Author: Jared Fallon

1. The founding fathers liked ganja

Dr. Burke of the American Historical Reference Society and consultant for the Smithsonian has found evidence to support the long standing claim that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, James Monroe, and Andrew Jackson all either smoked or grew grass on their plantations.

2. Utah was the first state to ban marijuana

Amidst rising cannabis use by regional Mormons the church declared “the use of marijuana contrary to the Mormon religion” in 1915 and paved the way for America’s current prohibition.

3. Pot is the US’ biggest cash crop

Since 2006 weed has been more valuable to its growers that wheat and corn combined. US Pot production has increased tenfold in the past 25 years as California has emerged as the heaviest hitter, accounting for nearly one third of total US production. This has caused some people to believe that the US smokes the most, which brings us to:

4. Australia is the highest country in the world

It is estimated that the Aussies spend nearly double on cannabis every year than they do on total wine consumption. The next best Jacob’s Creek formula? 33% Cabarnet Sauvignon, 33% Syrrah, and 34% Cannabis.

5. Pending US legislation exits to legalize reefer

There are currently two of Barney Frank’s (D-MA) proposals that US Rastafarians would greatly appreciate. H.R.5842 hopes to make marijuana easily accessible for medical use while H.R.5843 seeks to “eliminate most Federal penalties for possession of marijuana for personal use…” So far the H.R.5842 has a surprising 23 cosponsors while the more risky proposal stands at 10. Do either of these bills stand a chance? We’ll have to see how they endure their current status of being held in committee status.

Lukasz Tomicki

The proposed solution (HR1424) to the current financial crisis is inadequate and ill-conceived. It does not address the problem at the correct point in the financial system and is likely to be very costs to the US taxpayer.

A better solution, based on an approach that has precedent and has proven to work is available. This document presents an analytical framework for understanding the current financial crisis and an outline for a plan to stabilize the US financial system.

Asset prices, such as the prices of homes and mortgage securities depend on the supply and demand in the marketplace. A rapid decline (+16% year-over-year as measured by the Case-Shiller index) in home prices is at the heart of today’s financial crisis. Therefore in order to end the crisis it is critical to stabilize the housing market.

A sharp contraction in mortgage financing and available liquidity has precipitated the decline in the housing market. In order to stabilize real estate prices we must restore liquidity in the mortgage market by making sure that all qualified buyers can receive mortgage loans and do this at low interest rates. Restoring liquidity in the mortgage market will allow for more existing homeowners to refinance and for new buyers to purchase their first homes.

The dramatic decline in available liquidity has been caused by the real and perceived increase in counterparty risk in the financial system. The rapid decline in the US housing market has lead to a fall in value of mortgage securities held by many financial institutions. As the bank losses mount, the probability of insolvency rises. These increased risks are expressed by rising financing costs for banks. The perceived risks are further magnified by the lack of transparency in the bank’s assets and liabilities. In particular the huge and loosely regulated credit-default-swap (CDS) market creates the fear. Should significant defaults occur, triggering the CDS contracts, some institutions are likely to be unable to meet their liabilities leading to a wave of bankruptcies amongst financial institutions. Lowering the real and perceived counterparty risk is needed to restore liquidity to the mortgage markets and stabilize the housing market.

Counterparty risk can be reduced by improving the assets-to-equity ratios of financial institutions. Banks use leverage, which means they own assets worth many times their equity. Therefore, by providing additional equity capital to banks, Congress can MAXIMIZE the impact on the bank’s capital position and minimize the amount of taxpayer money that is put at risk.

For example, a bank with $10 billion in equity can control $250 billion in assets giving it a leverage ratio of 25:1 (250/10). By providing $5 billion of new equity capital, Congress can reduce the leverage ratio to 16:1 (250/(10+5)) and dramatically reduce the bank’s risk of failure thus helping reduce counterparty risk, restore liquidity and stabilize the housing market.

It is important not to provide bailouts to speculators or executives with golden parachutes. Therefore this proposal should be considered in terms of a strategic investment of the US Government in a vital part of the US economy. The US Treasury and taxpayer stand to make money on this investment. Congress can help recapitalize the financial system by purchasing preferred shares in US financial companies. Currently the US Government can issue 10-year debt obligations at an interest rate below 4%. By purchasing preferred shares that pay a 7% dividend, the US Treasury stands to make a 3% annual return on this investment.

Purchasing preferred shares that pay a 7% dividend would help recapitalize stabilize the financial system, because a 7% cost of capital is very attractive for the banking industry under current conditions. If $500 billion were to be committed, a 3% annual return would mean a $15 billion profit for the US Treasury each year, on top of the social benefits of stabilizing the housing market and ending the financial crisis.

The Plan: Key Points

• Provide capital to US financial industry via preferred stock purchases that would pay a 7% continuous dividend.
• The Government’s equity investment in the banking system would help create an “implied” guarantee for the financial institutions. As a result the following is likely:
• Funding costs would fall, allowing the banks to lend money to borrowers at lower rates.
• The Government’s investment helps establish a “bottom”, enticing private investors (private equity funds, sovereign wealth funds, etc.) to step in and make investments, thus helping to provide capital.

Comparison to the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008”

This Proposal

• The purchase of equity aligns the incentives of the Government and the financial institutions. Win-win scenario.
• US Taxpayers have upside potential because they are equity holders and can realize a profit on their investment.
• There is precedent to this approach. Warren Buffett has invested in companies using this approach. Similarly, Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia has invested in Citigroup in the early 1990’s. As a result, he made a fortune and Citigroup prospered.

Current Congressional Proposal

• Adversarial relationship likely. Banks want to sell their assets for as much as possible; the Government wants to purchase them for the least amount possible. Win-Lose scenario.
• US Taxpayers have limited upside, it arises only from purchasing the assets at rock-bottom prices. If the assets are purchased at rock-bottom prices, no new capital is provided to the banking system. Therefore the only way to help the banks is to overpay for the assets.
• There is no precedent and no reliable objective way to value the assets. The assets may be hard to value, but we can be certain that the banks that currently hold the assets are in a better position to know their true worth. The Taxpayer is therefore unlikely to receive a good deal.

This moment in time has never been more fundamental for education reform. Innovative information is opening up to parents and their communities in order to compare public school rankings and overall student performances among school districts. As these changes occur, more and more failing schools are being reformed. But at what cost should the price be on change? According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD, US citizens are paying more per student for K-12 public education than nearly all other economically advanced countries. The importance of education is indisputable. Still, we doubt increased spending because we it does not significantly improve performances of students in the American public schools system. Looking into the future, combined with the current economic downfall and the increasingly fierce international competition happening around us, it has never been as important to embrace education reforms in our collaborative efforts to create a well-educated society.

There are two pending bills that have a great impact on the interest of education; the Head Start for School Readiness Act (S.556) and SPEAK – Standards to Provide Educational Achievement for Kids Act (S.224). The first, under Chief Sponsor Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), provides a plan to increase children’s knowledge in language, preliteracy, premathematics, emotional, and physical skills through Head Start programs. It also provides adequate training and programs to include children with limited English proficiency and those referred by child welfare services. The SPEAK Act, sponsored by Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT), is an amendment to add science to the mandatory biennial national and state academic achievement assessments. The information included on these assessments will increase content standards in mathematics and science to reflect the knowledge students need to enter college and apply in the workforce to compete in the global economy. Whereby, recent statistics have shown that the United States education significantly lags behind their industrial peers. This is more than a need to reform, this is a call for serious analysis of stagnate results, overreliance on standardized testing, and a new combination of successful programs. It is striking to see other countries like China, South Korea, and Japan score higher in education; maybe we should start taking some lessons.

While the powerful combination of these two bills using head start programs and effective goals for assessments are strong enough to move forward, it is only the beginning to a long road ahead.

Can the US keep up with China’s recent progress? No doubt America’s interest and funding in space programs are not as strong as the days of the Apollo Project, but where does America currently stand? For the most part, it appears that the overall US strategy is in trying to expand its support of science and math programs through education while improving general interest among the public for aerospace R&D. This direction appears to stems from the culturally different approaches the youth of the US and China are growing through. Around the time of America’s first space-walk NASA was in their prime in both funding initiatives and public support for the race to the moon – a unifying momentum that has no rival in present times. In terms of youth and education, the US is severely falling behind that of its rivals while China seems to be improving by leaps and bounds, driven by a popular urge on behalf of Chinese students to become the next Bill Gates. In contrast, the average US youth now seems more consumed with becoming the next pop icon than trying to pursue a career in nuclear engineering or physics.

Legislators around the nation are trying to remedy this situation from a ground-up approach by pursuing greater education opportunities in math and the sciences. Proposals include the massive 134 page H.R. 2272, a bill “To invest in innovation through research and development, and to improve the competitiveness of the United States.” This bill, much like several other pending proposals, outlines a comprehensive plan that includes coordinated efforts by NASA, The National Institute of Standards and Technology, The Department of Energy, and other agencies in order to build momentum and public support for greater space initiatives. In addition, H.R.6063 – the authorization of “the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration” – lists a very detailed approach for NASA’s future. Both bills are currently being debated and will greatly impact the future of American aeronautics if either is passed. For other aerospace-related bills, click here.

Author: Jared Fallon

Does anyone remember when presidential candidate John McCain called for a Gas Tax “Holiday” in April of 08 as Americans were priming themselves for the most expensive fuel prices experienced yet? We can’t help but imagine what our current policies would look like now, how McCain’s campaign would be affected, and whether or not such a shallow, short-term policy would have truly garnered any extra respect for this Arizona Senator. What I am proposing over this Presidential season is an “Election Holiday” – a break from the constant bombardment of details on the 08 Presidential Campaign and its affairs. A break that will allow us to recharge in the same manner that gas tax alleviation would have been appreciated, if only for a short amount of time. The logic between the two is actually quite similar.

McCain was simply looking for a near sighted relief to a growing present problem – one that affects a widespread population and tends to distract from greater economic and political goals. Why wouldn’t a break from the Presidential Election mumbo jumbo not equally be appreciated? This is not to undermine our political system or our adapted form of democracy, but to instead propose a new break along the same line of thought that many politicians seek short-term relief policies for – a time to reset, reflect, and recharge. In the haste and intensity of such a historical election it is important to not get lost in partisan politics nor details that are less consequential (i.e. Palin’s granddaughter scandal or Obama’s contagious smile). At such a crucial crossroads in American politics, we need not stray from our grander goals for reform – ranging from our current burdensome military policies to our aging infrastructure system, to our increasing tensions with our not-so-friends overseas. Let’s work for reform. Let’s work to not lose sight of our more intrinsic need for meaningful policies and get America where she needs to be.

]]> http://www.statesurge.com/news/election-relief-holiday/feed 0 http://www.statesurge.com/news/the-palin-politics http://www.statesurge.com/news/the-palin-politics#comments Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:33:57 +0000 admin http://www.statesurge.com/news/?p=89 The McCain Campaign not only recently announced their vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin this Friday, they shocked us with it. Over these last view days America has searched, googled, and gossiped about the life of this Alaskan Governor.]]>

Author: Sara Hilbert

The McCain Campaign not only recently announced their vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin this Friday, they shocked us with it. Over these last view days America has searched, googled, and gossiped about the life of this Alaskan Governor.

Sarah Palin was born February 11, 1964 in Idaho and raised in Skagway, Alaska. Palin received a Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho and married a lifelong commercial fisherman Todd. Nevertheless her most important role is being a mother of 5 children; Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig. Her involvement in the lives of her kids lead to her first major political move. Beginning at local PTA meetings, then moving on to city council, where she served two terms in 1992 and 1996 in the small town of Wasilla, Alaska. She was then elected Mayor of Wasilla for two consecutive terms in 1996 and 1999. In 2006, Palin was elected Governor of the state of Alaska, becoming the states youngest and only female governor. But how will Palin handle the change of small town responsibilities to leading a country of 300 million? Once sworn in office, will Sarah Palin be following McCain around wondering what to do? This is not a sexist comment, but rather a question regarding her experience. The stage lights are a lot brighter in Washington than Juneau. Regardless of her good judgment and morale, Sarah Palin will be silently sitting in her inexperience at the defense meetings. Instead of bringing solid expertise and knowledge, she will try to take her backwoods data and weigh it to the country.

An additional point of question is the relationship between John McCain and Sarah Palin. The president and vice president don’t have to be the best pals; however, in order to be the most effective, they must be a comfortable and highly compatible combination. Compared to other choices like Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Charlie Crist, and Joe Lieberman, it is hard to convince us that this is a running mate that John McCain desired.

This claimed maverick reformer exploded this week at the GOP convention with a strong confidence. Palin made sure we knew she was not here to get a good opinion column from critics, but to stand up for the American people. With little known about her past records and law making, I wonder if she knows that she can’t clean house in Washington when they do not agree with her.

Does the Republican party really believe in her? Do they hope her small business background and same-as-us attitude will bring a more balanced approach to the candidate? Or has this become a poor strategy to win leftover Hilary votes? We have to look further down the road and ask, if in Washington will Governor Sarah Palin be ready?

Author: Jared Fallon

On August 27 South Korea’s President Lee Myung Bak announced a bold plan to “significantly reduce the nation’s dependency on fossil fuels” and at the minimum, quadruple the use of renewable energy by the year 2030. In this paradigm shift, South Korea’s plans include increasing the use of renewable energy sources by an average of 38 times the current level, the construction of 10 new nuclear power plants, a massive increase in the nation’s oil self-sufficiency, a boost in the development and production of fuel-cell cars, and improved energy efficiency grading systems for both the public and private sectors. Specific highlights of the new program include increases in:

- The amount of solar energy use by 44 times above the current level, biofuels by 19, and geothermal power by 51

- The nation’s self-sufficiency in oil and gas from 4.2 to 40 percent

- The amount of nuclear power used from the current 15 percent to 28 percent of the total expected energy consumption by the year 2030

In addition to the obvious benefits achieved by achieving significantly greater energy independence, the South Korean government expects the renewable and alternative energy sector to see the creation of 950,00 new jobs by the target date.

How does the US measure up?

While the current energy policy plans outlined by Congress are not even close to being temerarious enough, several legislatures as of late have been quite active in proposing legislation. Even though the current proposals do not rival South Korea’s most current policy in intensity, if such bills are indeed passed they would help form large waves of change in America, helping to pave the road to a more grounded energy policy. One such bill, S.3044, aims to provide energy price relief and hold oil companies and other entities accountable for their actions with regard to high energy prices. The bill is being sponsored by one of the most highly rated legislators (Harry Reid; D-NV) and is currently cosponsored by 23 other state senators.

Other pending bills of interest include H.R.6545 – a bill that would require the Director of National Intelligence to conduct a national intelligence assessment on national security and energy security issues and Norm Coleman’s (R-MN) S.3126 – a bill that would encourage the development of alternative energy sources.

Whether or not such bills are passed, it is irrefutable that the US does need a renewed sense of passion – a desire to achieve groundbreaking milestones of entrepreneurship, innovation, and excitement in regards to energy policies. As of late, amidst all of the increasing complaints of rising oil prices, politicians have pulled the “green card”- utilizing alternative and renewable energy topics at the forefront of their platforms. Will these long winded speeches ever equate to policies with substantial reforms? They need to, and they need to quickly if we are to have any hope for keeping up with other countries’ developments in the energy sector.

Author: Jared Fallon

In a recent report conducted by the General Accountability Office (GAO) it was found that roughly two thirds of US corporations found ways to avoid paying federal income taxes between the years 1998 and 2005. Additionally, it was found that 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the United States partook in the same exercise. The report was initially requested by Senators Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) and Carl Levin (D-MI). Many people believe that it is unfair for these corporations to avoid such a tax but considering the complexities and time spent on complying, why wouldn’t they?

Despite the fact that the United States is home to one of the friendliest business climates in the world, it also is known to have one of the most complex federal tax codes that can, at times, encourage corporations to spend large sums of money to discover methods of tax evasion, rather than encourage innovation. The US increasingly causes both individuals and corporations to bare this monolithic burden that can, and should be made easier. Amidst the developments and changes that are matched with the newest waves of globalization, the US needs to figure out ways to help it become more welcoming not only for US entrepreneurs but foreign corporations as well. A simplified federal income tax code would help accomplish this and in turn, create more competitive benefits for America.

Author: Jared Fallon

The words we have all feared for so long are increasingly becoming a reality day after day. As forewarned at the 08 Fortune’s Brainstorm Tech conference by Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, “There’s going to be an i-9/11 event which will act as a catalyst for a radical reworking of the law pertaining to the internet”. Change is in the wind, and several key legislators are busier than ever thinking of new ways on how to use legislation as a tool to regulate the only true free frontier for media we have left.

At the time being, the two main federal bills to keep an eye on are: H.R.4279 and S.522. The first, sponsored by John Conyers Jr., (D-MI), would create an IP Dictator at the Department of Justice while attempting to “enhance remedies for violations of intellectual property laws, and for other purposes.”  S.522, on the other hand, is one of Evan Bayh’s (D-IN) bills and clearly only keeps the best of all of our mutual interests in mind by improving “…the effectiveness of domestic and international intellectual property rights enforcement…”.  It is no coincidence that both of these congressmen have sponsored several bills together and have many friends of reciprocity. More dialogue must be created about these bills for the future of the internet and free media as we know it.

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

Mark Twain once said that “[m]any public-school children seem to know only two dates—1492 and 4th of July; and as a rule they don’t know what happened on either occasion”. The education of our youth should be top priority. Education paves the way for future leaders, great philosophers as well as a better world and better opportunities. It opens up pathways that many may have not known existed.

House bill number 6525 proposes to amend the National Assessment of Education Progress Authorization Act to require State academic assessments of student achievement in U.S. History and Civics.

Certain findings by Congress paint a troubling picture. The 2006 National Assessment of Educational Progress demonstrated high percentages of students scoring below basic. In the subject of history, thirty percent of students in Grade 4 scored below basic. The percentages only go higher from there as thirty-five percent in Grade 8 scored below basic, while a whopping fifty-three percent in Grade 12 has the same scores. It is interesting to note that eighty-six percent (yes, you read right) of students in Grade 12 could not explain a reason for the U.S involvement in the Korean War.

Students seemed to fair a little better concerning Civics. Only twenty-seven percent of students in Grade 4 scored below basic. Students in grades 8 and 12 show a significant difference in percentage scores between history and civics. Only thirty percent in Grade 8 and thirty-four percent in Grade 12 scored below basic. Unfortunately, seventy-two percent of students in Grade 8 could not explain the historical purpose to the Declaration of Independence. That is simply amazing. According to the bill, there should be trail State academic assessment of student achievement in U.S civics and history from grades 8 through 12 in at least ten geographically diverse states. The states would be selected and identified to participate in the assessments with the consultation of the Commissioner for Education Statistics. In addition, H.R. 6525 allows for money appropriations of $7,000,000 for each fiscal year of 2008 and 2009 in order to carry out the United States History and Civics Assessments.

Although these percentages are just numbers, they still portray a disturbing fact. For one reason or another, our students are not doing so well concerning our nation’s history. I do not think I want to know what the percentage is of students not knowing how our nation was founded.

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

Known as one of the worst humanitarian disasters in Africa, the Darfur Conflict has destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives. House Resolution 1351 portrays support and a call for the international community to come to the aid of the people of Darfur and the humanitarian efforts made by peacekeeping troops.

Since it gained its independence some forty three years ago, Sudan has spent more time in internal armed conflict than enjoying that independence. Just as one civil war ended with a peace accord in the Southern provinces, the Darfur Conflict emerged in 2003 as some issues still were not resolved within the nation. Many accuse the government of using aerial bombings and Janjaweed, an Arab Tribal militia, in response to the hostility and fighting. Khartoum officials deny the allegations. Hundreds of thousands of Darfur Refugees have fled with estimates of 180,000 people dead. Around two million have been displaced.

House Resolution 1351 states that seven UNAMID peacekeepers were killed with another 22 wounded on July 8, 2008. This attack is just one of several strings of attacks on aid workers. The UN Security Council had unanimously passed Resolution 1769, which had authorized the deployment of 26,000 peacekeeping troops to the area last summer. However, UNAMID has been thwarted by the Sudanese government and rebels since the decision. The UN announced on June 25, 2008, that UNAMID in Darfur lacked critical resources, including troops, police officers, and air transport. The resolution expresses Congresses condolences to the people of Rwanda, Ghana, and Uganda and to the family and friends of those killed and wounded. These attacks on UNAMID have been condemned. In addition, H. Res. 1351 calls upon the Sudanese government to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice. There is urgency within the resolution for the international community as well as members of the UN to contribute resources necessary to ensure UNAMID’s success.

Recently, Mr. Ocampo, the International Criminal Court Prosecutor, has asked for the arrest of Sudanese President al-Bashir. Mr. Ocampo would like to see the Sudanese President indicted on war crimes charges and wants rebels to help investigate two of their own commanders accused of attacking African Union peacekeepers. The allegations on President al-Bashir have sparked angry protests. Some UN officials fear that there will be reprisals against UN peacekeepers and aid workers in Darfur. The African Union also feels that the peace process would be jeopardized if the charges are not dropped by the UN Security Council.

Hope is like a light at the end of the tunnel. The people of Darfur need hope and they need our help.

Outside sources
Washingtonpost.com
BBC News (news.bbc.co.uk)

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

As a young American in the 21st century, I have never known oppression. I have never longed for freedom because I was born free with the ability to make my own choices and be whoever I want. Thousands every day live in fear of just speaking their own minds. As Americans we look on to those nations of tyranny half-way across the world. We sympathize, but never truly realize. One such nation lives in our very own backyard just 90 miles off the tip of Florida. That nation is Cuba.

US-Cuban relations have been virtually non-existent for decades. Since 1961, official US policy has been economic embargo and diplomatic isolation. Key issues for America’s “beef” with the island nation arise from human rights violations, Guantanamo Bay, and the Cuban exile community living in Southern Florida. During his administration, President Bush has kept things tight concerning Cuba. Americans may only visit immediate family once every 3 years with an allowance of up to $300 to carry into Cuba. In 2003, President Bush established the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, where several Cuban-Americans sit. Under the CAFC, a fund called the “Cuba Fund for a Democratic Future” was developed to support independent civil society, finance university scholarships, and break the information barricade in Cuba.  Congress has been a little more lenient on the island by amending the trade embargo to allow agricultural exports from the U.S. to Cuba.

Earlier in 2008, Fidel Castro stepped down and relinquished command to his brother, Raul. Who else better to leave your throne to than family? The change in power has sparked a debate on future US-Cuban relations. Raul seems to have indicated a willingness to at least listen to what the U.S government has to say. Perhaps it hasn’t gotten as much media time as the energy debate, but Cuba is still an important topic for the 2008 Presidential race. McCain and Obama have similar, yet different views concerning Cuba. John McCain would keep the embargo in place and not permit economic aid. In general, he has voted in support of restrictions on Cuba. In 1992, he cosponsored the Cuban Democracy Act. According to McCain, he would “press the Cuban regime to release all political prisoners unconditionally, legalize all political parties, labor unions, and free media and to schedule internationally monitored elections”. Barack Obama would also not lift the embargo unless Cuba liberates its political prisoners, start instituting free press and take other steps to democratize. He has voted twice to cut off TV Marti Funding.  However, Obama looks to stabilize relations at some point. He would allocate for unrestricted family travel and remittance to the island. In his May 2008 speech in Miami, Obama stated “There are no better ambassadors for Freedom than Cuban-Americans”.

The change in leadership within both nations may bring about more diplomatic relations in the future. Perhaps, one day we will see a free Cuba.

Even the McCain camp did not find the cover to be in good taste. John McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds agreed with Obama spokesman Bill Burton, who stated “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.”

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

We’ve all been warned by our parents time and time again as children that talking to strangers is bad. Of course, there are the exceptions. Your friends at school had once been strangers. In a time where technology has brought us the computer and then the internet, one of the scariest things that parents may face is their child ignoring the “Don’t Talk to Strangers” advice and making online “friends”. Sometimes, these so-called friends are not who they said they were. When a child decides to meet their online “friend”, there are times when that child goes missing.

The internet is probably the hardest area to regulate, especially to protect our children. Senate bill number 1965, also known as Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act, proposes an effort to protect our children from such cybercrimes produced by online predators and to educate parents in protecting their families from inappropriate materials online. In order to educate the public, the Federal Trade Commission would carry out a nationwide program that provides awareness as well as promoting strategies in safe use of the internet for children. The Commission would provide a yearly report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation describing the activities carried out by the program.

The act also proposes to establish an Online Safety and Technology working group comprised of representatives from the business community and other appropriate groups to evaluate efforts to promote online safety and the practices of service providers in preserving the law in connection with crimes against children. After the first year that this group would convene a report will be submitted to the Committee on Science, Commerce, and Transportation and the Assistant Secretary that would give details of their findings. The report is to also include recommendations to increase effectiveness of any strategies or technologies.

Despite the efforts of the government, there is only so much they can do. It is up to the parents to make sure that their children are practicing safe ways to surf the internet.

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

Each of us takes for granted everyday such simple things as driving to the store or flying towards that summer destination.  We are surrounded by means of transportation, or should I say machines of transport everywhere we go. Today, prices are outrageous concerning these machines and regulations pop up everywhere. Nevertheless, without them, I believe we would not know what to do with ourselves. Bill SB 930 deals with these modes of transport and their regulations.

Under the bill, SB 930 states that materials purchased for the repair, maintenance, or manufacture of aircraft that are used as general carriers of people and property will be exempt from local and state sales tax. Along with this exemption, the Aviation Trust Fund has a new cap of $10 million that may be credited from generated jet fuel sales tax. The act also allows the use of $2 million from the Aviation Trust Fund to be employed towards the study and promotion of extended domestic or international commercial service and to aid sponsors who partake in the federally financed air service program supporting intrastate service. According to the act, there must be at least $6 million in the fund from the previous year before the fund can be utilized for the objectives mentioned above.

In addition to aviation, the bill recommends certain criteria for everyday road vehicles. The bill proposes a requirement for state patrol to establish a program that will certify local law enforcement concerning commercial motor vehicle laws. These measures are to meet any requirements established by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance. As of January 1, 2009, only law enforcement officers who are certified may be able to conduct roadside inspections to determine compliance with commercial vehicle laws. However, those officers not certified in commercial vehicle laws can stop the vehicle if there is any visible defect that may cause harm to the public around them.

The act also proposes to remedy the latest Supreme Court ruling which asserted that a defendant’s previous plea of guilt may not be employed to enhance the penalty for the defendant’s new intoxication offense.  Under section 577.023, a previous verdict of guilt combined with a fine, imprisonment, and so forth may be treated as finding prior guilt for the purpose of enhancing punishment. Currently there is an ignition interlock device law for repeat DWI offenders. SB 930 aims for the law to be an administrative requirement that will be enforced by the Department of Revenue. Offenders must provide proof that their vehicles are equipped with these devices and the devices must be operational on all vehicles operated by the person for at least six months. The moral of this story is: Be Smart. Please don’t drink while driving.

In concluding, it is important to maintain and establish rules from the air to the ground. It is also our duty as citizens to recognize these rules and to stand by them.

The House recently passed legislation which promotes the increase of public transportation and the use of alternative fuels for public transport. Bill H.R. 6052 sanctions public transportation grants for each of the fiscal years of 2008 and 2009 in urbanized and other areas. These grants are to be used for a variety of reasons, such as the any operating costs that a grant recipient is incapable of paying due to lower fares and costs accrued as a result of expanding transportation services.  The bill also requires that a grant given that involves obtaining clean fuel or alternative fuel equipment for the purpose of acting in accordance with the Clean Air Act to be one hundred percent of the net project expenditures.

Furthermore, the act amends the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act. It requires that federal agency employees in urbanized regions of the United States must be offered transportation fringe benefits for their use of public transportation. Bill H.R. 6052 expresses that the Secretary is to distribute direction on realization of a transportation fringe benefits program on a nationalized scale. The Secretary will launch a pilot program to carry out vanpool illustration projects. In addition, the bill insists on a grant intended for a capital project during the years of 2008 and 2009, involving the acquisition of property for the creation of new parking facilities. The grant will be for one hundred percent of the project unless the recipient of the grant appeals for a smaller sum.

Public transportation is only one step towards a cleaner, more energy efficient world. We are in a turning point in history and what we do now will affect future generations. Our planet is precious and deserves better care.

AUTHOR: Megan Yarbrough

Keeping up with the candidates and their individual details can be difficult at times. This article, designed as a quick overview of four of the current presidential candidates, will help you feel and appear knowledgeable.

U.S. Senator John McCain (Republican)

Biographical Background
John McCain graduated from the Naval Academy in 1958, later serving as a pilot in the Vietnam War. During his service, he spent five years as a prisoner of war. McCain was elected to Congress in 1982, representing the 1st congressional district of Arizona. Four years later, he was elected to the Senate. He is now a senior senator and serves on the committee of commerce, committee of science and transportation, and the committee of Indian Affairs. McCain has seven kids and four grandchildren. Currently, McCain and his wife, Cindy, reside in Phoenix, Arizona.

Issues
Stem Cell Research: According to Senator John McCain’s statement on stem cell research, McCain realizes that stem cell research may provide new cures and treatments for diseases. He supports funding for adult stem cell research and other stem cell research provided that it does not involve the use of human embryos. He also supports legislation to ban the creation of human embryos, by any means, for scientific use. Additionally, he believes that scientists should only be able to conduct embryonic stem cell research on embryos that were leftover from in vitro fertilization and would otherwise be frozen or destroyed. The use of embryos in embryonic stem cell research, in his opinion, should be contingent upon the donor initially being aware that embryos adoption is an option, and then only later being informed of the ability to donate them to research. Written consent should be received and financial compensation should be illegal.

Education: McCain believes that the public school system is in need of reform. He supports the creation of additional recruiting and training for teachers, paid for through funding by the federal government. Furthermore, he believes that annual reports on the school’s performance should be available to the public. McCain is a strong advocate of the voucher, or school-choice, system that would allow parents to choose which school their child would benefit from the most. He believes that the voucher system would give disadvantage children a better chance of succeeding and improve the overall performance of schools.

U.S Senator Barrack Obama (Democrat)

Biographical Background
Married with two children, Malia and Sasha, Obama currently lives in Illinois. Born in Hawaii, he moved to Jakarta, Indonesia, with his mom and stepfather when he was six years old. He lived there for four years before returning to Hawaii to be raised, for the most part, by his grandparents. He attended Columbia University and later graduated from Harvard Law School.  Obama has always had a strong interest in civil rights and started his career working in Chicago as a community organizer. He served on the state senate for seven years. Obama and his wife, Michelle, have two children.

Issues
Stem Cell Research: Barrack Obama believes that stem cell research has the ability to cure many diseases that currently are difficult, or impossible, to cure. He supports the use of stem cell research, and realizes the limitations of the research on only adult and umbilical cord cells. Therefore, he does support embryonic stem cell research provided that it is done on the embryos that would otherwise be discarded. He also feels that review boards should monitor all scientific research involving embryonic research.

Education: Senator Obama supports an increase in funding for the early education program, Head Start. He supports a plan that involves all school district’s submitting a plan for improving their school through reforms. The top twenty plans would be accepted, and those schools would receive additional funding to implement their plans provided that they show results. He is also an advocate of the Step Up program (Summer Term Education Programs for Upward Progress) that would provide disadvantaged students with summer learning opportunities. Additionally, Obama supports an increase in the maximum of federal grant money available to future college students.

It can be challenging to research and understand each candidate running for the presidency. However, next time someone strikes up a conversation about the differences in the candidates, you will have some knowledge of the candidates.

Sources:
www.cnn.com
www.washingtonpost.com
mccain.senate.gov
www.exploremccain.com
www.newyorker.com
obama.senate.gov

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

Many people enjoy making a splash to beat the summer heat. On most occasions, if you do not own a pool and you aren’t going to the lake, people generally pay to go to a swimming facility.

House bill number 1341 proposes to establish what may be referred to as “Ethan’s Law”. This Ethan’s Law declares that any owner of a business-related, privately owned swimming pool is to maintain adequate insurance coverage. The owners of such swimming facilities will be required to register with the Department of Public Safety and provide proof that they do have the adequate insurance coverage. According to the act, the coverage must entail the amount of at least one million dollars per incident in the event of an injury or death.

Those that do not abide by Ethan’s Law will be subject to a civil penalty of $250 each day up to a maximum of $10,000 that the facility remains in operation with continued violation. Any owner of the facility will also be liable for the costs that may accrue by the state and political subdivision that enforce the law. For those that think they may get away without the mandatory insurance coverage, please beware. Any person who deliberately breaches Ethan’s Law is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.  What does that mean? Well, that means legal action will be taken and you may be shut down.

Under the bill, the Department of Public Safety as well as local law enforcement has the responsibility to enforce the regulations stated in HB 1341. Also, any insurance company providing coverage to these swimming facilities must inform the Department of Public Safety if the proprietor(s) decides to either terminate their coverage or fail to renew their coverage. Remember that ignorance isn’t an excuse.

By Jackson Boyer

With November drawing ever closer, more and more questions are being asked regarding the two remaining candidates for President of the United States. While each party is doing their fair share of political name-calling, one argument particularly stung the Republican candidate in his battle for the White House: how old is too old? While the younger (and some say, more spry) Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, is a mere 44 years old, the Republican nominee John McCain is 72; old enough to be his father. Even though John McCain has had almost 20 years of Senate experience, the issue of how his age could possibly affect his judgment in office has been raised. Following is a list of four great American Presidents who were considered “over the political hill” before being elected as President, but when given the chance, accomplished great things.

Most Republicans consider Ronald Reagan to have been the single most economically effective presidents of all time. During his two terms in office, Reagan not only lowered taxes for the average American but also helped mitigate the country of more than a decade of recession. Reagan also helped bring about the end of the “evil empire” of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War; needless to say, his fight against communism was one that has echoed throughout the ages. He was 69 years old when he took office in 1981.

Harry S. Truman faced some of the most difficult decisions of any leader throughout history. Truman authorized the use of nuclear weapons on Japan, forcing the end to WWII and saving countless lives that would have been lost had the war persisted. He also made great strives socially, with the implementation of the Fair Deal which was aimed at helping the vast number of Americans still suffering from the Great Depression. Truman was almost 61 years old when he rose to the challenge of leading the free world during one of its most troubling times.

Dwight D. Eisenhower not only led America, but also led the entirety of the Allied forces in WWII as their supreme commander. Eisenhower also helped form NATO with other allies in Europe after WWII and became its first Supreme Commander in 1951, all before even becoming president. While in office, he put pressure on communism, helped oversee Korean ceasefire, formed NASA and advocated social change by proposing and enacting the Civil Rights Acts of 1957. He accomplished all of this while establishing the construction of the Interstate Highway System, which now stretches across the US for more than 46,000 miles. Someone who liberated Europe, generated worldwide peace and launched a fundamental space research organization must have been young, right? Eisenhower was 62 years young when he took office in 1953.

John Adams, the United States second president and first vice-president, is an example of how little age hinders ones ability to lead. Adams was an advocate for the US’ independence even before the revolution occurred. Serving as the representative of the Continental Congress in Europe, he helped negotiate America’s independence from and peace with Great Britain. During his presidency, Adams helped enact a number of strong domestic policies that are still used as models for today’s law making. Adams, one of the most significant founding fathers of our country, was 61 when he took office in 1797…an almost unheard of age for the time.

These individuals were given the opportunity to lead the US and made great progress for our country. It is ignorant to cast aside someone’s experience and proven track record simply because of their age, as so many are attempting to do with Senator McCain. The men listed were the brightest of the bunch, and as they aged, only gained more experience and expertise. It is in my opinion that John McCain, and the like, are like a fine wine and only get better with age.

Overview
The main issue involved in the use of marijuana for medical reasons can be summed up as follows: Do the medical benefits of properly prescribed marijuana to certain patients outweigh the medical risks thereof, and outweigh society’s legal, moral, ethical, religious and public health concerns? The U.S. Supreme Court found that it is not under the landmark case of Gonzales vs. Reich (below).

Marijuana has been used as an agent for medicinal purposes and for achieving euphoria since ancient times; it was described in a Chinese medical compendium traditionally considered to date from 2737 B.C. (5000 years ago). For most of human history, marijuana has been completely legal. It’s not a recently discovered plant, nor is illegality a long-standing law. Marijuana has been illegal for less than 1% of the time that it’s been in use.

The use of marijuana has been the source of criticism, racism and ridicule over the years, initiating an all out war against the substance by Uncle Sam. For instance Harry J. Anslinger, former Director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in the 1930’s, made the following “observations”: “Marijuana smokers in the US are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others”; “Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its user’s insanity, criminality, and death”; “Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.” And “You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother; Marijuana makes fiends of boys in thirty days”. The term “killer weed” was formerly used to describe marijuana, and was the title of a motion picture in the 1930’s. These and similar attitudes exist even today and act to form a societal prejudice against any use of the “drug”, including for beneficial medical purposes.

Medical use of marijuana has undergone many medically supervised clinical trials and it is generally accepted that treatment including marijuana has some positive medical value. The counter medical argument is that, while concedingly medically beneficial, too little is known about the possible negative effects of the over 400 chemicals contained in marijuana At this point that the trend would be to include marijuana in the treatment of some conditions including appetite stimulation in AIDS and cancer patients, relief from nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, pain relief, and increase in motor activity in cases of M.S., paraplegia, spasticity, and seizure disorders. It also lowers intraocular pressure (IOP) in glaucoma. More study is needed.

Four main issues comprise the debate on medical marijuana: (1) its role as a significant drug of abuse and the reluctance of policy makers to dissociate the potential harmful effects of recreational marijuana use from its potential therapeutic effects; (2) the wisdom of burning and inhaling the combustion products of a dried plant product as a valid therapeutic agent; (3) the view that smoked marijuana is not a unique therapeutic substance but rather represents an alternate, but more toxic, delivery vehicle for the active ingredient THC; and (4) the value of analyzing smoked marijuana’s potential medical use in the traditional manner of risk versus benefit in individual patients. The American Medical Association in its June 2001 report “concluded that marijuana should remain illegal but that further research should be done to verify its medical benefits and side effects.

For the most part, mainline religious denominations support the use of medical marijuana including The Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, United Church of Christ, Union for Reform Judaism, Progressive National Baptist Convention, and the Unitarian Universalist Association. Some or most of their collective views stem from the religious/moral duty to care for, and be compassionate to, the sick. “Legislators who give lip service to ‘moral values’ had better be consistent on the medical marijuana issue,” said Charles Thomas, executive director of the Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative. The Presbyterian Church (USA) joins six other major denominations explicitly supporting medical marijuana, while no denominations’ governing bodies have ever taken an official position against it .

The Courts have recognized “medical necessity” a valid defense only in cases involving religious organizations. The court rejected that defense in this case. The Supreme Court did support religious rights regarding drugs in a 2006 case. There, U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 was constitutional and applied to the DEA. The DEA was required to return Schedule I drugs and related materials to the members of the UDV church and was required to meet the conditions of the Act regarding religious defense.

—State initiatives concerning medical marijuana—

The Federal law making marijuana illegal is called Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Title II, Code of Federal Regulations or CFR. The law makes it unlawful to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess Schedule I drugs [marijuana]. States have since enacted laws making it legal to dispense, cultivate and/or use marijuana for medical purposes. Twelve states, including California, Alaska, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Rhode Island, Arizona and Vermont have enacted by statute or referendum the legalization for research and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes only fifteen states have never had a positive medical marijuana law. Ten states, plus the District of Columbia, have symbolic medical marijuana laws, laws that support medical marijuana but do not provide patients with legal protection under state law.

In September 1999, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “medical necessity” is a valid defense against federal marijuana distribution charges, provided the distributor can prove that the patients it serves are seriously ill, face imminent harm without marijuana, and have no effective legal alternatives. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court (hereafter Court).

—The United States Supreme Court Rules

Despite state legalization acts the United States Supreme Court (hereafter Court) overruled a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that marijuana should be legalized for medical purposes. [It may be noted here that the 9th Circuit Court and the US Supreme Court have been at odds for many years and the 9th Circuit is overruled by the Supreme Court more than any other]. The Supreme Court held that under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Federal criminalization of the medical use of marijuana could be enforced by the Federal government irrespective of state law to the contrary (state laws were not repealed, only that Federal agents could arrest and prosecute those who distributed and/or used marijuana including for medicinal purposes; it was not unlawful for physicians to prescribe marijuana).

In its decision in Raich the Court framed the legal issue at the outset: “The question presented in this case is whether the power vested in Congress by Article I, §8, of the Constitution includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law”. This is called “Commerce Clause” of the Constitution This Clause has been used (many say over-used) throughout the Court’s history to regulate anything having to do with interstate (state to state) commerce. The test as to when the Clause allows the Court (Federal government) to regulate some aspect of commerce has become increasingly more liberal over the last 200 years to the point that the Court can invoke the clause just about any time it wants to expand the Federal government’s power to regulate.

Gonzales v Raich was a California case. The Court noted that California has been a pioneer in the regulation of marijuana. In 1913, California was one of the first States to prohibit the sale and possession of marijuana and at the end of the century, California became the first State to authorize limited use of the drug for medicinal purposes. In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, now codified as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. The proposition was designed to ensure that “seriously ill” residents of the State have access to marijuana for medical purposes, and to encourage Federal and State Governments to take steps towards ensuring the safe and affordable distribution of the drug to patients in need.

The facts before the Court were:
Plaintiffs Angel Raich and Diane Monson were California residents who suffered from a variety of serious medical conditions and had sought to avail themselves of medical marijuana pursuant to the terms of the Compassionate Use Act. They are being treated by licensed, board-certified family practitioners, who have concluded, after prescribing a host of conventional medicines to treat respondents’ conditions and to alleviate their associated symptoms, that marijuana is the only drug available that provides effective treatment. Both women have been using marijuana as a medication for several years pursuant to their doctors’ recommendation, and both rely heavily on cannabis to function on a daily basis. Indeed, Raich’s physician believes that forgoing cannabis treatments would certainly cause Raich excruciating pain and could very well prove fatal.

Plaintiff Monson cultivates her own marijuana, and ingests the drug in a variety of ways including smoking and using a vaporizer. Respondent Raich, by contrast, is unable to cultivate her own, and thus relies on two caregivers, litigating as “John Does” (anonymous parties to the suit) to provide her with locally grown marijuana at no charge. These caregivers also process the cannabis into hashish and Raich herself processes some of the marijuana into oils, balms, and foods for consumption.

On August 15, 2002, county deputy sheriffs and agents from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) came to Monson’s home. After a thorough investigation, the county officials concluded that her use of marijuana was entirely lawful as a matter of California law. Nevertheless, after a 3-hour standoff, the federal agents seized and destroyed all six of her cannabis plants.

Plaintiffs thereafter brought this action against the Attorney General of the United States and the head of the DEA seeking injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting the enforcement of the Federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in that it prevented them from possessing, obtaining, or manufacturing cannabis for their personal medical use. In their complaint and supporting affidavits, Raich and Monson described the severity of their afflictions, their repeatedly futile attempts to obtain relief with conventional medications, and the opinions of their doctors concerning their need to use marijuana. Respondents claimed that enforcing the CSA against them would violate the Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution, and the doctrine of medical necessity.

The Commerce Clause emerged as the Framer’s response to the central problem giving rise to the Constitution itself: the absence of any federal commerce power under the Articles of Confederation. For the first century of our history, the primary use of the Clause was to preclude the kind of discriminatory state legislation that had once been permissible. Then, in response to rapid industrial development and an increasingly interdependent national economy, Congress “ushered in a new era of federal regulation under the commerce power,” beginning with the enactment of the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887.

Cases during this “new era” identified three general categories of regulation in which Congress is authorized to engage under its commerce power. First, Congress can regulate the channels of interstate commerce. Second, Congress has authority to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and persons or things in interstate commerce. Third, Congress has the power to regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. The case here was decided pursuant to the third category.

The plaintiffs raised three main objections to Congress exercising its power under the facts of this case. First they argued that the fact that marijuana used “for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician” can itself serve as a distinguishing factor exempting marijuana from Federal regulation. The Court countered that the CSA designated marijuana as contraband for any purpose by characterizing marijuana as a Schedule I drug, Congress expressly found that the drug has no acceptable medical uses (apparently without any government initiated studies).

“Second, the plaintiffs’ argued that limiting the ability of a state to pass laws legalizing only marijuana use to marijuana possession and cultivation should put the state’s law Federal congressional reach. However, the Court found that the “Supremacy Clause” in the constitution unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail [called preemption]. It said that it is beyond argument that federal power over commerce is “‘superior to that of the States to provide for the welfare or necessities of their inhabitants, however legitimate or dire those necessities may be”.

Plaintiffs nonetheless contended that their activities were not “an essential part of a larger regulatory scheme” because they had been “isolated by the State of California, and are policed by the State of California,” and thus remain “entirely separated from the market” (commerce clause). The Court responded: “The notion that California law has surgically excised a discrete activity that is hermetically sealed off from the larger interstate marijuana market is a dubious proposition and, more importantly, one that Congress could have rationally rejected”.

The Court also said that the effect on interstate commerce would be substantial if the California law was to remain. It would allow illegal activity to occur by transporting marijuana across state lines for both legal and illegal purposes.

—Conclusion—
Basically, the Court said that as long as Congress’ inclusion of the medical use of marijuana in its list of banned drugs was “rational”, the Federal law preempted state law to the contrary. In other words, it seems the centralized Federal government is better able to regulate the affairs of all 50 states by Thus, by the Court’s ruling, in California the marijuana distribution centers are legal under state law but illegal under Federal law. Many still operate but many have been raided and shut down by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).

The court’s decision makes the Federal government justified in sweeping and broad criminalization statutes, trumping whatever the people of the state decide is more beneficial for them. Although the Supremacy of Federal law over state law has long ago been established, there seems a determined effort in cases over the years to protect this power rather than relinquish it. If those who are subject to the criminalizing law were arch criminals themselves that would be one thing. However, most are otherwise and many times providing their services for the bettering of medical care (and of course their pocketbooks as is any capitalistic business). Although medical research has not conclusively proven the medical use of marijuana to be more beneficial than conventional drug therapies, there is little direct evidence that it is not helpful in many ways or that that its harmful effects out-weigh its benefits; or that its benefits should not be the subject of more clinical testing. Where the price of some drug therapies exceed the price of marijuana by multiples, and with the economic outcry about increasing healthcare costs (substantially influenced by profits of drug companies) why not consider the naturally occurring medicinal plants, such as marijuana, as an alternative treatment for those whom conventional therapies are ineffective.

I keep hearing that this country is being run by Republicans, but where are they?  The PATRIOT act demands more and more civil rights given up to the shadiest secret agencies of the U.S. government in the name of security, a bill that would have been called Communist in the 1980’s and Fascist in the 1940’s is now being forced upon us by the party who is supposed to defend personal freedoms.

What happened to being against big government?  How many of my friends have argued against FDR because he doubled the size of government, yet no single individual since FDR has done more to create a large wasteful mess of expanding government than President George W. Bush, creating entirely new departments and then creating departments with the sole purpose of making sure two other departments communicate.

Huh?

And things seem to keep getting stranger and stranger.  While Republicans are supposed to be adamant about balancing the budget and not spending money that belongs to the American people: Halliburton is to get paid all of its disputed charges, the deficit continues to grow (and the bills designed to “cut the deficit” only cut the rate at which it grows), and yet they are giving write-offs to oil companies who are doubling their all time record profits every single quarter.

As for the whole moral aspect: Tom DeLay, Karl Rove . . . there’s a whole list and two plus two just isn’t equaling what it should.

And our defenders of the Constitution now what to re-define “cruel and unusual punishment,” and severely limit freedom of the press, especially political speech, the very kind the founding fathers demanded for our nation.  What is going on here?

What happened to the Republicans who wanted a balanced budget, thought the ends did not justify any means (after all, they ran on a platform of honesty and morality), and would never allow the government unlimited power over its own people?  What happened to these people, and who has taken their place?  Sadly, if both the Republicans and Democrats were what they used to be, maybe we wouldn’t have such a mess now.

AUTHOR: Billy Skid

We’ve been hearing a lot about experience in the presidential campaign this year, and we’ve been told that experience is the most important qualification to be President. Well here’s a list of five great American Presidents who, before the job, has less experience in government than Barack Obama will have had if he wins in November.

Andrew Jackson

Prior to becoming President, Andrew Jackson had been military governor of Florida for one year, Congressman for one year and a Senator for three years. Of course, he’d also been a general, and Americans do love their general presidents, but before becoming President he had a total of five years in government service. Obama will have twelve.

Abraham Lincoln

It’s almost bizarre, but before becoming our greatest President, Lincoln had served only two years in the House of Representatives, during which he vocally opposed the Mexican-American War as a war of imperial aggression. (Sound familiar?) Just two years of government service. The rest of the time he spent lawyering around the state of Illinois. (Sound familiar?) Oh yeah. To win the nomination, he had to defeat an immensely popular New York senator in the primaries. (Sound familiar?)

Teddy Roosevelt

Two years governor of New York, six months Vice-President of the United States. That’s it. He was also only 42 years old when he took the job, four years younger than Barack.

Woodrow Wilson

Just two years as Governor of New Jersey. Prior to that, he’d been a college professor, much like Barack has been a college professor, and a college president. And, like Barack and Teddy Roosevelt, he’d written some books, though neither Wilson nor Roosevelt wrote a book nearly as good as either of Obama’s.

Franklin Roosevelt

The guy who rivals Lincoln and Washington for the title of the greatest president, FDR, before taking the job, had been Governor of New York for four years, state senator for two years and Assistant Secretary of the Navy for seven years. All right, so that’s one more year of experience in government than Obama, but only a year.

The point is that while McCain and Clinton keep harping on experience as a crucial ingredient to being a great President, our own American history has shown that experience in government doesn’t really matter. What matters is wisdom, judgment, empathy and compassion. And Barack Obama has no shortage of any of those.

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

Summer has finally arrived, bringing the typical blazing hot days and the occasional weather emergency. This is the time of the year to crank up the A/C, go to the lake, and relax. Hopefully, there are some of you out there that will scribble, in your demanding schedules, time to look at what concerns and issues are being brought up in your Missouri legislation. Since hotter days are on the horizon, it is only appropriate to mention the act SB720.

In section 393.108 of SB720, there is the establishment of the hot weather rule similar to bills SB 11 and SB 955. The hot weather regulation is applied to the period between June 1st and September 30th. Let’s just hope there is a cold weather rule, otherwise electricity only runs a half year guarantee and wouldn’t that be ghastly? Under the rule, providers of natural gas and electricity are prohibited from disconnecting their services to residents on those days when going to the mailbox seems like crossing the desert. Whatever did we do without our current A/C systems and ice makers? I feel a little spoiled.

Coinciding with the hot weather plan, the Utilicare Stabilization Fund no longer has a five million dollar cap, but is subject to appropriations each fiscal year. Providers of heating or cooling can sink their teeth into $200 more from the $600 to the $800 allowed from the Utilicare Stabilization Fund. This will be only on the behalf of eligible households. The act also requires that the Department of Social Services utilize a portion of the funds to the Low-Income Weatherization Assistance Program.

Sections 393.171 and 1150 of the bill deal with the construction of electric plants. The Public Service Commission may sanction the production of an electric plant after it has been constructed; however, no approval or permit will deteriorate any private suits or claims against the constructed electric plant and any costs will be prohibited to be recovered from ratepayers. Any plants illegally constructed after the date of August 28, 2008, will be subject to awarding triple the amount of damages to the plaintiff’s real estate with the addition of any fees accrued in a claim.

Finally, bill SB720 creates the Manufacturer Responsibility and Consumer Convenience Equipment Collection and Recovery Act. Try saying that 20 times in a row. What all does this entail? Manufacturers, in order to sell their computers in Missouri, are obligated to utilize recovery plans for the collection and recycling of their obsolete equipment. The plans must be submitted to the Department of Natural Resources. Also, manufacturers must label their equipment. If violations occur, the Department of Natural Resources and the Attorney General are given the authority to assess penalties.

Bill SB720 may seem minuscule in the great scheme of things; however, it is critical to understand that every piece of legislation is important and does affect each one of us. If it wasn’t, then electrical companies and manufacturers could do whatever they pleased.

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

I would like to write one word: Agriculture. When one thinks of agriculture, images of tractors going five miles per hour down the road or illegal aliens working the fields may spring to mind. Agriculture is the unseen, straggling trade that works to produce the food items that we need and want as well as much more.

The bill SB 931 adapts specifications concerning the management of agricultural incentives and agendas. Under the act, the Qualified Beef tax credit and the Family Farm Breeding Livestock Loan tax credit will be subject to the reporting requirements in the Tax Credit Accountability Act for agriculture. The bill also states that any new or used machinery or equipment used for forestry products shall be exempt from local and state sales tax.

According to the bill, Missouri supports the idea of a voluntary animal identification program; however, it prohibits the Missouri Department of Agriculture from authorizing building registration under the U.S Department of Agriculture’s National Animal Identification System program unless it is explicitly approved to do so. If theses conditions prove to disturb marketing of Missouri Livestock, the governor may just waive it all away. SB 931 states under sections 348.230-348.235 that the State of Missouri may pay the first years interest on any relevant deposit program loan for the acquisition of dairy cows. The section also describes any awards a dairy business planning grants may be given.

As people look to agriculture for their beef and other meats, they also see agriculture in the green light. What is greener than alternative energy sources, such as biomass? The bill creates an income tax credit for the costs of constructing property for alternative fuel and its users. These tax credits shall not exceed twenty percent of direct costs. Each year as taxes are claimed, the claims that may be made must not exceed $3,000,000 the first year and subsequently drop each year thereafter.

Under the law, qualified fuel ethanol manufacturers are eligible for monthly grants. SB 931 asserts that fuel ethanol may be produced from biomass that is qualified by the Missouri Agricultural and Small Business Development Authority (or MASBDA for short). Grant incentives awarded for fuel ethanol created from biomass are approved between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2019. Unfortunately, it only applies to two producers. Isn’t that just a drag?

The images of agriculture before were just the stereotypical of what one thinks farming is all about. However, times have called upon agriculture to spread its wings and provide ways to create a better environment. As the need for environmental protection increases, we may all look to our agricultural producers in a new light as they may pave the way to use our Earth as a renewable source of limitless energy. With this in mind, we must remember that laws concerning agriculture are important and agriculture itself is vitally important.

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

Eat Healthy. Get up and Exercise. Live Healthy. These are things that we attempt to accomplish and that other’s strive to help us achieve every day. Perhaps we are not always the healthiest person on the bloc; however, we strive to not get sick so we won’t have to go visit that doctor who never seems to diagnose us right. Furthermore, it costs money. Despite all of this, Missouri legislation attempts to create a working health system that at least pleases most of us.

The act SB1283 establishes the Missouri Health Cabinet. The purpose of the Cabinet is to ensure that public policy within the state relating to health is developed so health services are designed, distributed, and administered in a holistic and incorporated manner in order to improve Missourian health. The Cabinet will consist of various state members such as the Governor, the director of the departments of Health and Senior Services, etc. Also, a Health Policy Council will be created to assist the cabinet and will replace the State boards of Health and Senior Services.

The bill also launches the Insure Missouri program, which is to offer health care coverage to low-income working citizens. The maximum participation point depends on funds appropriated and each eligible individual may have an established care account if they can provide payments for their participation. As the saying goes, zilch is free.  Effective as of January 1, 2009, there will be modifications within the eligibility restrictions and quality obligations for the Missouri Health Insurance Pool. Under these modifications, the lifetime benefit cap is increased to $2 million while the Pool must offer one plan that meets the criteria for Medicare and Medicaid for uninsurable persons qualified under the Insure program.

But wait, there’s more! SB1283 requires that hospitals report whenever someone (or more specifically, a physician) makes a big mistake, such as accidentally leaving a scalpel in a patient or death due to medication error. Is that a lawsuit, I smell? These big mistakes are to be reported to the patient safety organization, which will publish an annual report providing details to the public such as the number and rate per patient. For some reason, the thought of a surgeon leaving his scalpel in my body makes me a little queasy. Perhaps hospitals should screen perspective doctors for forgetfulness. In addition, the act creates the Missouri Free Clinics Fund, which is to be used by Missouri Free clinics (we have free clinics?) to enhance infrastructure and strengthen their sustainability so they may assist a larger quantity of people more efficiently.

SB1283 highlights many topics relating to health care. Excluding the issues mentioned above, the bill addresses various other things such as Small Employer Health Insurance Availability Act and Cafeteria Plans. It is necessary to address health care because it is a vastly important topic within Missouri and the nation, especially during a time with the need for change.

AUTHOR: John Elsik

Senate Joint Resolution 33, sponsored by Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) on May 21, 2008, recognizes the efforts of Ohio’s Departments of Mental Health and of Alcohol & Drug Services, in addressing the stigma associated with mental health and substance abuse disorders. The resolution pertains to, and recognizes, those American and Ohio citizens affected by mental illnesses and substance abuse disorders, as well the plethora of exceptional costs incurred through the neglect of treatment, and continued suffering, of American and Ohio citizens. Furthermore, this resolution recognizes the results of treatment, and of subsequent cost benefits. This resolution further recognizes the reality of the stigma attached with mental illnesses and substance abuse disorders. The resolution has been forwarded to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

The resolution points to the fact that 54,000,000 Americans suffer from a mental illness, and another 26,000,000 live with addiction. Recently within the entirety of the United States, only 10.8% of those suffering from mental illness or addiction received treatment. The resolution further recognizes the social and economic costs incurred through loss of productivity, crime, and other issues associated with mental illnesses and addiction. The estimated costs per year of untreated mental illnesses amounts to $100,000,000,000, while the costs of untreated addiction is $500,000,000,000. The Surgeon General has reported that mental illness and substance abuse account for one fifth of work days missed. This exceeds the combined burden of cardiovascular disease and cancer.

While recognizing the numbers of Americans affected by mental illness and addiction, and the further economic and social costs associated with neglecting treatment, this resolution recognizes the proven results of treatment. The resolution states that 70% to 90% of individuals with a mental illness or substance use disorder find a reduction in symptoms, and subsequent improvement in quality of life, from treatment. Furthermore, treatment has proven to cut substance use in half, reduce crime by upwards of 80%, and reduce arrests by some 64%. Within Ohio, the cost-benefit stands that for every dollar invested and spent on treatment there is an economic savings of 7$ through reduction of crime, child abuse and neglect, homelessness, and lost work productivity.

Whole focusing on the numbers who suffer, the costs, and the benefits of treatment, the resolution also recognizes the complications and reality of the stigma attached to mental illness and addiction. The resolution points to the damage resulting from mental illness and addiction stigmas in such ways as inadequate insurance coverage for health services, fear and mistrust towards those who suffer from such illnesses and disorders, and ultimately in the potential of family and friends to turn their backs on their loved ones. In point of fact, the Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration has found that individuals would rather admit to a petty crime than to spending time in a psychiatric facility. Furthermore, the Surgeon General stated that stigma towards mental illness and addiction can no longer be tolerated if there is to be a reduction in the burdens placed on society by mental illness, improvement in actual access to care for those suffering from mental illness and addiction, and ultimately in achieving knowledge of the brain, mind, and human behavior that is urgently needed to combat the multiplicity of problems associated with mental illness and addiction. The resolution also recognizes that the American Medical Associated, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the National Institute on Alcohol & Addiction all concur that addiction is a chemical change in the brain.

In concluding, the Senate and House of Representative’s jointly recognize that stigma fosters discrimination and discourages victims from seeking treatment, and encourages efforts to increase awareness of the existence and impact of mental illness and substance abuse disorder stigmas. Further, it encourages Americans to work towards overcoming the stigma associated with mental illness and substance abuse disorders. Finally, it recognizes Ohio’s “Think Outside the Stigma Campaign”.

AUTHOR: John Elsik

The “Close the London Loophole Act of 2008”, Senate Bill 3129, proposes to amend the Commodity Exchange Act to “prevent price manipulation and excessive speculation and to increase transparency with respect to energy trading on foreign exchanges conducted within the United States”. Introduced on June 12, 2008 by Senator Carl Levin for himself and Senators Feinstein, Durbin, Dorgan, and Bingaman, the bill details the authority of the commission over traders, as well as speculative limits and transparency for off-shore oil trading. The bill itself has been introduced, and was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

Regarding the authority of the Commission, the bill provides and includes for provisions relating to the “manipulation or attempted manipulation, the making of false statements, and willful violations” of the Act. Further, the bill requires and directs the Commission to “limit, reduce, or liquidate any position to prevent or reduce the threat of price manipulation, excessive speculation, price distortion, or disruption of delivery or the cash settlement process”, as well as to apply those recordkeeping requirements that the Commission deems necessary. Consultation is to occur prior to the issue of any order to “reduce a position on a foreign board of trade, exchange, or market located outside the United States) including the territories and possessions of the United States), and this consultation is to occur between the Commission and with foreign boards of trade, exchange, or market and other appropriate regulatory authorities.

With regards to speculative limits and transparency for off-shore oil trade, the bill will amend Section 4 of the original Commodity Exchange Act. This amendment will detail registered entities attempting to physically deliver an energy commodity to the United States. Prior to granting relief to these entities, the Commission must determine that the appropriate foreign board of trade applies similar principles and requirements regarding the publication of trading information and accountability for speculators as it is applied to the markets, facilities, and other registered entities trading energy commodities within the United States. Furthermore, the Commission must determine that these foreign boards of trade have provided such information on the extent of speculative and non-speculative trade of energy commodities that is to be comparable with the information the Commission determines in publishing a Commitment of Trader’s report for registered entities trading energy commodities within the United States. The final item of this amendment would provide 18 months after the first year from the bill’s enactment for the Commission to determine whether to continue granting relief to existing foreign boards of trade.

AUTHOR: Ashton Cope

Despite the decision made by the Missouri Supreme Court in 2006 (Weinschenk v. Missouri) that requiring a citizen to show a valid, government-issued photo ID to vote is unconstitutional, the Missouri legislature is again considering reinstating the requirement.  The House of Representatives passed the measure to the Senate last week. (HJR48 HERE)

In 2006, the General Assembly passed a bill that would require Missourians to show a valid, government-issued photo ID in order to vote.  The measure was largely Republican with strong Democratic dissenters, including Secretary of State Robin Carnahan.

According to Republicans, this measure was necessary to prevent voter fraud in the state of Missouri.  Although they were never able to prove there was voter fraud in Missouri that would be addressed by this piece of legislation, they insisted this was necessary to protect the fundamental right to vote and to keep “illegals” from voting.

According to Democrats, Photo ID was a violation of constitutional rights and instituted a form of poll tax.  Many older, underprivileged, and disabled Missourians do not have a photo ID and do not have the means to get one.  The Democrats stated there was once a time when birth certificates were not issued, and a birth certificate is required in order to get a photo ID.  Since there is a fee to get a birth certificate, it was decided that this would be a form of poll tax.  Secretary of State Robin Carnahan was able to produce a list of approximately 240,000 Missourians who would be disenfranchised by this requirement.

Before Photo ID could go into affect, the Missouri Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in Weinschenk v. Missouri.  So, why did Representative Stanley Cox (R-118) reintroduce Photo ID into the General Assembly?

Indiana recently had a case go before the Supreme Court of the United States (Crawford v. Marion County Election Board) regarding Photo ID, and it was decided that states could require voters to show a form of picture identification.  Already, though, there have been 13 cases of voters in Indiana being turned away for not having the proper identification – one student and twelve nuns.

The main argument being used by the republicans is, as illustrated in a debate by Representative Bryan Pratt (R-55), you have to show a photo id to rent videos, pick your niece up from school, and pay for lunch with a credit card – why shouldn’t you do so with something as sacred as voting?  Democrats are countering that renting videos and using a credit card aren’t rights expressly granted by the constitution, unlike voting.

The Senate Elections committee heard the resolution Monday and it will hit the Senate floor before the end of session on Friday.

AUTHOR: John Elsik

The “National Guard & Reserve Mental Health Act of 2008”, Senate Bill 2939 as introduced by Senator Edward Kennedy on April 30th, 2008, is intended to “expand and improve the mental health care and reintegration programs for members of the national guard and reserve”. The bill calls for the implementation and creation of a “Joint Psychological Health Program” (JPHP), various pilot programs, and a campaign to reduce pejorative perceptions associated with mental health care.

The JPHP is to be created with the purpose of improving access to mental health care, as well as improving coordination amongst Department of Defense components involved with the provision of mental health care to National Guard members during their transition to civilian life. Two directors of psychological health are to be respectively appointed to the Army and Air National Guard by the National Guard Bureau Chief. Those appointed must meet the certifications and qualities determined necessary by the National Guard Bureau Chief. The duties of the directors will involve the coordination and management of programs within their jurisdiction for the specific purpose of addressing the needs of National Guard members through providing easier access to, and education of, psychological care. To this end, the directors shall work with various national and regional groups in an effort to better address the mental care needs of the National Guard. The National Guard Psychological Health Council is to be created with these specific purposes: to manage the program’s development, to advise the National Guard Bureau Chief, and to ensure national consistency with JPHP programs.

Collaboration amongst the National Guard Bureau and DoD is called for in both the implementation and management of JPHP programs. Further collaboration is to involve the Department of Veteran Affairs, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of the Department of Health and Human Resources, and appropriate state agencies. Implementation of the JPHP is to occur within 180 days of the bill’s enactment, along with a report detailing an assessment of the implementation process, the program, and any further necessary financial needs. Specific appropriations total $8,035,000.

Pilot programs are to be created for the purpose of assessing and advising the feasibility of utilizing technology for the provision of mental health services. These programs are to focus on rural areas, and are to make use of “evidence-based practices”. The Secretaries of Defense and Veteran Affairs are to coordinate and implement these programs in coordination with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services of the Department of Health and Human Resources, and other appropriate agencies. Specific appropriations total $2,005,000.

The final item is the creation and implementation of an Anti-Stigma Campaign for the purpose of reducing negative societal perceptions associated with mental health care. Aside from the various programs to be created and managed as called for in the duties assigned to the directors of psychological health for the JPHP, the Secretaries of Defense and Veteran Affairs shall carry out such programs in coordination with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of the Department of Health and Human Resources as necessary to reduce stigma associated with mental care amongst the members of the national guard returning from deployment. Specific appropriations total $2,000,000.

AUTHOR: John Elsik

House Resolution 6088, the “National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network Act” as introduced by Congressmen Conyers and Poe on May 20th, 2008, will establish a domestic violence attorney network to represent domestic violence victims. The main sections of the bill include the establishment of a National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network (NDVVAN), a Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney referral program, and establish a technical assistance network for the NDVVAN. A study of legal representation of domestic violence victims is called for along with the establishment of a domestic violence legal advisory task force. The resolution also calls for amendments regarding the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

Regarding the NDVVAN, the resolution allows for the Attorney General to award grants to the American Bar Association (ABA) Commission on Domestic Violence to collaborate with the ABA Committee on Pro Bono and Public Service to assist in the recruiting, training, and mentoring of lawyers for the creation of the NDVVAN. Funds allocated to the ABA Commission on Domestic Violence shall be used for the purposes described above, as well as to assist in coordination with state domestic violence agencies, as well as to maintain contact with statewide legal coordinators regarding the coordination, training, mentoring, and supporting of volunteer attorneys for the NDVVAN. Specific appropriations for the program total $2,000,000 for 2009. $3,000,000 is appropriated for 2010 through 2013.

The Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney referral program will evolve to a nationwide program following a 5-state pilot program. The pilot program will run throughout 2009. The purpose is to provide a coordinated system of ensuring domestic violence victims have access to safe and appropriate representation, and to support statewide legal coordinators in managing referrals for victims to attorneys, and further providing training for attorneys regarding domestic violence issues. A statewide legal coordinator will assist in developing and updating a database of attorneys, legal service programs, volunteer programs, organizations serving immigrant women, law school clinical programs, bar associations, attorneys in the NDVVA network, and local domestic violence programs. The coordinator must consult and manage existing statewide and local programs, as well as provide referrals to victims seeking legal representation. They must further disseminate information regarding volunteer attorneys. Furthermore, coordinators must work with the ABA Commission on Domestic Violence, the Legal Advisory Task Force, and other national agencies to assess the effectiveness of the pilot program. $750,000 has been appropriated for the pilot programs. The national program will seek to provide the services established in pilot programs to the entire nation, and will further develop guidelines to implement the program based upon the effectiveness of the pilot programs.

Technical assistance for the NDVVAN will be established to allow providers to expand their services to deliver training and technical assistance to volunteer attorneys involved with the network. Furthermore, the resolution will allow for additional funding to help train and assist attorneys involved in a plethora of domestic violence issues. Specific appropriations total $800,000.

The resolution further calls for a study of the legal representation of domestic violence victims. The National Institute of Justice will study the scope and quality of legal representation for victims of domestic violence, of organizations providing legal services and support to victims, and other various programs. An overall assessment will include figures regarding the legal assistance provided, lawyers employed, effectiveness of the program, and other items that might assist in bettering the overall program.

The final item called for in the resolution is the establishment of a domestic violence legal advisory task force to provide guidance and advice regarding the implementation of the study previously described. The task force shall be composed of legal experts in domestic violence, as well as those who excel in the development of effective programs. The responsibilities of the task force are to provide ongoing advice regarding the implementation of the pilot and national programs, assisting in the selection of the pilot states, and reporting to Congress every 2 years on developments. Specific appropriations total $100,000 from 2009 through 2013.

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

The term “Melting Pot” has been used to describe the United States throughout its history. We are an immigrant nation and our differences have defined us as a country. Immigration has become an important issue today as thousands of aliens illegally cross our borders each year. What rights do these individuals have despite their lack of citizenship?

According to Missouri legislation, they don’t have many rights. Bill SB858 states that, in order to comply with federal regulations regarding immigration, the Highway patrol is to educate and train their members to enforce Federal Immigration Laws. If attempts to verify the legal status of those in custody are not found to be conclusive, the Department of Homeland Security will take over and verification will be made within 48 hours. In addition, those who are jailed may not be set out on bail if there is reason to believe that the person is an illegal immigrant.

Also, SB858 affirms that it is against the law to harbor or transport anyone who has come into the U.S in violation of the law. This goes not only to individuals, but to municipalities as well. If a city adopts a policy of sanctuary for these illegal immigrants, they will not receive grants presented by the state.
This act reiterates Federal Law in that no illegal alien will be eligible for state or local benefits and one must provide evidence that they are here legally. Many illegal immigrants may have hoped for a short time that they would at least be given the benefit of driving; however, Missouri legislation bursts that bubble. The Department of Revenue will not issue any drivers licenses to any illegal immigrant nor will they accept licenses issued to illegal aliens from other states. So that’s why bike and shoe sells have gone up so much.

Cheap labor is ideal within the business world as it cuts production costs thereby raising the amount of profit they can make. It’s all about the dollar signs, baby. However, illegal aliens, we’re afraid, are off the market as the bill SB858 clearly states that employers are barred from employing illegal aliens. If they violate this law, they are subject to suspension of any permit they may have and any contract with the state will be annulled. In addition, public universities are banned from enrolling any students that are here illegally. But, wait, we do have excellent foreign exchange programs if you’re interested.

The bottom line is this: If we let one thing slip, we’ll see the domino effect. But it won’t be as cool.

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

Children are our most precious gifts on this Earth. They make us laugh, cry, angry, and just plain speechless at times. Yet, above all else, children fill us with love and devotion. This devotion to our children creates a need to make sure that they receive good quality care and a safe, clean environment.

The State of Missouri has developed a Quality Rating System for early childhood and before-and-after school programs licensed by the Department of Health and Senior Services which is to be developed by September 1, 2008. This quality rating system, under bill SB726, will be based off of similar pilots designed by the University of Missouri Center for Family Policy. Parents will have the ability to evaluate child care programs and easy access to the ratings of the quality evaluation system as they will be provided on the internet to the public.

The bill offers more than just the ability to rate the quality of childcare facilities. A tiered system of reimbursement for child care facilities will be developed by the Coordinating Board of Early Childhood. Subsequently, the proposed reimbursement plan will be submitted to the General Assembly and will take affect only after it has been authorized. Furthermore, bill SB726 implements the Quality Rating System Improvement Grant Fund. The funding encompasses all gifts, donations, moneys appropriated by the General Assembly, etc. The Improvement Grant Fund will provide this money to any certified provider seeking quality enhancement.

The act also states that the Children’s Division within the Department of Social Services will modify the income eligibility criteria for receiving financial assistance. This allows families that have earnings that are below 160% of the poverty level to obtain subsidy benefits. These benefits are to be distributed based on a sliding scale fee for children. However, the fee may be waived for children with special needs. A waiting list may be established if there is not enough money to distribute as well as a set of rules explaining the prioritizing of families who receive the funds. In addition, the bill shall create the Child Care and Development Fund, which consist of money received by the Federal Child Care and the Development Block Program.

It should be noted that certain neighborhood youth development programs will be exempt from the child care licensing requirements as long as the programs follow the provisions of the bill. These provisions within the bill allows for quality child care through improvements in facilities as well as the necessary funding. Every child deserves the finest quality that can be provided.

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

It seems like every time I turn around the two words “credit report” jump out at me. I go to buy a car and the salesman must run a credit report. I go to buy a house and they ask for my credit. Even at home a commercial for FreeCreditReport.com is telling me to check out my credit report on their website. Hey, it’s free, right? The availability of your credit report to numerous hands may make your stomach churn. But wait, there is a solution.

According to the bill SB712, a “security freeze” may be placed on a consumer’s credit report if the consumer so wishes to choose. This security freeze prevents any credit reporting agency from reporting someone’s credit to a third party without the person’s explicit consent. The freeze must be in place within five days and the customer is to be notified within ten days of the restriction. In order to lift the freeze, a credit agency must receive instructions from the consumer. The first security request is, of course, free; however, a consumer will be subjected to a fee of $10 for every freeze thereafter.

A security freeze does not mean that a credit reporting agency does not ever give out a customer’s credit report. There are many circumstances in which a credit agency may give out a report. For instance, a credit report may be made if the State of Missouri requests it in an investigation of fraud. A credit report may also be made for certain insurance purposes, pursuant of a court order, and for a variety of other reasons. This bill also mandates that a credit reporting agency must provide summary rights to anyone who believes that they have been a victim of identity theft. If the agency violates the act, they are subjected to any actual damages that a consumer may experience, the court cost, as well as other reasonable assistance that the court may deem necessary.

The bill SB712 may also limit the type of information required to submit in receiving any rebates on purchases. Nevertheless, a business may ask for additional information if they believe that a rebate claim is fraudulent. The consumer at the time of the claim will be provided a mail-in-rebate form and they will be given 30 days to submit the form. After receiving the mail-in-rebate, a business shall send payment to the consumer within 30 days.

Amid the crowd of businesses and sales representatives thirsting for your credit, it’s nice to know that not everyone can see it. A credit report is like the report card you got in grade school: not everyone needs to know how well you’ve done (or even how well you haven’t).

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

As gas prices hit an all time high at $3.50 per gallon in Mid-Missouri, Missourians are grappling with the very same issue afflicting the rest of the nation: The Energy Brawl. People are consuming more energy than ever while suppliers scramble to meet demand. How is Missouri tackling current energy issues? Perhaps we should take a look at SB1181, which is a combination of the previous bills SCS/SBs 1100, 1262, and 1263.

The bill proposes that any new construction or renovation design documents of particular state buildings must include energy savings projections. These energy savings should be in compliance with the modification of the minimum energy efficiency standards that will be adopted or at least as severe as those of the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). These standards and procedures are to take affect by July 1, 2009. These modifications will be only the first step. By July of 2016, state government must use renewable sources for at least 10% of electricity and hopefully by July of 2026, the state government will be using renewable sources for at least 20% of electricity.

The bill SB1181 also provides incentives for consumers to become energy savvy by incorporating the “Show Me Green Sales Tax Holiday”. Starting in 2009, the sales of all Energy Star certified appliances will be exempt from state sales tax from April 19th through April 25th. While this may not sound like much of an enticement, your children may be pushing you to become more economical as well. Due to another provision in the act, Missouri High Schools will be required to educate students in certain environmental-related topics. With this in mind, representatives ranging from the Economic Department to Elementary and Secondary Education must convene to secure grants that would fund: green jobs, production of renewable fuels, increasing green research and development, and so forth.

Do you remember the commercials of recycle and reuse from the 90s which had the catchy tune of “recycle, reuse, reduce”? At the time, recycle and reuse was all about paper and glass among other items. The bill offers advancement into e-cycling, the recycling of electronics. According to this bill, the Department of Natural resources is to educate consumers on recycling computers and televisions by providing a website. This website will provide information on how to recycle these electronics, such as locations for collection opportunities. No more piling up the Dells and Sony’s into the local landfill, where our decedents would have been able to pluck out vintage parts for their vintage computers a hundred years from now.

Missouri may be slow rolling hills and Mizzou Tiger addiction with a dab of KC barbeque sauce, but we are still in the ring when it comes to energy concerns.