SC Progressive Network Director Brett Bursey recently appeared on WIS-TV’s Awareness show to talk about the racial profiling study the Network completed in January, as well as the legislation we’ve been advocating for several years. He was joined on the program by Sheriff Leon Lott.
Click below to view.
As part of a national effort led by the AFL-CIO, labor supporters held a lunch-time informational picket in front of Wells Fargo/Wachovia’s Columbia headquarters. Members of the SC Progressive Network joined the SC AFL-CIO, SC Alliance for Retired Americans (our newest Network member) and the Central Labor Council in passing out fliers and talking to passersby about the bank’s practices.
“America needs 11 million jobs, and big Wall Street banks should pay to rebuild jobs and the economy they helped destroy,” said Jenny Patterson, President of the Columbia Central Labor Council.
Since the recession began, America has lost nearly nine million jobs when we needed to create more than 2 million just to stay even. While Americans have lost jobs, homes, retirement savings and hope, Wall Street banks took billions in taxpayer bailouts and gave executives some $145 billion in 2009 pay and bonuses. Now they’re spending millions lobbying to kill financial reform.
The AFL-CIO is calling for a major jobs plan to extend unemployment
insurance benefits, food assistance and health benefits; rebuild our crumbling infrastructure; increase aid to state and local governments to save critical services and jobs; increase funding for neglected communities to match people who need jobs with work that needs to be done; and use TARP money to get credit flowing to small businesses for job creation.
What you should know:
* Wells Fargo/Wachovia got a $25 billion taxpayer bailout.
* Wells Fargo/Wachovia paid CEO John Stumpf $21.3 million last year.
* Wells Fargo/Wachovia spent $2.9 million on lobbying last year to kill financial reforms.
SOURCES: Company SEC filings, The New York Times, Center for Responsive Politics
View more photos by clicking here.
By Beth Richardson
Columbia attorney with Tell Them, an e-advocacy network supported by the New Morning Foundation, a member of the SC Progressive Network
The Legislature faces the unenviable task of finding ways to reconcile the state’s budget while continuing to provide meaningful services to its citizens. What many lawmakers do not see, however, is the great opportunity to achieve a documented 17:1 return on investment simply by restoring funding for family planning services.
Births to teen mothers in South Carolina cost taxpayers upwards of $156 million annually. (In Richland and Lexington counties alone, that number reaches $15 million.) We have the eighth-highest rate of pregnancies among 15- to 19-year-olds in the nation, and our state’s teen pregnancy rates are on the rise. In some rural counties, the rates can be as high as 200 pregnancies per 1,000 young women ages 18 to 19. Why? They have received virtually no family planning education in school, and due to a series of state budget cuts, they have no access to contraceptive counseling and clinical services in their isolated rural communities.
A state’s money invested in family planning services offers a strong return on investment and represents sound fiscal policy. A cost-benefit analysis conducted by researchers at the University of Iowa and the University of Northern Iowa found that in as little as five years, a state can save $17 for every tax dollar invested in programs and clinics that help prevent unintended pregnancies among 14- to 19-year-olds.
Of course economics are only one part of the equation. Restoring state funding for family planning services will mean fewer unintended pregnancies, so fewer children will be born into situations where they will be at greater risk of child abuse or neglect.
Here is what we know: Children born to mothers age 15 and younger are twice as likely to be abused or neglected in the first five years of their lives than are the children born to mothers ages 20 to 21. They are more likely to grow up in a poor and mother-only family, to live in an impoverished or underprivileged neighborhood and to suffer high risks to both their health status and potential school achievement. Poverty, inadequate social support, mothers’ lack of education, mothers’ cognitive immaturity and greater maternal stress all have been suggested as possible factors contributing to unsatisfactory social and educational outcomes for the children of teen mothers, many of whom never were intended.
One in four children and nearly half of single-mother families are expected to be poor in 2011. Making further progress in reducing teen pregnancy will benefit the national and state economies as well as improve the educational, health and social prospects for this generation of young people and the next.
On March 23, thousands of South Carolinians are taking part in our state’s first-ever virtual march on the State House. They believe, as we do, that one of the most fiscally responsible actions our Legislature can take is to properly fund age-appropriate reproductive health education and access to services for all South Carolinians. By protecting all children and young adults now, we can save millions of dollars in public health care and welfare services in the future.
It’s our responsibility to stand together on behalf of all these young people, so that each of them can have the opportunity for a future that is bright and healthy. We must take a long view, and invest in programs that will make South Carolina a healthier state.
The Healthcare Not Warfare Band recorded this song to help raise funds for Carolina Peace, a longtime member of the SC Progressive Network. Go to their Web site to make a donation.
The Center for Biological Diversity announced today its participation in the second annual Global Population Speak Out, a month-long effort to publicize the crisis of unsustainable human population growth. The Center is speaking out as part of its overpopulation campaign, which addresses the devastating impacts of overpopulation on endangered species.
“The Center for Biological Diversity joins this year’s Global Population Speak Out to help raise awareness about this critical environmental issue and the endangered species and habitats threatened by human overpopulation,” said Randy Serraglio, a conservation advocate leading the Center’s campaign. “Unsustainable human population growth is the primary underlying factor driving the current decline and mass extinction of other life on Earth.”
The Center’s campaign, launched in February 2009, is a major educational initiative drawing attention to the close connection between the massive increase in human numbers and the rapid decrease in the planet’s biological diversity. “It is rare that an environmental group is willing to address the deep-seated problem of overpopulation,” said Serraglio, “but with more species going extinct today than ever before in our lifetime, we can no longer ignore our impact on the planet. We hope that many more conservation groups will join the conversation about population growth because it affects every environmental issue.”
As part of the ongoing campaign, the Center has created a Web site that illuminates the connection between burgeoning human population and accelerating biodiversity loss. “Most biologists agree that we have begun the sixth mass extinction event in the Earth’s history,” said Serraglio. “What separates this one from earlier events is that it is being driven by a single species – humans. All the direct threats to the earth’s biodiversity – land-use changes due to urban sprawl and commercial development, environmental contamination, competition for water and other resources, climate change, and so on – are driven by human overpopulation.”
The 2010 Speak Out promises to be larger than last year’s, as hundreds of individuals and groups have pledged to participate. This year’s sponsors include prominent conservation voices from outside the United States, where the subject of human overpopulation is less taboo, including the president of the European Section of the Society for Conservation Biology and the director of conservation at the African Conservation Foundation.
“As part of the GPSO this month and the Center’s overpopulation campaign, we’re planning to launch creative, multimedia education projects focused on protecting endangered species and our environment,” said Serraglio. “Our goal is to reach out to the public in new ways and help people understand how they can be part of the solution to curb runaway human population growth.”
On March 23, join South Carolina’s first Virtual March in support of responsible reproductive health policies. Advocates are organizing the march through Tell Them‘s Web site. Thousands of men and women from across the state are joining together to let their legislators know they support access to medically accurate sexual health information and access to counseling and clinical services. Together, through responsible reproductive health policies, we can reduce the number of unintended pregnancies in South Carolina. Join today by registering here. The march is an easy way people can let legislators know they support this issue and expect representatives to support responsible public health policies.
By Linda Gunter
Beyond Nuclear
It is perhaps no accident that the nuclear power industry chose a French word – “renaissance” – to promote its alleged comeback. Attached to this misapplied moniker are a series of fallacious suggestions that nuclear energy is “clean,” “safe” and even “renewable.” And, in keeping with its French flavor, a key argument in the industry’s propaganda arsenal is that the U.S. should follow the “successful” example of the French nuclear program.
France serves as a convenient sound bite for politicians and others advocating a nuclear revival (hypocritically evoked by many of the same people who insisted on “Freedom Fries” at the start of the Iraq War). A failure to challenge this facile falsehood has cemented the myth of a French nuclear Utopia in the minds of the public. It masks a very different reality.
France gets 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. However, this alone does not constitute a success. Rather, it results in the production of an enormous amount of radioactive waste that, as is the case for all other nuclear countries, has nowhere to go.
France has no operating geological repository for nuclear waste. To date, therefore, it has resorted to reprocessing, a highly contaminating chemical process that separates uranium and plutonium while releasing large quantities of liquid and aerial radioactivity into the environment. These wastes have rendered the seabed near the French La Hague reprocessing center on the Normandy coast equivalent to radioactive waste. Liquid radioactive contamination from La Hague has been found in the Arctic Circle, while radioactive gases such as krypton 85 have been tracked around the world.
However, contrary to myth, reprocessed French waste is not “recycled.” The hottest waste, about 4 percent of the total, is stored at La Hague, along with about 81 tonnes of separated – and proliferation-friendly – plutonium (1 percent of the total). The remaining 95 percent, mostly uranium, is stored at another nuclear center, Pierrelatte, in southern France. Rather than “recycled,” this waste is simply transferred from La Hague operator, Areva, to the French electricity utility, Électicité de France (EDF). France does not have the technology to re-enrich this uranium but some of it is exported to Russia which does.
Nuclear energy has not gained France energy independence. France imports all uranium used in its 58 reactors – having abandoned the last of its 210 uranium mines in 2001. These latter also produced a large waste stream, including tailings (radioactive rocks and soils) that have been used to pave children’s playgrounds and public parking lots.
Today, French uranium is imported largely from Niger where Areva – which, despite its corporate appearance, is 90 percent government-owned – has mined for 40 years. Its legacy in one of the poorest countries on the planet is one of depleted and contaminated water, wide dispersal of radioactive dust and discarded radioactive metals that have been sold in local markets and used in homes.
Nor can nuclear meet all French electricity needs. France imports coal-powered electricity from Germany at peak times, because of its heavy use of electric home-heating. During heat waves and droughts, the French have been forced to power down or close more than a third of their nuclear plants, which rely on water sources such as rivers and lakes for cooling.
None of this has deterred Areva or EDF from driving aggressively into new nuclear markets, especially the U.S., where Aerva is promoting its huge Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR), with seven targeted at six U.S. sites. Since new reactors are too expensive to build unless federally funded, EPRs in the U.S. could result in American tax dollars flowing to the French government.
However, French nuclear success overseas has proved as elusive as it is at home. All but two of the U.S. EPRs are now on the back burner or canceled altogether. A recent joint report from the British, Finnish and UK nuclear safety authorities challenged the safety of the unproven EPR design. The two EPR flagship construction sites in Finland and France have experienced cost overruns and delays. The Finnish Olkiluoto site is more than three years behind schedule, with cost estimates soaring from $3.6 billion at pre-construction to more than $8 billion currently. Technical errors have plagued both sites.
These problems are by no means unique to the French nuclear industry. They typify the nuclear “renaissance” as a whole, which resembles more of a retreat, a word with decidedly less positive connotations when applied to France.
There are some fine French fashions to be followed – from camembert to haute couture. Nuclear power just doesn’t happen to be one of them.
Gunter is co-founder of Beyond Nuclear and specializes in researching the French nuclear sector. She is also the media and development director for Beyond Nuclear. This editorial was provided by American Forum, a nonprofit, nonpartisan, educational organization that supplies the media with the views of state experts on major public concerns in order to stimulate informed discussion.
By Nick Nyhart
Public Campaign
Last Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its long-awaited decision in Citizens United v. FEC. And to nobody’s surprise, the Roberts Court issued a sweeping ruling that overturned the decades-old ban on corporate spending in elections.
The Court’s slim 5-4 majority went leaps and bounds beyond the factual record of the case in order to gut longstanding principles of well-settled election law. Specifically, the Court overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a landmark case in election law that upheld prohibitions on independent expenditures from a corporation’s general treasury fund.
We have all witnessed the corrosive impact that corporate and big money interests have had on the critical debates in Congress this year. They have successfully watered down or killed meaningful legislation on health care, financial regulation, and climate change. The Citizens United case will make an untenable situation worse. Members of Congress who vote against the deep pocket lobbyists will fear retribution during campaign season as they never have before.
To counter this increase in big money influence, we need Congress to act right away by passing the Fair Elections Now Act (S. 752, H.R. 1826).
Please sign our petition to Congress today: The Fair Elections Now Act is the best way to respond to the Roberts Court blatant disregard for democracy.
We need to tell Congress that now, more than ever, we need to change the way Washington works by passing Fair Elections.
Charlie Smith
AFFA, Charleston
The 14th Amendment was adopted to ensure the constitutional rights of freed slaves and their descendants after the Civil War. There have been roughly 325 federal court cases relative to this amendment since that time. Nineteen of those cases have actually had anything at all to do with a human being. The remaining 300 or so cases have been part of the ongoing corruption process that grants “personhood” to corporations.
“Corporate Personhood” is the legal concept that grants most of the rights of natural living, breathing citizens to corporations. Under our constitution US corporations are allowed virtually every right of human beings, including such rights as the right to marry.
This “marriage/merger” concept which flies in the face of “traditional marriage” is openly embraced by conservatives who will freely grant to a profit-making business what they flatly refuse to grant to millions of our living, breathing LGBT citizens. Did anyone hear a single conservative objection when half the major banks in our country eloped with the other half in 2008? Even corporations like Blackwater and Halliburton are allowed to serve openly in every branch of our military — unlike thousands of living breathing gay and lesbian citizens who still serve and suffer under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
What we have discovered over the course of the past year is that along with our “constitutional rights,” human persons also have the obligation to serve time in prison and in some cases be executed when they break the law. Corporations have somehow managed to avoid that unpleasantness.
In the wake of last week’s decision in the Citizens United case, corporate rights of personhood will now also include the right of corporations to buy politicians and elections with no limit on the corrupting power of their contributions. This is because corporations as “persons” must be granted free speech. This free speech right is in addition to their corporate “human right” to marry and their corporate “human right” right to serve openly in the military.
Does anyone see the irony that corporations have now been granted more “Human Rights” by the Supreme Court than millions of our own anatomically HUMAN citizens have been granted? After the last two years of outrageous corporate arrogance and greed, why is it that we have done absolutely nothing to strip those rights from corporations, yet we strip those very same rights every day from our very human LGBT soldiers and citizens?
The SC Progressive Network has released a study — based on a review of racial disparities in arrest rates and a new law requiring cops to report the race of those stopped for traffic warnings — that reveals most police agencies in the state are breaking the law by not reporting. The most recent report on the Department of Public Safety’s web site reveals that 189 of the state’s police agencies are not in compliance.
The Network is circulating this study to stimulate public dialogue about racial profiling and to encourage police agencies to advocate for a database that records all stops and allows for increased transparency.
Download the study here.
