American Forum

AMERICAN FORUM

By Jennifer S. Smith, Ph.D., M.P.H.

Kristen Forbes of Noblesville, Indiana, had recently graduated from college when she was diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer at age 22. After a yearlong, painful battle, she succumbed to the disease, leaving behind a bright future and grieving family members and friends.

Like most of the 4,000 women in the United States who die of cervical cancer each year, Kristen’s death was preventable. We now have the medical know-how and the tools to stamp out this major cancer once and for all. What we need now, as our country honors National Cervical Cancer Awareness Month this January, is the will among members of the public health community – government officials and policymakers, medical professionals, insurers, women and others – to make it happen.

Cervical cancer used to be the leading cause of death for women in the U.S. With widespread use of Pap test screening in the last 50 years, cervical cancer rates have declined significantly, but have leveled to about 12,000 cases each year. This disease should be relatively easy to prevent. We know it’s caused by the human papillomavirus, or HPV, a common sexually transmitted infection. Most HPV infections go away on their own, but persistent HPV infections can lead to cell changes that can progress to cervical cancer. Fortunately, with proper treatment, the disease can usually be stopped before cancer develops.

Click here to read the full article. 

Riane Eisler

AMERICAN FORUM

By Riane Eisler and Kimberly Otis

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia just asserted for a second time that our Constitution does not protect women against discrimination. That was one of the arguments for passing the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)., and ironically, people of Scalia’s “conservative” persuasion often countered that the ERA was not needed precisely because women are already protected by the 14th Amendment.

Kimberley Otis

Indeed, many Supreme Court cases have invoked the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to strike down laws that blatantly discriminate on the basis of gender. But now we’re told that these cases for four decades were wrong because the Constitution was never intended to protect women. And that’s true if we only look at original intent. The focus of the framers of the Constitution was to protect the life, liberty, and property of white men who owned substantial property. And the focus of the 14th Amendment was implicitly on African-American males.

Of course, the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause uses the term “person,” and in this 21st century it’s bizarre that a jurist would think “person” does not include members of the female half of humanity.


Click here to read the full article.

KENTUCKY FORUM

By Steve Boyce

Many Kentuckians share a frustration with the lack of legislative will to pass real tax reform which has resulted in a decade of annual revenue shortfalls, cuts in essential programs, one-time stop gap measures and a failure to make investments that will move Kentucky forward.

As a member of the Kentucky Forward Coalition, I have grown impatient with yet another state tax reform study, especially since it’s not clear that the study will be transparent or guided by Kentuckians’ values.

The Kentucky Forward Coalition proposes that any revision of our tax structure -- whether coming from the commission that Sen. Williams has called for, or any another -- begins by establishing a set of principles that benefit all Kentuckians and move us forward.


Click here to read the full article.

KENTUCKY FORUM

By Chris Hartman

Barriers have fallen as President Barack Obama recently signed into law the repeal of the military's discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which has caused the forcible discharge of more than 13,000 of our nation's service members since its 1993 introduction.

We are now witnessing perhaps the most sweeping anti-discrimination reform of our nation's armed forces since President Harry S. Truman's 1948 executive order desegregating our military. We must look to this as a first step on a long path to full freedom and equality in America, but there are still so many left to tread along this journey.


Click here to read the full article.

AMERICAN FORUM

By Mitchell Gold

As a business owner who has created hundreds of jobs over the past two decades, I understand economic policies that build sustainable growth. Yet the billions in tax cuts for the wealthy just signed into law compromise our shared future.

The promise of “trickle down” economics has failed. When recent studies suggest that 1 in 3 working families are near poverty, it defies common sense that some elected officials have prioritized giveaways to the wealthy. This greed and excess is what got us into the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. It defies good business and core American values to pass this burden on to increasingly vulnerable working families, and to our children and grandchildren. How much more damage to the middle class can the country endure?

It’s clear that our political leaders need to shift course in order to build a healthy economy. We need to put aside the myths and rationalizations that excuse the unprecedented greed the last decade has witnessed. We need to have a basic sense of decency and focus on policies that benefit us all.


 Click here to read the full article.

Steve Macek

AMERICAN FORUM

By Steve Macek and Mitchell Szczepanczyk

When President Obama appointed Julius Genachowski chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Genachowski promised to introduce regulation that would prohibit internet service providers (ISPs) from discriminating against or blocking lawful online content.

Mitchell Szczepanczyk

Such "network neutrality" protections were needed because ISPs had been caught blocking their customers' access to cost-effective telephone services like Skype and intentionally degrading the performance of peer-to-peer file sharing software like BitTorrent. Now, the FCC chair has finally unveiled his long awaited network neutrality plan, with an expected FCC vote slated for December 21. Unfortunately, the plan will do very little to protect internet users against online discrimination and censorship by ISPs.

Network neutrality is the principle that ISPs should treat all lawful traffic over their networks equally. Using that principle of openness, countless online applications and services (Google, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia, etc.) have quickly gotten online and improved the daily lives of millions of users without having to first ask for permission from ISPs. And it's not just applications: thanks to the decentralized and nondiscriminatory nature of the internet, citizen journalists and nonprofits have been able to reach new audiences and draw public attention to stories and problems that would otherwise go ignored.


Click here to read the full article. 

AMERICAN FORUM

By Kenneth Lewis

The national conversation on our fiscal health for the past few months has been about whether to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for households with incomes over $250,000, or to allow them to expire on December 31st. To my amazement, lost in all this controversy and discussion has been any mention of what this would really mean for high-income people in the context of historical tax rates.

During the 1950s this country was flourishing economically and adding new jobs that moved millions of people out of poverty and into the middle class. What kind of tax policy was in place during this period, those years after World War II when the Baby Boomers were growing up?

What was the top marginal tax rate during all eight years of the Eisenhower Administration? 91%! The increase proposed for today’s rates seems paltry, and the top rate seems very low, in fact too low, and incongruent with the needs of the country for investment right now in education, health and infrastructure.


Click here to read the full article.

AMERICAN FORUM

By Holly Sklar

Republicans played President Obama in the tax deal like mortgage hustlers played homeowners. Focus on the teaser rates, borrow more than you need and trust us to work with you to refinance later when rates jump.

The teasers are the needed extension of unemployment benefits – always extended before with high unemployment – and continued tax cuts for non-rich Americans. The President folded on more tax cuts for millionaires and doubled down with a renovated estate tax set at the lowest rate since 1931. And a cut in the Social Security payroll tax, which Republicans will use to gut Social Security later.

The tax deal will cost most Americans and our economy much more than it gains.


Click here to read the full article. 

ILLINOIS EDITORIAL FORUM

By Chris Miller

As a former U.S. Army nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons specialist I was always skeptical of the assertion that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.  After I hit ground in Iraq in April, 2003, it soon became clear he didn’t have any. The U.S. searched the entire country for months trying to find them, but to this day nothing more than a few dusty chlorine gas mortars have ever turned up in Iraq.  What would have happened if Hussein had complied with the IAEA inspection regime voluntarily?  The 2003 Iraq war would likely never have happened.  Because he did not comply, it was open to conjecture whether Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or were trying to acquire them.  The rest is history.

In view of that, why would we dither, delay, or play politics with a treaty that would allow us to continue a responsible, voluntary inspection regime with a partner state that we know for a fact, with certainty, has nuclear arms, lots of them, and is simply waiting for the U.S. Senate to sign on the dotted line?  Why would we risk significantly setting back relations with Russia and at the same time make it much harder to verify that their nukes are secure?  Ask the Senate GOP leadership. 

The old START (STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty) was negotiated and signed in the early nineties under President George H.W. Bush, based on a concept by President Ronald Reagan.  The treaty served the U.S. well through the era of instability at the end of the Cold War and the New START would simply continue what was already a good idea.  It has served us well for the last two decades and, if passed, would continue to today.  It would reduce nuclear stockpiles by one third on both sides, still leaving America with more than enough firepower to defend itself.  It would responsibly allow mutual transparency and allow us to monitor Russia’s nuclear weapons and material.


Click here to read the full article.

NORTH CAROLINA EDITORIAL FORUM

By James Moeser and Andrea Bazán

In a program known as the UNC Scholars Latino Initiative (SLI), students at UNC-Chapel Hill make a three-year commitment to mentor Hispanic students at Jordan Matthews High School in Siler City. Students sign on as sophomores and work one-on-one with the high school sophomores through their graduation, preparing them to apply successfully for college.

We have seen first-hand the positive effects of this mentoring program on both the high school students as well as our own at UNC. Many of these young people have gone on to enroll in college, including some at Chapel Hill. Most, but not all of these students, are American citizens, but their legal status has not been an issue for the university. UNC’s concern has been its responsibility for the education of all North Carolinians, including the development of their full potential as human beings.

However, when students apply to the university, their legal status becomes a matter of grave concern. As non-residents, they are required to pay out-of-state tuition, and are not eligible for either federal or state need-based aid. The Office of Student Financial Aid has had to cobble together aid packages made up entirely of private funds. As a result, UNC has been able to admit only a handful of these promising students. Most of them are being left behind.


Click here to read the full article.

Randy Albelda

MASSACHUSETTS FORUM

By Paul Egerman and Randy Albelda

With unemployment close to 10 percent, Congress needs to focus on creating jobs and strengthening our economy. More than ever, our country cannot afford policies that would waste resources needed for job-creating initiatives in the short run and that would increase deficits in the long run.

Paul Egerman

That’s exactly what extending hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for our highest-income residents would do.

One of us has built prosperous businesses and the other is a public finance economist. From our different perspectives we have learned the same thing: businesses create jobs when people want, and are able, to buy their products.



Click here to read the full article.

AMERICAN FORUM
 
By Erik Camayd-Freixas


Click here to read the full article

ARIZONA EDITORIAL FORUM

By Carmen Cornejo


Click here to read the full article

TEXAS LONE STAR FORUM

By F. Scott McCown

Congress is now considering two important issues: whether to extend the Bush tax cuts and whether to extend the federally funded Unemployment Insurance program. To extend any part of the Bush tax cuts, particularly the high-end cuts, while cutting off Unemployment Insurance would betray hardworking Texans.

When a breadwinner loses a job through no fault of their own, they and their family are protected by Unemployment Insurance -- a federal-state program paid for by employers. The regular state program provides 26 weeks of benefits. Responding to the recession, Congress provided federal funding for an additional 67 weeks. But federal funding is running out, and if Congress fails to act by November 30, nearly 128,000 unemployed Texans will not get all or part of the additional weeks.

Both the public and history support extending Unemployment Insurance. A recent national survey shows 67 percent of the public are in favor of continuing Unemployment Insurance until the unemployment rate drops. And Congress has never allowed federally funded extensions to lapse when unemployment was over 7.2 percent. With the national unemployment rate well above 9 percent for 18 consecutive months, it’s far too soon for Congress to cut off Unemployment Insurance.


Click here to read the full article.

AMERICAN FORUM

By David Santulli

Dear Peace Corps -- It’s been 50 years since the idea of you was born during a speech by JFK at the University of Michigan. It’s been a wonderful life – and now is the time to see how you’re faring. Many people celebrating your birthday have focused on what you have and haven’t done. I’d like to examine why you were brought into being, and how the world has changed.

During the Cold War -- when the U.S. and the Soviet Union raced to find allies -- you were viewed as a way to exert soft power and build friendship with countries susceptible to communist influence. But there was more; there was a genuine interest to support communities in need around the world while engaging American youth and opening their global sensitivities.

Other notions were discussed, but never brought into being -- such as the idea of bringing people from other countries to serve in the U.S. (a so-called reverse Peace Corps). At the time, this idea was dismissed as too revolutionary. Besides, many thought, what help does the U.S. need from the rest of the world?


Click here to read the full article.