opportunity to extend this protection to all of our citizens and put and end to this abusive practice. If you agree, please take a moment to call your Mayor and Council and urge them to adopt a similar resolution.
Bruce A. Elder
Staunton
A Poverty of Imagination 09-28-07
By David Stoesz, Ph.D.
Do payday loans trap consumers in debt or provide a financial service to the un-banked?
Undoubtedly, Virginia has been a windfall for the payday loan industry. In 2006 lenders made 3.5 million loans to 433,537 Virginians worth $1.3 billion; the average customer borrowed $365 and paid $793.66 in interest for 14 loans.1 According to the Center for Responsible Lending, very few customers are able to pay-off loans within the typical 15 day period, the vast majority take additional loans, the interest of which can reach an annual rate of 386 percent.2
“We train our sales staff to keep customers dependent, to make sure they keep re-borrowing . . . forever, if possible,” admitted Mike Donovan, a former district director of one of the region’s largest lenders, Check ‘n Go. “We seek out low-income African-American and Latino neighborhoods because we know that is where our most profitable client base is located.”3 The Check ‘n Go business model encourages “customers to borrow up to 85 percent of their gross income, more money than they actually receive in take-home pay.”4
During the past session of the Virginia legislature, a proposed cap on interest was successfully opposed by payday lenders which made $86,496 in candidate contributions and spent $1 million on lobbying. Such an effort served the interests of the five largest lenders opposing regulation — Advance America of Spartansburg, South Carolina, Check into Cash of Cleveland, Tennessee, Ace Cash Express of Irving, Texas, CheckSmart of Dublin, Ohio, and QC Holdings based in Kansas—which shared the $175 million in payday loan fees, money that migrated from the pockets of working Virginians to out-of-state corporations.5
While the Virginia legislature struggles with the issue, others have been more effective. The federal Talent-Nelson Act limits interest rates charged to military personnel to 36 percent. Recently, the Staunton City Council formally asked the General Assembly to restrict payday loan interest rates. Citing the Biblical injunction against usury, the Virginia Interfaith Council began a similar initiative; “We know that Jesus would never condone the charging of 390 percent interest,” stated Rev. Charles Swadley of Lakeside United Methodist Church.6
Payday lenders argue that they provide an essential service to those who are high credit risks, many of whom are un-banked. There is a kernel of truth in this assertion insofar payday loans are discretionary—no one has gun to their head when they use a personal check for collateral and agree to pay the amount advanced plus fees from their next paycheck. Opponents of payday loans are quick to cite the vicissitudes of poverty, which make low-income families vulnerable to predatory lending, yet this explanation isn’t very satisfying. After all, many poor families prosper by making prudent financial decisions, and avoiding payday loans would be one of them.
A more cogent question would be, Why haven’t alternative financial services been developed so the poor don’t resort to payday loans? If the American fringe economy operates on the scale of $78 billion annually, surely there are sufficient opportunities for more constructive ways to meet the financial service needs of low-income families.7
The good news is that the outline of such a financial infrastructure is beginning to emerge. Virginia’s Community Action Programs, for example, provide tax preparation assistance to low-income families so they can claim the federal Earned Income Tax Credit. Yet, the number of eligible families obtaining refunds could be improved; a 15 percent increase in EITC refunds would net Virginia $72.8 million. More to the issue, almost 50 percent of EITC refunds are converted into refund anticipation loans with high interest rates, effectively reducing the value of the benefit.8
The state Department of Housing and Community Development operates the Virginia Individual Development Account program which provides $2 to every $1 a low-income family saves for purchasing a first home, paying for post-secondary education, or starting a business. Despite the merits of the program, only 152 Virginians currently have VIDA accounts.9
The bad news is that this infrastructure is incomplete. The EITC initiative fails to help employers of low-wage workers obtain refunds through the Welfare to Work and the Work Opportunity tax credits even though this could augment the payroll of small businesses. Virtually every welfare recipient leaving public assistance for a job through the Virginia Initiative for Employment (not) Welfare is eligible for the EITC, yet the Department of Social Services lacks a systematic plan to help them access those refunds.
Most immediately, the Commonwealth has failed to encourage the deployment of those financial services — savings, checking, loans, and financial advice that most of us take for granted — which would make predatory lending unnecessary. An exemplar is Self-Help of Durham, North Carolina which provides an array of financial services for low-income families. Enhancing the financial services network for low-income families would not only reduce the hemorrhaging of funds to out-of-state payday loan corporations, but would also optimize federal refunds due to low-income workers and their employers.
That the plight of poor Virginians is exacerbated by payday loans there can be little doubt. That we have failed to develop viable alternatives to predatory lending is evidence of something else entirely: the poverty of our imaginations.
-----
Footnotes:
1 Bureau of Financial Institutions, “Payday Lender License Activity 2004-2006.”
2 Jill Aldebron, “”It’s Still Payday Predation,” Center for Responsible Lending, September 7, 2007.
3 Jim Siegel, “Are Blacks Main Target of Payday Lenders?” The Columbus Dispatch. September 13, 2007.
4 Nikita Stewart, “Former Payday Lender Offers Apology as Vote to Cap Interest Rate Nears, The Washington Post. September 13, 2007
5 Mason Adams, “Payday Lenders Put Their 2 Cents In,” Roanoke Times. September 2, 2007.
6 Pamela Stallsmith, “Payday Lending a Moral Issue?” Richmond times-Dispatch. August 24, 2007.
7 Howard Karger, Shortchanged: Life and Debt in the Fringe Economy (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2005).
8 Lucy Gorham, “EITC Achieves Gains but Challenges Remain,” Marketwise. Richmond Federal Reserve Bank, Spring 2007.
9 “About VIDA,” Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development, 2007.
David Stoesz is a Professor of social policy at Virginia Commonwealth University and the author of Quixote’s Ghost: The Right, the Liberati, and the Future of Social Policy (Oxford University Press, 2005) which won the Pro Humanitate Literary Award for 2006.
Bob Broxton Letter to the Editor 09-17-07
To the Editor:
Something historic happened in the little town of Staunton, Virginia on Thursday, September 13, 2007. The Staunton City Council passed a resolution that asks the General Assembly to stop certain “exploitative” practices of payday lenders by capping interest rates at 36% APR.
The resolution was introduced by Councilman Bruce Elder. He stated shortly after it was passed that he will “send copies of the resolution to every city government, town government and board of supervisors in Virginia. We want this everywhere. What we have done tonight is we have thrown a pebble in a pond. The ripples by the time they reach Richmond should be a tidal wave.”
Let’s hope that every city, town and board of supervisors in Virginia follows the example of the City Council in Staunton and that every candidate and incumbent for the General Assembly recognizes and listens to the overwhelming majority of citizens who are appalled at the predatory practices of payday lenders. A current web poll (by the Dail Press) shows 83.5% of respondents believe payday loans are "a scam."
Congratulations and thanks to the Staunton City Council.
Sincerely,
Bob Broxton
Richmond
Linda Moore Letter to the Editor 09-10-07
Dear Editor,
One of Mecklenburg County's most valuable resources is Buggs Island/Kerr Lake and Lake Gaston. We should be very concerned about the falling water levels and how we can protect our water supply now and in the future.
The proposed ethanol plant on the Butler Farm has many unforeseen downsides. Among them is the huge water consumption required by ethanol plants. This proposed ethanol plant has requested up to 1.5 million gallons of water per day or 525,000,000 gallons per year from Gaston Lake. An average household use is about 200 gallons per day; this ethanol plant usage is enough to supply at least 7,500 homes per day. People who get their water from Lake Gaston as well as other towns who want to gain access to this water should be apprehensive about the vast amount of water consumption that an ethanol plant will need. Osage, the company making plans to build the facility, stated that this plant would operate in the beginning as a corn based plant. Water is an important part of making corn-based ethanol. A corn ethanol plant uses 3 to 4 gallons of water for each gallon of ethanol produced.
Virginia Beach is drawing 60 million gallons of water from the Lake Gaston pipeline per day. Chesapeake, Virginia is considering an ethanol plant and this should be of concern to the residents of Mecklenburg County. Chesapeake's deputy city manager, Amar Dwarkanath, has stated it aims to pipe in as much as 10 million gallons of water per day from Lake Gaston for their proposed plant. With the low water tables at Buggs Island/Kerr Lake and the drought situation in Mecklenburg County and North Carolina's shrinking water supply, the water usage of ethanol plants will have a major impact on Mecklenburg County's lakes. What better time is there to say NO water for the proposed ethanol plants?
It was only a few months ago that the Roanoke River Basin Association gave the go ahead to provide Osage with water for their ethanol plant. Now Mr. Addesso, vice-chairman of the Roanoke River Basin Association, says that Kerr Lake and Lake Gaston need to find ways to cut water consumption. How can the Roanoke River Basin Association say yes today for 1.5 million gallons of water per day for a proposed ethanol plant when we do not know what tomorrow will bring?
What better examples do we need for Chase City, Boydton, Clarksville, South Hill, and others to voice our stand AGAINST the proposed ethanol plant to our local officials?
Linda Moore
Chase City
Ward R. Scull, III & Michael Lane Letter to the Editor 08-30-07
Editor:
The Daily Press editorial of August 27, 2007, "Sub-prime conduct, Legislators must fix loan shark interest rates" is right on target. Last year’s victory for the well financed and powerful payday loan industry was a victory for the loan sharks and a loss for the people and state of Virginia. There is no doubt that that the payday lenders will be even more aggressive and generous with contributions in the coming session of the General Assembly.
Talk of a compromise, proposed by the payday lenders, is rampant. But is it realistic to negotiate with loan sharks? The performance of payday lenders has not improved in the past year. If anything it has deteriorated with allegations of intimidation and threats to borrowers that have been entrapped in their cycle of debt.
There should be no compromise with payday lenders. The fact that the Congress has protected the military from payday lending and that more and more states have banned payday lenders should inspire our legislators to impose a 36% APR cap or ban payday loans all together.
Virginia justly prides itself as the number one state for doing business. That reputation is soiled with the reality that we legalize the disreputable and usurious practice of payday lending. This year there should be no compromise with loan sharks.
Sincerely,
Ward R. Scull, III and Michael Lane
Virginians Against Payday Loans
Newport News
www.stoppaydayloans.org
Ida O'Sullivan Letter to the Editor 08-30-07
Dear Editor,
I am deeply concerned about proposed ethanol refinery construction in several areas throughout Virginia. The ethanol industry and government officials are trying to push the ethanol refineries down our throats.
The industry cannot survive without subsidies; subsidies that do not come from Washington. They come from you and me, our children, our grandchildren and our friends and neighbors from our hard-earned money through the taxes we pay. Financial help comes in the form of low or no interest loans, grants and even per gallon assistance. We are the ones that will be repaying those loans.
One letter to the editor I read recently said, in effect, that the EPA and government regulators would never allow a refinery to be built that did not meet set standards. In April 2007, the EPA lowered standards for ethanol producers to allow them to operate with fewer rules, ignoring environmental concerns. The change increases allowable pollution refineries may emit from 100 tons annually to 250 tons -- that is 5 tons a week! It also allows plants to bypass certain vents and minor pollution sources when calculating emissions. So much for concern for the people.
We here in Chase City, Mecklenburg County, Virginia, are facing a situation where Osage Bio Energy proposes building a 55 million gallons per year facility, to be doubled to 110 million gallons per year. A portion of the 600 +/- acre site needs to be rezoned from agricultural to heavy industry. This Butler Farm locale is a pristine area of woods and pastures. It borders Chase City's residential areas. There are 9 industrial/business parks in the county, with over 900 acres available to develop.
Ethanol refineries make poor neighbors. The demand for ethanol cannot become the basis to lay waste to our water, land and way of life, especially in rural areas. To quote a Loudon, Tennessee resident that lives near an ethanol refinery, "If you ain't got one, you don't want one!"
Ida O'Sullivan
Chase City
Michael Ahern Letter to the Editor 08-29-07
Dear Editor:
Over the past several months, many in the media have engaged in sensationalistic and unfair treatment of undocumented immigrants in news coverage involving crime, emphatically pointing out the accused individual's legal status. This would not have been the case six months ago. The murders in Newark, NJ and the hit and run accident on Rt. 95 come to mind. These senseless acts of violence are indeed terrible and the persons responsible should be brought to justice and punished appropriately. But the entire Latino community should not be subject to repercussions as a result.
The spin built into these stories inevitably suggests that the crime would never have occurred were it not for "our immigration problem." In order to sensationalize their reporting, the media is throwing fuel on the fire. This is particularly true in local jurisdictions considering unjust ordinances affecting immigrants, such as Prince William and Loudoun counties and in Herndon. This media practice encourages hate groups in those communities to motivate and mobilize their members against people who have come to America in desperation -- simply to feed their families and avoid having every third or fourth child die from malnutrition or some fatal illness in their home countries.
The media also fails in its responsibility to present the true nature of our immigration situation. During the recent trial in federal court in Hazelton, Pa., for instance, Hazelton's claim that "illegal aliens" (undocumented workers) were to blame for high crime rates and economic decline was proven wrong and inaccurate.
In fact, it was conclusively shown that undocumented Latino workers were the least demographic group likely to be involved in criminal behavior. It was also demonstrated that the city had gone from a substantial deficit to a fiscal surplus over the period of time examined and that the Latino community had much to do with the economic development that occurred. Hazelton is subject to funding both sides' legal expenses which now exceed $3,000,000.
Finally, with respect to the self righteous talk on the rule of law and amnesty, I would remind you that the great majority of undocumented workers did not come here with intent to break the law. No, instead, often with just the shirts on their backs, they came in dire straits, stashed away in metal box trucks, in temperatures exceeding 120 degrees, then running across the desert chased by vigilantes with guns to a strange country where they hoped to find opportunity like millions of immigrant families before them. And, they simply hoped to feed and house their families. Many of our families were treated with similar unfairness and violence in our past. We should now learn from those mistakes and forgive those who would relive our troubled history. We should instead treat those coming here to America at great risk and cost with kindness and respect.
Michael Ahern
Oak Hill
Law enforcement should be even handed for all 08-23-07
By Janice "Jay" Johnson
In 2001, after one shark attack, the corporate media frightened us with the Summer of the Shark. But unfairness to sharks doesn't really matter to the sharks.
Today's media myth is a "crime wave" by undocumented immigrants, and it's not as harmless. Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich says the "war here at home" against illegal immigrants is "even more deadly than the war in Iraq and Afghanistan." A recent Harrisonburg Daily News-Record editorial found a "pattern" of immigrant crime based on three murders and two drunk-driving deaths in the whole United States.
These exaggerations would be funny if it weren't for their results.
For example, recently, Pedro Guzman, a mentally disabled U.S. citizen, was deported to Mexico because he couldn't produce documents or explain himself. His family, also U.S. citizens, searched for him for three months before finally finding him, hungry, disoriented, and almost unrecognizable.
Other U.S. citizens of Latino descent are already making plans to carry their passports at all times. Though their families may have been living in the same New Mexico or Texas communities since before 1776, now they may be seen as aliens in their native land.
If there is a "pattern," it's that our law enforcement officers, courts and probation and parole officers don't get the funding and support they need to keep track of all violent criminals -- immigrants or not. Some Virginia probation officers have a caseload of more than 100 offenders. That's why most local law enforcement agencies don't want to add the job of catching immigration offenders to their already heavy burdens.
I don't know about you, but if a loved one of mine is murdered by someone who should have been in prison, it will be no consolation to me to find out that the murderer was a legal U.S. citizen.
The Virginia Organizing Project's campaign against racial profiling takes the stand that our laws should be enforced effectively and even-handedly, without regard for anyone's race or ethnicity. We can't make our law enforcement decisions based on media myths.
Janice "Jay" Johnson is the chairperson of the Virginia Organizing Project.
Janice Johnson
Newport News
Katy Pitcock Letter to the Editor 08-22-07
Editor:
Around Virginia, local officials are being swept into the current of trying to "fix" the national immigration situation with hard-line local action. Unfortunately, it's not the first time Virginia's local leaders "made a statement." The last time, the movement was called "Massive Resistance." Then, the civil rights of African-Americans were targeted. Schools were closed and pools were bulldozed. It was not Virginia's finest hour.
Few leaders from that era are now proud of their actions. Thanks to the courage and leadership in the African-American community as well as allies amongst caring whites, this destructive, fear-driven approach to public policy was eventually defeated.
Why repeat a mistake? We are a community -- parents, children, teachers and churches. Let the national leaders deal with national problems. A legal pathway to work authorization is a complex issue. Locally, fathers need to work to provide for their families, mothers need to care for and nurture their children, teachers need to educate, nurses need to promote health, pastors need to support spiritual growth and political leaders need to lead, not follow trends. In each community in Virginia, we have the opportunity to be proud of our actions -- this time around.
Katy Pitcock
Star Tannery
Jeffrey Toussaint Letter to the Editor 08-15-07
Dear Editor:
I have taught Race and Ethnic Relations courses at several Virginia universities and I often come into contact with a majority of students that state that the notion of "race" is no longer an issue among their generation or society today. That is to say, that race no longer impacts minorities' access to social, educational, economic, political, or legal opportunities or equality. Students continually state to me that the problems of "race", racism, discrimination, and prejudice are merely a dying out expression of social relations and attitudes from "my generation" and older generations. My students' continue, that by addressing race as an issue in society, we as social scientists and others, continue to perpetuate race and racism as a social issue.
My interpretation of my students' beliefs in racial equality stems from their interactions or experiences with popular culture and personal social relationships. This is evident through the ability of various racial and ethnic groups' ability to access music, art, and to engage in inter-racial social and marital relationships. While access to culture and social relationships attest to the positive racial and ethnic changes in society, issues of institutional racism, discrimination, and prejudice continue to be a significant obstacle in the lives of various minority groups' access to opportunities and racial equality.
Recent evidence found that African-Americans are subject to higher lending rates than whites. Using mortgage data from the 2005 Federal Reserve, the Washington-based National Community Reinvestment Coalition concludes that in 2005, blacks in 171 metropolitan areas were at least twice as likely as whites to receive high cost loans. These high cost loans are defined by the Federal Reserve as loans that are 3% above the treasury securities level. Critics claim this does not take into account various background characteristics, such as credit history and debt levels. While wealthier minorities do not have the same level of disparity in mortgage rates relative to their poorer racial counterparts, regardless of social class, minorities continually have higher mortgage rates than whites. Given the history of Virginia and the current high rate of racial segregation between whites and African-Americans, racial disparities in discriminating lending practices will only perpetuate prejudicial attitudes and increase racial segregation.
Jeffrey G. Toussaint
Radford University
Instructor of Sociology
Bailout Requests on Voting Rights Act Continue 08-14-07
A slow, insidious movement to weaken the 1965 Voting Rights Act is afoot in Virginia. This curious movement will undermine the rights of citizens as local governmental officials in the counties are requesting a bailout of certain provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act was enacted to guarantee the right to vote by all citizens. Many blacks in the south shed blood so they could vote without reprisals. Martin Luther King, Fannie Lou Hamer, John Lewis, and many everyday citizens put their lives on the line so to gain the vote for ALL!
It boggles our minds, today, that county, town, and city governments wish to tamper with the Voting Rights Act. After all, this is 2007.
Clarke County governmental officials recently requested a bailout of Section 5 of the Act. Section 5 requires certain states (one of which is Virginia) to clear with the federal government any changes in Virginia law which will affect voting rights of minorities. Jurisdictions cannot change election practices without permission from The U.S. Department of Justice. If there has been no detectable retrogression (backsliding) in a jurisdiction for a period of 10 years, then that jurisdiction may apply for a bailout. (You may read more about bailouts at www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/sec.5.) Clarke County officials suggest that the bailout is based on a cost savings to the taxpayers. The county seems to say the cost ($800 paid to an attorney per each bailout request) is more important than citizens’ rights. We, who are the taxpayers, do not want the bailout.
Lawyers from the U. S. Department of Justice (Chris Ortego and Christy McCormick) have requested and met with local citizens who are vociferously against any changes in the Act. At the citizens meeting, the DOJ attorneys informed those present that 14 other counties/towns had received bailouts. Like an amoeba, this movement may quietly inch through Virginia until the entire Commonwealth will have received a bailout. Think about it!!
We have talked to people in several nearby counties where bailouts had been granted and learned that they had no knowledge of these actions. We are worried that these changes are being done without adequate public input.
A second fact-finding meeting requested by the USDOJ civil rights attorneys occurred with Clarke County citizens last month, An editorial in the Clarke-Times Courier supported the citizens. The local Democratic Club supported the citizens with a written proclamation. Nevertheless, the Clarke County government continues to push for the bailout.
It is our sincere desire that citizens become aware of the bailout movement as it quietly moves across the state of Virginia. Your county may be next…
Roland Clarke
Berryville
Michael Parsons Letter to the Editor 08-02-07
Dear Editor:
As citizens of Virginia, it is our right to understand the manner in which we are protected. We have a responsibility to take seriously and investigate allegations of inequality made regarding law enforcement. The Virginia Organizing Project (VOP) is one organization concerned about claims of biased-based policing in this state. Biased policing refers to discriminatory actions taken by a police officer on the basis of race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.
A survey by the Department of Criminal Justice Services showed that 60 percent of African-Americans in Virginia believe racial profiling occurs. While this figure does not prove that there is a problem, it at least demonstrates that the perception exists. This perception is shared by a large group of people whose concerns deserve to be taken seriously. Two concrete propositions have been suggested to evaluate and/or combat bias-based policing.
First, we urge law enforcement to follow the example of other states and collect data on traffic stops. This data would indicate who exactly is being pulled over and in which parts of the state. At the end of each year, the information from these stops would be compiled and made public. This data would be analyzed to determine the degree, if any, to which racial/ethnic discrimination is present in policing. Law enforcement and the community could then focus on areas in which improvement is needed.
Second, we are calling for the development of a new staff position within the Department of Criminal Justice Services. Last year, Senator Ken Stolle introduced a bill to create a "Biased-Based Policing Coordinator" in an amendment to the state budget, but it failed. This coordinator would be responsible for implementing programs aimed at eliminating bias-based policing in Virginia. Whoever filled the position would also increase education within the police community about issues associated with racial/ethnic biases. I hope that Governor Tim Kaine will include this new position in his 2008 budget request.
There are many who would say that racial profiling is no longer a problem in our state. If this is true, there will be no harm in passing these provisions. If there is nothing to hide, there is also nothing to fear.
Contact your local representatives and ask them to consider these propositions.
Michael Parsons
Williamsburg
Robin Cullen Letter to the Editor 08-01-07
Editor:
While I am pleased to see that Gary Coleman has returned to television and simultaneously found a solution to his cash flow problems, I doubt that his on-air support of payday loan services will bring the same relief to many of its viewers. Coleman, of Different Strokes fame, has become the spokesperson for CashCall, one of many payday loan institutions that advertise their predatory services in snappy, misleading television commercials.
These ads suggest that payday loans are a "quick and easy" solution to short-term cash needs that result from sudden emergencies. However, the average fee of $15 on every $100 borrowed quickly adds up to an annual percentage rate near 400 percent. This interest rate compounds the short-term cash problem into a long-term spiral into debt. People who lack the reserve funds to cover an emergency and lack access to traditional loan services are unlikely to be able to repay the original loan in the short time frame before the interest becomes unmanageable.
In times of extreme stress and hardship, Gary Coleman's promise of a "quick and easy" solution is very attractive. However, it is not Mr. Coleman's fault for getting people into even bleaker situations after taking out a payday loan or six or thirteen of them (the statewide average). The General Assembly had the opportunity to cap payday loan interest rates at 36 percent last session, but the Virginia legislature supported special interests instead. Next session, the same opportunity to cap the interest the industry can charge to 36 percent -- the same rate that banks and credit card companies are capped at and the same rate given to military families -- will be put before the General Assembly again. Please, contact your state delegates and senators about supporting the cap to prove that Virginia residents cannot be fooled by flashy advertisements and will not bend to special interests.
Robin Cullen
Richmond
The Fair Tax and 23 percent sales tax 07-27-07
By Michael Cassidy
In the debate over whether to replace most federal taxes with a national sales tax, much of the argument turns on what the new national sales tax rate would need to be to replace existing revenue from the various federal taxes that would be eliminated. Proponents are calling the proposal for a national sales tax a "Fair Tax" and assert that a rate of 23 percent would be sufficient to replace existing revenue. Yet, the Brookings Institution, the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy have all estimated that the Fair Tax proposal would need to be implemented at a much higher rate -- somewhere between 45 and 60 percent -- in order to replace all federal tax revenue on a revenue-neutral basis.
Why? Because the math behind Fair Tax's 23 percent figure is based on some questionable assumptions. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy demonstrates step-by-step why the math in the Fair Tax plan does not add up.
First, it is confusing to claim the sales tax rate is 23 percent. For a $100 purchase, Fair Tax proponents tell us that the tax would be $30, which most people would characterize as a 30 percent rate. It turns out that the 23 percent figure comes from dividing the sales tax by the cost of purchases plus the tax. So, yes, the $30 tax divided by the $130 price plus tax does equal 23 percent, but no ordinary person would think of computing a sales tax in that manner.
In addition, almost a third of the projected sales-tax revenues from the Fair Tax plan are supposed to come from taxes that the government will pay to itself. When the government buys goods or services, it would somehow pay itself a tax. Without these phantom governmental tax payments, the sales tax rate would have to jump to 42 percent to stay revenue neutral.
Finally, a quarter of the remaining sales taxes from the Fair Tax plan are supposed to be paid on items such as church services, free care at veterans hospitals and a variety of hard-to-tax financial services such as free checking accounts. If we disregard the supposed taxes on these items, the sales tax rate would have to climb to 50 percent or more to stay revenue neutral.
The bigger problem with the Fair Tax plan is that it is regressive and would be a windfall for the rich, but increase taxes on the poor and elderly. Currently, federal income and estate taxes are generally progressive. That is, taxpayers with high incomes pay a larger share of their incomes in taxes than do middle- and low-income taxpayers. A national sales tax would be the opposite.
To be sure, the Fair Tax plan includes a monthly payment to all taxpaying units, regardless of income, based on an adjusted poverty threshold for each unit's family size in an attempt to address the inherent regressive nature of a national sales tax. But even when you include these "prebates" in the analysis, it would take a much higher share of the earnings of low- and middle-income families than from the wealthy. That's because most Americans must spend most or all of their incomes to make ends meet, while the rich can afford to spend a much lower share of their incomes. Moreover, older Americans tend to spend a greater share of their incomes than younger Americans, which means that a national sales tax would be particularly burdensome on the elderly.
As a result, replacing most federal taxes with a national sales tax would mean very large tax increases on most Americans and very large tax cuts for the wealthy. Specifically, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy analysis revealed that:
* In virtually every state in the union, the bottom 80 percent of taxpayers would face much higher taxes under a sales tax. Nationwide, these tax increases would average about $3,200 a year.
* On average, the 80 percent of Americans in the middle- and lower-income ranges would pay 51 percent more in sales taxes than they now pay in the federal taxes.
* In contrast, the best-off 1 percent of all taxpayers nationwide would get average tax reductions of about $225,000 each per year.
There is also the question of what would happen to Virginia state sales tax policies if there were a national sales tax. Considering about 20 percent of all state and local revenue comes from taxes levied on sales within the state, a national sales tax would severely hinder Virginia's ability to maintain this critical $6 billion source of revenue that provides needed services in education, health care and public safety.
Michael J. Cassidy
Executive Director
The Commonwealth Institute for Fiscal Analysis
Richmond, VA
ABOUT THE INSTITUTE
The Commonwealth Institute for Fiscal Analysis provides credible, independent and accessible information and analyses of state fiscal issues with particular attention to the impacts on low- and moderate-income persons. Our products inform state fiscal and budget policy debates and contribute to sound decisions that improve the well-being of individuals, communities and Virginia as a whole.
For more information, contact Michael Cassidy, Executive Director, at Michael@thecommonwealthinstitute.org or (804)643-2474 ext. 117.
Talk about a Flat Tax is a Diversion 07-26-07
By Denise Smith
Many people talk about a flat tax rate as part of a fair tax plan and a solution to lower taxes. I just have to comment. What is a real "fair tax" plan? What does "regressive versus progressive taxation" mean in lay terms? What can we really do to fix taxes?
It sounds so fair to tax everyone at the same rate and at one time I thought it was the way to go. But consider this: say you are a couple and have an income of $30,000 and another couple has an income of a million dollars. (Believe it or not, $30,000 is a bit high for many in this country, but let us wish.) At a tax rate of 10 percent for all, the first couple would pay $3,000; the second couple would pay $100,000. Now with the cost of living in this old world, (i.e., paying their bills) who would be hurting for money worse: the first couple with $27,000 income after taxes or the second, with $900,000 in income? That's what is meant by regressive taxes. It hits lower-income folks harder than higher-income folks. A progressive tax rate is instead based upon ability to pay. Say the couple making $30,000 is taxed at the rate of 5 percent and the couple making a million is taxed at the rate of 10 percent. They would pay $1,500 and $100,000 respectively. The family with fewer resources has to pay less as a percentage of their income. But the flat tax charges both families equally. That's why a flat tax is regressive.
It's also why progressive taxes make more sense. Wouldn't we all like to be well-paid ball players, be elected to Congress or be a CEO with high incomes of millions of dollars? But we can't all have jobs like that. Many play a part in society working at jobs that are necessary, with much lower incomes. Should lower-income people suffer under a regressive tax system that doesn't consider the standard of living they have to endure to pay their fair share of those taxes?
When we tax very low-income people in a regressive tax system, we actually cost ourselves extra in taxes in the long run. Often those people are thrown back on tax-funded social programs for help when they don't have the funds to acquire basic necessities. Letting low-income people keep more of their income saves all taxpayers money even if it's just by cutting out the administrative costs to administer social programs.
But what can we do to cut taxes? The answer is two fold. First, because we are all suffering paying taxes, we need to understand where we are and how our taxes are collected. Who is paying the bulk of the tax burden today? We need to start asking hard questions of ourselves. Have you ever sat down and looked at all the taxes -- local, state, federal, which includes fees to drive your car, have a dog or cat, gas, utilities, sales, etc. -- that you are really paying? Don't rely on someone else's statistics or just focus on one tax structure; do the real math for yourself. What percentage of your income is really going to taxes and fees to run government offices and programs? What does that leave you with to live on? You want insight? Start there.
Second, we need to work on how our tax money is spent and for what. If I have to budget and do without to pay these taxes and fees, where is my money really going? We need to start asking hard questions of our government and hold them accountable. Start where you are with your local government. What are they spending our taxpayer money on in their budget? Is your county government buying a fleet of Mercedes while you're driving a clunker? Are we making sure when we build industrial parks and give tax breaks to companies that this doesn't cost us more than it benefits? Are they using tax-funded Welfare to Work programs to subsidize employers' costs? We need to ask what is the actual cost figure to us as taxpayers for these projects and what do we really get in return. You want to find real solutions and want to do something about taxes? Then that requires that we become active participants once again in government and have a say in the spending policies we are paying for. We should learn all we can about how taxes are collected and spent and the effects on all of us.
A flat tax sounds good but in reality it's just a diversion, not a solution.
Denise A. Smith is an Associate Director of Wolf Creek Indian Village & Museum in Bastian, Virginia.
Denise A. Smith
Rocky Gap
The Immigrant Panic in the Old Dominion 07-24-07
By Hugo Carballo and Clayton Sinyai
It's an ugly sight. As the 2007 political season heats up an anti-immigrant panic is setting in right here in our Northern Virginia backyard. A new slate of Herndon Council members opened the bidding by attacking Project Hope and Harmony, a practical effort by the former administration to get day laborers off the town's streets and into an orderly dispatch facility. The Prince William County Board has stolen the headlines with a punishing measure designed to make the county's public servants an arm of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, charged with assessing who might be an illegal immigrant in order to make sure they are denied public benefits and protections and to facilitate their deportation. Loudoun County leaders, scrambling to keep up, are moving to consider similar action.
And it's not entirely surprising. After all, addressing Virginia's real needs like transportation, health care and economic development is difficult and expensive. Blaming immigrants for local problems is easy and cheap. And in a nation of immigrants like ours, there have always been politicians ready to use newcomers as scapegoats rather than creating real solutions for our challenges.
We have seen this all before. We are (Construction) Laborers Local 11 and ASTRACOR, the Residential Construction Workers' Association (Asociacion de Trabajadores de Construccion Residencial). Together we represent more than 1,200 construction workers across Northern Virginia. And though we count among our numbers men and women from every race and ethnic group who make up our Commonwealth, the overwhelming majority are immigrants from Latin America.
The Laborers International Union has always been a union of immigrants. It was created a hundred years ago by the Italian day laborers who dug ditches and carried bricks on the construction sites of the early 1900s. The workers of those days left the villages and farms around Cork or Cracow or Cagliari in search of freedom and a better life -- exactly like those who come here today from the towns surrounding San Salvador and Ciudad Juarez today.
Immigrants have always been the face of construction labor. Previous generations of Irish and Italians used the building trades to grab the first rungs of the ladder to the middle class. Today we see migrants from Mexico, Honduras, Bolivia and El Salvador following in their footsteps. And instead of "No Irish Need Apply" and "Wops go home" we witness local government officials trip over one another in a race to see who can make their communities least welcoming to today's newcomers.
Proponents of these measures tell us that they pose no dangers to legal immigrants, but our members -- whether newly minted citizens or here on work visas -- know that's not how it comes out in practice. Frustrated public servants trying to carry out the intent of these laws will soon find themselves questioning, detaining, and denying public services to dozens of law-abiding residents for no more than a foreign accent or a "z" at the end of their name.
Well, we have news for the county boards in Loudoun and Prince William: today's green card holders are tomorrow's general election swing vote. Every year more of those 1,200 -- and their thousands of friends, relatives, and neighbors -- are showing up on voter registration lists in Herndon, Sterling, Woodbridge and Manassas. As your peers in California learned to their peril with Pete Wilson and Prop 187, inflaming the immigrant panic may work for a day or a week, but in the long term -- in a nation of immigrants -- it's political poison.
Hugo Carballo is the President and Business Manager of Laborers' Local 11 in Alexandria, Virginia. Clayton Sinyai is the Executive Director of ASTRACOR, the Residential Construction Workers' Association (Asociacion de Trabajadores de Construccion Residencial).
Clayton Sinyai
Falls Church
Put the people's interests above lenders' 07-23-07
By Marquita K. Hill
Payday lending is a lucrative business in Virginia. Just consider the fact that payday lenders have opened 800 stores just since payday lending was legalized in 2002. You can go into one of their stores, write a check -- enough to pay back the amount borrowed plus $15 per $100 borrowed -- and postdate the check for your next payday, typically two weeks.
That seems like 15 percent interest -- but it's for two weeks, not a year, as annual percentage rate is calculated. Fifteen dollars might not sound too bad -- but if you borrow the maximum amount of $500, that's $75.
What if you are living from paycheck to paycheck? You can't repay your loan in two weeks. So the payday lender provides you with another loan. Do this a few times and you can end up paying an APR of 300 or 400 percent. In fact, after seven two-week periods (about 3 1⁄2 months) you'll have repaid more than you originally borrowed and still owe the principal. You are caught in a spiral of debt.
Payday lenders self-righteously tell us that they provide a service to borrowers who have no other access to credit. They say the lender who pays back his loan in two weeks is paying only 15 percent interest, and that it's not fair to calculate it on a yearly basis -- never mind that the average borrower takes out at least eight payday loans per year.
Lenders also say that they do not take people to court when they are unable to repay. However, the Bureau of Financial Institutions' report shows that the number of cases lenders pursue in court is increasing dramatically.
What of the argument that some people have no other source of credit? Neighboring North Carolina declared payday lending illegal in 2002, just as Virginia legalized it. After fighting their eviction for several years, the last payday lenders left North Carolina in 2006.
So what did low-income North Carolinians do for loans? Consumer finance companies also make unsecured small loans, although they do look at one's credit score. During the time that payday lenders were reluctantly leaving North Carolina, the volume of loans processed by consumer finance companies more than doubled. Such loans are paid back in installments -- the entire loan is not due with the next paycheck. And, the annual interest rate is capped at the legal rate of 36 percent.
Meanwhile, a number of states have never legalized payday lending. Are people in these states clamoring for payday loans? No. It is the payday lenders who have persuaded legislators in the states where they operate that they provide a necessary service.
Virginia's payday lenders won't accept any cap (such as 125 percent) on the interest rates that they charge per year, nor any other limitation on their business unless they already know how to get around it.
Unfortunately, Virginia's legislators continue to let them have exactly what they want. Indeed, writing a check before there are funds in an account to pay for it is check kiting. Check kiting is condemned in all other circumstances. Why are Virginia legislators for check kiting in payday lending?
Gov. Tim Kaine is said to support the elimination of payday lending. What we need now are legislators who will step forth and support the governor on this issue, legislators whose obligation is to Virginia's people, not to payday lenders.
Marquita Hill is coordinator of the NRV Payday Lending Task Force.
Marquita K. Hill
Blacksburg
Op-Ed: Purdue, Profits, and the Public Health: Painful Accountability
Purdue, Profits, and the Public Health: Painful Accountability
By Art van Zee, MD
On May 10 in a federal courthouse in Abingdon, Virginia, the maker of OxyContin, the Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., an affiliate of Purdue Pharma, along with its president, chief legal officer, and former chief medical officer pleaded guilty to criminal charges of misbranding OxyContin by claiming that OxyContin was less addictive, and less subject to abuse and diversion than other narcotics (opioids). Purdue and the three executives will pay a total of $634 million in fines.
That Purdue Pharma had spent hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees successfully defending itself in hundreds of lawsuits around the country made the guilty plea and proposed fines even more dramatic. Much commendation should be given to U.S. Attorney John L. Brownlee, his legal team, and the multiple federal agencies that were involved in composing this case. Their determination, diligence, meticulous and demanding work over several years should be long applauded — exemplary of the best of public service.
Purdue had to have been well aware of the potential harm that over-promotion of OxyContin could bring. Purdue’s own MS Contin, a high potency long-acting morphine preparation, had been abused in the late 1980s in a similar fashion that OxyContin was later to be abused and by 1990 had become the most abused opioid in one major metropolitan area (JC Crews, the journal Cancer, 1990). Six years after that Purdue launched the most aggressive and heavily financed opioid marketing campaign ever seen in the pharmaceutical industry. In the year 2000 alone, Purdue spent $200 million in the marketing and promotion of OxyContin. Even though OxyContin was no better than other available opioids for pain (R Chou, Journal Pain Symptom Management, 2003), the aggressive marketing fueled physician prescribing and Oxycontin became a multi-billion dollar blockbuster drug within a few years, the most heavily prescribed brand name opioid in the country.
Increasing availability of OxyContin was associated with increasing diversion and abuse and by 2000 we were seeing in Maine, eastern Kentucky, southwest Virginia, and West Virginia a tsunami of opioid addiction in young people who had recreationally used OxyContin and had become rapidly addicted to this highly potent opioid. Soaring crime rates, multiple medical complications, an epidemic of intravenous drug abuse and Hepatitis C, a harrowing increase in overdose deaths, and fractured families, over-whelmed the medical, legal, and social systems that simply didn’t have the resources to meet the problems. Our region (southwest Virginia) was the canary in the coal mines as the OxyContin problem spread across the country becoming the most prevalent drug of abuse by 2002 (T Cicero, Journal of Pain, 2005). And there have been many bereaved parents across the country who lost a non-drug abusing son or daughter who simply made the mistake of taking one OxyContin tablet offered to them at a party or social gathering.
There is no amount of money Purdue could pay to touch the extent of the human pain and suffering in the now national OxyContin tragedy. But many observers would question whether fines of $640 million and misdemeanor pleas for the top executives is punishment proportionate to the crime. We have many young people in prison for years, found guilty of selling one OxyContin on the street.
There is also great concern in the coalfields that a very significant portion of the $640 million go toward treatment for patients and families affected by this tragedy. Effective treatment can be very successful for opioid addiction, and it would be an additional tragedy if a good amount of the money is not directed into treatment. As a physician practicing in the coalfields for the last thirty years, I’ve not had any more rewarding and meaningful professional experience than having been able to witness OxyContin addicted young people be able to reclaim lives, futures, and families if they had the opportunity for effective treatment.
Art Van Zee, MD, is a medical doctor in St. Charles, Virginia.
Kevin Simowitz Letter to the Editor 06-04-07
Dear Editor:
Since 2002, Virginia’s General Assembly has permitted predatory lenders to operate within the Commonwealth, effectively encouraging payday loan offices to economically abuse members of our community, particularly targeting those in the most financial need. With approximately 800 payday loan offices in operation across Virginia, more and more low-income Virginians are lured into the debt trap by an industry whose profit margin depends upon intentionally extending loans they do not believe can be repaid within the time constraints they create.
The General Assembly of Virginia authorized these predatory lenders to charge $15 for each $100 borrowed. While this doesn’t sound so abusive at first glance, someone borrowing $500 is charged an interest rate over a two-week period equivalent to an APR of 391%. This is a rate that is more than ten times the legal limit of interest charged on almost all other types of loans in the Commonwealth (including credit cards)! The result is that the loans cannot be repaid so quickly, forcing low-income workers to obtain loan after loan, an average of 13 loans per person.
Why do we offer a special exemption to an industry which bases its business upon ensnaring Virginia’s citizens in long-term debt? North Carolina, West Virginia, and Maryland have all rejected the availability of such predatory loans. In fact, North Carolina originally enacted such legislation but later chose to eliminate them. It is time to ask our state legislators to follow the lead of our neighboring states and prohibit these abusive payday loan practices from operating within Virginia. Five years is long enough for our legislators to have allowed the predatory lending industry to exploit our citizens.
Sincerely,
Kevin Simowitz
Charlottesville
Joaquin C. Richardson Letter to the Editor 05-21-07
Dear Editor:
Steve Chapman’s article “Racial Profiling Myth Continues to Live On” was published recently in the Chicago Tribune and in various Virginia newspapers. Chapman used recent U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) findings to assert his idea of a racial profiling myth.
Since that study found African-American and Latino drivers no more likely to be stopped than white drivers, Chapman declared profiling “doesn’t exist.” He did acknowledge that after the stops “according to BJS, 3.6 percent of whites are searched, compared with 9.5 percent of blacks and 8.8 percent of Latinos.” But he justified this disparity as being “maybe because African-Americans commit crimes at a far higher rate and are convicted of felonies at a far higher rate.”
Chapman’s argument itself contains the seeds of why racial profiling takes place. If they share the perception that more African-Americans and Hispanics commit crimes, then it may follow that police will search and scrutinize those groups thanks to that faulty reasoning.
An American Bar Association commission reported in 2004 that “it is undeniable that many African-American and Latino/a men, women, and juveniles in our nation’s prisons and jails arrive there as a result not only of their criminal acts, but also because of the discretionary decisions made at various stages of the criminal process.” Unnecessary searches and arrests are the first such discretionary decisions.
Law enforcement officers recognize that bias in policing “does exist.” Almost every law enforcement agency carries out training, data collection and other activities to reduce it. In 2003, Virginia legislation to require such training statewide passed with law enforcement support. The Virginia Organizing Project (VOP), which began working on racial profiling statewide in 2002, has met with law enforcement officials across the Commonwealth. VOP members have not met one chief or sheriff who denies that racial profiling still sometimes occurs.
Chapman’s article can be viewed as an insult to an intelligent human being and a gross insult to the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Joaquin C. Richardson
Chesapeake
Ladelle McWhorter Letter to the Editor 05-07-07
Dear Editor,
May 15 is “Clock In for Equality” Day. On that day, employers and employees around the country will be wearing buttons supporting fair employment practices. That’s fair employment practices, not just legally enforced employment practices.
In Virginia, as in many other states, it’s perfectly legal to fire even your most loyal and productive workers just because you don’t happen to like their sexual orientation. It’s legal, but it’s not fair.
These days more than ever, when working people are losing ground in the economy and the gap between rich and poor is growing ever wider, Virginia’s workers need protection against arbitrary decisions of bigoted supervisors or out-of-touch managers on misguided crusades. We need a law prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. And while we press law-makers for that measure, we need all fair-minded employers to adopt non-discrimination policies inclusive of sexual orientation to assure their workers that arbitrary decisions will not be made. Many of our state’s employers have already taken this step — including Capital One, Circuit City, AT Massey, First VA Bank, Dominion Resources, Norfolk Southern, Smithfield Foods, Performance Food Group, Sprint Nextel, and scores of others.
May 15 is a good day for those who lag behind to take this important step. Every worker deserves to be judged on the basis of qualifications and job performance, not sexual orientation.
Sincerely,
Ladelle McWhorter,
Richmond
Lakisha Allen Letter to the Editor 05-03-07
Dear Editor:
Minimum wage earners living in Virginia are faced with a double whammy with high gas prices and minimal wage growth. The federal minimum wage of $5.15 per hour has not been raised since 1997; however gas has been increasing rapidly over the past couple of years. High gas prices affect low-income workers and their families particularly hard because they have to drive back and forth to their place of employment. In addition, they have other activities in their lives that often involve driving.
Minimum wage workers living in Virginia spend most of their earnings on gasoline, leaving them very little money to take care of their families. It is not surprisingly that 29 states have already raised the minimum wage; people in those states do not have to work a full eight-hour shift just to fill their gas tank.
Raising the minimum wage in Virginia just doesn’t benefit gas, but it reduces poverty, improves job retention and provides great equity and fairness as well as helping more families to be self-sufficient. When minimum-wage workers only make $5.15 an hour, it is incredibly difficult to make ends meet, especially when faced with rising costs of gas.
Lakisha Allen
Radford
Alden Baker Letter to the Editor 04-25-07
Dear Editor:
I am concerned about the high interest rates charged by payday loan companies in the State of Virginia (up to 391%!!!). Legislation was introduced in January of this year to put a cap on the interest rates that payday loan companies are able to charge, but no such bills were passed. According to information provided by a Commonwealth of Virginia website (http://www.vaperforms.virginia.gov/i-poverty.php), “During 2005, 10 percent of Virginia families fell below the federal poverty level. …The general rise in poverty since 2001 suggests the state may be moving back toward higher poverty rates.”
The increase in poverty that Virginia is experiencing concerns me for several reasons.
First, as someone who was born and raised in southwest Virginia, I have family members and friends who have experienced financial hardship and have not been able to recover.
Second, as a college-educated resident of Virginia, I am aware that there are ways to lessen and help prevent needless financial burdens for people.
Third, as a professional beginning my career in social work, I work with children and families for whom poverty is a reality everyday.
One way to help prevent needless poverty in Virginia would be to put a cap on interest rates that payday loan companies can charge. Radio commercials aired in February suggesting that legislation to cap interest rates was an effort to wipe out payday lending companies and take away the financial freedoms of Virginia residents. The previous legislation introduced DID NOT suggest that short-term, immediate loans were not needed: Short-term loans ARE needed, but should not be allowed to rob the working poor by charging up to 391% interest!
It is the payday loan companies that are destroying financial opportunities and the financial freedoms of Virginia residents. The Virginia legislature should hold payday loan companies accountable and limit not only the amount of interest that can be charged, but also the number of loans that can be taken out from multiple payday loan companies at any given time. Payday loan companies KNOW that most people who rely on short-term, high interest loans are financially vulnerable and will not be able to pay back all that they owe. This contributes to the cycle of poverty and demonstrates how ruthless payday loan companies can be.
I ask for the residents of Virginia to learn the facts about payday loan companies and demand that they restore financial freedoms by lowering their interest rates. Let the local and state representatives know of your concerns and take action to protect yourselves and each other!
Thank you,
Alden Baker, M.S.W.
Blacksburg
We Have a Choice 04-18-07
We Have a Choice
By The Rev. Robb Moore
Our hearts are utterly broken and our minds fail us completely in the attempt to understand the killings and mayhem that were set loose by one disturbed individual on the campus of Virginia Tech. Our prayers and our thoughts reach out to the families and friends of the dead and wounded as they pick up the pieces and struggle with the injustice of their loss and as they grieve for the persons and lives so full of promise and hope which were taken so senselessly. And as a community shocked and saddened by these events, we feel powerless against such a random and irrational act of violence. But we are not powerless. While we cannot change the events that unfolded on the morning of April 16, as much as we wish we could, we can choose the lessons that we can learn from this tragedy and from whom we will learn those lessons.
We would be mistaken, of course, to learn from the killer and choose him as our model. We would be mistaken to follow his first tragic error: to think that nihilistic disregard for human life and violence and hate might ever be the answer to a perceived slight, real or imagined. We would be mistaken to think that the sort of rage that can sometimes burn in all of our hearts should ever be fueled and justified to the point of taking others' lives. And we would be mistaken to follow the murderer's second tragic error: to think that others who look like those whom he personally hated or shared space or an institution or values with those whom he hated, are in any way suitable targets for an expanded circle of hate and the sort of de-humanization necessary to take lives with callous disregard.
We should instead, of course, turn to the individuals we all saw united yesterday by the aftermath on Tech's campus: The Muslim and Palestinian student who so poignantly expressed his shock that such violence could erupt on the grounds of a place he so loved and that he thought was so safe and benign, the Jewish students who lost friends and fellow students and who have expressed their deep sadness and grief so beautifully, the family members of the wounded and dead who have come together to unite as Christians and Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims and Americans and exchange students and Asians and white and black and Hispanic, to pray for peace to stand strong against hate and violence. Even in the wake of this evil and meaningless act, we, as a nation, are inspired by the rich fabric of the American family and the way in which we can unite and stand together as a diverse people in the face of horror. We can choose these individuals and groups as our models for the way in which we ourselves may decide to live our lives and the way in which we will decide to treat our brothers and sisters in this world, of any race, religion, sexual orientation or nationality. And we can reject the killer's dark vision for how conflict might be settled.
And the proper choice may seem very obvious, until we consider in hindsight that we have too often failed to make the proper choice. After the September 11th terrorist attacks, large portions of our government and populace chose unconsciously to take their cue from the terrorists themselves. Therefore, as a nation we have chosen to squander the world's empathy and goodwill by following the path of retribution. We have chosen to think that such an evil act could be answered with bombs and bullets and indiscriminate war. We have chosen to use our national pain as justification for an offensive war in Iraq, a war completely unrelated to the terrorist attacks themselves. We have chosen to order our military into a situation where it is impossible not to kill innocents by the thousands, innocents who are forced to pay with their lives and those of their loved ones for the cruel acts of a tiny group of deranged terrorists. While the intent was surely different, our nation's choice in this regard has an impact and consequences as devastating and heartbreaking as the consequences let loose by the man who opened up his wrath on anonymous students and teachers in classrooms at Virginia Tech. We have often chosen to make the sad and unjust association between individual killers and small terrorist groups with millions of people who happen to share the name of a religion or look like or share national identity with those who have hit us. We have at times chosen the terrorists as our models, have fallen into their trap and have, in turn, reaped the dark fruits of their hate. And not only has our status and stature and moral standing been weakened in the eyes of the world by these mistaken choices, but our brave and courageous military and our capacity to defend this great nation also lie exhausted and scattered in the deadly streets and provinces of Iraq.
But we can choose a different path this time and in those times, God forbid, in the future in which evil demands a response from us. Let us consciously and loudly reject the killers' and the terrorists' terrible choices and look to the best that this country and our people have to offer, the best that the students and staff and faculty at Virginia Tech are demonstrating to us all in the sudden wake of tragedy. For we may, like them, stand as a free and diverse people who choose love for one another over hatred of and retribution against others who remind us of our enemies, who will defend ourselves and those whom we love against attack, but will not take mountains of flesh and rivers of blood as an unholy payment against our pain and loss, who will see that violence and death only beget more violence and death, but that forgiveness, hard won and dearly paid, is the only way out of the deadly circle of tragedy and revenge.
We have a choice. May we as a nation and a people and as individuals wake up and choose the right path from this day forward.
The Rev. Robb Moore is an Advisory Board Member of A More Perfect Union. (www.rethinkbias.org). He can be reached at rmoore3@richmond.edu.
Richmond, VA
Jack Payden-Travers Letter to the Editor 03-30-07
Dear Editor:
Did I miss something or did Jerry Kilgore win the election?
When you are number 2 out of 38 death penalty states, can anyone really accuse you of not using the death penalty often enough? Unfortunately that is what is happening in the 2007 General Assembly where a majority of our state legislators have voted to expand the death penalty.
Fortunately we have a governor who knows the truth and in his courageous veto of all five bills death penalty expansion bills, he stated:
“Virginia is already second in the nation in the number of executions we carry out. While the nature of the offenses targeted by this legislation are very serious, I do not believe that further expansion of the death penalty is necessary to protect human life or provide for public safety needs.”
Virginians made a choice not to expand the death penalty when we elected Timothy M. Kaine over an opponent who had campaigned to do just that. In his last term as Attorney General, Jerry Kilgore introduced the Death Penalty Enhancement Act, the cornerstone of which was the elimination of the Triggerman Rule. It failed to pass in 2005. But two years later is the very bill which Gov. Kaine just vetoed. Did I miss something or did Jerry Kilgore win the election?
Next Wednesday, April 4, the General Assembly reconvenes to consider the Governor’s amendments and vetoes of legislation passed in the 2007 session. I know who I voted for as governor. I know that one of my reasons for doing so was that I did not want to see any further expansion of the death penalty in my state.
I hope that when the Senators and Delegates return to Richmond they will reconsider their initial votes to unwisely waste tax dollars on an increased number of capital trials. Even opponents of the death penalty know that it is not a deterrent to murder. We are no safer after 98 executions than we were before.
Expanding death eligible crimes and increasing capital indictments will only divert needed resources away from the citizens of Virginia, including victims’ family members and law enforcement officers.
A vote to uphold the vetoes is not a vote against the death penalty! It is a vote to stop an unnecessary and expensive expansion of capital punishment in Virginia.
Jack Payden-Travers, Director
Virginians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty
PO Box 4804
Charlottesville, VA 22905
888-567-VADP (8237)
434-960-4673 (cell)
Jack@VADP.org
Arthur Woodson Letter to the Editor 03-01-07
Letter to the Editor,
The recent action by the Virginia House of Delegates failing to raise the minimum wage in Virginia was another example of a lack of leadership and their inability to work for the good of all citizens.
The Speaker of the House, Bill Howell, could have showed true leadership by allowing Senate Bill 1327 to get on the floor and get a recorded vote.
The message I get from this action: Virginia is for poverty and honest work in Virginia will not pay decent wages. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have set the minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage.
Another learning moment from this action was that the great Commonwealth of Virginia has elected leaders that cannot be honest and truthful with the people.
Bill Howell, are you going to tell people why you did not bring the minimum wage bill to the House floor for a vote?
Arthur Woodson
Henrico County
Andrea Gunsallus Letter to the Editor 02-26-07
Dear Editor,
In this country we routinely endorse that all people who are capable should be self-sufficient and that when facing difficult times you should pull yourself up by the boot-straps. If one goes to work every day for at least 40 hours a week then that is all it should take to have a home, feed your family, and live a comfortable life. But this is not the reality faced by the approximately 153,000 employees in Virginia who only earn minimum wage pay. The federal minimum wage has remained at $5.15 an hour since 1997. In Virginia the cost of living has increased 27% since 1997 while the minimum wage has remained the same.
Virginia has tried before to raise the minimum wage to no avail and once again bills introduced in the 2007 legislative session have been defeated. Any increase would make a difference to the thousands of families in Virginia that live below the poverty line, despite having a job. Already 29 other states have responded to the realism that $5.15 an hour doesn't cut it; these states include West Virginia, Washington D.C., and North Carolina. It is time for Virginia to wake up and respond to its constituents' demands to be paid at a fair rate.
There will be those who continue to argue that only teenagers and young adults are the ones making $5.15 an hour or that small businesses will be forced to close if they have to pay more and that current employees will have to be laid off because of increases to payrolls, but research shows that these statements are not the norm. For example, 80% of those who would be affected by the wage increase in Virginia are adults and the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development reported that no jobs were lost because of increasing the minimum wage in 2005.
As a social work graduate student, I'm appalled at the fact that once again Virginia has backed down on the issue of raising the minimum wage. While those in power continually work to reduce welfare spending on such things as Food Stamps, rent assistance, and child care assistance, they are not willing to provide the means to make it possible. The bottom line is if people get paid more then morale will go up, job retention will improve, absenteeism will go down, and those who were previously falling below the poverty line will be less likely to need public assistance. Raising the minimum wage is not a new issue and it's time for the Virginia legislature to take a more progressive approach on this issue.
Sincerely,
Andrea Gunsallus
Radford
Mieko Timmons Letter to the Editor 02-26-07
Dear Editor:
To say that I am appalled that yet once again the minimum wage bill was not supported by a majority of the members of the Virginia General Assembly is putting it mildly. How can any elected official, particularly representing a working class constituency, have the audacity to say NO to a decent, earnest and humane wage? Even profit driven businesses recognize the fact that they cannot continue to offer such meager wages to hardworking employees. It is apparent that there is an obvious desire for those non-empathetic, out of touch, pro-business legislators to increase a pool of workers that businesses can exploit.
While transportation is a critical issue in Virginia and absolutely should be adequately funded, one must be able to afford a car and petroleum, or buy bus or train tickets to use our highways, roads and railways. I would imagine in raising a family or providing for yourself, that decent and affordable housing, food, clothing (even if it is second hand) and utility bills are quintessential to live. It's no wonder that people have to rely on Social Services in the Commonwealth. Has anyone calculated the cost of Medicaid, food stamps and housing subsidies as a result of "servant wages"?
How can these legislators look a parent in the eyes that works three jobs paying minimum wage, trying to raise a family and provide what we all want for our children and say, "I need your vote". The people needed their support and the legislators looked the other way. I encourage every socially conscious citizen of this great Commonwealth to find the names of the representatives that voted NO to increasing the minimum wage and return the favor.
Very sincerely,
Mieko Manuel Timmons
Richmond
Renee Thornton-Roop Letter to the Editor 02-13-07
Dear Editor:
Driving home from work, I heard an ad on a local radio station regarding how our legislature is attempting to take away personal freedom of choice by banning payday loans. The ad went further to state that "responsible" individuals should have the right to choose to patronize these businesses. My question is, without this legislation, where does the responsibility of the lenders come in? It angers me to no end when those with such unethical business practices shout about violations of our personal freedom when their existence depends on preying on and then exploiting individuals in need.
Current legislation in Virginia is not seeking to eliminate payday loans, but rather to make those businesses offering them more accountable by limiting their interest rates (some are at least 400% of the loan), requiring fees to be conspicuously posted, and most importantly, enforcing a database be implemented to ensure that individuals have no more than three outstanding loans at any given time. The proposed actions of this bill are rational, logical requests, seeking to provide minimum protection to those individuals who will continue to have the right to choose to utilize payday loan services.
As educated consumers, I ask my fellow Virginia residents to get the facts prior to jumping on the restricted freedoms bandwagon - then contact your local representatives and thank them for seeking at least some accountability from these not so reputable businesses.
Thank you,
Renee Thornton-Roop
Radford
Stephanie Nelson Letter to the Editor 02-07-07
Dear Editor,
I am writing to address my concerns regarding the current rate for minimum wage in Virginia ($5.15 per hour). This rate has not increased since 1997, even though the cost of living has increased 27%. This affects approximately 153,000 Virginia workers who earn minimum wage. Although adolescents make up a small portion of minimum wage earners, the reality in Virginia is that 80% of individuals who work at minimum wage are adults.
It is my belief that the current standard for minimum wage is not adequate to meet the basic needs for these 153,000 Virginia workers. A full-time worker that earns minimum wage will make about $9,893 annually, which barely exceeds the federal poverty level for one person. Considering that females represent 61% of minimum wage earners, many of them single mothers, it becomes apparent that the current amount of $5.15 is not enough to make ends meet. For a family of three with one wage earner, a full-time minimum wage position will leave them $5,888 below the poverty line.
There are many benefits to our society that increasing the minimum wage can offer. Sustainable wages improve job retention, absenteeism, and satisfaction. Given the high turnover in minimum wage positions, a great deal of money could be saved if the wage was raised enough to attract longer term workers. Not only would raising the minimum wage reduce turnover costs, but it would also increase productivity. Furthermore, if wages are increased, there would be less reliance on government assistance.
Given these facts, I feel it is important for Virginians to encourage their legislators to support an increase in the minimum wage. A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 83% of Americans support increasing the federal minimum wage to $7.15 per hour. So far, 29 states have recognized the importance of a sustainable wage, setting the minimum wage higher than the federal standard. Hopefully, Virginia will become the 30th state to follow this national trend. For 153,000 Virginias, as well as their employers and customers, it matters a lot.
Sincerely,
Stephanie D. Nelson
Roanoke
Larry Yates Letter to the Editor 02-07-07
Dear Editor:
Often we notice that newspapers and other media use the term "illegals" to describe non-U.S. citizens here in violation of immigration laws. This usage is common in the media, but it's just plain wrong.
A person may be doing illegal things, but the person herself or himself is not "illegal." A substance, like heroin, can be illegal, or might be referred to as contraband. During slavery, the word "contraband" was used to describe a person who fled slavery, signifying that in that society that person had no human rights once identified. Similarly, calling a person an "illegal" seems to go beyond meaning "a person who has broken a law" to imply that the person is essentially illegal. Yet we know that many undocumented immigrants are good hard working people in other aspects of their lives, no matter how unacceptable we may find their violation of the complex immigration laws.
Convicted criminals get off easier in the press than undocumented immigrants do. When newspapers write about tax cheats, or tax thieves as I would call them, they tend to use words like "violators," or even the very gentle "scofflaws." These people cost honest taxpayers millions! Even convicted child rapists, despite their unspeakable crimes, are referred to as "offenders." Why aren't they the ones called "illegals?"
Most of our faith traditions call on us not to dehumanize or hold ourselves above someone who we believe has done wrong. Our constitutional heritage is one of due process and dignity for everyone. Many, perhaps most of us, have broken laws at some time in our lives, but we don't think of ourselves as now being "illegal," and we should not see others that way.
Larry Yates
Maurertown
Charlotte Perdue Letter to the Editor 02-06-07
Dear Editor:
Are payday loans assisting in the downward spiral to deeper debt for today's working poor?
I would like to address the payday loan situation since social workers are mandated to advocate for those who are oppressed or disadvantaged. The current policies and procedures practiced by the payday loan companies are preying primarily on those less fortunate and considered the working poor. The rate of interest is nothing short of being criminal.
These payday loan companies are popping up on every street corner and targeting populations from every ethnic background. It would appear that an individual can borrow from three or more different payday loan companies at one time. One factor not taken into account is the ability to repay the loan. Our politicians need to step up to the plate and stop the madness sweeping across Virginia, affecting many citizens.
Charlotte Perdue
Rocky Mount, VA
Op-Ed: My experience says we should have a minimum wage increase 02-06-07
By Christy Horn
As a concerned citizen and student of social work, I certainly agree to the proposal of raising the minimum wage. I searched the literature, mostly newspapers and online, hoping to find many editorials and arguments that agreed with me. What I was surprised to find, among the various citizens of this country, was not a unified vision of social justice, but rather a large division between compassion and callousness regarding the working poor of our country. Our papers are filled with heated personal debates for and against the raise. It seems that neither side will be won over in this debate, because both sides are so personally invested in their own ideals and prejudice.
From my current understanding of opinions, those who have had some experience with life on minimum wage, whether personally or through family members or other acquaintances, are in support of raising the minimum wage. Those against the raise seem to be completely cut off from the real people who actually try to survive on minimum wage, except by occasional run-ins at the grocery store in which case, these "higher skilled and higher classed" individuals must patiently wait in line with their credit card while the mother of three in front of them searches for her food stamp card and "inconsiderately holds up the line".
Since this debate is inevitably based on values and personal experience, let me add my own experience as a social worker who has worked for the past two years with the working poor, and as one who has worked for both minimum wage and higher salaries myself.
From personal experience, I would tell you that the minimum wage jobs I held required me to work harder and longer, and were much more humiliating and degrading than any salaried position I have ever had. But I also worked alongside people who had some of the highest levels of integrity, work ethic, and love of their families in those minimum wage positions.
Not based on merit, but rather depending on the luck of the draw, some were able to obtain other skills through education that allowed them to get a better job and some were not able to do so. I have worked with many clients in the same boat. Not all people have equal access to education and skills training. It may appear so on the surface, but go into some rural and urban elementary and secondary schools and look at their outdated supplies, their crowded classrooms, and you tell them that they have a chance of getting into and competing in college with those who come from wealthier school districts, who have been preparing for college since the beginning.
Because of this and many other outside circumstances affecting our working poor, I simply do not agree with the argument that opportunity is there for everyone to make a better life for themselves, and that only a handful of families actually live on minimum wage. I have seen too much to the contrary. I also do not see how raising the minimum wage could do more than put a slight dent in the all too deep pockets of our nation's corporations that are so opposed to this increase.
I personally do not understand how one of the richest countries in the world can be so heartless and stingy toward less wealthy, hard-working members of that society. The cost of living goes up every year, and so do the salaries of the wealthy to keep up with that. Minimum wage is ridiculously low, and it has been stagnant for the past ten years. Why does it anger so many to think that many (and I do mean many) less fortunate families in our society will get such a small portion of the raise that is supposedly "deserved" by everyone else?
Christy Horn
Blacksburg
Waddell Howard Letter to the Editor 01-29-07
Dear Editor:
A single mother with a high school education, working as a janitor at a college, faces an uphill battle every day of her life. That battle is to support her two growing children - 5 and 10 - and to provide for them the best way that she can. Having to work long, hard hours every day for just over the set minimum wage of $5.15 to support a family makes it difficult to enjoy her life.
In the capitalistic society of this nation where wealth is so unequally distributed, poverty has become an ill-fated situation and an unnecessary atrocity.
Virginia, which was one of the first established states of this country, boasted great economic growth. Some incoming settlers started from having nothing to become wealthy landowners and successful entrepreneurs within the colony. Nevertheless, almost four hundred years later, the state of Virginia has been transformed into a state that contains a great economic gap that separates its citizens. The individuals that are on the bottom end of this economic gap are falling deeper and deeper into the oppressing quicksand that causes them so much struggle just to survive.
The minimum hourly wage that is set for the state of Virginia means that people working full time still live in poverty!! This brings up an inquiry that must be looked at with much critical examination. How can a state that was built on the value of hard work be sliding faster and faster toward an unequal abyss of economic suppression?
This question is the same one frequently asked by that single mother every night as she worries about her family's well being, and again every morning when she awakens only to face the dreadful discord of a bass drum that belts out the sound of inequality and despair.
Sincerely,
Waddell Howard Jr.
Brothers For Change
Randolph Macon College
Ashland, Virginia
Op-Ed: IT IS 300% WRONG 01-29-07
By Rev. James F. Mauney
It's not just 100% wrong, it is 300% wrong.
I don't understand why we don't confess it. Any fee or loan that works out to over 300% worth of interest per year is just 300% wrong.
While recent editorials have spoken of these loans as a service available for those who like to live on the edge, there are many who turn to these loans as an act of final desperation. Rather than some financial thrill seeker, they are between a rock and a hard place so desperate that they enter into a loan arrangement of over 300%.
I know that Virginians desire a government that protects the highly vulnerable at their moment of greatest vulnerability. For instance, take our young enlisted privates, the newly married, who serve in harm's way on our behalf. They have found themselves in such financial vulnerability and have turned to these payday lenders and car title lenders so often that the outcry of these military families and their military officers has resulted in a study called, "In Harm's Way - At Home: Consumer Scams and the Direct Targeting of America's Military and Veterans." This study helped lead to the passage of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, supported by our own U.S. Senator John Warner. Contained within this $530 billion bill to win the war on terror is a 36% cap on annual interest rates for military personnel facing financial terror at home. Through this special act of Congress and the President, our young soldiers have been taken out of harm's way when it comes to payday lending.
So why would we not as a Commonwealth seek to do the same for those among us who are equally vulnerable? Why would we allow our own vulnerable Virginians to become caught in a web of debt, over their head in a whirlpool that only a loan shark could swim? Why would we not stand up and say, "This will not happen in Virginia to one of our own who need some small but vital help."
I know that we do not care less for our vulnerable than the people and legislatures of North Carolina, Georgia, Maryland, and West Virginia - all have banned these high loans from their states. Is their compassion for their own at a higher level than ours? No! That is 300% wrong!
I know that we desire to protect Virginians as well as our neighbors! On the evening of the state of the commonwealth address, our governor and the two Republican responders shared all our titles to being number one: the title of "the most business friendly state in America," the title of "the best chance for a child's success in America," the title of "the best managed state in America!" These titles diminish in their glory each time a Virginian loses the title to their car over the payment on a 300% loan because they are one day late.
There are kinder, more compassionate ways to be of assistance to those in real need. There are examples of Credit Unions in North Carolina and around Langley here in Virginia who are making many small loans. We are discovering more and more ways to make this a profitable market with interest loans at the 12% and 18% or even the 36% level - the usual rate amount where we begin to talk about "usury." There is the simple way of lengthening the time on the loan from two weeks or a month to three or four months. Many more persons will have the ability to repay the fee AND the loan and will not be caught in the downward spiral of having to take new loans just to pay off the interest/fee and balance from the previous loan.
Please reach out to your state legislators to deliver the message that 36% is enough. It is imperative that a reform bill include this interest rate cap.
It doesn't have to be a long letter. You don't even need to quote from the many places in Isaiah, Amos, and Micah (to name a few). You only need these simple words: "It's 300% wrong."
The Rev. James F. Mauney is the Bishop of the Virginia Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA).
Rev. James F. Mauney
Roanoke College/Brittle Hall
Salem
Gerard Creedon Letter to the Editor 01-26-07
Letter to the Editor:
I am writing to express my opposition to the construction of yet another prison in Virginia. The planned 1024-bed state prison would be the fourth located in Southwest Virginia: Red Onion and Wallens Ridge opened in 1998 and 1999 and a third is under construction and scheduled to open this coming year. It is my understanding that this new prison will cost taxpayers $100 million.
It is my view, and the view of many others in the faith community, that the record incarceration of non-dangerous persons that we see throughout the country is exactly the wrong approach to law enforcement and crime prevention. Prison expansion money could be better spent on drug prevention, mental health and prison reentry programs which, in the long run, are less expensive and more effective ways to reduce recidivism and shrink prison population.
It is unconscionable that the number of incarcerated persons in this country has reached a level that is greater than the populations of many individual states. Unfortunately, Virginia has joined the chorus of those who would fight crime by building more prisons and not by combating the underlying reasons that foster criminal activity - the breakup of the family, drug addiction, mental health problems, poverty, ready availability of guns and the culture of violence which permeates our society.
Putting more and more non-dangerous persons behind bars is not the answer to crime prevention. It can only result in the further breakup of families, the loss of a parental authority for thousands of children and the creation of breeding grounds for increased
criminal activity. The Commonwealth of Virginia should discard the notion of building new prisons and instead invest in less costly and more effective methods of combating crime.
Sincerely,
Rev. Gerard Creedon
Pastor, St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church
Chair, Arlington Diocese Peace and Justice Commission
Kim Davis Letter to the Editor 01-25-07
Dear Editor:
Delegate Frank Hargrove made the "brilliant" suggestion that descendants of enslaved Africans should just get over it (chattel slavery). This was in response to the resolution that would require the state of Virginia to apologize for its role in slavery.
It is time for the United States, Virginia included, to take a great lesson from South Africa concerning truth and reconciliation. There will never be any sincere reconciliation or "just getting over it" until there is truth telling and responsibility assuming by the institutions (not individual people) responsible for the immeasurable crimes against humanity committed during the African Holocaust.
As a descendant of enslaved Africans I make this analogy: You knock me down today that's on you, if I'm still laying there crying tomorrow that's on me. However, because I have a responsibility to get up, which African-Americans have done despite great adversity, does not relieve your responsibility of righting the wrong that you committed. Unless you do not view the aggression as a wrong, in which case, any talk of reconciliation is just talk.
Silence does not equal peace; peace will come with acknowledgement first, then healing. I appeal to all people of consciousness to support House Joint Resolution No. 728 and Senate Joint Resolution 332 by calling and e-mailing your representatives today and voicing your concern.
Sincerely,
Kimberly Davis
Petersburg
Op-Ed: Title lenders: The new predators?
By Stephen Winslow
Delegate Terry Kilgore is wrong; dead wrong. In a recent op-editorial in the Jan. 12 edition of The Roanoke Times (www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/99761), Delegate Kilgore lamented over the need to allow title lenders to achieve the same status as the predatory-lending industry known as payday lending.
While we work to improve opportunity and success for Virginians, we must not fall into the trap that all businesses are good businesses for our communities. Delegate Steve Landes stated in a speech to constituents that we must continue to expand business opportunities in Virginia, but these businesses should be principally and morally sound businesses.
What is sometimes lost in the free-market conversations surrounding payday and title lenders is the damage done to the business community by this industry. These types of predator lenders are detrimental to the credit worthiness and the fiscal position of the consumer base, while also burdening the business community with bounced checks by consumers and even an inability to recover funds when the consumer is decimated by the collection practices of these predator lenders.
Delegate Kilgore, the major contention is not the annual percentage rate, but rather the debt trap that consumes and traps an individual into taking loan after loan. The reality is that people taking these loans are living check to check. The demand placed on them to pay back a loan, plus fees, on their next payday, means they are left with no alternative but to take another loan.
This is an industry that measures success by the defaulted loan, because this industry stresses that if a consumer defaults, then the industry has successfully saturated the consumer's financial position to the breaking point.
To suggest, under the guise of the free market, that these individuals have a choice is to suggest that they enjoy paying $45 in fees on a $300 loan every single time they are paid. That seems like an awfully expensive hobby to me. Remember, this is not new money they are obtaining on each loan. It is simply additional fees incurred because they cannot pay off the original loan.
Unfortunately, the examples of gift-card fees, which have nothing to do with loan practices, or the use of an American Express card are not relevant to this discussion.
First of all, in all the time I was a manager in the payday-lending industry, I never dealt with a customer who possessed an American Express card. Most customers were lucky to have a check card from their bank. Those that had Visa cards, for example, had exhausted their maximums on those cards.
Second, credit cards do not typically require full payment on your payday, but rather create reasonable monthly payments for the consumer - a practice glaringly absent from the policies of predator lenders like payday lenders.
Finally, with all due respect, please do not suggest that Milton Friedman, perhaps the greatest economist in the history of the free market, would advocate an industry that oppresses the free market by entangling the consumer in a cycle that prohibits free choice and instead condemns the consumer into a perpetuating fiscal crisis from which they cannot escape freely.
Predatory lenders like payday and title lenders do not fill a need. This industry clearly exploits the needs, problems and fiscal crisis that the working poor, senior citizens on fixed income and other vulnerable citizens face while struggling from check to check.
If education is your goal, Delegate Kilgore, then I invite you, and all other interested citizens, to participate in an educational forum on February 3, at 10 a.m., at the Massanutten Regional Library in Harrisonburg, where the practices of this industry will be clearly articulated.
Stephen Winslow
Waynesboro
Jay Johnson Letter to the Editor 1-23-07
Dear Editor:
Delegate Frank Hargrove's harsh words about not needing to apologize for slavery should not just be today's scandal. Where there is smoke, there is fire.
There is a reason that we keep hearing outrageous statements about race and ethnicity from people who are otherwise widely respected public officials. It's because the legacy of slavery is very much part of our daily lives.
The Virginia Organizing Project has been conducting Dismantling Racism workshops across the state since 1996. Through those workshops, hundreds of Virginians have learned that the institution of slavery still has a deep influence on how Virginians live today, and that ignoring that fact is harmful to us all. The Virginia Organizing Project's members have learned that all Virginians can work together for the common good - once they are aware of what other Virginians experience.
Delegate Hargrove is not a bad man. He has taken some brave stands, such as calling for an end to the death penalty in Virginia. But, like all Virginians, he is deeply influenced by a faulty system.
I applaud the legislators who have called for an apology for slavery - not because an apology will wipe away the past, but because it sends a powerful signal about what we need to pay attention to in the present.
Sincerely,
Janice "Jay" Johnson
Chairperson
Op-Ed: Virginia needs verifiable voting legislation 01-22-07
By Ivy Main
A typical paperless electronic voting machine can be hacked in under a minute, its software invisibly altered to steal votes and, thorough a computer virus, made to similarly alter other machines. Voters would be unaware their votes had been altered; election officials would't be able to detect the fraud. Conceivably, the outcome of an election could be changed without voters, candidates, or election officials knowing it.
In the past year, computer experts at Princeton University, New York University, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology have all issued reports detailing the vulnerabilities of direct record electronic (DRE) machines. These concerns are hardly new, but have simply added to the consensus that the security and integrity of our elections depends on our ability to independently verify any machine count.
Today, most Virginians vote on DREs that have no paper record or other auditing capability. A software attack--or just a simple programming error--could alter the outcome of an election. The lack of voter-verifiability in these machines and no paper audit trail means there may be no way for election officials to detect or correct inaccurate vote counts or conduct a meaningful recount in the case of a close or disputed election.
The Virginia Legislature is currently considering legislation that would change this. Identical bills in the House (HB2707) and Senate (SB840) would require that all jurisdictions use paper ballots read by optical scan tabulators, with an exemption for very small counties and provisions for all precincts to have disabled-accessible technology as well.
Optical scan tabulators are a proven, reliable and economical technology. Indeed, these tabulators are already in use in most areas for mailed-in absentee ballots, as well as in general election day voting in Chesterfield, Hanover, Loudoun and Stafford counties.
Voters mark paper ballots and feed them through the scanner (tabulator). The tabulator checks the ballot, and gives the voter a chance to correct undervotes or overvotes. The paper ballots provide a paper trail without the complications and risks of adding printers to existing direct record electronic machines.
The bill also provides for election officials to use that paper trail to conduct random audits of the election machines, a critical step in ensuring the integrity of elections. When the vote is close or disputed, officials will also conduct a recount that actually looks to the paper record, unlike the recounts-in-name-only that characterize our current system.
How important are these provisions? In 2002, post-election audits detected a software error in Wayne County, North Carolina that changed the result of the election. Because Wayne County used optical scan tabulators, the error was detected and remedied. Now North Carolina requires paper trails and audits for all elections.
Virginia's voters deserve no less. This vitally important legislation should be passed this year to ensure the integrity of our elections.
Ivy Main is the Policy Director of the New Electoral Reform Alliance of Virginia, a nonpartisan group working to make it easier for Virginians to exercise their right to vote and to have confidence in the integrity of our electoral system. She can be reached at ivy.main@neweraforva.org.
Ivy Main
McLean
Op-Ed: Virginia's Citizens are getting SLAPPed Around 01-22-07
By Lisa Guthrie
If you have ever spoken in front of a group you know how nerve-wracking it can be. Whether you are a veteran local activist or a citizen clutching hastily scrawled notes at your first Board of Supervisors public hearing, you may feel a little anxious.
But are you worried about getting sued for speaking out?
That's what happened last year to members of the North Airport Drive Civic Association in Henrico County. The trustee of a land parcel sued the Association, its president and a board member for over $5 million because at a public hearing the two community residents spoke against a proposal that would have rezoned the agricultural property for residential use. A developer had planned to pay for the property if the Henrico Board of Supervisors approved the rezoning, but the Board turned down the applicant's rezoning request and the sale did not go through.
The suit alleges conspiracy and interference with business, a common claim in what are known as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation or "SLAPP suits". SLAPP suits rarely have any more merit than the Henrico case, but that does not stop them from achieving the plaintiffs objectives - suppressing citizens' involvement in government and the decisions of their elected officials. Cases can take years to litigate, draining the defendants' resources, energy, and will and discouraging all citizens from exercising their First Amendment rights.
The Henrico case is one of several recent SLAPP suits in Virginia, but they are not unique to our state. Twenty-three other states have passed legislation that protects citizens from similar abuse of the legal system. Right now Virginia's lawmakers have an opportunity to right this wrong and ensure that the courts do not interfere with the local legislative process. Several legislators have sponsored separate bills that would amend the Code of Virginia to provide reasonable protections for citizens on the receiving end of a SLAPP suit.
One bill would provide immunity from lawsuits to citizens who speak to matters properly before any governing body (excluding libelous or slanderous conduct). Another would allow courts to dismiss lawsuits found to have malicious intent when the defendants' activities were legitimate and not intended to harass the plaintiff.
The Virginia League of Conservation Voters (VALCV) supports these bills and commends the bill patrons for championing Virginians' right to free speech and public participation. VALCV urges Virginia's citizens to defend their right to speak up for their communities and neighborhoods. Tell your senator and delegate that you want them to do the same by supporting anti-SLAPP suit legislation. You can find your legislators and their contact information by visiting the General Assembly website at http://legis.state.va.us/
Virginia citizens need to keep fighting for our future. Now is the time to demand necessary changes in Virginia's laws before you, your neighbors, or your local civic group get SLAPPed.
Lisa Guthrie is the Executive Director of the Virginia League of Conservation Voters; www.valcv.org
Lisa Guthrie
League of Conservation Voters
530 E. Main St, Suite 820,
Richmond, VA 23219
804-225-1902
Op-Ed: We need a minimum, but living, wage 01-19-07
By Bob Peckman
In my junior year of high school, the minimum wage went from $1 to $1.25 per hour. That was when coffee was a dime and gasoline was 25 cents per gallon. A college textbook was $7.
By working summers in high school and college and taking some student loans, I was able to pay my entire college expense.
The value of coffee and gasoline and textbooks is the same now as it was then. But the value that a student can earn is less than half of what I earned and tuition has gone through the roof. Young people can no longer put themselves through college.
There are folks who are working, even two jobs, who cannot take care of their families at a time when the typical new home is a McMansion.
America was the land of golden opportunity, where an immigrant with nothing but hard work could take care of a family and send the children to college.
It was a land where patriotism meant contributing to society and building the infrastructure that we are having trouble just maintaining today.
A million dollars was a bloody fortune when I was a student. Today we have some that are making 10 or 100 bloody fortunes per year.
And at the same time, the Roanoke Valley houses of worship share a program to house working families that are homeless. I said working families that are homeless! We all want to be one of those folks that make 100 fortunes per year.
We need to refocus on the basic values that made our nation great. We have jobs that pay so poorly no one can live on the wages.
The answer to that is not foreign workers. That is just a way to add more poor people to our country. We need the low-end jobs to pay enough that Americans can earn a living and better themselves.
A wealthy class that passes large fortunes to the children so they can grow larger fortunes is an aristocracy. What made us greater than Europe was our lack of an aristocracy. Everyone could pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Today Europe has dissolved their aristocracy and we are building ours. But the children of the aristocracy are not the strongest or the smartest or the most willing to work to build our great country.
We are quibbling about whether to raise the minimum wage a few cents when it needs to be more than doubled. We should not be paying a minimal wage.
The minimum wage should be the minimum that you need to raise a family and better yourself if you have the ambition to get out and work hard.
Bob Peckman is a retied physicist/engineer living in Roanoke.
Kirk Ballin Letter to the Editor 01-18-07
Dear Editor:
In light of the controversy concerning Rep. Virgil Goode's comments regarding Muslims, immigration and the Quran, on behalf of the Valley Character Interfaith Committee members, I feel compelled to make a statement regarding faith, character and the quality of community life.
There is nothing whatsoever inherent to the United States form of government that advocates for the exclusion of any religious identity in American society. There are only laws that preserve the right to practice religion freely and safely, and laws to ensure the security and safety of all U.S. citizens.
It is the responsibility of all of us as citizens of our communities to treat one another with the same respect as we wish to be treated by others. Such mutual respect is a quality of a healthy individual and a pillar of a healthy community.
Any such actions or words that intentionally undermine this pillar should not be tolerated, and must be met with condemnation.
But such actions or words must also underscore the critical importance of community leaders in government, business, education, and religion to be models to the community of good character and to promote character development in all arenas of our society.
In a person of good character and in a society promoting good character, there must be no room for prejudice and bigotry.
Kirk A. Ballin
Roanoke
Keith DeBlasio Letter to the Editor 01-04-07
Dear Editor,
I was absolutely astounded when I saw that the top-billed item of the Governor's recent budget proposals was a new prison at the cost of $100 million to the taxpayers.
Haven't we learned from the past that new prisons are the last thing we need? Haven't we learned that the "War on Crime" is failing miserably?
What we need in Virginia and across the country is not more and more and more incarceration, especially for nonviolent offenders. What we need are effective ways to transform individuals into productive members of our society - contributing members of our communities that are able to support themselves and their families.
We can punish most criminal offenders without incarcerating them and thereby punishing everyone else around them, including their children, their families, and their fellow citizens who, of course, bear the cost of their incarceration, their lack of contribution to the economy, and often their family's need for public assistance. In most cases, isn't it more fitting a punishment to make an individual stay home, work hard, support his or her family (like the rest of us), and give back through extensive community service? At least that doesn't punish the public with increasing tax bills and $100 million dollars budget items.
Haven't we figured out that we can be "tough on crime" and "smart on crime" at the same time?
I urge every citizen to let the government know that they need to discard this notion of building new prisons. Instead, we should be encouraging them to spend that money on more effective, cost-saving alternatives, such as a pretrial therapeutic community in Southwest Virginia which the drug courts could use to lighten the burden on the prison system, help stop the drug addiction pattern in our country, keep families united, and effectively reduce future crimes.
One of the things that seem very puzzling to me is the fact that we have recently closed down prisons in Virginia, sold them for practically nothing, and then started building others. Didn't they approving selling the prison in Staunton to a private company for $1in 2004? This makes no sense. What are we doing??? The media has stated that a new prison would boost the economy. Well, so would a treatment facility or half way house. It is shameful (but obviously true), that it is all about money and has little to do with real people.
Remember the old school yard game about one potato, two potato, three potato, four? Well, this it seems more suitable for the Virginia government - one new prison, two new prisons, three new prisons, four? I guess the legislators just stick their fists out and wait to be chosen. The last fist still in gets millions of dollars. And, we pay! And pay! And pay!
Sincerely,
Keith Wm. DeBlasio
Executive Director
AdvoCare, Inc.
P.O. Box 133
Hancock, MD 21750-0133
Phone: 202-271-1623
Fax: 202-204-6038
Email: director@advocareflash.org
Linda Royster Letter to the Editor 01-03-07
Letter to the editor:
We are ashamed at the recent grossly bigoted statements of Virgil H. Goode, Jr., Congressman from south central Virginia, who ranted about the importance of keeping Muslims out of the United States to preserve American traditional values.
We address our Muslim Neighbors: Please know that you are valued members of our community. Our lives would be less rich without you. We need not welcome you to our country and our state, because you are part of us. You belong here beside us, whether you were born here, as was Congressman Ellison, immigrated here with the help of the United States government, as did our Kurdish neighbors, or immigrated here for some other reason or in some other way. We rejoice in your presence among us. We are deeply ashamed that some Virginians speak hate; we do not share that hate.
Linda Royster and Eric Milnes, Co-Chairs, Social Justice Committee, Harrisonburg Unitarian Universalists
John Horejsi Letter to the Editor 01-02-07
Letter to the Editor:
We reacted with considerable alarm when Senator William Wampler and Virginia officials announced that Grayson County has been selected as the site for another medium security prison. We understand that many of the locals are opposed and are already protesting.
The planned 1,024-bed state prison, would be the fourth located in Southwest Virginia. Red Onion and Wallens Ridge opened in 1998 and 1999 and a third is under construction and scheduled to open this coming year.
Senator Wampler said the prison proposed for Grayson would cost $80 million but the Chairman of the County Board of Supervisors claims the Grayson prison could cost $100 million.
We, advocates and concerned taxpayers, join with the locals who are opposed to this massive Virginia prison expansion funding effort. The main question is who pays? The Virginia taxpayer, that's who! Additionally, what other services go unfunded in order to pay for this prison expansion effort.
SALT's 800 members join with prison reform advocates in urging legislators to oppose the building of another prison even while thousands of parole eligible men and women are being denied release on parole. The prison expansion money could be better spent on prison reentry programs that are far less costly and that have proven to reduce recividism and prison needs.
Readers are urged to contact your legislators to stop continuously building expensive new prisons and instead invest in more cost saving and effective alternatives. The fact is prison costs are escalating out of control to the detriment of being able to fund core state services such as education, health, transportation and other social services.
John Horejsi
Social Action Linking Together (SALT) Coordinator
9610 Counsellor Dr.
Vienna, VA 22181
703-255-7074
jhorejsi@cox.net
VOP Letter to the Editor 12-27-06
Dear Editor:
The Virginia Organizing Project, a statewide citizens group that works on a variety of social and economic justice issues, wants to add its voice to the growing demand that U.S. Representative Virgil Goode apologize to all those who were offended by his bigoted remarks about Muslims and those from the Middle East.
As an organization that believes that all people should be treated fairly and with dignity in all aspects of life, we consider Mr. Goode's remarks to be totally inappropriate, especially for a member of the United States Congress.
Reading what Mr. Goode wrote to hundreds of constituents was bad enough, but his refusal to publicly apologize - even after others pointed out that U.S. Representative-elect Keith Ellison is a native-born American who says he can trace his roots in this country back to Louisiana in 1742 - is simply unacceptable.
We all need to let the whole world know that Virginia is not about bigotry.
Sincerely,
Janice "Jay" Johnson
Chairperson
Op-Ed: Agricultural Land is Our Heritage 12-11-06
By Timmy French, Terry Martin, Peter Truban and John Zirkle
Virginia is losing more than 46,000 acres of agricultural land each year. Between 2001 and 2005, more than 30,000 acres of crop land was lost to other land uses. More than 1,760 farms went out of existence from 1997 to 2002. The numbers in Shenandoah County tell a similar story. From 1997 to 2002, Shenandoah County saw a 2 percent decrease in the number of working farms - or a loss of 1,772 acres of agricultural land.
As farmers who want to continue to farm, we have to be concerned about these numbers. Our business is farming. It supports our families and has supported some county families for generations. And we hope it can continue to support our families many more years to come. But every time we see another story about the loss of farmland in our county and our state, we become less confident about the future of our agricultural businesses - and many others.
Agriculture is Virginia's largest and oldest industry. It's been the backbone of the state economy for almost four centuries. The Virginia Farm Bureau puts it this way: "From the beams in your roof to the cotton in your blue jeans to the popcorn you eat at the movies and the pumpkin on your porch at Halloween, farming affects you daily. It's the industry that provides the beef in your burger, the bacon and eggs for your breakfast and the wool in your sweater."
It also provides a shot in the arm to the local, state and national economies. The U.S. food and farming system contributes nearly $1 trillion to our national economy - more than 13 percent of the gross domestic product - and employs 17 percent of the labor force. Farming in Virginia generates approximately $36 billion per year, or 12.3 percent of all sales in state. In Shenandoah County, agriculture contributes almost $70 million to the local economy, and the county ranks fifth in the state in agricultural sales.
And that is just counting the direct economic contributions of agriculture. Think about how much agricultural businesses spend on feed, equipment and services; the indirect contributions of agriculture to the local and state economies is substantial. According to the USDA 2002 Census of Agriculture, in Shenandoah County total farm production expenses amounted to nearly $60 million annually. If agriculture suffers, then the whole local economy suffers.
One of the most serious threats facing agriculture today is not foreign competition or low prices. It is the loss of prime agricultural land. From 1992 to 1997 more than 11 million acres of rural land were converted to developed land; more than half of that was agricultural land. During that same period, an average of more than 1 million agricultural acres were developed each year. That's a 51-percent jump from the rate reported in the previous decade - and the numbers for the current decade will be even higher.
Why should the average person care about the loss of farmland and its impact on agriculture? It's about a lot more than losing a pretty view.
A strong agricultural economy is vital to national security and the protection of our food sources. Food produced in Virginia and the rest of the United States faces more rigorous safety standards than foods imported from some other countries. Locally grown food spends less time in transit from farm to table. It's fresher and safer - and it supports the local economy. 63 percent of our dairy products, and 86 percent of our fruits and vegetables come from the areas most threatened by development.
Agriculture also supports vital public services for all of us. Privately owned and managed agricultural land generates more in tax revenues than it costs in services. The conversion of productive agricultural land to residential development poses a very real financial burden for the county. The reason: cows don't go to school, and chickens don't drive. Shenandoah County balances its books from the money it receives in taxes on agricultural and open land. Services required by residential development are expensive. In fact, for every $1.00 that Shenandoah County receives in taxes from these homes, the County must spend approximately $1.27 to provide public services. However, for every $1.00 that County receives in taxes from agricultural and open land, the County nets .78 cents in tax revenue.
Put another way, our community pays a high price for unplanned scattered growth. Scattered growth or sprawl results in an increased demand for costly public services. It also results in more traffic, more air and water pollution, more overcrowded schools and other problems. And it results in the loss of something that is hard to put a value on: the starring role of the family farm in our local, state and national heritage.
It is the history of our family farms and local agriculture that makes a place like Shenandoah County a unique community with great character and a high quality of life. By keeping our agricultural lands in farming, we are saying there is real value in the scenic, cultural and historic landscapes that are part and parcel of our history. We're also saying that agriculture itself has a value - as a vital contributor to our local economy, as a source of our food - and as an integral part of our American heritage.
Agricultural land is our legacy, both as we look back to the past and as we consider what we have of value to pass on to future generations. It is up to us to protect it - before it's too late.
Mike Dirting, Nathaniel Dirting, Brent Miller and Steve Baker also contributed to this article. All the authors are farmers in Shenandoah County.
Kevin Raymond Letter to the Editor 11-30-06
Dear Editor:
The Social Security Administration recently announced a cost-of-living increase of 3.3 percent for 2007. The average retiree's income from that source will rise from $1,011 per month to $1,044 per month - $12,528 per year. Whenever there is talk of re-working Social Security formulas, howls of protest often go up among some groups to the effect that the intent of Social Security has always been to serve as an income supplement during retirement years, and not as the principal source of income.
In contrast, the minimum wage is supposed to serve as the principal source of income for some families. Virginia's minimum wage is $5.15 per hour - not bad for a high schooler living at home - but not so hot when it is supposed to support a family. A salary of $5.15 per hour and a 40-hour work week provides a monthly income of $1,071, or $12,852 per year - about the same as Social Security recipients. And to make matters further inequitable, Social Security recipients have few, if any, deductions coming out of their check - not so for the wage earner who may have several deductions, including Social Security.
Virginia is a wealthy state, mainly by virtue of the federal presence and hi-tech industries. We have a per capita income of $38,390 - 7th highest in the nation, and we had the highest increase in the nation last year.
Our state government is often described as the best managed state in the nation. However, we have a poor record of addressing problems related to those who have not been blessed with economic success. There are thousands of Virginia families who live well below the poverty level. According to the 2000 Census, out of 1.9 million families counted, some 150,822 - 7.9 percent - were living on incomes of less than $15,000 per year. It is unconscionable that when the opportunity comes along, some will deny these families modest increases in income.
Economists will battle to the end of time whether increases in the minimum wage will help or hurt an economy, cause an increase in unemployment, or hurt small business. It should be pointed out however that here in Virginia we have an abundance of resources, low unemployment and a rapidly growing economy. And in this kind of environment, there are those of us who believe an increase in the minimum wage will further stimulate our economy by providing more spending power, helping to bring some families out of poverty, and opening additional incentives for others to join the work force.
In the 2006 elections, while Virginians were agonizing in the voting booth about gay marriage, the citizens of the six states that held a referendum on minimum wage increases all provided a resounding "yes". In each case the margins were over 75 percent. It is time that the Virginia General Assembly provides for an increase, and one that is tied to the rate of inflation going forward. It is this kind of legislation that will truly help families that live at or near the minimum wage, and a valuable measure of how much our legislators really care about family values.
Kevin M. Raymond
Dale City
Jason Guard Letter to the Editor 11-27-06
Dear Editor:
How do they sleep at night?
Payday lenders operating in our commonwealth made over $169 million in fees in 2005 alone. That fat cash came out of the pockets of over 445,000 hard working Virginians - and it's money that would be better spent on groceries, rent, health care, and childcare.
Loan Max has contributed just under $189,000 to political campaigns since 2004. That's only a tiny fraction of the exorbitant profits they made on the backs of low-income workers, military personnel, and elderly Virginians.
And these predators actually have high-power lobbyists that represent their interests - working long hours down at the General Assembly to assure they can continue to charge usurious interest rates to unsuspecting and desperate borrowers.
I know a job is sometimes just a job. But sometimes industry folks and their supporting army of lobbyists need to stop and think what damage they are doing to their neighboring citizens. They would certainly get more sleep for it.
Sincerely,
Jason Guard
Richmond
Bruce Neilson Letter to the Editor 11-20-06
Dear Editor:
In many ways, Virginia is a state with progressive attributes, rated by popular magazines as the best managed state, the most automated state government, and so forth. But in the area of the Minimum Wage, sadly, we are stuck in the past century, grouping with such other Southern states as Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi.
The federal minimum wage of $5.15 per hour holds hundreds of thousands of Virginians at below-poverty wages, exacting its toll on our low-income citizens and their families even while the dot com economy of Northern Virginia and its higher incomes prospers. Working full time at the current minimum wage means that a Virginia family of three has nearly 50 percent less income than the federal poverty level, not enough to rent even a one-room apartment anywhere in Virginia. The minimum wage has not been increased in a decade, during which time the consumer price index has climbed more than 27 percent. The minimum wage buys less today than it did in 1979.
Minimum wages are no longer tolerated in a majority of states, where in the absence of federal action, state and local governments have enacted higher minimum wages to remedy the injustice of poverty wages. In this fall's 2006 elections, ballot questions to increase wages above the federal minimum passed in all six states where they appeared. It is time for Virginia's General Assembly to do the same.
During the 2006 General Assembly, the Fair Wage Act was promoted by the Virginia Coalition to End Homelessness and the advocacy group Social Action Linking Together (S.A.L.T). The bill was sponsored by Senator Chuck Colgan and Delegate Vince Callahan. The bill failed to pass the Republican controlled subcommittee of the House Commerce and Labor Committee.
Let's get with it, Virginia. Nearly every state surrounding Virginia has decided to act on behalf of the least paid workers among us. Nobody should have to work full time and take home a poverty wage. Let us bring Virginia into the new century with wages, too. Enact increases to the Minimum Wage without delay.
Sincerely,
Bruce Neilson
Fairfax
Lisa Evans Letter to the Editor 11-16-06
Dear Editor:
Now that five more states have passed increases in their minimum wages, over half the states in the United States have minimum wages higher than the federal level, Virginia is lagging behind.
In August 2006, Virginia was named by Forbes Magazine the best state for business. Those who most strongly oppose a minimum wage increase in Virginia point to our excellent environment for business and say that a minimum wage increase would hurt this reputation. But businesses that do not provide enough compensation for their workers to survive on the wages they earn are, in the long run, detrimental to both the economic and social structures of the state.
Proponents of capitalism claim that it is the most efficient economic system ever devised and this is why it is the best. However, with the minimum wage as low as it is, and a great number of Virginia workers working at this wage or slightly above it, our economy is inefficient as it requires third parties to step in and supplement - through a variety of local, state, and federal programs - the poverty wages of many Virginia workers. If the working poor continue to remain poor despite their full-time jobs and the gap between the haves and have-nots continues to increase, our economy will only become more inefficient and unstable. Speak with your legislator and go to www.virginiafairwage.org and sign a petition supporting an immediate increase in the minimum wage. It's time Virginia caught up in the effort to make the economy more fair and to lift the working poor out of poverty.
No one who works full time should have to live in poverty.
Lisa Evans
Emory
Lana Hurt Letter to the Editor 11-15-06
Dear Editor,
I don't generally write to voice private views, but I feel particularly overwhelmed. I am so ashamed and saddened that once again in Virginia we have rejected rights to a whole group of people simply because they experience a different sexual orientation.
I understand how it feels to be rejected by people for reasons beyond my control. I am a mother of a child with a severe disability, and I well remember the days of crying in the car every time I went to the grocery store. It hurts to be scorned.
What possible good does it do to deny people the right to choose who will advance their medical care on their death beds? Why would we do this?
We are not a Christian state when over and over again we deny opportunities to include, accept and care for people. Love is not exclusive. Love is kind.
Isn't it ironic that one has to turn to a Unitarian Church to practice the kind of faith that Jesus inspired in this increasingly duplicitous and ruthless world?
To all the gay people I know who are doing creative, compassionate work in human service fields, attending churches weekly and giving back to the same communities that deny them; I can't say how sorry I am that the marriage amendment was supported. Please do not lose heart. You are valued by those who see you as you are - human. No better, no worse.
Lana Hurt
Cross Junction
Jordan Tilley Letter to the Editor 10-31-06
Dear Editor:
I am from the Martinsville/Henry County area and am now a student at the University of Virginia. Politically, I consider myself to have moderate views, consuming ideas of both Democrats and Republicans. As Americans, whether Democrat or Republican, one cannot overlook the fact that this country is in a downward spiral. The pride that used to come with being an American is, in the demeanor of our citizens, not so apparent any more and this is a direct reflection of our government.
To prevent an even further downward spiral, I encourage everyone to vote NO on the marriage amendment. America does not have a set religion. We are a nation amongst equals, where everyone has equal opportunities. Like it or not, without a set religion, the precedent of marriage between one man and one woman cannot be set law. Yes, according to Christianity, which is the predominant religion of Americans, marriage is to be between one man and one woman. However, this great country was founded on the idea of separation of church and state. By implementing an amendment such as this, one is neglecting this fact.
The point is, I understand that the idea of two men or women together is disturbing to the many Americans who have strong faith and believe in the traditional idea of marriage of one man and one woman, but you must leave your religious beliefs at home come November 7. The great thing about America is that we are accepting of all types of people. It is this idea that America is prided upon, an idea that will without question be weakened by the implementation of this amendment and of discriminatory language into our state constitution. So I challenge the people of Virginia to keep the tradition of this country amongst equals. In spite of your religious beliefs, vote NO on the marriage amendment, because the idea of this great nation is to not leave anyone behind.
Jordan Tilley
Bassett
Carl Matthews Letter to the Editor 10-30-06
To the Editor:
The proposed constitutional amendment in Ballot Question #1 disturbs me as a Virginian and a Christian.
My concern for Virginia is economic. Let me offer a real-life example of the damage this amendment will do our state. When my son came to work for the University of Virginia, he found a competent new colleague who quickly became a friend. But his friend, an information technology specialist with 13 years of progressively increasing responsibility and glowing reviews at the University, left to work for a national corporation. That corporation will pay him more and provide far better benefits - especially medical insurance for his partner. It will also make it easy for him to leave Virginia for another state if Virginia threatens the contractual arrangements he and his partner have entered. My son only learned of his friend's living arrangements when he asked about his leaving. He had not crusaded for his lifestyle. But his friend had choices, as modern industry needs his professional capabilities. Why should he stay in a state that insults him and invites challenges to his legal arrangements? What company in need of highly skilled employees like my son's friend will choose to locate in Virginia?
As a Christian, I believe we should try to emulate the way Jesus lived. He argued mostly with the self-righteous, and braided His own whip to drive those who had profited from the devout out of the temple. Some polls suggest a majority of us will side with the self-righteous and the moneychangers to drive out gay Virginians. The Jesus of the Gospels would not act that way toward my son's friend, or anyone else.
Christians must vote "No" on Ballot Question #1.
Carl S. Matthews
Charlottesville
Op-Ed: Don't Mess With Virginia's Bill of Rights 10-23-06
By Buckey Boone
In 1776 two revolutions took place in Virginia. One was against British rule. The other more radical revolution, led by our founding father, George Mason, was for constitutional democracy. In that year Virginia adopted Mason's Bill of Rights. This great document - from which came the Declaration of Independence as well as the US Bill of Rights - declared that all people "are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights (that) they cannot, by any compact, deprive their posterity." The Bill declared the listed rights to be "the basis and foundation of government."
This revolutionary idea is what has helped preserve our government for the last 230 years. Here's the core of that idea: in a democracy, those in power will change from time to time - sometimes the business class will be in power, sometimes the farmers; sometimes the city dwellers will dominate, sometimes the rural people; etc. But, whoever is in power, all citizens are guaranteed basic rights. (We know now that the founding fathers had terrible blind spots on race and women, but now most people agree that these rights apply regardless of race and gender.) So, everyone has a stake in the government because it is charged with protecting their basic rights. Those basic rights are imbedded in our Virginia Constitution. In recognition of this great contribution to our country's laws, George Mason's portrait hangs in the US Capitol Building alongside those of Moses and Hammurabi.
Now for the first time on November 7, Virginia voters are asked to use the Bill of Rights to take rights away from citizens, to unravel one of the greatest documents of American history. The so-called marriage amendment does not simply define marriage as between a man and a woman. It goes much further. It says that unmarried people cannot have any rights that look at all like those rights of married people. It takes away the right of unmarried people to have contracts if those contracts look anything like part of a marriage contract.
If this amendment passes, nothing will happen to marriage. Same sex marriages and civil unions are already prohibited by three Virginia laws. But here's what may happen to our citizens if it passes: Unmarried citizens may not be able to choose who can make medical decisions for them if they are incapacitated; they may not be able to choose with whom to buy a house; citizens may lose access to health insurance.
And here is what is likely to happen: victims of domestic violence will lose protections of the court if they are not married. This has already happened in Ohio where a less far reaching amendment passed in 2004. Over half of Virginia's protective orders are now given to victims who are not married to their abuser. Are we really willing to put women at the mercy of violent abusers just because they are not married to their abuser?
Please honor the wisdom of our founding fathers. Vote NO on Question #1 on November 7.
Buckey Boone
Abingdon
Larry Yates Letter to the Editor 10-19-06
To the Editor:
Same-sex relationships are an emotional issue today. Our General Assembly has responded to - and further stirred up - that emotion by putting before Virginia's voters its proposal to change Virginia's Bill of Rights.
Where does all that emotion come from?
Many people have made a connection between this public issue and their faith. It's worth remembering that a century ago, people of faith felt similar genuine urgency about alcohol, dancing and card-playing. Rural people were anxious about moving to the bright lights of industrial cities, and preachers responded to their anxieties.
Today, many of us, whatever our faith or lack of it, are anxious about homosexuality. Why? People who love people of the same sex have always been here - in our families, congregations, and workplaces. Now, however, they want to be seen and respected just as they are, as we flawed heterosexuals always have been. This change is only fair - but it stirs up difficult emotions.
In my liberal family in the 1960s, we believed, with cruel kindness, that homosexuals were sad mentally ill products of maladjusted families. Powerful words like "perversion" and "unnatural" as well as uglier words heard all too often, reinforce our emotions and stereotypes about homosexuality. Long-held beliefs don't change easily.
Our legislators have exploited our anxiety for their political benefit. So have some members of the clergy who preach on "hot button" issues, and, not surprisingly, cite verses of scripture to fit their message. But obscure scripture verses did not create our intense emotions. We in the heterosexual majority are caught between a past that was comfortable to us but cruel to our sisters and brothers, and a future that may be difficult for us, but will be more fair.
When today's young people come into their own, religion will survive. Love and faith and community will still matter. But today's anxiety about same-sex relationships will seem as old-fashioned then as preaching against waltzing does to us today. Let's not let our anxiety pollute the Virginia Constitution that future generations will have to live by. Let's vote No on Amendment #1.
Larry Yates
Maurertown
Rebecca Allen Letter to the Editor 10-18-06
Letter to the Editor:
I am writing as president of the Unitarian Universalist Church of the Shenandoah Valley.
Like other congregations in the Northern Shenandoah Valley, we are a rich quilt of friendships, families, responsibilities and common values. Like more and more congregations, we explicitly choose to fully include and accept gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people, as individuals and as families, in our congregation's network. We also welcome heterosexuals with a variety of life choices, including those who live together outside marriage. None of this harms or devalues the traditional marriages of other members.
We did not come easily or overnight to our welcoming position. Our strong commitment to congregational democracy helped. This American church tradition calls us to revere individual dignity and honor every human voice. Respect for every person also binds our nation's fabric together - an American value nurtured by many sources, including Jesus' active affirmation of the poor, oppressed and sexual outcasts of his day.
On November 7th all Virginians will be asked to vote on Amendment #1, the so-called Marriage Amendment. We urge every Virginian to act responsibly and read the full text of the amendment carefully before they go to the polls. We think you will find that this amendment does not pass the test of fully honoring every citizen of our Commonwealth. Not only people who belong to sexual minorities, but unmarried heterosexual couples, will face legal jeopardy if this amendment passes. Domestic and business relationships and practices that are now legal in Virginia may be called into question for years.
We do not ask other congregations to do anything that violates their various creeds and beliefs. Virginia's Constitution, though, however it was inspired is not a church document. It has been described by our forefathers as "a mode of civil polity," a tool for protecting the rights that George III had trampled on. We urge voters to take a truly conservative path, and not rush to tamper with this honorable legacy to us. Please vote "No" on Amendment #1.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Allen
Winchester
Op-Ed: A Lesson For Predatory Lenders 10-17-06
By Helen O'Beirne
Lending should pull people OUT of poverty, not drag them into it.
Bangladeshi economist and professor Muhammad Yunus was just awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in developing Garmeen Bank, a microcredit lending establishment that has already spread to 40 countries globally, many in South Asia. Through loans from Garmeen, poor citizens can get the startup money they need to buy tools or other capital they need to develop a business.
It is unlikely that the U.S. will see anything similar anytime soon.
Those living paycheck to paycheck in our country rarely reap the benefits of short-term credit. Instead, the American need for small loans is often "filled" by payday and car title lenders - predators that liken their product to a "financial taxi." It's more like a financial Mack truck, headed straight for your hopes of a stable financial future.
Yunus' microcredit brainchild has afforded his vision of a world without poverty a viable chance in countries like Sri Lanka. Garmeen Bank currently boasts over 6.6 billion borrowers. Each of those people is better off because of those advances - loans that represent an opportunity to survive, sustain, and succeed.
Conversely, the 445,000 Virginians that got payday loans last year are likely worse off having completed that transaction. Instead of offering the hope to buy that house, start a business, or send their kid to college, predatory lenders rob borrowers of any chance to keep their heads above water. Working Americans find themselves one step closer to poverty.
Payday and car title lenders should take notice of Yunus' Garmeen Bank - a practical concept that makes the world a slightly more hopeful and habitable place.
Helen O'Beirne, Responsible Lending Coordinator
Virginia Partnership to Encourage Responsible Lending (VaPERL)
www.VirginiaFairLoans.org
Taylor Beard Letter to the Editor 10-16-06
To the Editor:
I am old enough to remember a time when many state constitutions and laws required segregation of the races. Discriminatory laws were passed by elected representatives and endorsed by a majority of the citizens. These "Jim Crow Laws" were passed by a majority rule and became a clear example of the "tyranny of the majority."
Equality of opportunity has now evolved into important public policy, and our society is embarrassed by its history of discrimination. We owe a debt of gratitude to the freedom fighters and brave individuals who struggled so long to obtain civil rights.
If the so-called Marriage Amendment that will be voted on in Virginia next month were to pass, it would be another example of the "tyranny of the majority." It will legalize discrimination by limiting individual rights to form various responsible partner relationships.
My Christian faith teaches me that all human beings are created in God's image and that God wills a full, abundant life for all people. I urge you to read the whole amendment as printed on the ballot. You will find that the amendment is mean-spirited.
I urge you to vote "no" on the so-called Marriage Amendment to the Virginia Bill of Rights.
Taylor Beard (James Taylor Beard)
Charlottesville
Owen Norment Letter to the Editor 10-09-06
Dear Editor:
The proposed marriage protection amendment, which is intended essentially to prohibit marriages or civil unions between same-sex couples, is deeply flawed, not only because it is bad constitutional law, as eminent legal scholars have argued, but even more seriously because of the faulty presuppositions about homosexuality upon which it rests.
It draws heavily upon unexamined prejudice (which means prejudgment without reference to available facts) regarding homosexuality, prejudicial judgments now well and truly discredited by an accumulation of biological, psychological, and sociological information.
It is grounded for many supporters in the fallacy of a stringent biblical literalism, which refuses to examine texts in their historical and cultural contexts and thereby obscures the Bible's own primary and persistently emergent values of inclusive love and justice. Most of us no longer condone slavery or the suppression of women or cruel and inhumane punishment of children, recognizing the historically conditioned character of supposed biblical support for such practices; it is time to bring the same critical assessment to texts pertaining to homosexuality.
The gradual constitutional and statutory expansion of basic human and civil rights, while at times contentious, has been one of the most positive aspects of our history. Sadly, the proposed amendment is retrogressive, an aberration in an otherwise salutary tradition. Its passage will in time require reconsideration and repeal. Better by far to vote against it now.
Owen L. Norment
Charlottesville
Betty Molchany Letter to the Editor 10-05-06
Dear Editor:
In August, I wrote to Republican Virginia State Senator Mark Obenshain asking him to work to raise the minimum wage. The Senator responded, "As you may know, the government-mandated minimum wage is a federal matter and I do not have a vote in the U.S. Congress," and that he opposes raising the minimum wage.
Obenshain apparently believes his constituency is stupid. Nearly half the states in the U.S. have enacted a state minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage. Last year, the Virginia General Assembly defeated such a proposal, but not on the ground that it did not have the authority to go above the federal wage.
The CEO of Exxon-Mobile receives over $17,000 an hour, while U.S. taxpayers are subsidizing the oil companies with more than $1 billion. CEO's who have failed to perform as required and were thus removed from their positions nevertheless receive millions of dollars in severance pay! Fortune magazine's most recent list of the richest 400 persons includes only those worth more than $1 billion. The wealthy receive all kinds of tax benefits in the form of deductions not available to those who are poor and without the sorts of assets which would allow them to qualify.
Employees earning $5.15 an hour can't afford health insurance coverage, so the companies which pay only the minimum wage create an additional cost to taxpayers because such employees then qualify for Medicaid.
Shame on Senator Obenshain and all those who insist that the minimum wage remain at $5.15 an hour.
Elizabeth M. Molchany, J.D.
Front Royal
Op-Ed: Why I Oppose the Virginia Marriage Amendment 09-29-06
By Hunter Mabry
As one who grew up in the Shenandoah Valley over fifty years ago, when it was taboo to even talk about homosexuality, I somewhat uncritically accepted the dominant values of that period. But study, work and travel in later years have led me to a different view. I oppose the proposed Virginia Marriage Amendment that will appear on the November 7th ballot - for the following reasons:
Biblical grounds. As a Christian, I recognize that some supporters of the amendment point to the few biblical texts that oppose homosexuality - such as Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman." Yet, those who point to such texts generally ignore the penalty prescribed for such acts: both men "shall be put to death" (Lev. 20:13). Those who wish to base their beliefs on the Old Testament need to be consistent. Arbitrary and selective use of scripture always carries the danger of using scripture to justify views formed on other grounds.
I have found much more reliable an approach that looks at the total thrust of the biblical witness. From that perspective, what I find is an emphasis on God's inclusive love, of God's good news intended for all people. This is preeminent in the teachings of Jesus who identified with the outcast, strongly opposed efforts that would discriminate against others because they were perceived as somehow "different", and demonstrated how God longs for the reconciliation of all people.
Scientific grounds. Through study and research I have learned that homosexuality is found among practically every population group, regardless of race, income, education, religion or genealogy.
Moreover, research by prominent and highly reputed persons from the biological, psychological and social sciences indicate that homosexuality is not a choice but a "given" - something one is born with or that is formed very early in life and generally not susceptible to change, just as heterosexuality is a "given". While not all readers accept such findings, I invite those who disagree to ponder a question that I have found helpful: When did you choose your heterosexuality or homosexuality?
As a person of reason, as well as a person of faith, I have felt called to set aside earlier prejudices and give credence to the findings from science to see if they can help us better understand the nature of our human community.
Personal experience. In my younger years I was sheltered from contact with any known homosexuals.
This changed in later years. I become personally acquainted with homosexual persons from varied backgrounds - and came to know these persons as wonderful, loving and caring persons who are a delight to know, are making valuable contributions to our society, and are often living in deeply caring, committed and long-term relationships with a significant other. Such persons often model what it means to live in a stable, long-term union. We act unjustly, I believe, if we try to deny to such persons the ordinary rights granted to heterosexual partners such as the right to hospital visitation, child custody, and health insurance.
For those who do not find the above concerns persuasive, I recommend the counsel of Judge J. Harvie Wilkerson II, a member of the U.S. Appeals Court for the 4th Circuit: Regardless of how you feel about homosexuality, discrimination against a particular class of persons should have no place in Virginia's Constitution.
Question 1 in the November 7th ballot will ask if you favor amending Virginia's Constitution to discriminate against a particular group of people - not because they have done anything harmful to our society, but simply because their homosexuality is a "given"? Vote "No", keep discrimination out of our state's constitution, and uphold equality for all of God's children.
Hunter Mabry, a United Methodist clergyman, is a retired professor of Christian Ethics who now lives in Waynesboro.
Hunter Mabry
Waynesboro
John Horejsi Letter to the Editor 09-28-06
Dear Editor:
Recent headlines reporting "1,900 Poor Children Lose Daycare" and "Parents Fret over Lost Funding" make the point that partisan fights hurt vulnerable families at risk. I'm writing on behalf of Social Action Linking together (SALT) regarding our concern that terminating these funds will put the employment of working poor parents at risk. These parents struggle to do the right thing. They leave the welfare rolls to support their families by performing the low-paying hard-to-fill jobs in our hospitals, nursing homes, elementary schools, hotels, restaurants and small businesses.
In the past, daycare programs were created in a bipartisan spirit that recognized that they are an important part of offering hope for a better life for low-income children and their families. Today, daycare programs need to be strengthened and fully funded to meet the changing needs of children and families to be self-sufficient.
Recent reauthorization of TANF (Welfare Reform) requires increased work participation and job placements and the good legacy of the current program should continue to thrive. Investments in childcare give those leaving welfare the means to get employed and to remain employed - to be tax payers, not tax users.
We were disappointed and when the Virginia General Assembly voted down the $10 million initiative to pay for childcare, which constituted yet another "unfunded mandate" that counties will be facing.
"Unfunded mandates" have progressively increased from FY2004 to FY2006 showing a trend of pushing more of the tax burden onto homeowners in the form of the real estate tax. Virginia can do better.
Today, the needs of families and children living in poverty are more complicated and urgent. It is time once again for all legislators on a non-partisan basis to rededicate themselves to the most vulnerable children by making sure that vitally needed daycare programs thrive so all our children can win.
Sincerely,
John Horejsi
SALT Coordinator
9610 Counsellor Dr.
Vienna, VA 22181-3248
703-255-7074
jhorejsi@cox.net
For more information visit the SALT web at www.S-A-L-T.org. John Horejsi, MSW, is a professional social worker and community activist who has worked with low-income women and families for more than 30 years. He is the founder and head of Social Action Linking Together (SALT), a Northern Virginia advocacy group of more than 800 advocates from various religious denominations.
Margaret Witmer Letter to the Editor 09-26-06
Letter to the Editor:
Although many world, national and local issues feel beyond our control, we will all soon directly influence the wording of our State Constitution and directly or indirectly influence the lives of millions of Virginians. In the November 7 election, we Virginians will be asked whether the Bill of Rights of Virginia's Constitution should be amended to limit marriage to a union between one man and one woman and, crucially, to prohibit the Commonwealth of Virginia from ever recognizing any type of legal status for relationships of unmarried adults that intend to give them the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage. My perspective on this issue is shaped by my dedication to family, my Christian faith and my position as a community role model.
I have four children and six grandchildren. My husband and I value our family very highly and support marriage and caring parenting. In these difficult times, relationships between committed adults and between adults and children need all the support they can get. The rights and support that helped me and my family remain strong should be available to every committed family unit. This is true whether or not they are raising children and regardless of their gender. As a mother and wife, I oppose writing discrimination into our State Constitution.
Centuries ago, people flocked to this country and this state from all over the world to escape religious discrimination and in search of justice and freedom. Religious institutions provide moral leadership and structure, sanctify unions and give voice to the ethical, just side of life. As a Christian, I support committed partnerships and I endorse a constitution that guarantees justice for all. As a Christian, I oppose writing discrimination into our State Constitution.
My husband and I have been active community leaders our whole lives. We have taught youth groups, led community service organizations and established food pantries and soup kitchens. We have taken in neighbors in need and given generously of our time and money to deserving organizations. As a community leader, I strive for equal rights, equal protections and equal opportunities. As a community leader, I oppose writing discrimination into our State Constitution.
Virginians should vote no on the constitutional amendment in November.
Margaret Witmer
Palmyra, VA
Op-Ed: Vote Against Stem Cell Research is a Disservice to the People 09-21-06
By Rich Cranwell
Being diagnosed with Type I Diabetes when I was a child, and having lived with the constant insulin injections, finger pricks (to check blood sugar levels), carbohydrate counting, episodes of shock, and increased chance of blindness, coronary disease, and kidney failure - I, like many who have the disease or who are related to someone with the ailment, was most disappointed that President George Bush vetoed, and my elected representatives Senator George Allen and Representative Bob Goodlatte voted against, allowing taxpayer funding for embryonic stem cell research.
Most of us with diabetes or other debilitating or terminal diseases, or who have children with these diseases, realize that the debate over stem cell research presents a difficult moral dilemma. We do not mean to suggest that it's absurd for someone to have a moral problem with embryonic stem cell research - rather, it seems to me and many others that it is the role of our government to recognize a new "morality" in this debate, and make the decision to allow this research for the sake of medical benefits to the millions of Americans with diseases we have yet to find cures for. This new morality stems from the function of our elected representatives and government. Even if we did not vote for those who presently serve us in the state House and Senate, and the U.S. House and Senate, those who won election have a function: to represent the people and serve the citizens. To be sure, this sounds like a simple concept, but the question I have - and a question I imagine many of you share with me - is how could anyone elected to serve the people vote against allowing critical life-saving research?
The urgency to support all types of stem cell research, in my mind, comes from the fairly well-known quality-of-life benefits, and the overall possibility of improving the efficiency of the health care system here in America. On the first point, I think that we have all been to hospitals ourselves, or with one of our relatives, and have wondered how much else would be possible with more research. Would our loved ones be in less pain? Would we be able to actually cure their ailment someday? How much longer will we have to hold out for a better treatment, or a cure? Granted, we are never going to completely eliminate serious illnesses like diabetes, cancer, and Parkinson's disease, and we are not going to be able to extend and/or save every life. Still, there is the possibility of improving treatments and extending many lives. There is a possibility of making treatments and recovery less painful, and there is a possibility of alleviating the countless horrible side-effects that many of us have experienced with medication and treatment.
Just as research could help cure and treat countless terminal illnesses, it's possible that research could help us develop more cost effective solutions to medical problems. With sky-rocketing health care costs, it's difficult for most of us to pay the costs of prescriptions, particularly those that we have to be on for the rest of our lives. Anyone with diabetes or high blood pressure can vouch for this. There are methods of treatment and ingredients we have not yet been able to experiment with; in many cases these could lead to new and improved medications that cost less.
It is beyond me how anyone who has stood in any hospital with a relative, or perhaps for themselves, could oppose research - and it is likewise beyond me how anyone who is charged with serving all of us could stand in the way.
Millions of Americans would benefit from stem cell research - people in every congressional district, in red states and blue states, young and old, rich and poor, in the city, in the county, in Virginia and elsewhere. This issue is not about helping certain people, it's about helping all people. It is only right and just for our government - which exists to serve the people - to do everything possible to find cures to diseases that kill Americans. Stem cell research could help cure diabetes. It could make those moments at the hospital easier for us and our loved ones - but our current government will never allow us to know.
I do think the stem cell debate is entirely about morality; it's the morality of our elected officials in Washington, and whom they choose to serve - the people or their party? Opposition to stem cell research represents putting politics before people and ideology before compassion - and that is a vote against the people that is not only wrong but also un-Christian. Because of the potential to cure and better treat diseases, and the possibilities for making our treatments and medical system more cost effective and efficient, voting to allow this valuable research would be the most moral route for our government.
Rich Cranwell
Roanoke
C. Stroebel Letter to the Editor 09-19-06
Dear Editor:
Our Attorney General has sought to reassure us that the proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage won't cause all kinds of troubles.
I suggest that the voters of Virginia should read the language for themselves and make their own judgment about what the amendment will do. It's not very long. This is what it says:
"That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.
"This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."
Sentences two and three go far beyond defining marriage.
The State of Ohio has already passed - and tried to implement - almost identical language. And guess what? Their amendment is causing our neighbors to the west exactly the kinds of problems that our Attorney General claims ours won't. Some Ohio courts have decided that, because of their amendment, unmarried women are no longer covered by domestic violence laws - straight or gay. It creates uncertainty for unmarried people who want to form contracts and for employers who offer domestic partner benefits.
The amendment does more than simply define marriage as between a man and a woman. It's clear that it will lead to all kinds of legal mischief. And it's not needed - same-sex marriage has been against the law in Virginia without challenge for decades. This amendment won't make my marriage stronger - it will just make Virginia's lawyers busier.
The Attorney General claims the amendment "will not affect current legal rights and obligations of unmarried persons involving contracts, wills, advance medical directives, shared equity agreements, employer accident and sickness insurance policies, or protection under domestic violence laws." But we won't know for sure until people start suing, and suing, and suing - just like what is happening in Ohio.
So, when our Attorney General says, in effect, "who are you going to believe - me or your own eyes?" I'll choose reality - and will vote No on #1 on November 7.
C. Stroebel
Maurertown, VA
Op-Ed: Virginia Cannot Afford Consequences of Predatory Lending 09-13-06
By Janette Helmick
Many of the decisions I make day to day involve a subconscious cost benefit analysis. Americans, the ultimate consumers, have been taught to evaluate the value of any situation by comparing how much they can get for the least amount expended. And I'm not just talking about money, although I will admit shopping occasionally at Wal-Mart just because it offers goods for a minimum expense. I'm also referring to our interactions with others - what expense will I pay for making a hurtful comment or lying to a friend? We measure our success in life by minimizing expense and maximizing return.
I think this makes sense in the context of predatory lenders like the payday and car title lending industries. These lenders have reaped enormous profits based on business practices that allow for little expenditures and deep returns on investment. They're just thinking like a consumer, albeit a greedy one. But at whose expense?
The borrowers of payday and car title loans are often left financially bankrupt, sometimes even literally. After only several loan cycles for either of these types of predatory lending, borrowers realize they've been caught in an inescapable debt trap. Interest rates upwards of 350 percent, extra fees and tacked-on principal make it unlikely that a customer can pay back the loan. And lenders rarely encourage them to pay it off anyway - their business model feeds on the ability to roll over loans for the price of mounting interest. Lenders want to ensnare a borrower for years who will faithfully return every two weeks or one month to pay interest and avoid cruel collection practices, repossession of assets, or a high jacked checking account. They hook a desperate borrower and bleed them dry.
There comes a time when all decisions, business and otherwise, must take into consideration expenses that can't be measured monetarily. Predatory lenders are a huge expense to more than just the borrowers. Far over half of payday and car title lenders are owned by out-of-state companies. This means that Virginia's economy suffers as hundreds of thousands of dollars flow out of our borders. Taxpayers who are able to maintain a level of financial stability pick up the tab for social services necessary to keep victims of predatory lenders afloat. Our tax dollars are also siphoned off by predatory lenders that accept Social Security benefits as income, and help themselves to these government checks. Responsible business owners are detracted from opening up shop next to a payday or car title lender. Even a precursory cost benefit analysis shows that this expense is just not worth it. Virginia cannot afford these consequences.
I urge Virginia's state legislators to think more deeply about the dangers of continuing to allow predatory lenders to exploit Virginia and her citizens. Several responsible bills, like Delegate O'Bannon's proposed repeal of the Payday Loan Act and Delegate Morgan's legislation that caps car title interest rates at 36 percent are reasonable and responsible regulations on these harmful industries. Each and every legislator should support these bills. All members of the Virginia General Assembly could arrive at this obvious conclusion by asking themselves one simple question when voting on predatory lending bills: "At whose expense?"
Janette Helmick
Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy
Harrisonburg, VA
Ramon Selove Letter to the Editor 09-12-06
Marriage Amendment Would Have Economic Costs
Dear Editor:
Arguments about the so-called Marriage Amendment have mostly been moral (or perhaps moralistic) in nature. I want to introduce what I consider to be a much more important issue: economics.
I have had at least one close family member, at least one close friend, and at least one work colleague along with their partners decide to leave the Commonwealth of Virginia because of the hostility they felt from gay-unfriendly laws. Each of these families consists of two individuals with good jobs who have no children. They make excellent salaries, pay taxes, participate actively in the community, and have no children. The cost of providing education to the children in our community is the largest expense of our local government and a significant part of the Commonwealth budget as well.
When homosexual couples leave Virginia it hurts our state and local governments' budgets and it hurts the businesses that benefit from having them as customers. And it isn't just a few of my friends that are leaving. A recent article in the Washington Post documented this growing phenomenon by interviewing real estate agents that specialize in helping people find and buy houses in gay-friendly communities.
Currently nearly 300 academic institutions and 260 of the Fortune 500 companies offer domestic partner benefits because they can't afford to be at a disadvantage when trying to recruit employees who might be homosexual. Some towns and cities are actively trying to encourage homosexuals to move into their communities because they see it as a way of helping balance their budgets. No matter how you may feel about the morality of it, homosexuals are valuable economic assets to a community and the governments and businesses of the Commonwealth cannot afford to drive them out of Virginia.
Let's leave the moral arguments for and against homosexuality in church. When you go to the voting booth in November, put the economic needs of the Commonwealth first and vote no on the marriage amendment.
Ramon R. Selove
Stephens City, VA
Op-Ed: Traditional Values 09-05-06
By Nicholas Penning
When you enter the voting station at your precinct in November, you will be faced with a most unusual request. The General Assembly's majority, having astutely grabbed an emotional issue, has commanded that your ballot be tarnished with a hateful, but seemingly harmless request to amend the Virginia Bill of Rights, established on June 12, 1776, a full thirteen years before adoption of our nation's Constitution.
Virginia legislators want you to change the Commonwealth's recognition of rights by taking away someone else's. The proposed wording of this non-right, which you have been asked to affirm, are:
"That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.
"This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."
How on Earth did this strangely-worded amendment to our sacred Constitution come to be on that ballot?
During the last election we frequently heard campaign statements that spoke of "family values," which also were often described as "traditional values," upon which this nation was allegedly founded -- though there is no reference to "family" or "traditional values" phrases in our founding documents.
The words have come to be known as code for a host of right-wing pursuits, which many good persons may honestly believe, making these code words all the more lucrative to a class of politicians who cynically seek public office to "defend traditional values" while, in fact, they are often pursuing a less-public but financially enhancing agenda behind the scenes.
During a campaign that took place some 73 years ago, similar key statements of the leading political party also spoke of the need to defend "traditional values" from "degenerates."
Both then and now, those catch-phrases were employed to promote attacks on certain persons based on their personal lifestyles. In 1933, caveats became attached to what previously had been accepted rights of free persons -- each and every person, without qualification.
In the U.S. those rights became a part of our Constitution and were also offered in our Declaration of Independence, which states that "all men are created equal," a right that our founders called inalienable, meaning it "cannot be taken away."
But in 2004 and in elections that have taken place since then, it has been implied, if not directly stated, that these rights do not apply to a certain class of people, because these people are attracted to persons of their own sex, and that simply by existing they are placing our values "under attack."
For example, in the February 3, 2005, edition of the Connection, Virginia Delegate Richard Black was reported to have said, referring to anti-gay legislation, "We're trying to restore the moral fabric of American culture."
Everyone knows that the far right, speaking in the name of family values and society's "moral fabric," is determined to deny rights to those who are homosexual. People who, we know from scientific fact, do not 'choose' to be gay -- they are gay.
The same Connection article notes, and I would say proudly notes, "Arlington County has had the words 'sexual orientation' in its human rights ordinance since 1993 and has never been challenged."
And now listen to how people who are gay were described in 1933 by the National Socialist, or Nazi Party, in Germany. According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the party's "platform" termed these individuals "antisocial parasites" and "enemies of the state," who, as such, were openly persecuted and often put to death.
Today's political climate, established at the national level in the presidential campaign, has reached a level of hatred toward those attracted to persons of the same sex that causes genuine fear among gay men and women. A notorious example of the hatred aimed at our brothers and sisters under the skin was the horrific October 1998 torture and killing of a young gay man, Matthew Shepard, in Laramie, Wyoming.
It is up to us to ensure no such atmosphere toward any person or group develops anywhere, and certainly not in Virginia. Help strike down this proposed anathema; don't let it turn our Commonwealth into a hateful state; show the nation that we believe in freedom and justice for all.
Please, go to the polls and crush this insult, this threat to human dignity.
Nicholas Penning
Arlington, VA
Kim Davis Letter to the Editor 08-29-06
Dear Editor:
Concerning minimum wage and labor exploitation: The myth that the economy will be in ruins if we stop labor exploitation is as ridiculous as suggesting that raising the minimum wage would be of no service to working class people. The fact of the matter is that prices will continue to skyrocket as they have over the last ten years whether the minimum wage increases or not.
What did you pay for gas, oil and electricity ten years ago? I sure didn't pay what I'm paying now! Can you say "Supply & Demand?"
Providing the common worker with some disposable income will not hurt our economy; it will help boost purchasing power. Ten years ago CEOs made just less than 90 times their average worker. Today they make 500 times their average employee, and this is clearly "greed gone wild."
Unfortunately, while we continue this ten-year-old debate, working human beings are slipping into extreme poverty at an exponential rate. Taking steps toward a living wage for all working people in the richest country on the globe is the morally right thing to do.
Kim Davis
Petersburg, Virginia
Building Justice for Virginia's Construction Workers 08-28-06
By Clayton Sinyai
On this Labor Day I would ask all of us to remember those who build the homes in which we live.
There is a myth about the building trades: that construction work is protected reserve of well-compensated workers enjoying high salaries, pensions, and health care benefits. This may be true for those in cities like New York, Chicago and San Francisco, where powerful unions dominate their trades and advocate for their members. But those who labor building and renovating tens of thousands of single-family homes every year in Virginia live in a very different world.
In truth, the great housing developments blanketing Hampton Roads, Richmond, Charlottesville and especially Northern Virginia conceal an astonishing amount of poverty, danger and fraud.
* Tens of thousands of these workers lack basic health care coverage. For them chronic health care problems go untreated; accidents and injuries go unreported.
* Thousands of these workers across the state toil for poverty-level wages. Too many on the crews we see digging post holes, painting walls, laying sod or pouring concrete patios take home meager salaries of $15,000 per year or less.
* Each year hundreds, and probably thousands, of these workers are cheated out of even those scanty wages, when they are paid by their employers with checks that bounce or simply not paid at all.
* Every year dozens of construction workers die on the job, many from avoidable workplace hazards when pressure to produce quickly and cheaply leads to cutting corners on safety.
Now these practices do not yet dominate our industry. The vast majority of our state's developers and contractors are honorable employers, and for every worker confronting the difficulties and dangers described above ten or twenty more draw a good living through their skills at the trade or the drafting table.
Nonetheless, Virginia's dynamic homebuilding and renovation industry rests on an unsound foundation: an underground economy in which a largely immigrant workforce, concealed by a maze of subcontractors and cash deals, faces backbreaking toil and danger on the job every day, receiving poverty wages in return. New to this country and often still uncomfortable with the language, these workers fear reporting abuses to the proper authorities. And thanks to the relentless cost pressures in a highly competitive industry, this sector is growing.
It doesn't have to be this way, and it shouldn't. Historically, construction has thrived as an economic sector of high wages and high productivity, where -- thanks to substantial investments in training -- men and women skilled at their craft deliver good work and earn good salaries. And the substandard labor practices I have described are not conducive either to quality workmanship or to the general prosperity of the Commonwealth -- and in the end they really don't do much to reduce overall production costs.
But especially in times like these, when market demand slackens temporarily, competition inspires a second look at every nickel and dime in the cost structure. The temptation to save pennies in the short term by looking the other way at exploitative practices becomes greater. These practices will not end until developers, general contractors and consumer demand that they end, insisting on accountability at every level of the subcontracting process.
And that's in everyone's interest. After all, a one or two percent discount on a house with a weak foundation is no true bargain. It's time for us to shore up this foundation before the house comes down.
Clayton Sinyai
Clayton Sinyai is Director of ASTRACOR, the Asociacion de Trabajadores de Construccion Residencial (Residential Construction Workers Association). He can be reached at csinyai@malaborers.org
Roy Dunkum Letter to the Editor 08-25-06
Dear Editor:
I read a column recently about payday lending. Lobbyists have won big in this effort to rip off as many folks as possible without any legal consequences to themselves or the loan sharks they represent.
Just look around; this has to be the fastest-growing business in the Commonwealth. Soon, every vacant building in town will house one of these General Assembly-sanctioned thievery shops. Doing the same act of robbing someone using a gun will land you in jail! I certainly agree with several of our legislators that this unholy rip-off of our citizens must stop.
Charging over 300 percent interest to anyone is downright criminal, and that is what Delegate Glenn Oder and others started out to stop, only to be sidetracked by legislative maneuvering that will water down the intended bill to a meaningless token act that is just as criminal as the original legislation. I use the word criminal because it is just that, and the General Assembly needs to be held accountable for such destructive legislation. Allowing the Payday Loan Act to stay on the books in Virginia is an outright act of defiance by the General Assembly.
It is time for legislators to start listening to the public and stop catering to the lobbyists. I think they should repeal the Payday Loan Act altogether. It's a pity that it likely will require a massive push from the electorate to trigger such an act of moral fortitude from our representatives.
Roy C. Dunkum Jr.
Newport News
Maura Ubinger Letter to the Editor 08-14-06
Editor:
Much has been written lately about situations within our prisons here in Virginia. And most of us, likely unaware of many of the facts and statistics, simply take "tough on crime" for granted as a good thing. But is it? Do long sentences really work when, for example, drugs are available in prisons (most of the non-violent offenders - about half the prison population - are in for drug offences), when, upon release, prisoners return to society with no skills, no job possibilities, no homes, no money? Do we wonder why recidivism is so common? If we really want society to be safe, for offenders to truly have been helped, we must recognize the need to:
1. Be more realistic about how to treat non-violent offenders, especially first-timers, such as an alternative program of help. It costs about $3,000 per year for such a program versus $30,000 in prison. If for no other reason than use of our tax dollars, we ought to look at this.
2. Encourage programs within the prison, prior to release, whereby a process can be begun to help prisoners obtain housing, a jobs and a driver's license.
What can we do as individuals?
We should contact state delegates and senators for such programs; some have already been introduced in the Virginia state legislature but need more support.
We should get involved in Virginia CURE (Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants), an organization working for better legislation. Check out www.vacure.org.
Maura Ubinger
Abingdon, VA
Let's not give another $62 billion to those who don't need it 08-03-06
By Phyllis T. Albritton
What on earth are we doing?
The Virginia legislature has passed a bill that does away with the estate tax. They are now reviewing our Governor's amendments to the bill before they reach a full repeal of the estate tax.
The U.S. House of Representatives has just passed a resolution that combines raising the minimum wage to $7.25 over a three-year period (which today would not support a family of four in our area) with an estate tax cut that, when fully phased in, would cost $62 billion a year (three-quarters of the cost of a full estate tax repeal), as we are running a $300 billion budget deficit.
According to a July 29 Washington Post article by Jonathan Weisman, "...estates worth $5 million - or $10 million for a married couple - would be exempted from taxation. Inheritances above that threshold and up to $25 million would be taxed at capital gains rates, currently 15 percent. Estates worth more than $25 million would be taxed at 30 percent."
The chasm in benefits between raising the minimum wage and gutting the estate tax is striking. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 6.6 million working Americans will gain an average of $1,200 a year from the minimum wage increase. The drastic reductions in the estate tax will benefit only 8,200 people. These individuals with estates worth over $5 million dollars and couples with over $10 million will increase their family fortunes by an average of $1.3 million each - more than 1,000 times the yearly gain for low-wage workers.
Our nation was not founded to be a plutocracy. The founders were opposed to a ruling class, as they had directly experienced in Europe. What generation needs more, unless the heir is mentally or physically disabled? For these situations and family farms and businesses, the estate tax could be more lenient.
Virginia's repeal of the estate tax, with Governor Tim Kaine voting with the legislature, is a mystery to me. In 2004, only 717 families paid the estate tax in Virginia and the Commonwealth NEEDS tax dollars - for traffic solutions, early day care for low-income working families that would hopefully prevent young people from landing in jail, health care for our disadvantaged elderly and education for all.
The notion that the "haves" should not have to pay is puzzling to me. We need to reaffirm the responsibility of: "To those whom much is given, much is expected." (Luke 12:48) As a person of faith, I note the calling in the Jewish and Christian scriptures to those who have, much is expected - to take care of the widow, the poor, the homeless, the dispossessed.
Losing $62 billion a year is going to hurt our society even more than it is hurting already.
Phyllis 08
Blacksburg, VA
A True Living Wage for University of Virginia Workers- It's the Right Thing to Do 08-01-06
By Jan Cornell
The living wage issue has been boiling away at the University of Virginia (UVA) for nearly a decade. Some good things have come out of it in the past ten years: in 2000 a raise to $8.56 per hour for the lowest paid employees, in 2002 a labor union for the employees was formed, and more recently, in April of this year, UVA raised its lowest wage from $8.56 to $9.37 per hour for all UVA direct employees. It took UVA six years to raise its lowest wage $.81 an hour. This does not include contract workers - thousands who work for private firms under the UVA umbrella, like the dining hall employees who work for ARAMARK - who make even less.
The UVA Living Wage Campaign - a group of students, faculty, staff and community members accomplished all of this. Through the years this group also helped to put pressure on the City of Charlottesville and the local school boards to pay a living wage. They also put pressure on other employers in the area to pay decent wages.
The University of Virginia is the largest employer in this area of central Virginia, therefore setting the market for wages in the area. The current lowest wage of $9.37 an hour ($19,490 per year) is still not acceptable for this very expensive town. The median cost of a home here is $277,000.00. Put that together with outrageous health care costs, gas at nearly $3.00 a gallon, and high energy bills - a person cannot make it on that little amount, especially if they are trying to raise a family.
After years of talking to UVA, having rallies, doing "reports" and "studies," petitioning, and picketing, it was decided something more drastic needed to be done to get UVA's attention - to put pressure on the administration to seriously negotiate a true living wage for its lowest paid workers. After much research, $10.72 an hour ($22,250.00 per year) was determined to be the very least UVA should pay. There is not one worker at UVA who isn't worth $10.72 an hour.
Four days before Easter, 17 students walked into the main administration building and sat down. They came equipped with laptops, cell phones, and food. They planned on staying until UVA agreed to pay its lowest paid workers $10.72 an hour. University administrators, however, decided they were definitely NOT staying. Four days later, the students were physically hauled out of Madison Hall by the local police and put in jail for Easter weekend.
UVA had its own students arrested for protesting. The community was outraged.
It is generally agreed by most that UVA President John Casteen completely mishandled this situation: denying the students food (after they ran out, the community piled many pounds of food outside the building but UVA threw most of it in the dumpster); intimidating the 17 by denying them sleep (calling for 2 a.m. meetings to discuss proposals); only allowing one student at a time to go to the window to talk to others in the campaign outside or to the press; telling them if they left the building they could not come back in; writing a column in the alumni magazine with untrue charges; filing intra-university charges against the students (for which they could be expelled); filing trespassing charges against them (which they were acquitted of); and, having a faculty member arrested (her charges were thrown out). He also accused the students of bringing national labor unions and professional activists into our community. Untrue. Not one union member was arrested or was sitting in. Not one community member was arrested or was sitting in. All 17 of the sit-in were students at UVA.
Surely, we have enough creative minds around that we can figure out how to make sure all workers are treated with dignity and respect. And UVA workers should not be an exception. Let's all urge UVA President John Casteen to do the right thing - and establish a true living wage for all UVA workers.
Jan Cornell is the President of the Staff Union at UVA, which is affiliated with the Communications Workers of America.
Cathie Brettschneider Letter to the Editor 07-28-06
Dear Editor,
I've been hearing more about the sanctity of marriage in the past few years than ever before. But it's hard to know what the issue is, exactly. If marriage is sacred, then aren't the participants bound to a certain behavior, demeanor, and commitment? Our social and cultural history in the United States has shown an astonishing range of lifestyles and values on the part of married couples, from a loving, faithful, and respectful bond between two people to a union undermined by acrimony, infidelity, and abuse. Some marriages last a long time and in relative harmony. Others end all too quickly in divorce - sometimes even in death by violence at the hands of a spouse.
But every one of these couples across the spectrum was free to marry and to have the rights and benefits of marriage, regardless of whether or not they upheld its sanctity. In other words, opposite-sex couples are capable of some fairly heinous crimes in the context of marriage, but there's no movement to discriminate against their qualifications for - let alone deny them their special rights to - this sacred institution.
Even when the special rights and benefits are, for one spouse, compromised by the other's fraud, deception, or abandonment, these couples are still entitled to all the rights and benefits so long as they're married. What difference, then, do marriage and the restricted rights to it make when married opposite-sex couples themselves compromise its sanctity and betray or neglect its benefits?
Isn't it time we looked past the sex to the quality of the two people and their relationship? If we regard marriage as sacred and want to preserve its sanctity, why not consider a couple's capacity to love, honor, and cherish each other for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do they part? If we want to foster a society of caring and responsible individuals, why not offer equal benefits to any couple in an intentional or committed relationship?
Get to the heart of the matter: vote NO on the Marriage Amendment in November. Support equal rights for all.
Cathie Brettschneider
Charlottesville, VA
George Waksmunski Letter to the Editor 07-24-06
Editor:
Only in America could politicians run on a platform of family values while promoting poverty with a minimum wage of $5.15 an hour. They can run along side Jesus while assuring that children grow up in poverty. But the children of our Members of Congress won't grow up in poverty - their parents give themselves a regular cost of living increase. Hasn't the cost of living been going up for poor families too?
A minimum wage based on a life of poverty costs us taxpayers a lot. Right here in Augusta County, where I live, increasingly desperate parents are going to jail for writing bad checks to pay for gas, rent, and food. When families can't make it, who pays for foster homes, youth detention centers, counselors, and for minimal health care at a premium price?
Of course the corporate elites will say a minimum wage increase will cost jobs. But more money in the hands of workers spurs economic growth because they will spend the money. Between 1998 and 2004 job growth for small businesses grew at the rate of 6.2 percent in states with a higher minimum wage, compared to 4.1 percent in states like Virginia where $5.15 prevailed.
Nearly half of the states in this country have raised their minimum wage. Last year a bipartisan bill was introduced in the Virginia General Assembly to do the same. This legislation failed to get out of committee on a 4 - 4 tie. Please call your local Delegates and Senators and tell them to support raising the minimum wage and stop promoting a plantation mentality.
Join with faith groups, the United Electrical Workers (UE) and other labor groups, the Virginia Coalition to End Homelessness, and the Virginia Organizing Project, who are working together in the Virginia Fair Wage Alliance (www.vafairwage.org). Let?s find out if our elected officials really do have family values.
George Waksmunski
Waynesboro VA
Rev. David Gallup Letter to the Editor 07-17-06
Dear Editor,
The proposed Marriage Rights amendment to the Bill of Right of the Constitution of
Virginia prompts me to pose the following questions to potential voters.
Shall we defend our culturally conditioned concept of marriage, family and home by faulting the Creator whom we claim to be the ultimate source of these institutions?
If by the natural process of the combination of certain genes I happen to be who I am, will you ostracize me and condemn God for letting me be red-green colorblind, for preferring Motown to Mozart and sharp Cheddar to Mozzarella?
If the genes over which I had no control at my conception preclude my fathering children, will you conclude that I am an untrustworthy bachelor deficit of empathy, affection and love, and therefore should legally be excluded from the Board of Education or the City Council?
If by chance, divine whimsy or Intelligent Design I fall somewhat distant from you within the wide spectrum of human sexuality, will you criminalize me for that which is not mine to command and decree that I am an irresponsible, less than human threat to peace and the social order?
If you would agree that such judgments would be just and fair, then by all means vote to amend the Bill of Rights and continue to affront both God and your neighbors, ignore the prejudice and discrimination with which the history of this dear Commonwealth is stained, and with irrational cruelty make illegal humane commitments that would support long-term loving relationships, that could nurture and care for vulnerable dependents, and that could save orphans and the bereft from becoming wards of the state.
Greatly concerned,
Rev. David C. Gallup
Crozet, VA
Clarissa Noland Letter to the Editor 07-11-06
Dear Editor:
It's an absolute travesty of economic reality that the U.S. minimum wage is still $5.15 an hour.
For those who moan about the welfare state and families (usually single moms) who live off federal aid, I say this: You try to provide food and housing, heat and light for your children making $5.15 an hour (before taxes). Whoops, but I doubt you could even work with the cost of day care.
There is no hope for the millions of hard-working citizens at this rate of pay when all other costs of living continue to go up.
It is a national disgrace that so many children must live in poverty as a consequence of our government's refusal to require a realistic, livable minimum wage.
Clarissa Noland
Roanoke, VA
Frances Schutz Letter to the Editor 07-10-06
Dear Editor:
As a 24-year resident of Virginia who has been married for nearly 39 years, I find the proposed Constitutional Amendment on Marriage Rights unworthy of our commonwealth. The amendment seeks to restrict rather than to expand the rights of citizens, unlike those amendments that have had enduring value. President George Washington wrote in 1790 that the government of the United States was one "which gives bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance" This should be as true for the government of Virginia in the 21st century.
My gay and lesbian friends contribute greatly to the richness of my life. My own experience is that they are as able as heterosexual couples to form long-term committed partnerships, provide loving support for one another and their children, and contribute to the schools, churches and businesses in their communities. I am concerned that this amendment would seriously infringe on their right to privacy and needlessly impinge on their happiness. The proposed amendment is grounded in fear and ignorance, and is not likely to enhance the well being of any of our citizens.
I am also concerned that if passed, the amendment would have unintended negative consequences for many heterosexuals. It is my understanding that this is already happening in states that have adopted similar amendments. By refusing to acknowledge the validity of domestic partnerships and civil unions, the state undermines the ability for even heterosexuals to find protection from abusers in their household, or to feel that medical and end-of-life issues or adoption or even home ownership may be undertaken with any degree of assurance of recognition of their validity by the state.
My marriage would be a poor thing indeed if it were threatened by or somehow depended on the legal "definition" of marriage. The state has a vested interest in stable, loving, committed relationships between adults, and should not be in the business of dictating the kind of social definitions proposed by this amendment.
I urge voters to go to the polls in November and reject this mean-spirited amendment.
Sincerely,
Frances P. Schutz
Troy, VA
Anne Jonas Letter to the Editor 07-06-06
Dear Editor,
As the daughter of a small business owner, I know firsthand how hard it is for independent businesses to make it. Yet I also believe in the absolute necessity of providing workers with wages that afford them human dignity. Two weeks ago, the United States Senate rejected an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act that would have increased the federal hourly minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 in three steps by January 1, 2009. A majority of Senators supported this effort, including Senator John Warner (R-VA) but the measure did not receive the required 60 votes.
Opponents of increasing the minimum wage argue that such a move would create job loss. Yet according to the Lexington Herald, "twenty-one states have raised the minimum wage on their own, most to $6.15. None of them has reported losing jobs."
A study in the Journal of Economic Issues in 1998 concluded "there seems to be no discernible correlation between minimum wage increases and a rise in business failures, either in the year the increase occurred or in the following year. If anything, the evidence leans the other way."
A friend of mine, a college student, makes minimum wage at his job as he tries to get through school. As a single adult, he is barely able to afford both food and rent, much less textbooks. And he has only himself to support. For housing to be affordable for a person working full time at minimum wage, the monthly rent would need to equal approximately $270 - a nearly impossible rate to find, particularly for a single parent.
We must increase the minimum wage, if not for workers, than for their families. No child deserves to go without food or shelter because his or her parent cannot make enough money, hard as they try, to support them.
Two weeks ago, the United States Senate failed low wage Americans. Virginia has always been a state with ideals of justice - let us not follow this mistake of the federal government, but make those ideals a reality by increasing the minimum wage in the state.
Anne Jonas
Charlottesville, VA
Kathryn Tipora Letter to the Editor 06-29-06
Dear Editor,
The premise of the American Dream is the opportunity for upward mobility. Many citizens and immigrants to America see this mobility in terms of socioeconomic status. The American Dream promises that no matter how high one's aspirations, they can be attained through hard work and commitment. Despite this, structural discrimination, such as hierarchy in the workforce based on falsely meritocratic ideas, impedes the realization of the American Dream for many people working minimum wage jobs.
Currently, the minimum wage in Virginia is $5.15, which amounts to a yearly income of $10,712 before taxes. This is insufficient compensation for such taxing work and is simply not enough to support oneself or a family. Minimum wage workers often have to take on more than one job to pay bills and to take care of daily expenses. This monetary stress heightens in times of unexpected emergency. Choices often have to be made between necessities like medical care and rent or heat and food.
The ideal of equality in the United States is not yet realized on many different levels. In terms of socioeconomic status, people will always stretch along a wide spectrum from poor to rich. But during a time in which the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, we must reassess the values of our communities and how we are acting on those values. Without community, individuals will lose support and the pursuit of their goals will be in vain. One's actions always concern another - and this also applies to one's place in the workforce. The existence of the working poor contradicts the work ethic innate to the American Dream, which promises that hard work will be rewarded.
In order to keep this promise, the minimum wage must be raised to a living wage, allowing workers to be fairly compensated for their work. As citizens of the United States, we must step out of our individualistic mentality and set aside our falsely meritocratic ideas in order to foster a sense of community and to better ourselves by improving the lives of those around us. The American Dream is not realized by individuals alone; rather, it is a dream attainable only by the whole.
Kathryn Tipora
Virginia Beach, VA
Deb Green Letter to the Editor 06-28-06
Dear Editor,
The Marriage Amendment has come again before our General Assembly for approval. Designed to make sure that the committed relationships of gays and lesbians will never be recognized in ANY legal form in the State of Virginia, this amendment sends a clear message to gays and lesbians: we don't want you here. It states to the children of gays and lesbians: you deserve fewer rights and protections than the children of straight, married parents.
Why does our government need to declare this message of bigotry and hatred in such an unequivocal way, when marriage "protections" are already written into law? Why is Virginia single-mindedly attacking the few among us who struggle for simple rights that are given easily to the greater population? What kind government "of the people" does this?
The downfall of "traditional marriage" has been predicted if this amendment doesn't pass. But honestly, will denying the families of gays and lesbians their basic legal rights and protections help "traditional marriage"? Will the divorce rate decrease? Will a straight couple feel better about their union because somewhere a child is being denied health insurance from her non-birth parent's employer? Not one person will be helped by this amendment, except for the politicians who use this type of bigotry to fill their coffers.
However, many citizens of Virginia WILL be hurt by this amendment. This amendment is a permanent addition to the Commonwealth's constitution, and as such sends the message to these families to leave this state or suffer the consequences. Gays and lesbians, and their families, are your firefighters, your teachers, your doctors. When these public servants go home to their families, after working so hard to protect YOUR families, the least they deserve is the right to security for theirs. They deserve to know that their children are provided for and protected. Are these the "special rights" that those who oppose the "homosexual agenda" abhor?
Deb Green
Palmyra, VA
Best times for few, worst times for many 06-13-06
By Richael Faithful
Like many 21 year-olds this summer, I find myself mulling over my options for the time following my graduation from college next year. A graduate program in sociology? Law school? Time off working for a non-profit? All three? The possibilities seem endless, and, because I am more fortunate than many, very real.
But my enthusiasm lessens when I consider the future of family members. They have fewer (and harder) choices. My 19-year old brother is uninterested in college. Instead, he is an aspiring rock musician anxiously looking for a break. After personal challenges influenced his decision to leave high school for a GED his prospects quickly narrowed. His life track is all too predictable if his music career fizzles -- he will be chained to an entry level job paying minimum wage or little above it for most of his life.
My mother, a victim of a string of unlucky events, has endured the worst sides of divorce and severe illness. Her current, lower-working class lifestyle is a stark contrast to the suburban, school-volunteer mom who raised me. By contrast, my father's comfortable standard of living is afforded by long-time, high-level federal employment.
I know the options for my brother and mother are few, if any, because I study the financial vulnerability of divorced women, like my mother, and the life tracks for non-college students, like my brother.
Within the same family with similar values of hard-work and ambition and similar social advantages (and disadvantages), we have four strikingly different life trajectories. Is this a matter of chance? Possibly. Is it a matter of choice? To a degree. Whether the stars or selection helped pave our paths, our will to either react or correct is shaped by the context in which we live. I was able to attend a first-rate 4-year university; therefore, graduate school or a career is to follow. Inversely, my brother and mother were able to do what they could with their education, and they can expect few rewarding returns. They are member of a faceless population that will work hard, play by the rules, and yet still struggle to survive.
When I visit my mother in Woodbridge, I respond deeply to the depressed black community hurt by drugs, violence, and an abrasive air which grows on forlorn people who know that working hard for less is all they can ever expect. Earning minimum wage for a lifetime is not a preference. The majority of minimum wage workers are sole earners supporting families. They work upwards of 60 hours a week to support a family with little hope that they or their children will escape the cycle of crushing poverty.
Economists constantly forecast the dire impact of baseline wages. But such forecasts are unnecessary ? the reality of minimum-wage life is ever present with many workers. A future full of false promises is the only certainty for people in America like my brother and mother. The myth of meritocracy -- the guarantee of a better life for blood, sweat and tears -- goes unchallenged. In the meantime, the most powerful and so-called experts negotiate the lives of my family and others in backdoor deals, and claim that requiring a living wage is unrealistic.
Minimum wage is foremost a moral issue. Such a low minimum wage is unfair and it is shameful. We claim to fight for freedom while we tolerate decision-making that guarantees a near-permanent, constrained underclass. If you are or know of hard-working people who want a chance of economic mobility, perhaps the best, first step is to evaluate your own values, heart, and mind for real alternatives. We need to raise the minimum wage and soon.
Richael Faithful is a senior at the College of William and Mary.
James A. Snow Letter to the Editor 06-06-06
Dear Editor,
I am deeply concerned about the growing "wealth gap" in the U.S., the ways in which hard-working families -- including white-collar middle class families -- are facing frightening economic futures, how we are developing a plutocracy (an aristocracy of wealth and power) and losing the values of democracy, and how with our great wealth we are squandering our way into deeper and deeper debt. A prime example is the current deliberations on repeal of the estate tax.
U.S. Senate Republican leaders are pushing to enact permanent repeal of the federal estate tax, a move that would cost nearly $1 trillion over the first full decade. Meanwhile, other Senators are seeking a "compromise" that would cost nearly as much as full repeal. But new data from the Internal Revenue Service show that more than ever, the estate tax is virtually irrelevant for most Virginians (I assume this is similarly true in the other states as well) -- raising the question of why Congress is so intent on repealing a tax that affects so few estates and, conversely, will negatively affect so many of our fellow-citizens.
In 2003, over 58,000 Virginians died. Newly released IRS data show that in 2004 (when estate tax returns for 2003 deaths were generally due), only 717 Virginians owed any estate tax -- a very small 1.2 percent of all Virginia estates. The IRS data also show that (due to tax cuts enacted since 1997) the number of Virginians paying the estate tax has declined dramatically: in 1998, 1,106 Virginians owed an estate tax, even then a very low, 2.1 percent of all deaths in that year.
The new IRS data shows the impact of the $3 million (for married couples) estate tax exemption that was in place for 2004. But in 2006, the federal estate tax exemption has increased to $4 million -- a change which leaves just 0.5 percent of all estates taxable nationwide. This suggests that the number of Virginians owing estate tax will be even lower in 2006 than in the 2004 IRS data (perhaps less than 300 estates). This trend is especially disturbing in the wake of increasing wealth inequality in the U.S. and the growing financial crises looming ahead, Social Security, health care costs, growing trade imbalances, the federal deficits and debt.
A recent Federal Reserve Bank report shows that the richest 1 percent of Americans now own more than 33 percent of the wealth nationwide -- more than the poorest 90 percent of Americans put together. The federal estate tax was enacted in 1916 to prevent an unhealthy concentration of economic and political power in the hands of a super-wealthy elite -- a concern from the earliest days of the U.S. and not replicating an aristocracy of wealth . Repealing the tax -- or paring it back through "compromise" legislation -- would continue to undermine values that are critical for the future of our country.
Note that comparable fact sheets for each state can be found at www.ctj.org.
James A. Snow
McLean, VA
Killing Percy Levar Walton is wrong 06-02-06
By Jack Payden-Travers
No one wants to go into his cell because he smears his feces everywhere. He bathes only when forced to by the guards. He howls and bangs on the walls. He parrots what you say to him. He thinks he is going to come back after June 8 to work at a Burger King.
His name is Percy Levar Walton, and this man is not in a mental hospital. He is in a cell on death row at Sussex I State Prison and soon will be moved to Virginia's death house at the Greensville Correctional Center in Jarratt. There he will be executed on June 8.
Is the year 2006 or 1706? Is this the modern-day Commonwealth of Virginia or a newly founded colony fighting for survival? Is the cell constructed of cinder blocks and stainless steel or wooden walls and rusty wrought-iron bars? Are we really preparing to kill a mentally ravaged individual as if we were all stuck in a Victor Hugo novel?
Governor Tim Kaine once again faces the specter of death in the execution of Percy Walton. Will he show mercy as Governor Gilmore did to Calvin Swann, another death row inmate who also suffered from schizophrenia and who also was sentenced to death by the same Danville judge? Or will Percy become Virginia's 96th sacrifice in recent years to the death penalty gods?
There are alternatives to the death penalty, and Governor Kaine has the option of commuting this man's sentence to life in prison without parole. In that case Percy Walton will die in prison as did Calvin Swann.
It is ironic that this event is going forward at all. Last October, no less a figure than Senator Kenneth Stolle, a death penalty supporter and the chair of the Courts of Justice Committee of the Virginia Senate, said: "It is only a matter of time before Virginia and other states ban the death penalty?It will come when an innocent man is executed. Inevitably, somebody who is innocent will be executed."
How many more people will we put to death before we end the practice of capital punishment? Indeed according to the latest Gallup poll, 63 percent of Americans believe that an innocent person has already been executed within the last five years.
But Percy Walton's execution is not a matter of guilt or innocence. Percy pleaded guilty to the three murders he was charged with. He is guilty of murder. The question is what constitutes an appropriate punishment in such an unusual case.
Under Justice Lewis Powell, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled back in 1986 that an individual had to be "mentally competent" to be executed. Can a severe schizophrenic be deemed mentally competent when his two most recent IQ scores came in under 70 -- in the range of a person mentally retarded to the level of an 8-year-old -- and when he states that after execution he will come back to ride a motorcycle? Does he really understand what death means if he thinks his execution will result in his getting a job at a fast food restaurant?
There is no doubt that for the good of society Percy Walton needs to be maintained in a psychiatric hospital for the criminally insane. The real question is this: Does society need to, indeed have the right to, strap him to a gurney on the night of June 8 and lethally inject him with chemicals, employing a method of euthanasia that even Virginia bans from use on cats and dogs as cruel and inhumane?
When as a society will we treat people with mental illness instead of punishing them for suffering from it?
Jack Payden-Travers is the Director of Virginians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty.
Linda Goldstein Letter to the Editor 05-25-06
Editor:
As a child, I learned and grew under the tutelage of my blood family. As an adult, I learned that family expands beyond blood relatives. There are families within faith communities, work communities, and volunteer organizations. Families are made when there is love and caring and commitment to each other through good and bad.
I am concerned that the proposed Constitutional Amendment on Marriage Rights is anti-family. It denies the existence of families that exist outside of blood relatives. It also prevents current legal arrangements that are necessary between non-spouses.
The constitutional amendment mandates that certain responsibilities be considered "benefits of marriage." What does this mean? As a result of such a change, children could be prevented from receiving medical care and partners from making life and death decisions for their loved ones, if the parents or the partners weren't legally married. Also, adult children wouldn't be able to take care of the legal and medical needs of elderly parents under the amendment. Technically, if this amendment passes, I would be unable to fulfill my obligations to my own widowed mother. She has entrusted me to take care of her legal and medical needs when she is unable to do so herself. Under the amendment it could be considered a "benefit of marriage." How absurd! It's what families do for each other.
The main reason for the amendment is an unreasonable fear of diversity. The beauty of a democracy is that it is built on the tolerance of diversity. Diversity includes things like freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and also freedom of practice.
Let us keep an open mind, respect the good in every person, and work against the proposed Constitutional Amendment on Marriage Rights.
Linda B. Goldstein
Charlottesville, VA
Ask Governor Kaine to join the Governors' Coalition for Sweatfree Procurement 05-24-06
By Marquita K. Hill
We know that American manufacturing jobs have been going overseas. Jobs making clothing and textiles are among those vanishing from the United States.
Making matters worse, the jobs going to China, Vietnam, El Salvador and other nations, are not helping to pull abjectly poor people in those countries out of poverty. Rather, the workers often receive wages barely sustaining life. Often, children or very young women are exploited in sweatshop conditions for very long hours with no health and safety provisions and often with constant harassment to work faster and faster. Even a quick trip to a filthy restroom is a luxury granted only twice in a very long day. Workers at those jobs do protest, but at the risk of being fired and blacklisted. They keep saying, "We want jobs, but we want jobs with dignity."
How can we help sweatshop workers? First, remember that every state buys clothing, such as uniforms, as well as many other products. Nationwide, the products and services purchased by cities and states combined are worth about $400 billion a year. Four hundred billion dollars is about $115 billion more than our country spends on imports from China, or $150 billion more than total WalMart sales in 2005. That $400 billion in purchases represents power. Let's use that combined buying power to support human rights and insist that companies abide by fair labor standards -- use our purchasing power to support the efforts of sweatshop workers struggling for a better life.
Using sweatshop labor allows a company to underbid responsible contractors. But Maine in 2001, and five other states since, passed legislation for "sweatfree procurement." These states adopted policies that the companies they do business with should not buy from companies that rely on sweatshop labor.
Maine's Governor John Baldacci has taken a further important step. In a February 28, 2006, letter to Virginia's Governor Tim Kaine, Baldacci proposed a Governors' Coalition for Sweatfree Procurement. Such a collaboration of governors would greatly increase the power of sweatfree procurement. (See http://www.sweatfree.org/governorscoalition for more details.)
So-called "free" trade -- different from fair trade -- has major impacts on workers in our nation, including those in Virginia. The U.S. trade deficit translated into a loss of 20,000 jobs in Virginia in 2005 (and a total loss of over 160,000 jobs since 1993). Setting basic standards for workers around the world would protect American -- including Virginia -- workers, helping to avoid a worldwide race to the bottom in wages and health and safety standards. Race to the bottom is not just a figure of speech: over the past decade, conditions in the world's garment manufacturing establishments, for example, have NOT improved and may indeed be worse. This is happening as WalMart and other big buyers relentlessly continue to drive down the prices they pay for products. Now, even a very poor country such as El Salvador cannot compete with the bare-bone wages paid in some Asian countries.
Decent standards would also ease immigration pressure into the U.S.: well-treated workers are less likely to cross borders in search of something better. And here in Virginia, manufacturers could begin to become more competitive. In other words, addressing root causes helps us all.
We can join in this effort. Ask Governor Tim Kaine to sign on to the Governor's Coalition for Sweatfree Procurement and use Virginia's procurement as a positive tool to address the serious problem of unregulated sweatshops around the world. Contact Governor Kaine by telephone at 804-786-2211; email him by going to http://www.governor.virginia.gov/abouttheGovernor/contactGovernor.cfm, or write Office of the Governor, 1111 East Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
------------------------------------
Marquita K. Hill
Blacksburg, VA
The Governor should insure that critical services continue 05-19-06
What, exactly, should the single mother of two children in day care, dependent upon the stipend from the Department of Social Services, be doing in preparation for a state shutdown in less than two weeks? Risk losing her job because there is no one to take care of her children?
What about the elderly and disabled who reside in homes for adults? Do they get set out on the street come June 1, when their monthly care payments aren't sent to their providers? If the home for adults isn't paid, then probably the staff won't get paid? Complain to the governor? Complain to the General Assembly?
What, exactly, should a teacher be doing about next year's contract? Look to apply out of state and move? Complain to the governor, or members of the General Assembly?
What, exactly, should voters and taxpayers be doing, before a major part of the state's budget runs out on May 31-- not June 30, without a new planning document in place?
Harkening back to an earlier budgetary snafu of the Wilder administration in the early 1990s, the state Department of Social Services budget runs on a June 1 to May 31 fiscal year (how and why isn't for the faint of heart, and exemplary of the sausage making style the legislature uses, typical of adults playing with real people's lives and tax dollars). The rest of the budget -- road maintenance (think mowing the tall grass and weeds in right of ways), our teachers' contracts for the next school year even as they muddle through another ridiculous SOL exercise (think what SOL also stands for), upkeep and maintenance on our award winning state parks system (think escaping from the rat race) -- runs on a normal fiscal year, from July through June.
Still, the point is that never before has Virginia been to this place. Two of three sides of the triumvirate responsible for our state budget -- the state senate and the governor, are in agreement on priorities. But the senate and the governor make not a budget, and the recalcitrant Republican majority in the House of Delegates, determined not to be bullied again into adopting what voters and taxpayers clearly want, seems okay with running the state off the tracks, to hell with the consequences.
It's time for the finger pointing and blame game to end and it's time for those who've been elected to the Virginia General Assembly to get the work done that they were elected, and paid, to do. If they don't complete the job that they were elected to do within the next few days, then I urge the Governor of Virginia to exert his executive authority to insure that, among other critical and essential services, that single mothers don't lose their child care and their employment, that the elderly and disabled don't get set out on the street, that teachers who teach our children get their contracts, and that he insure that Virginia government is managed in a responsible manner.
Andy Kegley is a family farmer and director of a non-profit housing corporation.
Andy Kegley
Wytheville, VA
VDOT, Vision and I-81 05-16-06
By Charles A. Miller
When Congress authorized the interstate highway system 50 years ago, it was not called "interstate" for nothing. The interstates are meant to move freight and passenger traffic efficiently across state lines. I-81, for instance, runs 950 miles from the Canadian border into Tennessee. It is not a Virginia-only highway. We share it with five other states.
When it comes to improving I-81, therefore, we should not act by ourselves. We should secure the cooperation of other states, and we should lead in that cooperation.
Interstate cooperation in the United States has never been easy; it suffered an almost fatal collapse with the Civil War. But when cooperation has come about it has fulfilled the vision of the framers of the Constitution and has benefited us all.
Interstate cooperation has usually depended on a framework approved by Congress. The framework can take place through ordinary legislation, as in the case of the interstates; by approval of an interstate compact such as the Colorado River Compact on water consumption in the west; or, by creating independent agencies like the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Appalachian Regional Commission.
But when VDOT prepared its recent draft Environmental Impact Statement about I-81, it deliberately confined itself to highway and rail improvements in Virginia.
Such restricted thinking is rooted in the history of both VDOT and the interstate system. The result is still a cramped vision of how to deal with the crowded traffic on I-81, in particular truck traffic. VDOT's Impact Statement carries out neither the Constitution's vision of interstate cooperation nor, as one can infer from today's gas prices, a vision of American energy needs.
A few weeks ago, when the I-81 Impact Statement was the subject of critical public hearings from Winchester to Bristol, the two most visible interest groups to testify were the Virginia Valley Network and RAIL Solution. Valley Network proposes a railroad component among its "reasonable solutions." RAIL Solution, which obviously concentrates on railroads, seeks a "balanced transportation system;" but its most important point is that it takes at least a 500-mile rail line, from Tennessee into Pennsylvania, to be economically successful at diverting truck traffic from the Interstate.
What has VDOT's response to a rail idea been? First, it has been to confine their study to I-81 in Virginia. Second, within Virginia's 325 miles, VDOT has studied not the railroad as a whole, but rather 13 discrete sections of line, none of them more than 10 miles long. Third, it has concluded that "rail improvements alone do little to address future needs on I-81."
But if there's anything certain about the interstate, it is that nothing alone will do much to address the future needs of the I-81 corridor. Rail improvement solely within Virginia is not advocated by anyone. VDOT has evaluated a small fraction of a large idea and then singled out the large idea to disparage.
A railroad that mainly paralleled I-81 requires exceptional vision and is undoubtedly a complex idea. The idea is intermodal, requiring coordination between two modes of transport, highway and rail. It is "interfinancial," requiring two forms of financing, public and private. And it is "interjurisdictional," requiring cooperation among several states.
One approach to the interstate dimension of I-81 has been overlooked not only by VDOT but apparently by everyone else. That is to work with the Appalachian Regional Commission, an economic development agency that was established by Congress more than 40 years ago.
Like the TVA, the coverage of the Appalachian Regional Commission, or ARC, is not by state boundaries, but by geography. For ARC, geography means counties in Appalachia. ARC covers more than 400 counties in 13 states and it happens that I-81 passes through ARC counties in every state along the interstate. In Virginia, seven of the twelve I-81 counties are also ARC counties: Botetourt, Montgomery, Pulaski, Rockbridge, Smyth, Washington, and Wythe.
What an opening the Appalachian Regional Commission could provide into interstate cooperation for I-81! Whether through VDOT or Governor Tim Kaine, who is a member of the Commission, Virginia should take advantage of the overlap of ARC and Interstate counties and bring vision to the future of I-81.
Charles A. Miller is a resident of New Market, Virginia. He is a retired professor of political science.
The payday loan crisis grows in Virginia 05-15-06
By Jay Speer
With all the payday loan places springing up in Virginia, you might think competition would drive down their interest rates. Well, think again.
According to a recent report by the Bureau of Financial Institutions of the State Corporation Commission, payday lenders are all charging the maximum amount allowed under the law -- 390 percent for a two-week loan -- and there is no price competition. In 2005, the average annual percentage rate payday lenders charged customers actually increased from 373 percent to 386 percent. (Virginia allows one-week loans at 780 percent APR but the report shows the average loan is for 15 days.) Obviously the situation has gone from bad to worse.
Repeat borrowing has gotten worse too, according to the bureau's report. Last year, more than 90,000 Virginians got more than 13 payday loans from the same lender. This doesn't even take into account the thousands of people who got more than 13 payday loans from more than one lender. These borrowers are trapped in the payday loan system and cannot get out.
The bureau also reports:
- more than 3.3 million payday loans were made in 2005 from 756 payday loan locations in Virginia.
- Those loans were made to more than 445,000 borrowers, thus each lender made an average of seven loans per borrower.
- Many borrowers go to a second payday lender for a loan to pay off the first loan and eventually wind up with two, three or more outstanding loans at the same time.
What can be done to stop these abuses?
Virginians need to tell their legislators and their governor that it is time to put an end to payday lending. Now is a good time to make an appointment to go see your Delegate and Senator and tell him or her that there is no reason to allow this economic exploitation to continue. North Carolina allowed payday lending for a few years and has now gotten rid of it.
The Virginia Partnership to Encourage Responsible Lending (VaPERL) is fighting predatory lending in Virginia. Many organizations and individuals are working with the coalition including: Better Business Bureaus of Virginia, Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy, Virginia AARP, Voices for Virginia's Children, Virginia Poverty Law Center, Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Housing Opportunities Made Equal, Virginia Organizing Project, New River Community Action, the Virginia Muslim Coalition for Public Affairs and the Piedmont Housing Alliance.
VaPERL needs your help. To learn how you or your organization can get involved call Jay Speer at 804-782-9430 or email jay@vplc.org.
Jay Speer is the Executive Director of the Virginia Poverty Law Center.
Why UVA can require a Living Wage for Contract Employees (if it really wants to) 05-12-06
By Meredith Richards
In July 2000 the City of Alexandria became the first Virginia municipality to enact an ordinance requiring a living wage for all employees working for private contractors who do business with the city. In November 2001, two years after first adopting a "living wage" budget for all city employees, the Charlottesville City Council broadened the city's commitment to a living wage by enacting a contract ordinance similar to Alexandria's. Arlington County followed next, and now the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors is debating adopting a similar living wage ordinance for contract workers.
The University of Virginia, on the other hand, professes that it is powerless under existing law to adopt living wage provisions that would include the thousands of employees who work for private employers who perform services (food services and housekeeping, for example) under contract to UVA. The difference between the localities who enacted living wage ordinances and UVA is one of "will" rather than "way." These localities confronted the same legal obstacles as the university but nonetheless found a legal way to provide for the living wage.
Each of these localities has used a common technique to establish living wage requirements for contractors while staying within Virginia law under the Dillon Rule. The method they use is available to all public bodies in Virginia, including importantly, the University of Virginia. It relies upon sound and well-established economic principles which set forth a compelling economic link between higher wages for contract employees and the value of the services they provide.
The University hides behind legal arguments and professes that it is powerless under existing law to adopt living wage provisions, no matter how desirable they might be.
The "way" used by local governments utilizes a concept of state law called "best value," which gives public bodies authority under the Virginia Public Procurement Act to specify, as a condition for awarding contracts to private businesses, standards for achieving the highest quality or "best value" of the services being solicited. When seeking bids for towing, landscaping, trash collection, mowing, housekeeping or moving services, for example, the City of Charlottesville can specify that it will only consider bids from contractors who satisfy certain "best value" standards. One of these standards under the city's ordinance is that contractors pay a living wage.
The economic principle linking "best value" to a living wage is simple, straightforward, and well-established: Higher pay and benefits attract more qualified employees who deliver better services. With higher base pay, employees are more productive, have higher morale and lower turnover, require less supervision and experience less absenteeism. A stable and motivated workforce saves the contractor (and, ultimately, the public body) the significant production losses and replacement costs that accompany constantly recruiting and training new employees when there are high turnover rates.
Virginia Attorney General Robert McDonnell, in an advisory opinion to President John Casteen, refers to UVA as an "agency of the Commonwealth" and argues that, although the UVA Board of Visitors has certain broad powers, its authority cannot supersede that of "statutory or case law, public policy, or explicit statements of the General Assembly." He goes on to cite the Virginia Public Procurement Act as established law which disallows UVA from setting a minimum wage for contractors.
As previous Attorneys General Mark Early and Jerry Kilgore have before him, McDonnell argues that the living wage "as a condition of being awarded a procurement contract is in violation of the Public Procurement Act."
McDonnell further states that the "living wage issue clearly is a matter of social, political or economic policy. It is not related to the goods or services sought to be procured and therefore may not be a factor considered pursuant to 'best value' provisions."
But such opinions systematically disregard The key to upholding the legality of living wage procurement ordinances under the Dillon Rule is therefore to establish the critical, direct link between higher wages and the quality and value of the services being sought. Charlottesville, Alexandria and Arlington have determined that, contrary to the opinions of the Attorneys General, the living wage is directly related and intrinsic to the value of contractor services. Here is the language adopted by Charlottesville City Council on November 5, 2001 as part of its resolution to enact a living wage requirement for contractors:
--The City of Charlottesville, as a provider of public financial assistance and social support services, has a compelling interest in ensuring, through means available to it, that contractors receiving public funds to not contribute to the problems faced by City residents who must subsist on low hourly wages.
--In procuring contracts, the City may consider whether a contractor offers a combination of quality and price which is optimal to the City's needs
The payment of a living wage yields better workmanship, reduced absenteeism, lower turnover, high productivity and increased employee morale. Contractors who pay their employees such a living wage are more likely to provide timely, higher quality, reasonably-priced services to the City.
The City strives to be a world-class city and demands the highest quality of performance from the people who perform services for the City in any capacity, whether those persons be employees or individuals who provide services under a contract with the City.
In adopting its ordinance, this resolution, the City Council ignored the opinion of Virginia Attorneys General and the advice of its own City Attorney. Five years later, Neither the city's ordinance nor those of the other localities have ever been challenged in a court of law. Nor has the General Assembly during that time shown any clear intent with respect to living wage laws. For example, in 2001 -- the year Charlottesville enacted its ordinance -- six bills (half of them pro-living wage and half anti-living wage) and one study resolution pertaining to a locality's legal authority to impose a living wage requirement on contractors were introduced, and all of them failed. As recently as the 2006 session, legislation designed to disable local living wage ordinances failed to pass.
President Casteen cites the Public Procurement Law, the Attorney General and the Dillon Rule to argue that he has no authority to require a living wage for contract employees. But Charlottesville has been there, and still done that. Where some see ambiguities in the law as an obstacle, others see it as an opportunity! John Casteen is a superb university president who has taken many courageous and just actions during his presidency. In matters of racial equality and anti-discrimination, in particular, he has shown himself to possess a strong social conscience. But in the matter of the living wage, he is listening to the wrong voices.
Educational institutions play an essential and noble role in society. They pass on knowledge to a new generation. They perpetuate our culture, values and history for future generations. But providing an education for some should not require that others live in poverty. A university should not perpetuate the economic disparities and social inequities that enable the children of some citizens to have the privilege of attending the university while the children of others have the privilege of working there for poverty wages.
John Casteen is a superb university president who has taken many courageous and just actions during his presidency. John Casteen Now, he has another opportunity. He can lead his Board of Visitors in requiring a living wage as a standard of procurement for contract services, and assign his bank of lawyers the task of defending the University's action if it becomes necessary. He can lead this and other state institutions in becoming advocates for change in state law. He can commit his presidency to being a major player in solving the problem of unacceptably high rates of poverty in Central Virginia. An institution as powerful and proud as UVA should be leading the way toward economic equity and social justice for all generations to witness.
FOR EDITOR'S REFERENCE
FOOTNOTES:
1. The Dillon Rule specifies that local governments have only those express
authorities as are granted to them by the General Assembly.
2. Defined as "any legislative or judicial body, agency, office, department,
authority, post, commission, committee, institution, board or political
subdivision created by law to exercise some sovereign power or to perform
some governmental duty, and empowered by law to undertake the activities
described. . ." (State Code ?2.2-4301).
3. Defined as "the overall combination of quality, price, and various
elements of required services that in total are optimal relative to a public
body's needs." (State Code ?2.2-4301).
4 UVA Law Professor J.H. Verkerke is quoted in the Cavalier Daily ("Legality
of 'living wage' debated," April 21, 2006) that it is "well-recognized" in
the field of labor economics that paying higher wages can increase worker
productivity. "There can be no doubt at all that the University
administration would be justified in acting on the assumption that such an
effect would be likely to occur."
Meredith Richards is a former vice-mayor of Charlottesville.
Diana Woodall Letter to the Editor 05-12-06
Dear Editor:
With all the recent media attention on immigrants, many of us may not realize that some immigrants actually came to this country with the assistance of the U.S. government. This is true of over 6,500 Kurdish refugees who came to this country in the late 1990's to escape persecution in northern Iraq, under Operation Pacific Haven.
Approximately 80 Kurdish families have settled in Harrisonburg, Virginia. They found jobs, and, as many immigrants do, sent money back to family and friends at home. But, because that country was Iraq, four Kurdish men soon found themselves subject to an FBI investigation. It seems they have unknowingly violated a provision of the Patriot Act which makes it a felony to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business.
It is questionable whether their activity really constituted a business. The money came from legal sources and was sent directly to family members or for humanitarian aid. Yet one man has already been convicted and awaits sentencing; three others are uncertain of their fate.
If this looks to you, as it does to me, like an unbelievable misapplication of the Patriot Act or of anti-immigrant paranoia run amok, please write to your congress person and to U.S. Attorney John Brownlee, 310 1st Street SW, Room 906, Roanoke, Virginia 24011.
For more information, contact Standing with Our Neighbors in Harrisonburg at SWON2006@gmail.com.
Thank you.
Diana Woodall
Dayton, Virginia
Why does the media not cover people who take action against hate? 05-11-06
By Katy Pitcock
The maxim often attributed to Edmund Burke suggests that "evil triumphs when good people do nothing." In Winchester good people did something but the media only wanted to cover evil.
The Apple Blossom Festival in Winchester, Virginia is a small town big event -- floats, marching bands, princesses and celebrities. As Winchester has experienced the growth in its immigrant community it has sought ways to recognize and celebrate its diversity. One of these efforts was a Cinco de Mayo event, a family activities oriented community fiesta.
In response to a public event celebrating diversity, the Winchester Star, the local newspaper, received a flyer from the National Socialist Movement of Northern Virginia, a neo Nazi hate group stating there would be an anti-immigrant rally and march. The Star heavily covered this "event" prominently reporting the date, time, location and message for three straight days. It went so far as to research and contact the national office of the Nazi group for a statement. It did this even though the group, upon being contacted by local law enforcement officials, revealed that they were actually only four guys and that they actually were not planning to come. Still, for three consecutive days the local newspaper referred to the "scheduled" rally and march, giving date, time and location.
At the scheduled date, time and location, media from the area were gathered to cover the hate group. They did not show. Instead of the hate group, a few of us from Latino Connection, a community group, had organized a simple and peaceful counter event. The good people did something.
And the media? They seemed to be disappointed. Our organized and clear message of welcome and inclusion, recognizing the commonalities we all share, we were told, was not news. A local reporter took a flyer and kept walking without asking who we were. A reporter who had come from Harrisonburg, 70 miles away, told the community group there was no story without Nazis, and watched every group of young white men passing by as if hoping they would be "the real story."
As we passed out flyers, we shared this concern too. We told passersby that the Star had eagerly covered an imaginary Nazi rally over and over, but would not cover a real community effort -- us passing out flyers. One group of people hearing this turned out to be Star staffers. They had the reporter's cell phone number and called him as we watched. He came back and did a brief interview.
The next day, the Star ran a story that quoted me on fairness and racism and immigration, and quoted a member of City Council saying that hate was not the right message for the Apple Blossom Festival. It went on to describe some of the people from different ethnic groups enjoying each other at the Cinco de Mayo event. But the headline was -- are you ready? -- "Neo-Nazi Group a No-Show." And there was no picture of us.
Even though we had shamed the Star into covering our little action against hate and fear, the message was still clear. Nazis are real news. People who take action against hate are a side story. Any time they want to, it appears, even the smallest group of Nazis -- people whose sick ideology was defeated at the cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives in World War II -- can have a headline. But people who are expressing the basic values of this country -- those that are inscribed on the Statue of Liberty -- have to embarrass the press into covering them. And we still won't get a picture or the headline.
Perhaps a more accurate maxim would be "even when good people do something, evil triumphs in the media."
Katy Pitcock
Star Tannery, Virginia
Any Hope For Minimum Wage Workers? 05-03-06
By Hunter Mabry
While May 1st was celebrated in many countries as International Workers Day, we Americans may well ponder whether there is any hope for minimum wage workers in this country.
The maxim that anyone who works hard and plays by the rules can realize the American dream, sharing the fruits of economic progress, is a receding possibility for most minimum wage workers.
According to a March report in the Washington Post, "In the 25 years from 1980 to 2004, a period during which U.S. gross domestic product per person grew by almost two-thirds, the wages of the typical worker actually fell" (after accounting for inflation).
Who shared the benefits of this significantly higher productivity? One group that has benefited greatly is chief executive officers. Last month The New York Times reported that a survey of 200 large companies found that the average total pay for CEOs "rose 27 percent, to $11.3 million" in 2005.
But even as CEO benefits have continued to grow more lavish, wages and benefits for workers have been squeezed. The federal minimum wage, which has been adopted for Virginia, has remained stagnant at $5.15/hour since 1997. According to the inflation calculator at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, even though minimum wage workers are being paid the same amount as in 1997, they are actually earning one-fifth less due to the lower purchasing power of what they are paid.
It gets worse. Today minimum wage workers are likely to be doomed to living in poverty. For example, a minimum wage worker who works full time, five days a week for all 52 weeks in a year (no vacation, no missed days) will earn only $10,712.00. According to the guidelines of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, this is $5,888.00 or 35 percent below the poverty threshold of $16,600.00 for a three person household. No wonder so many minimum wage workers have to work two jobs to survive.
Clearly, today's minimum wage of $5.15 an hour is not only very inadequate. In a country where CEO pay has soared to astronomical heights, it is a scandal that full time minimum wage workers live in poverty, regardless of how hard they work.
Instead of a minimum wage, such workers need a living wage -- a wage based on the moral principle that a job that requires a full time employee should pay a wage that enables that employee to live above the federal poverty line.
But how likely is it that such workers will soon be paid a living wage?
Not at all likely if we depend upon a corporate management that rewards CEOs and upper management with extravagant salaries and bonuses while at the same time cutting health and pension benefits for lower paid workers and out sourcing jobs.
Not very likely if we depend upon federal lawmakers -- who are largely either themselves members of the millionaire class, or so beholden to wealthy financiers that they lack the spine to challenge the interests of this class.
Not very likely, either, if we depend upon labor unions -- as anti-unionism is so widely practiced and accepted that the labor union movement has become only a feeble embodiment of its former self.
And prospects for a living wage may not be very bright either if we depend upon churches and other religious organizations that are expected to provide moral leadership. At the national level most major religious organizations have general policies supporting the rights of workers -- but it is rare to find these policies emphasized at the local level. When was the last time you heard your pastor -- or any pastor -- preach on the plight of minimum wage workers and the need for a living wage?
It may all boil down to what you -- the reader -- can do to encourage non-profits and religious organizations to exert moral leadership on this issue, and what can be done to help hold lawmakers accountable to all of their constituents, not just to their wealthy financiers.
Hunter Mabry, a United Methodist clergyman, is a retired professor of Christian Ethics who lives in Waynesboro, Virginia.
Hunter Mabry
Waynesboro, Virginia
Anne McKeithen Letter to the Editor 04-26-06
To the Editor:
The New York Times reported (2/20/06) the death of a New Jersey police officer who had fought to have her pension benefits awarded to her domestic partner. The two women had been registered as domestic partners for six years. Lieutenant Laurel Hester, who had breast cancer, feared her benefits would be forfeited when she died. After hearing her plea, the freeholders of Ocean County amended their statute in her favor. Lieutenant Hester removed her oxygen tube long enough to thank those present and said the ruling made it possible for her partner to remain in their home. Lt. Hester died Feb. 19, 2006.
If the proposed marriage amendment passes in Virginia, there would be no recourse for our police officers, teachers and others who wished to leave pensions to their same-sex partners. We the voters will be denying our own citizens their civil rights as Americans.
We urge Virginians to thoughtfully consider this issue and vote against the marriage amendment. It is not a gay issue -- it is a human issue, with immediate consequences for all Virginians.
Sincerely,
Anne McKeithen
H.C.Erik Midelfort
Charlottesville, VA
Franny Nudelman Letter to the Editor 04-19-06
Dear Editor:
Last week I had a great discussion with my American Studies students about the work we do in the classroom. What do we produce, and whom do we produce it for? Professors pride themselves on teaching their students how to "think critically," but what does this mean? Are students preparing to engage, and improve, the larger world, or is "critical thinking" a euphemism for giving students the expressive skills that will allow them to compete for high-paying jobs?
The conversation was inspired by remarkable events underway at the University of Virginia: 17 students had occupied an administration building to demand a living wage for university workers. Perhaps something these students learned in school prepared them to name the glaring contradiction between the high-minded ideals espoused on campus and the inadequate wages paid to those who insure that the university functions from day to day. Maybe their ability to recognize injustice, and respond to it, was the fruit of critical thinking.
The administration's response to their action, however, implies a different view of the purpose of higher education. The sit-in embarrassed university leaders, who appear to have no interest in paying workers a living wage. Their response was punitive: demonstrators were cut off from the outside world, intimidated by late-night visits from administrators, refused consultation with their lawyer, and finally dragged off to jail.
When supporters got word that the students were hungry, they piled food high on the steps of Madison Hall. When police took the food inside, onlookers were relieved. As it turns out, most of the food was tossed into the trash. This image -- a dumpster brimming with fresh fruit and vegetables -- best describes my sense of what is at stake in the struggle for a living wage, and in ensuing debates over higher education. Either we are employed in the work of learning how not to notice the food (read: knowledge, oil, money, love) we squander in the face of a hungry world; or we are engaged in the monumental task of learning how to provide for all. I find hope, and guidance, in the actions of this handful of visionary students.
Franny Nudelman
Charlottesville, VA
UVA students have shown us moral courage on living wage issue 04-19-06
UVA students have shown us moral courage on living wage issue
By Grace Elizabeth Hale
When I walked across the University of Virginia's historic lawn Monday morning, it was clear to everyone that the arrest of 17 University of Virginia students over the weekend had sent a wave of shock throughout the campus community. These undergraduates, all members of a UVA group seeking a living wage for hundreds of janitors, maids, and food-service workers at the University, spent the weekend in jail after police rousted them from school's administration building, where their four day sit-in had been an embarrassment to University of Virginia President John Casteen.
Living wage protests have been a staple of campus life at a many universities during the last few years, and the arrest of a handful of student militants is not all that unusual. A bit of the Sixties still lives on in academe, in Charlottesville and elsewhere.
But this incident has been an unusually polarizing event at UVA. It is not just that the decorum of Mr. Jefferson's university has been disturbed. The arrests also seem to have hardened attitudes and mobilized partisans all around. On campus and at the jail and the courthouse, demonstrations and protests continue every day. I have never gotten so many e-mails and phone calls from distraught students during my decade of teaching here. President Casteen and other University administrators have not just refused to support the living wage campaign's goal of $10.72 an hour for all UVA employees. They have also expressed outrage at the very idea of protest.
So why all the fuss, and why here at the University of Virginia? No university president likes a sit-in, but now that they have become a hallowed tradition on some campuses, a standard operating procedure for defusing them has long since evolved. Negotiate endlessly, keep the police at bay, and set up a faculty-student-administrative committee to study the issue at hand. Casteen violated this SOP, cutting off their food, bullying the students, and then calling in the police in the middle of the night. On Saturday evening, while members of the campaign inside and outside the administrative building were crafting a compromise, Casteen ordered the university police to carry them out of the building. One of Casteen's colleagues actually told students from the living wage campaign that "social justice is not the mission of this university."
In the past year, Casteen has often argued as part of the Charter Initiative that UVA must have more independence from the state government in Richmond in order to be a great university. With this autonomy comes responsibility. As a leader, he must now make the hard decisions rather than kick them back to the state legislature. He cannot now insist that he does not have the power to make decisions without the approval of the government in Richmond.
As the University moves to fulfill Casteen's own vision of excellence, it cannot leave out its five thousand low paid workers out in the cold. Approximately 80 percent of the most vulnerable workers at UVA are African Americans. Here at Jefferson's university, where slaves helped build the famed Lawn, we must end this legacy of oppression. Casteen's own diversity committee has made improved relations between the Charlottesville community and the University the center of its recommendations. In the Living Wage Campaign, in making well-researched proposals for eliminating the university's role in Charlottesville's shockingly high 25 percent poverty rate, some of the university's finest students have taken up this task.
Just as I was finishing this piece, one of the students released from jail called me. He said "You know, Professor Hale, it was hard being in jail. I won't lie to you. But everyone in jail is poor. I met six men there who had all worked at UVA and yet were too poor to hire a lawyer. They told me their cases would be decided by public defenders and prosecutors over coffee. I have a lawyer. And I would do it all over again to make a difference."
The students involved in the Living Wage campaign have reminded this university that the plight of its lowest paid workers is the concern of us all. Where Casteen and his administration have failed, UVA students have led by the example of their moral courage.
Grace Elizabeth Hale is an Associate Professor of History and American Studies at the University of Virginia.
Casteen Betrayed University of Virginia Students 04-17-06
Casteen Betrayed University of Virginia Students
By Ellen Fuller, Wende E. Marshall, Bradly W. Reed and Hanan Sabea
The sit-in led by students at the University of Virginia to protest the lack of a living wage for workers is in the long tradition of social justice and civil rights movements. The students were moved by a sense of moral responsibility to protest the fact that some workers at UVa work full time but are unable to support their families, and inspired by the democratic tool of civil disobedience to protest injustice. But if the sit-in at UVa reminds us of earlier struggles for social justice, it also conjures images of the abuse of power in response to protest.
On April 12, the Living Wage Campaign began a sit-in in the lobby of Madison Hall, near President John Casteen's office, while LWC members outside staged a rally on the front steps. On day one of the protest, Casteen denied food to the students, refused to allow faculty supporters to enter the building to confer with them and arrested one of the professors who tried to enter. On day two of the sit-in, Casteen ordered that wireless internet services be cut-off, disabling students from sending in their class assignments, and continued to refuse entrance to faculty supporters who brought food, water and books to the protestors. And, although Casteen has said that he is forbidden by state law to pay living wages, his respect for the law did not extend to allowing the students legal counsel in Madison Hall during his negotiations with them. By pursuing these strategies, Casteen ensured that by the time he met with students -- at 2 a.m. on April 15 -- to open negotiations, the students would be hungry, sleep deprived and without counsel.
The students were arrested on Saturday evening (April 15) after the closure of the day's round of negotiations. The arrest was captured on video tape and on a cell phone message, and it seems from this evidence that the police handled the arresting process without regard to the dignity and integrity of the students. The Living Wage Campaign has been raising the issue of poverty wages for university employees for the past eight years. They have followed all of the proper channels by making presentations to the Board of Visitors, meeting with Casteen and other high ranking officials, and lobbying for alumni support. It is only after eight years of attempting to make headway on this issue that the students took the step of civil disobedience. In teaching and learning about the issue of a living wage, in doing research on the question and by applying their critical thinking skills, the students did exactly what a university teaches them they should do in order to make positive changes in society.
When Casteen arrested the students, he betrayed the teaching and research mission of the University, and in a single gesture of impatience and intolerance, demonstrated that the use of force wins the day. His strong arm tactics must be understood in the context of a major university whose wage policies perpetuate structural violence against the lowest paid workers. The students have urged us to keep the focus on the treatment of workers at UVa and on the need for a living wage, but it is important to make the connections. A university administration that shows little regard for the health and welfare of its own employees, that hides behind laws designed to protect corporate profits rather than the quality of life for workers, and that refuses to provide moral leadership on the question of a living wage, will ultimately betray its students. And that is what we witnessed on the evening of April 15.
Ellen Fuller is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Asian and Middle Eastern Languages and Cultures and Studies in Women and Gender at the University of Virginia; Wende E. Marshall is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Anthropology; Bradly W. Reed is an Associate Professor in the Department of History; and Hanan Sabea is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Anthropology and Carter G. Woodson Institute for African and African American Studies.
Governor Could Save Billions and the Shenandoah Valley 04-07-06
Governor Could Save Billions and the Shenandoah Valley
By Megan Gallagher
In one bold stroke, Governor Tim Kaine could reform the way Virginia plans for major road projects, save billions in transportation spending and preserve the scenic beauty of the Shenandoah Valley. And he doesn't need the General Assembly, a tax increase, or $1 billion in new road funding to do it.
Governor Kaine could direct his Secretary of Transportation and the senior staff at the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to go back to the drawing board in planning for the future of Interstate 81. The Governor could order them to use a variety of tools to address safety and congestion problems on I-81, not a $13 billion industrial truck highway with tolls on cars and trucks.
The reasons are obvious. All Virginians coping with traffic and congestion should be alarmed that VDOT could spend $13 billion in just one corridor for a truckway nobody wants. Tolls won t begin to cover the cost. The I-81 truckway will demand billions in state road funds that are needed for other, more urgent projects.
Turning I-81 into a tolled truckway would place an unfair financial burden on Shenandoah Valley businesses and residents. It would destroy much of the corridor's unique scenic value for tourists and erode the healthy environment, rural and historic character of the Valley for all.
VDOT is holding hearings this month on plans to create the eight to 12-lane, New Jersey Turnpike-style truckway on I-81, one of the "concepts" in the agency's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). VDOT rejected a host of smaller-scale, less costly options for I-81, based on questionable traffic projections that favor highway widening.
VDOT rejected options like improvements to known trouble spots on the highway, such as climbing lanes or improved entrance and exits ramps, increased enforcement of speed limits and truck weight limits, and meaningful transit programs.
VDOT also rejected rail freight improvements to divert through truck traffic from I-81, after the agency studied rail upgrades only in Virginia and found them inefficient. The 2006 General Assembly ordered a multi-state rail feasibility plan for the I-81 corridor. VDOT should wait for the results of this study.
After the I-81 hearings are completed this month, VDOT officials could select final options for the corridor. Smaller scale, less costly options that were dismissed in the current report could be barred from future consideration.
That's where the Governor comes in. Governor Kaine campaigned on a promise to reform transportation and land use planning. The Shenandoah Valley provides the ideal opportunity for the Governor to exercise his executive authority and demand a better plan for I-81.
Governor Kaine will find a tremendous base of support. Forty-seven counties, cities, towns and planning groups in the I-81 corridor have endorsed resolutions supporting the rail freight option. Another 20 local governments and civic groups endorsed the Reasonable Solutions resolution, a six-point plan for I-81 that avoids tolls or major widening. And a great majority of the Shenandoah Valley legislative caucus supported General Assembly resolutions in the past two sessions directing VDOT to halt negotiations with the STAR group of road builders for a major truck highway on I-81.
Shenandoah Valley residents need to attend the VDOT hearings and oppose the toll truckway in their comments to the court reporter there (not just to VDOT staff) to ensure their comments go in the official record. The VDOT hearings take place from 5 to 8 pm as follows: Roanoke Wyndham Hotel and Wytheville Community College, April 11; Bristol Holiday Inn, April 12; Natural Bridge Hotel, April 17; Winchester Travel Lodge, April 18; and Bridgewater Turner Ashby High School, April 19.
Virginians from all over the state should contact the Governor's office, encouraging Governor Kaine to direct VDOT to consider lower-cost, lower-impact alternatives to meet current and future needs on I-81. To write the Governor online, go to http://www.governor.virginia.gov/AboutTheGovernor/contactGovernor.cfm
If the Governor decides to promote a reasonable solution for I-81, the result could be more efficient, creative and cost-effective planning for road projects throughout the Commonwealth. All Virginians will benefit from a better use of our road money.
Megan Gallagher is director of the Shenandoah Valley Network (www.shenandoahvalleynetwork.org), which links community groups working on conservation and transportation issues in seven counties: Frederick, Warren, Shenandoah, Page, Rockingham, Augusta and Highland.
Megan Gallagher
Director, Shenandoah Valley Network
The Plains, VA
Needed Now: A Path to Citizenship for America's Undocumented 03-31-06
Needed Now: A Path to Citizenship for America's Undocumented
By Dennis Martire
On March 27 I joined hundreds of my fellow Laborers and thousands of others from churches, community groups and civil rights organizations rallying at the nation's capitol. We were there to call on the Senate to offer a path to citizenship for America's undocumented.
No one knows the pressures that the migration of millions of workers from Eastern Europe, Asia and Latin America puts on workers in our country better than we in the Laborers union. Perhaps one million of these undocumented immigrants are employed in our construction industry. Ruthless exploitation of this workforce by unethical contractors has become a routine feature of the construction economy: workers whose legal status leaves them vulnerable to arrest and deportation are hesitant to report unsafe work sites, workplace injuries, and even unpaid wages -- not to say fearful of joining unions to improve their lives. It has become harder and harder for our union builders, who operate safe work environments and pay fair wages and benefits, to compete for work with these bottom-feeders of the contracting community.
But it would be foolish and hypocritical for us in the Laborers to join in the anti-immigrant clamor for crackdowns and deportation. Foolish because no conceivable set of measures could possibly succeed in removing the ten to twelve million undocumented workers in our midst. Hypocritical because the Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA) was founded by Italian immigrant day laborers like my own ancestors -- people who faced very similar challenges, similar discrimination and hostility from the established American community. They came together in this union and successfully advanced from a poor and exploited workforce to self-respecting, middle-class American citizens. We cannot and will not pull up the ladder behind us on the next generation of immigrant construction workers.
The only way to improve the lives of American-born construction workers is to find a way to legalize and organize these millions of immigrants. That is why LIUNA has for years taken the lead in reaching out to advocate for and organize this immigrant workforce. We have helped sponsor events like the Immigrant Workers' Freedom Ride to showcase the issue. We have ceaselessly lobbied against anti-immigrant legislation and for a path to citizenship for those undocumented willing to work hard, pay taxes and contribute to our society. And we have sponsored initiatives across the country to reach out to and organize immigrant workers, without regard to their status, into our union. In the past decade we have brought thousands of immigrant Latino workers across Virginia and the Washington, D.C. metro area into our union, changing many of them from desperate competitors of our union brothers and sisters into committed union members enjoying the good wages, health insurance, and pension benefits unknown in the open-shop side of the industry.
As our LIUNA President Terence O'Sullivan has forcefully stated, "It is immoral for us as a nation to depend on workers to remove asbestos, to build scaffolds, to build skyscrapers, to go underground to bore tunnels, to stand in the blazing sun to lay highways, to clean hotel rooms, empty bedpans, care for our children and our aging loved ones & and then tell them they are criminals and that they must leave this country."
On April 10 immigrant workers and their supporters across the nation will once again march and rally for a path to citizenship for undocumented workers. We in the Laborers Union will be proud to stand among them.
Dennis Martire is the Mid-Atlantic Regional Vice President of the Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA). He represents over 40,000 construction laborers, industrial workers, and public employees throughout Virginia and the other Mid-Atlantic States.
Dennis Martire
Mid-Atlantic LIUNA Vice President
Reston, VA
National Forest Land Sell-off is a Serious Mistake 03-10-06
National Forest Land Sell-off is a Serious Mistake
By Sherman Bamford
The recent Bush Administration proposal to sell off 309,000 acres of U.S. Forest Service land is a sure-fire bad idea. Congress should find other means to fund rural schools, rather than resort to the cowardly measure of selling public land to feed current budget shortfalls.
According to the U.S. Forest Service, loss of open space is one of the four greatest threats to forests. Nationwide, "More than 21.8 million acres of open space were lost to development between 1982 and 1997, about 4,000 acres per day, three acres a minute." The threat is greatest in the eastern United States "where most private forests occur." (http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/four-threats/). Privatizing these lands will speed up the loss of open space.
Even if it were true that the selected tracts "no longer meet national forest system needs, are expensive to manage and are detached or isolated from national forest units as a whole," isolated tracts of public land have intrinsic value even while not actively managed. In the early 20th century, in the wake of dramatic flooding, eastern national forests were established from the purchase of damaged and degraded lands primarily for the purpose of reforestation and watershed protection. As these lands healed and forests were replenished, the crisis subsided. Increasing development now makes such smaller tracts of open space all the more important on the landscape.
The proposal is not a good faith effort to balance the budget. For the last five years, the Bush Administration has systematically devalued the stewardship mission of the U.S. Forest Service in exchange for chimerical Enron-style juggling. It is no coincidence that the Bush Administration also is currently studying a plan to outsource 21,350 full-time U.S. Forest Service jobs, almost 68 percent of the full-time positions, including much of its professional staff of law enforcement officers, firefighters, biologists, researchers, foresters and geologists. These moves hurt agency morale and harm the public.
The land-sale program is risky and untested and there are no credible assurances that we can avoid returning to the trough again if the program does not generate the expected returns. At its core, the land sale scheme takes public land from the Southern Appalachian region, where national forests comprise 8 percent of total land area, to pay for rural schools in the western U.S., where there is a already a much greater public lands base. One-third of the acreage to be sold nationwide would come from the southern and mid-western U.S., but these regions would receive only 10 percent of the revenue.
The U.S. Forest Service continues to make misleading statements about the land-sale program. The agency claims that "most of the parcels to be sold are designated as 'custodial' meaning the boundaries are kept marked, but the areas aren't managed for watersheds, plants and wildlife habitat, scenic views, old growth trees or other purposes." In reality, over half the Virginia acreage is in an active management class, and many of the so-called custodial tracts actually have high watershed, wildlife, scenic, old growth, recreational, proximity to state parks, and other resource values.
Nearly all of the tracts proposed for sale areas support unique resources within their boundaries and none is a proper choice for liquidation under the agency's own selection criteria:
* Two tracts support significant natural areas, recognized by the Virginia Division of Natural Heritage and the Forest Service for their exemplary natural communities or presence of rare species.
* One tract is within a "scenic corridor" in the Lexington area. Another tract is an important highly visible gateway between the Roanoke Valley and national forest lands around Dragons Tooth. At least 12 of the tracts are rated with a scenic class level one or level two.
* Four tracts are located near streams supporting endangered mussels that need very clean water to survive.
* Several tracts are located in officially designated Priority Watersheds, Source Water Protection areas, support trout waters, or are near municipal drinking water sources.
* Six tracts contain Forest Service documented old growth forest.
* One tract is connected to the North Fork of Pound Roadless Area.
* One of the "custodial" tracts is located within the unroaded 7,000-acre Dismal Creek area proposed for protection by conservationists in 1999. The tract contains old growth forest and one of the few areas on the Jefferson National Forest providing remote backcountry recreational opportunities.
* Several tracts lie near existing high-demand recreational lands.
* Many tracts are not isolated tracts, but are connected to larger pieces of public lands.
* Many tracts are many miles within the official proclamation boundaries of the national forests and should not be candidates for sale.
Our public lands are a priceless legacy to our children and grandchildren. Comments about the proposal can be e-mailed to SRS_Land_Sales@fs.fed.us, or mailed to USDA Forest Service, SRS Comments, Lands 4S, 1400 Independence Ave. S.W. Mailstop 1124, Washington, D.C. 20250-0003, through March 30. Please write now to protect our public lands.
Sherman Bamford is the Public Lands Coordinator of Virginia Forest Watch and a volunteer member of the Sierra Club.
Sherman Bamford
Roanoke, Virginia
University presidents show lack of leadership on wage issues 03-02-06
University presidents show lack of leadership on wage issues
John T. Casteen, Charles W. Steger, Eugene P. Trani, Paul S. Trible, Jr., Alan G. Merten, Roseann O. Runte.
What do these six people have in common? They are all presidents of universities in Virginia -- the University of Virginia, Virginia Tech, Virginia Commonwealth University, Christopher Newport University, George Mason University and Old Dominion University, respectively.
What else do they have in common? Their compensation packages provide them with more than $364,000 a year (with Casteen's being $690,000), and the institutions that they head are major employers in the communities in which they are located.
And what else? All six have shown a lack of leadership when it comes to making sure that all their employees are paid a living wage.
Nobody working full-time should live in poverty. A living wage allows for the dignity of workers. If we decide that a job should be done - whether it's cleaning a dorm or mowing the grass -- we should be willing to pay a living wage for that work. Unfortunately, this is not the case at the University of Virginia, Virginia Tech, Virginia Commonwealth University, Christopher Newport University, George Mason University and Old Dominion University.
Let's think about this for a second.
If John Casteen discovers he needs a new pair of glasses, he wouldn't hesitate to go out and buy them.
If Charles W. Steger's refrigerator isn't working, he would have no trouble finding the money to have it fixed.
If Eugene P. Trani needs an antibiotic for his sinus infection, he doesn't have to figure out if he can afford the co-pay.
If Paul S. Trible, Jr. realizes that his car needs a tune-up, he doesn't have to consider whether there's money in the family budget to get it done this month.
If Alan G. Merten needs a new winter jacket, he won't hesitate for a moment to get one.
If Roseann O. Runte's home computer has problems, she wouldn't hesitate to call her local computer guru to figure out what's wrong.
Yet, if the cafeteria workers who feed the students or the custodians who are cleaning the buildings at their universities are making less than a living wage, they will have to think long and hard about whether they are able to afford any of these purchases or repairs.
In 1906, John A. Ryan wrote in A LIVING WAGE: ITS ETHICAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS: "The great majority of fair-minded persons believe, indeed, that labor does not get its full share of the wealth that it helps to create, but they are not agreed as to the precise measure of that ideal share. Upon one principle of partial justice unprejudiced men are, however, in substantial agreement. They hold that wages should be sufficiently high to enable the laborer to live in a manner consistent with the dignity of a human being."
Unfortunately, one hundred years later, these university presidents do not subscribe to this principle of partial justice. Rather, they sit in their comfortable offices seemingly content with the fact that many of their employees, whose hard work is so essential to the smooth functioning of their institutions, are not paid a wage that is enough to support a basic standard of living.
Think of the message that these presidents are sending the students who are enrolled in our state universities: it is perfectly acceptable to exploit those very people whose dedication and hard work help make their education possible and their lives easier.
No one who works full-time in the United States of America should live in poverty! If you share that belief, I urge you to contact these university presidents and tell them to stop their immoral act of paying poverty wages.
Steve Fisher is involved in a living wage campaign at Emory & Henry College in Emory, Virginia.
Steve Fisher
Emory, Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903-5208
Phone: (434) 984-4655 Fax: (434) 984-2803
