On October 10, 2002, I voted against House Joint Resolution 114, a measure which grants the President a blank check to launch a war in Iraq.
We all recognize that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and that he is a dangerous enemy. The question is whether President Bush
“Malia Lt blue top Image”
”Meeting at the White House”
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii President Richard Rowland and I traveled to Washington D.C. last week for a meeting of 64 think tank leaders from 28 states from around the country. The meeting, held at The White House and organized by Kerri Houston of the Frontiers of Freedom at the request of the Bush administration, enabled the state policy leaders to be briefed on the president’s foreign and domestic policy. Houston called the meeting a “home run” in the effort to foster communications between the White House and state policy groups.
Those who attended were asked not to disclose publicly who spoke at the 3-hour meeting or specifically what was said. But in general, those who spoke discussed the president’s tax and economic reform plans, judicial nominees and pressing foreign policy issues, including the war on terrorism and looming military action in Iraq.
Houston, who organized a similar meeting with Pres. George W. Bush and his cabinet at the White House in December 2001 (also attended by Rowland and me), says this meeting was important because state policy groups gained a better understanding of important issues surrounding the president’s economic plans and policies. She and others who attended yesterday’s meeting advocate that once the Bush tax cuts are passed, job growth and consumer spending in the states will be a boon to state economics as well.
During the remaining day-and-a-half of the Frontiers for Freedom meeting, policy leaders met with Walter Olson of the Manhattan Institute who discussed his new book, Trial Lawyers: How the New Litigation Elite Threatens America’s Rule of Law. They also heard from new chairman of the CBO Doug-Holtz-Eakin; Alan Reynolds of Cato Institute; Nina Owecharenko of Heritage Foundation; Jim Carter, Chief Economist, Office of Management and Budget; as well as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy, and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. Other well-known authors and television personalities, including John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, Peter Roff of the United Press International, and Victor Schwartz, author of the popular book Schwartz on Torts.
”Case Brings Hawaii to Washington”
It is hard to remember the Washington D.C.-based congressional office of U.S. Rep. Ed Case isn’t located in Hawaii. Case has flooded his office with Maile leis, Hawaiian flowers and other types of leis, Hawaiian bowls, the American and Hawaiian flags, pictures of friends and family back home and a pair of beach slippers he leaves by the entrance of his office door.
“The slippers are a reminder of where I came from,” Case says with a smile.
During intense work periods when Case works in Washington D.C. for days at a time, with few breaks and virtually no time in the “outside world,” he says he has come to understand how elected officials in Congress can become wrapped up in politics and partisanship and forget about their roots and constituents. He doesn’t plan to be one of those politicians.
“I am making a real effort to go back to Hawaii whenever I can and to go into my district so I can hear from my constituents and continue be in touch with them,” Case says.
For complete story, see “Making His Case in Washington D.C.”
Case also says Hawaii will receive a federal appropriation of $2,012,000 from the FY2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill for acquisition of Muolea Point on the island of Maui. The money will help secure an appropriation to protect what Case calls “precious coastal land, which helps ensure that Muolea Point’s scenic, historical, and cultural resources will be protected for future generations.”
The original appropriations request was made by Congresswoman Patsy T. Mink in April of 2002 in response to requests from Mayor James “Kimo” Apana, Councilmember Robert Carroll, Councilmember Jo Ann Johnson, and a number of private citizens. The funding comes from the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP). The total acquisition price is estimated at $4,050,000; the remaining half of the purchase price is being raised locally by the Trust for Public Land and other community groups.
”Congress May Pass Huge Gas Tax Hike in the Next Two Weeks”
The price of gasoline is skyrocketing nationwide, and common sense dictates that lawmakers –
“Malia Lt blue top Image”
”Meeting at the White House”
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii President Richard Rowland and I traveled to Washington D.C. last week for a meeting of 64 think tank leaders from 28 states from around the country. The meeting, held at The White House and organized by Kerri Houston of the Frontiers of Freedom at the request of the Bush administration, enabled the state policy leaders to be briefed on the president’s foreign and domestic policy. Houston called the meeting a “home run” in the effort to foster communications between the White House and state policy groups.
Those who attended were asked not to disclose publicly who spoke at the 3-hour meeting or specifically what was said. But in general, those who spoke discussed the president’s tax and economic reform plans, judicial nominees and pressing foreign policy issues, including the war on terrorism and looming military action in Iraq.
Houston, who organized a similar meeting with Pres. George W. Bush and his cabinet at the White House in December 2001 (also attended by Rowland and me), says this meeting was important because state policy groups gained a better understanding of important issues surrounding the president’s economic plans and policies. She and others who attended yesterday’s meeting advocate that once the Bush tax cuts are passed, job growth and consumer spending in the states will be a boon to state economics as well.
During the remaining day-and-a-half of the Frontiers for Freedom meeting, policy leaders met with Walter Olson of the Manhattan Institute who discussed his new book, Trial Lawyers: How the New Litigation Elite Threatens America’s Rule of Law. They also heard from new chairman of the CBO Doug-Holtz-Eakin; Alan Reynolds of Cato Institute; Nina Owecharenko of Heritage Foundation; Jim Carter, Chief Economist, Office of Management and Budget; as well as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy, and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. Other well-known authors and television personalities, including John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, Peter Roff of the United Press International, and Victor Schwartz, author of the popular book Schwartz on Torts.
”Case Brings Hawaii to Washington”
It is hard to remember the Washington D.C.-based congressional office of U.S. Rep. Ed Case isn’t located in Hawaii. Case has flooded his office with Maile leis, Hawaiian flowers and other types of leis, Hawaiian bowls, the American and Hawaiian flags, pictures of friends and family back home and a pair of beach slippers he leaves by the entrance of his office door.
“The slippers are a reminder of where I came from,” Case says with a smile.
During intense work periods when Case works in Washington D.C. for days at a time, with few breaks and virtually no time in the “outside world,” he says he has come to understand how elected officials in Congress can become wrapped up in politics and partisanship and forget about their roots and constituents. He doesn’t plan to be one of those politicians.
“I am making a real effort to go back to Hawaii whenever I can and to go into my district so I can hear from my constituents and continue be in touch with them,” Case says.
For complete story, see “Making His Case in Washington D.C.”
Case also says Hawaii will receive a federal appropriation of $2,012,000 from the FY2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill for acquisition of Muolea Point on the island of Maui. The money will help secure an appropriation to protect what Case calls “precious coastal land, which helps ensure that Muolea Point’s scenic, historical, and cultural resources will be protected for future generations.”
The original appropriations request was made by Congresswoman Patsy T. Mink in April of 2002 in response to requests from Mayor James “Kimo” Apana, Councilmember Robert Carroll, Councilmember Jo Ann Johnson, and a number of private citizens. The funding comes from the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP). The total acquisition price is estimated at $4,050,000; the remaining half of the purchase price is being raised locally by the Trust for Public Land and other community groups.
”Congress May Pass Huge Gas Tax Hike in the Next Two Weeks”
The price of gasoline is skyrocketing nationwide, and common sense dictates that lawmakers –
REPORTING FROM WASHINGTON D.C.: The potent fragrance of Maile leis greet those walking the first floor of the Cannon House Office Building venturing within 10 feet of the new office of U.S. Rep. Ed Case.
In office for just three-and-a-half months, Case, who won the seat after two special elections, says covering his office in Hawaii memorabilia –
With the legislative session just about half way done, it has become very apparent that lawmakers continue to dodge the accountability issue.
Instead of taking the responsibility for their actions, lawmakers seem to like to defer decisions as much as they can. What, you say?
Don’t they take votes on bills? Well, yes they take votes on measures, but the measures are moved along even though lawmakers know that the bills are flawed or have been intentionally flawed. For example, a favorite trick lawmakers employ is adding a defective effective date, making a bill become law on some date in the future like the year 2050.
They like to tell observers that an issue deserves further discussion, but the fact of the matter is that they don’t want to be held accountable for killing what is otherwise a bad measure. Why, you ask, would they want to prolong the pain of a bad proposal? Well, if that measure has a constituency, lawmakers don’t want to offend them, well at least not in the middle of the session. It is a lot more palatable to tell a constituency that time ran out at the end of the session and lawmakers just couldn’t get to their bill.
Indeed, it is all too often that the explanation given for moving a bill with serious shortcomings is that, “We’ll catch it in conference committee.” With this kind of attitude, lawmakers seem to pay little attention to the details of just how the proposal will work and who and what the measure will affect.
Another phenomenon which has plagued the legislative process over the past 10 years as the revenue growth has sputtered is that they have sought ways to pay for pet programs without raising taxes. Yes, they have raided special funds and were caught, but those special funds were a creation of their own.
Their initial forays into the creation of special funds during the late 1980s and early 1990s was to hide general funds at a time when the state treasury was flush with cash. But as those general fund revenues began to dry up, lawmakers went back and raided them to balance the general fund budget, rationalizing that they were once general funds anyway. But that left many of their pet projects for which the special funds had been established, high and dry. So lawmakers found a new device with which to raise the money they like to spend. This was the advent of the user fee as a revenue source.
It started with the conveyance tax because it was so manini — nickel per hundred dollars of value — they thought no one would notice. Lawmakers doubled it to a dime per hundred dollars of value and earmarked the increase for affordable rental housing and the state’s natural area reserve program. With no direct relationship between the source of funds and either of these two programs it was almost guaranteed that the mismatch would eventually become apparent. And so it has as lawmakers are being asked to double the tax again with, again, the increase going to these programs. And don’t worry it will only apply to rich people and commercial property because the increase affects only properties worth more than $600,000.
Then there are all of the fee increases at the department of commerce and consumer affairs — a fact that the previous director denied, but the current director agreed were too high. Again, all of these revenues from licensing and registration fees went into a special fund, so no one paid close attention to how high they were or how those funds were being spent, because they “belonged” to those funds.
This year, lawmakers, as well as community leaders, have “discovered” how serious the use of “ice” is here in Hawaii. Well-meaning as they may be, lawmakers decided to address the problem by setting up a drug strike force and establishing a program to treat abusers of “ice.” Well, short on funds, lawmakers decided to look to some “new” source to fund this treatment program — the fee charged to affix the stamp on cigarettes. The fee is supposed to cover the cost of stamping because lawmakers did not want to take it out of cigarette tax revenues. It was never intended to be a source of revenues. While lawmakers may think this is clever, they should be ashamed that they have given only lip-service to the treatment of this drug problem.
If the dilemma of “ice” use is of a high priority, then money should be appropriated in the state budget to deal with this issue. By relegating it to be funded by this fee is telling us that this is not a high priority.
So much for responsibility and accountability.
”’Lowell L. Kalapa is the president of the Tax Foundation of Hawaii, a private, non-profit educational organization. For more information, please call 536-4587 or log on to”’ https://www.tfhawaii.org
Whereas in Africa people live on less than $1 dollar a day, Europe subsidizes each cow with $2 a day. HIV/AIDS has been a topical issue dominating the agenda of trade meetings and deliberately swaying African countries from key issues such as the United States of America blocking textiles from poor countries and the European Union blocking foods. It is estimated that rich countries spend $ 1 billion per day subsidizing their agricultural sector. A United States of America development expert observed that it is a democratic right for a country to subsidize her products and where possible come up with an efficient way to disburse aid to the poor. The present trend has led to expensive food in developed countries and poorer farmers in developing countries. 50 developing countries heavily reliant on agriculture for a third of their exports out of this 50, 40 depend on agriculture for half of their export earnings.
Concerned with this anomalies, a fair trade initiative was set up to facilitate a better deal for marginalized and disadvantaged third world producers by empowering consumers to take responsibility for the role they play when they buy products from the third world countries. One of the initiatives is focused on ensuring that they bypass exploitative middlemen and work directly with producers, environmental concerns and that big multi nationals respect workers rights. The danger however is that there FAIR TRADE labeling on Coffee, tea, banana, juice, sugar and honey products is creating a new “middle man” for the poor farmers. On top of marketing products basing on pity, it flouts the basic ethics of trade, which is basically a choice driven activity. Farmers will find their products not selling unless they have a “fair trade label” creating a new level of dependency and sustaining farmers deeper into an industry that may no longer be lucrative. Plunging farmers in the abyss of emotions will not help. The question is who will set the fair price?
Trade is a natural, voluntary interaction of people for mutual benefit. Free trade is simply letting people sell and buy without restrictions. People trade because they produce; governments produce nothing save for service to her people and should therefore play a minimal role on trade issues. Free Trade is fair trade because voluntary exchange improves economic progress by promoting efficient use of resources and by providing a continuous stimulus for innovative improvements. The poor of the world have found friends in International Non Governmental Organization that have managed to highlight their plight to the rich nations. Setting up with good intentions, some of the activities of these NGOs have tended to be counterproductive.
Farmers in Kenya have for a long time been battling middlemen who deny them profits and subject them to controls that sometimes kill the very industry they set out to promote. “I want to sell my tea to whoever I want, I want the freedom of choice that is why I sell to ‘Mang’irito,’ convenience and good price is what will drive my decisions” observed David Langat a farmer in Litein when the Kenya Tea Development Authority attempted to bar private tea buyers that attracted farmers by buying tea on the “pay as we pick” basis. In an attempt to discredit the liberalization of this sector, the pick-up boys were nicknamed ‘Mang’irito’ a Kalenjin word for “beastly plucking.”
The most dramatic event was a recent case where a coffee farmer Mr. Moses Mbugua sought to be allowed to market his coffee at the auction but was barred by the Coffee Board of Kenya. This happened despite the fact that the government recently instituted an Act [Coffee Act 2001] that empowers growers to select marketing agents of their choice.
Although Kenyan agriculture is predominantly smallholder, institutions that serve this sector have remained geared towards a large-farm sector as inherited from the colonial government. The government has been slow to dismantle these structures despite their being expensive and unresponsive to farmers needs. The Cotton Industry went down largely because of the Cotton Board inefficiency, recent fiasco at the Kenya Cooperative Creameries disorganized the milk sector, inefficient sugar industry that makes Kenyan consumers to pay up to three times the world price and where farmers bear the cost of losses when companies harvest the crop late has made it difficult for this sector to compete with external markets, institutional struggles within the Kenya Planters Co-operative Union almost derailed the coffee industry making it one of the highly charged politically. The flower industry has specifically given the smallholder farmers a raw deal through exploitation by middlemen and the latest European Union imposition of monitoring of maximum residue limits. [MRL]
Members of parliament and smallholder farmers through Coffee and Tea Parliamentary Association [COTEPA] have continued to express dissatisfaction with the institutional arrangements in this sector. Kenya Tea Development Authority has a legal monopoly and exclusive control over the provision of extension services, planting materials, fertilizers, green leaf collection, quality control and marketing of smallholder tea. KTDA holds up to 75 percent of the payments due to farmers for 4 to up to 16 months resulting in demoralized, cash strapped farmers and over charging on purchases charged to farmers. In some cases farmers opt for Savings and Credit Cooperatives [SACCO Societies], which charge high interest rates resulting in negative payments during the tea payments at the end of the year.
The concerns of fair trade groups is genuine given the fact that farmers in Kenya are disillusioned either because of corrupt officials and or poor policies that seem not to value the producers. Some coffee producers pulled out of the industry and tea and sugar farmers are known to sell the fertilizer supplied by the “do good monopolists.” To simply replace the national “do gooders” with international ones does not help out in the long run. The fair trade initiative will be of great help if it addressed the democratic nature of agricultural subsidies. Sensitize the American and European voters about the impact of their subsidies on the very people they purport to be concerned about and let them vote against this policies that enhance dependency.
They could also use their influence to pressurize governments in poor countries to rethink their policies that make it difficult for their farmers to reap maximum benefits from their products. Let farmers of Mr. Moses Mbugua’s persuasion sell directly to the market, let others join up in voluntary cooperatives to market their products. Above all let the poor farmers have the freedom to choose to stay in an industry or quit if it doesn’t serve them well. To simply advocate for fair prices that will sustain an industry artificially is to imply that people in the poor countries cannot be innovative. Free trade offers more opportunity for farmers and those who may want to move to another trade, it is human and it respects human action.
”’James S. Shikwati is the Director of Inter Region Economic Network [IREN Kenya]. He can be reached at P.O. Box 135 GPO Code 00100 NAIROBI KENYA, Phone/Fax 254-2-2723258, Cell 254-733-823062 or by email at:”’ mailto:james@irenkenya.org ”’His Web site is found at”’ https://www.irenkenya.org
It was Friday afternoon. Tom had just hired me to help him
grow his business. During our telephone call I asked him to
put together a package of information that included copies
of cover letters, proposals, presentations; and any advertising,
marketing and promotional material that he gave to his clients.
He said that would be fine and it would go out on Monday for
our next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday afternoon.
During our Tuesday meeting I asked if he had sent the package of
information, which I had not yet received. He said, “Yes, it was
sent yesterday morning.” We let it go and moved onto other things.
When we got together on Thursday afternoon, he asked if I had
received his package which had been sent by overnight
delivery three days earlier. It still hadn’t arrived.
On Friday afternoon it showed up.
The following week we talked about his materials. After a few minutes, the conversation shifted to his choice for an overnight service. I asked why he had chosen the company he was currently using. Tom explained that they were selected because their
pricing was lower than Federal Express.
“But FedEx delivers on time. Your current provider doesn’t.” I said.
[This isn’t meant to be a FedEx commercial.]
Funny you should mention that, because on Friday morning, my office manager got another call from Sue, the FedEx sales rep, who has been calling on us for the past six months. After our most recent shipping problems, we decided to move our account over to them.
“For how long have you been getting such poor service from
your current overnight service?” I asked.
“Quite a while. In fact you’re not the first person who hasn’t received one of my packages in a timely manner.” Tom said. He continued.
“A couple of weeks ago we almost had a terrible experience. I was
speaking with John, a prospect who was about to make a decision
to purchase some equipment for his plant.
I asked if I could overnight him some additional information
before he made his final decision. He said sure.
“We scheduled a call to talk at 11:30 a.m. the following morning. I got off the phone. Dropped everything, and spent the next two hours updating our proposal. Put the package together. Called the
delivery service, and had it picked up that evening.
“At 11:30 a.m. the next morning I called John and asked his thoughts about our updated proposal. There was a long pause. Finally he said ‘I haven’t received anything from you yet. Did you send it out?’
“Fumbling for words, I told him that I had spent two hours reworking the proposal and that I had personally handed the envelope to the driver. As panic was setting in I asked if I could fax him a copy him and talk about it after lunch.
“John sighed, and I could tell by the tone in his voice that he wasn’t
happy, but he said that would be fine. When we spoke in the
afternoon — I’m proud to say — I closed the deal. But it could have been disastrous.”
“When did the package arrive?” I asked.
“The following day.” Tom replied.
Which brings us back to Sue, the FedEx sales rep.
“When Sue called on your company, what questions did she ask you?” I asked.
“The only thing she ever talked about was price. She asked us how
many packages we shipped on a daily or weekly basis and then pulled out her rate card. It always came up higher than our present carrier.”
We told her that her rates were too high. She thanked us for our
time. And the conversation ended.
“Did she ever ask you any questions about the quality of service you were getting?”
“Not once.” Tom replied.
“How would the conversation have gone if she had asked you this question: ‘On a scale of 1 – 10, how would you rate the quality of the service you’re receiving from your present overnight carrier?’ ” I asked.
Tom didn’t hesitate for a second. “I would have told her about the
numerous times that packages were picked up late and delivered late.
About the number of times we had to call to find out the status of
a late shipment — Talk about wasting time. About how fed up we were with their poor service.”
And what would you have done if Sue had asked, “Which is more
important to you, saving a few dollars on the cost of each order,
or knowing that it will be delivered on time?”
“I would have signed up in a minute.”
But Sue didn’t ask the right questions, and Tom and his customers
didn’t get the service they needed.
And that’s the message I want to impart to you today:
”’Stop talking about price.”’
Start talking about:
*Service,
*Quality,
*Dependability,
*Value,
*Experience.
Going back to Tom and John for a moment. What if John had said,
“Tom, I appreciate your interest, but I’ve got to make a decision
this morning and your package of information hasn’t arrived yet.
I’m just going to have to place the order with someone else.”
Because Tom was trying to save a couple of bucks on an overnight
service, he could have lost a $46,528 order.
In today’s highly competitive world, we’re too focused on price,
and not focused on the customer’s needs.
When you’re talking with a prospect on the phone, don’t assume that the current vendor/supplier is doing a great job. If you do you’re sabotaging yourself.
I cringe when I hear sales people say things like this when speaking with a prospect: “I know you’re already working with a supplier, but I want to come by and introduce myself to you because you may need competitive pricing or a second supplier at some future time, and then you’ll be familiar with me and my company.”
What a waste of everybody’s time. You’re not in the business of
introducing yourself and building relationships.
You’re in the business of asking great questions so you can identify
problems and offer a solution that will add value to your customer’s business or life.
One day I was with a sales rep who said with a great deal of pride,
“It took me 10 years to get my biggest customer.”
I said to myself, why did it take him so long? He just kept on calling
until the previous vendor left the business, retired, or messed up
big-time. He certainly didn’t take the time to discover the prospects’
problems.
Furthermore, whose got the patience to call on a prospect for 10
years. That’s an awful lot of rejection. You should be looking for people who want to say ”’yes.”’ Not calling on the same people
over-and-over again who continue to say ”’no.”’
I’ve just written a training manual “Overcoming the Fear of Cold Calling.” It walks you through my time-tested methodology of how to use the telephone to get appointments, create opportunities, close more sales, and make more money.
Here’s the link to Read More:
https://www.SucceedingInBusiness.com/ColdCallingManual.htm
”’Reprinted with permission from Jeffrey Mayer’s Succeeding In Business Newsletter. (Copyright, 2003, Jeffrey J. Mayer, Succeeding In Business, Inc.) To subscribe to Jeff’s free newsletter, visit:”’ https://www.SucceedingInBusiness.com
“Dick Rowland Image”
”Shoots (News, Views and Quotes)”
Following items are from Vermonts Ethan Allen Institute Policy Brief, March 10, 2003 www.ethanallen.org
Expanding Parental Choice – 2003
Advocates of expanding parental choice in education believe that different children have different educational needs, and that giving parents a wide range of choices makes it most likely that the child and school will be well matched for the child’s learning benefit. Many also believe that parents ought to be empowered to choose an independent school for their children when they feel the independent school offers a more rigorous curriculum, emphasizes moral and religious values, avoids trendy political correctness, and maintains a greater level of safety from violence and drugs.
Act 150 of 2000 allows a very small percentage of pupils from public school grades 9-12 (five percent, or 10, whichever is lesser) to transfer to another public school within a “public high school choice region.” Usage of the act has been very limited, mainly because the students wishing to transfer have little interest in choosing another public school within the region. In 2002 the House passed a bill (H. 716) that allowed public school choice throughout the state, subject to tight restrictions. The Senate failed to act.
Six important bills in the 2003 session would expand parental choice in education.
Public School Choice: S. 121 (Sens. Maynard, Mullin and Shepard) is essentially the same as the House-passed H. 716 of 2002. Upon request of parents, districts would pay tuition (equal to 90 percent of the general state support grant) to other public schools chosen by the parents.
Tax Credit for Educational Assistance Organizations: H. 198 (Rep. Otterman and 14 others) would authorize tax credits for contributions to an “educational assistance organization.” This is a nonprofit organization that awards means-tested tuition scholarships to enable children to attend independent schools, including religious schools, of their choice. Existing community education foundations could qualify as EAOs if they kept scholarship funds in a separate account.
The amount of the credit would be 50 percent of an individual’s contribution up to a maximum credit of $10,000, or 50 percent of a corporation’s contribution up to a maximum credit of $100,000. The credit would be in addition to the charitable deduction allowed by the Internal Revenue Code.
Tax Credit for Home Schooling: H. 235 (Rep. Otterman and 17 others) would authorize a taxpayer to claim a credit of up to $500 a year per child for books, instructional materials, supplies, and Internet access used in a home schooling program. The credit could be claimed only after the completion of a year of homeschooling. If the credit exceeded the family’s income tax liability, the difference would be credited to the family’s property tax obligations.
To protect home schooling families against intrusive state regulation, the bill also provides that “nothing in this act shall be interpreted to authorize or require any state regulation or reporting beyond that authorized or required on January 1, 2003, unless such additional regulation or reporting is specifically authorized or required by subsequent legislative acts.”
Charter Schools: In 35 other states teachers, parents, and businesses create and operate public charter schools outside the normal public school rules, except for health and safety, fiscal integrity and civil rights. H. 77 (Rep. Frank Mazur) would authorize school districts, the State Board of Education, UVM, or a state college to create charter schools. Such schools are obliged to perform according to the conditions of their charter, at the risk of nonrenewal. School districts would be required to pay tuition for pupils choosing a charter school, up to the amount of the general state support grant. Parents could not be balance billed. In 1997 the Senate voted 18-12 to create charter schools as a part of what became Act 60, but the provision was dropped in conference.
Special Education Vouchers: H. 77 (Rep. Carl Haas) would create a Rutland and Chittenden Co. demonstration program where local school districts gave vouchers to special education students to attend other public or independent schools.
“The Chittenden Bill”: H.262 (Rep. Otterman) would allow a school board to tuition pupils to independent faith-based schools. This practice was struck down by Vermont Supreme Court in 1999 on the grounds that using tax dollars to pay tuition for pupils attending religious schools violated the “compelled support” clause of the Constitution (Ch. I, art.3).
As originally provided for in the Ministerial Act of 1801, this bill avoids the “compelled support” objection by creating a mechanism for objecting taxpayers to receive a pro rata refund of their taxes used for tuition of pupils to faith-based schools. If a pupil completed a year of schooling in an approved or recognized independent school, a local school board could reimburse parents for the tuition expenses, up to 65 percent (high school: 80 percent) of the general state support grant received by the town.
Fiscal Effects of Parental Choice Bills: The EAO credit and homeschooling credit not only expand parental choice, but also reduce the drain on the state education fund. That is because independent schooling and home schooling are significantly less costly that public schooling, which has now reached the $10,000 per pupil per year level. Every pupil who departs a public school for an independent school or homeschool reduces state payments to public schools by the amount of the state support grant. Even when the revenue loss of the credit is taken into account, the state will come out ahead.
The Chittenden Bill, charter school bill, public school choice bill, and the special education voucher bill would have no effect on the Education Fund, but they would divert all or part of the general state support grant from the school district of residence to the chosen public, charter or independent school. All would allow local school districts to keep any difference between the funding received by the state and the tuition paid. The charter bill also carries an appropriation of $500,000 to assist charter school startups.
– The Anti-Energy Manifesto of the State Attorneys General
By Marlo Lewis, Jr. of the Competitive Enterprise Institute
The State Attorneys General build their case for energy rationing on Chapter 6 of the Bush Administration’s Climate Action Report 2002 (CAR). That chapter presents scary projections of U.S. temperature increases and climate impacts over the next century. The AGs claim the President’s refusal to regulate CO2 is “inconsistent” with the Report’s “dire findings and conclusions.” There is a massive problem with this line of argument. Rather than embrace energy rationing, the Bush Administration should withdraw the Climate Action Report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and redact it from the public record. Otherwise, it will continue to lend the color of legitimacy to those, like the eleven AGs, who advocate economy-chilling restrictions on energy use.
CONTACT: Competitive Enterprise Institute, 1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1250, Washington, D.C., 20036, phone: (202) 331-1010, fax: (202) 331-0640, pubs@cei.org, https://www.cei.org.
Above article is quoted from Heritage Foundation The Insider November/December 2002 https://www.heritage.org
”Roots (Food for Thought)”
– America Talks Health Care
Author: Twila Brase
Published: The Heartland Institute 02/01/2003
Tax credits and Medical Savings Accounts took center stage at the Bush administration’s first “Talk to Tommy” public forum on health care, held December 10, 2002 in Minneapolis. Similar meetings are being held across the country, including one held December 17 in Jacksonville, Florida to focus on doctors and medical malpractice issues.
Billed as America Talks Health Care, the event featured Tommy Thompson, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and two panel discussions addressing individual control and ownership of health insurance.
Thompson invited the audience of approximately 250 people to share any ideas for improving health care, no matter how radical. “Health care is the number one issue facing Americans today,” he said. The Bush administration plans $117 billion in new health care initiatives, Thompson noted, including tax credits, health accounts, and association health plans. Health insurance, he said, should be accessible, accountable, and affordable.
Provocative Panels
Russell Hagen, CEO of Data Recognition Corporation (DRC), described during one of the panel discussions the menu of health benefits his company offers to its employees, and how enrollment in the various plan options has changed in recent years. As insurance premiums have increased, he noted, enrollment in the company’s most expensive plans has fallen. Nevertheless, only 17 percent choose the company’s major medical plan, which costs 43 percent less than the highest-priced plan.
DRC is unusual in that it will not allow its employees to be uninsured. Employees are enrolled automatically, and their share of premium payments is deducted from their paychecks, unless they present a letter to human resources stating they are enrolled in a spouse’s health plan.
“It’s a bit paternalistic, but tough bounce,” Hagen admitted. His primary goal, he said, is a healthy workforce.
Panelist Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, discussed tax reform as key to increasing consumer choice and the share of the U.S. population covered by insurance. Although employers receive tax deductions for providing health insurance to employees, “millions of women believe they could pick a better policy than the HR department,” she noted. Tax credits would make it financially possible for individuals to purchase policies that suit their needs better than the one-size-fits-all employer-provided group policies.
Saying the number of uninsured would drop by half, Turner advocated refundable tax credits that would target the uninsured, while not disturbing those with existing coverage. She emphasized, “Whoever controls the money controls the choices.”
William McGuire, CEO of UnitedHealth Group, wants consumers to have good information. He advocated evidence-based medicine to increase accountability and wise use of health care resources. And then, as if to prepare members of the audience for the inevitable public opposition, he quipped, “Remember that for the privacy thing.”
John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), charged the federal tax code with being “very biased against people being allowed to control health care dollars.” He revealed “tax law is encouraging us all to be in HMOs.”
“We need a use-it-or-save-it account,” Goodman said, because “nobody cares about you more than you care about you.”
David Hess, corporate vice president for benefits at Medtronic, and Carla Bender, a Medtronic employee, discussed Health Reimbursement Arrangements. Since it began offering Definity Health’s HRA plan, Medtronic’s costs have decreased. Employees choose generic drugs more often, and they use the company’s nurse line more often to address relatively minor health issues. To Bender’s relief, Definity allows her to “know the exact financial obligation” of any procedure.
Medical Savings Accounts
Kallija Paraska, senior vice president for Accordia Northwest, a Seattle-based insurance brokerage firm, discussed Medical Savings Accounts as a way to significantly reduce health insurance costs. She said she can provide a Washington State employer with an MSA plan for just $103 per employee per month, compared to at least $312 per employee per month for standard insurance policies.
Thirty-four percent of MSA enrollees are senior citizens, who use their MSAs primarily for prescription drug coverage. According to Paraska, the cost of an MSA plan for seniors is $175 per month. Accordia’s MSA enrollees have seen premium increases of no more than 5 percent. One CEO with 24 employees used Accordia to switch to MSAs. The company’s $89,000 annual health insurance expense dropped to $51,000. Part of the savings went to the employees, and $13,000 went to support the company’s bottom line.
Accordia has a stringent requirement for those considering MSAs: No MSA purchases without education. To assure success of the program, Accordia requires that MSA enrollees learn how to use the MSA wisely. Training sessions are held three times a year in large auditoriums. All of them are packed, Paraska said.
Public health nurse Twila Brase, president of Citizens’ Council on Health Care, writes a regular column on health care issues for The Heartland Institute’s quarterly public policy magazine, Intellectual Ammunition. She can be reached by email at twila@cchc-mn.org. More information about CCHC can be found on its Web site at https://www.cchconline.org
Above article is quoted from Heartland Institute Health Care News February 2003 https://www.heartland.org
”Evergreen (Today’s Quote)”
“Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights; it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims. When unlimited and unrestricted by individual rights, a government is man’s deadliest enemy. It is not as protection against private actions, but against governmental actions that the Bill of Rights was written.” — Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness [1964]
”’Edited by Richard O. Rowland, president of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. He can be reached at (808) 487-4959 or by email at:”’ mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com ”’For more information, see its Web site at:”’ https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/
“Suzanne Gelb Image”
”Pushy People – Why So Dominating?”
Dear Dr. Gelb:
I enjoy being around outgoing, friendly people, but the other extreme, pushy, aggressive people, are a real turn off. Why are some people so dominating?
Not Impressed
A: Dr. Gelb says . . .
Dear Not Impressed:
While I agree that dominating, defensive behavior is not healthy, I have equal concern for those who have difficulty dealing with such conduct. In such instances, increased assertiveness is invariably needed. People who fear domineering personalities may have experienced criticism during childhood from a domineering parent. This can instill fear in such children to the point that when they are confronted by an aggressive person, they feel blamed or threatened about being wrong. They may even feel guilty for their existence, and even if they have done nothing wrong, they tend to take the blame for it anyway.
”Conformance – Must I Give Up Me?”
Dear Dr. Gelb:
I am 16 and my mother keeps nagging me about conforming to society’s rules and also at school. I feel like this means always going along with what other people believe and say. How can I be me if I just go along with the status quo?
Me
A: Dr. Gelb says . . .
Dear Me:
Conformance is applicable to all walks of life. If we don’t have rules to live by, there is likely to be chaos. Such conformity need not deny us our uniqueness or the right to express ourselves and our individuality. However our uniqueness must still be expressed within the parameters of society’s rules and norms. To me, this is one of the factors that makes our country and its people great — we have the freedom to be unique and independent without violating the rights of others.
But yes, there are certain behaviors that we do have to mirror back to each other, and there are other behaviors that are socially unacceptable. Just take a trip to the mall and it is not difficult to see why conformance is necessary.
One reason why some people resist conformance is that they fear being wrong. To combat this, they build a defense which may include taking an aggressive stand, verbally or physically, to avoid being controlled or dominated by another person’s ideas. An alternative, a concept which some have identified as positive submission, is actually a very positive aspect of the personality. Although many people interpret submissive behavior as weak, this is not necessarily the case. The type of submission I am referring to offers the impetus to step back and assess another person’s stand, so we can evaluate a reasonable approach to the situation.
Also, sometimes waiting or even allowing another person to think that they are right can avoid conflict or even protect us from harm. Positive submission encompasses moving toward a situation with an acceptance that nothing that can be changed or done about the issue at that time. This is not the same as giving up, giving in, or allowing someone to walk all over us. It is a tool that can support constructive behavior and peace of mind.
Dear Readers:
Today’s answers can be supplemented with excerpts from “Yesterday’s Children” (Q1: pp. 24-25; Q2: p. 27) written by psychologists Marti Barham, R.N., Ph.D. and Tom Greene, Ph.D. For more information visit https://www.DrGelbSays.com
”’Suzanne J. Gelb, Ph.D., J.D. authors this daily column, Dr. Gelb Says, which answers questions about daily living and behavior issues. Dr. Gelb is a licensed psychologist in private practice in Honolulu. She holds a Ph.D. in Psychology and a Ph.D. in Human Services. Dr. Gelb is also a published author of a book on Overcoming Addictions and a book on Relationships.”’
”’This column is intended for entertainment use only and is not intended for the purpose of psychological diagnosis, treatment or personalized advice. For more about the column’s purpose, see”’ “An Online Intro to Dr. Gelb Says”
”’Email your questions to mailto:DrGelbSays@hawaiireporter.com More information on Dr. Gelb’s services and related resources available at”’ https://www.DrGelbSays.com
Address to the Nation on the Iraqi Conflict
My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.
The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again — because we are not dealing with peaceful men.
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq’s neighbors and against Iraq’s people.
The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.
The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.
The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.
Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations. One reason the U.N. was founded after the second world war was to confront aggressive dictators, actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace.
In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687 — both still in effect — the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will.
Last September, I went to the U.N. General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.
Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council’s long-standing demands.
Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.
In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals — including journalists and inspectors — should leave Iraq immediately.
Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free.
In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.
It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked and destroyed. I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services, if war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life.
And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, “I was just following orders.”
Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it. Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice.
Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.
Our government is on heightened watch against these dangers. Just as we are preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking further actions to protect our homeland. In recent days, American authorities have expelled from the country certain individuals with ties to Iraqi intelligence services. Among other measures, I have directed additional security of our airports, and increased Coast Guard patrols of major seaports. The Department of Homeland Security is working closely with the nation’s governors to increase armed security at critical facilities across America.
Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this, they would fail. No act of theirs can alter the course or shake the resolve of this country. We are a peaceful people — yet we’re not a fragile people, and we will not be intimidated by thugs and killers. If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them, will face fearful consequences.
We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.
The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.
Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations — and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.
As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.
The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace.
That is the future we choose. Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent. And tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility.
Good night, and may God continue to bless America.