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
585 Mosquito Point Road
White Stone, Va. 22578
(804) 435-6468 home
(804) 512-9176 cell
exodus19.4@hotmail.com

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

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

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

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.

Jack Payden-Travers, Director
Virginians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty
P.O. Box 4804
Charlottesville, VA 22905
888-567-VADP (8237)
434-960-7779 (cell)
Jack@VADP.org
www.VADP.org

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.

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