Iowans Should Support President Obama on Iran Policy by Paul Deaton
My first experience with Iran came after the February 1,
1979 return of the exiled religious leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. I was
an Army officer stationed near Wiesbaden, West Germany and members of our unit
had been tasked to help with the evacuation and processing of American citizens
fleeing Iran. It was immediately evident that there would be a revolution in Iran
to oust the government of Prime Minister Shahpur Bakhtiar. The stories from the
American refugees confirmed that Iran was becoming increasingly unstable and
the days of government as it existed under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi were
over.
We planned a number of actions to help stabilize the evacuation, including
sending members of our unit to Iran. We all believed that the next major war
would be over oil in the Middle East, and thought this was its beginning. It
turned out we were wrong about when there would be a war for oil. While we were in the middle of the
evacuation, I returned to Iowa to separate from the Army. I still remember
listening to the radio in my apartment on November 4, 1979, when the report
came that 53 American hostages had been seized at the American Embassy in
Tehran. We were all beginning to learn about Iran.
Fast forward to today, and Iran seeks to be a major regional force in the
Middle East in a context where the United Sates dominates world affairs. The
Islamic Revolution that began in 1979, engendered Islamic fundamentalism
throughout the region. The key points about Iran are that the people in Iran
seem anything like the stereotype of religious fundamentalism we see in the
mainstream media and the culture is anything but homogeneous.
When I discuss life in Iran with Iranians who live in Iowa, it is a personal
story. They have relatives living a life apart from what we see in the
mainstream news media. They have direct connections by telephone and the
internet the same way Iowans have with each other. The talk is about the things
that make up their social and economic life. They discuss the fear created when
a U.S. drone flies a mission near their homes. Western culture influences
behavior as a result of Iranians traveling abroad and attending western colleges and
universities. These influences are changing Iran and a point of concern to fundamentalists.
What
is striking to me is that power in the country may lie with the religious elite
and the government, but the people of Iran seem a lot like people I know in my
neighborhood. The diversity of opinion among Iranian people makes characterization of the country as good, bad or neutral
a flawed endeavor, even if people like former UN Ambassador John Bolton
demonize Iran and make accusations about their intentions to deceive the world
community.
The recent flap over whether Iran would enrich uranium for its nuclear program
outside the country is an example of the lack of constancy of purpose within
the Iran government. On October 1 in Geneva, the Obama Administration announced
an agreement between the United States and Iran. Iran agreed to ship 2,600
pounds of uranium to Russia for enrichment and then the enriched uranium would
be returned to Iran for use in medical applications and in nuclear power
reactors. In light of the recently released photographs of the enrichment facility
near the Shiite Muslim city of Qom, this was perceived as a breakthrough. It
was evidence that the Iranians were willing refrain from finishing this nuclear
enrichment facility and stand down from their perceived efforts at nuclear
weapons proliferation. A month later, the Iranian government reversed its
position. This apparent and swift 180 degree policy shift may likely have been
the result of the lack of a clear voice within Iran’s government. The skeptics,
say the October 1 statement by Iran was intentional and a willful deceit. Iran
watchers I know believe this quick turnabout was a result of bad
diplomacy.
To sum up the current state of Iran’s nuclear intent in a blog post is tough.
Does Iran have nuclear intentions beyond running nuclear reactors to generate
electricity and to support medical applications? Is there a nuclear weapons
program within Iran to counter the perceived threat of Israel’s nuclear
arsenal? Don’t look for answers here.
What Iowans can do about Iran is to support President Obama’s efforts to
negotiate the reduction of the threat of nuclear weapons in the Middle East,
including Iran. One more thing: take the assertions made by John Bolton and
others, that Iran is stonewalling the United States or that they want to harm the
United States and it's allies, with a grain of salt.
If we focus some of our attention on the people of Iran, we may find that this
changing and largely Shiite Republic is hardly a homogeneous force of hatred
directed at the United States. If Iran's goal is to become a significant
regional power, then they must engage the world community in peace. Iranians I see and know believe that is possible.
Air America and Iowa Progressives Share Gratitudes This Thanksgiving Here is Air America's top ten list of things every progressive should be smiling about. Below that, a few more thankfuls from Iowa progressives. Happy Thanksgiving!
10) A president who can form a coherent sentence, and answer serious questions without a perpetual smirk.
9) Lou Dobbs running for president, disproving the theory that he is a narcissistic, arrogant, entitled demagogue who believes that he is of ultimate importance to everyone in the country.
8) The Internet, where within minutes we can pull up footage of Rudy Guiliani saying literally the opposite of what he said just several years ago about holding terrorist trials in New York.
7) Ron Reagan, who can keep his cool while speaking to a person accusing President Obama of being a terrorist while the rest of us just smash our heads against the keyboard.
6) China for vaccinating pandas for H1N1, and having the highest credit-card limit on the planet.
5) Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, who manage to take mind-numbing-hypocrisy, and turn it into gut-busting-laughter, until Gingrich or Kristol show up and turn it into frantic-channel-changing.
4) Alan Grayson, who is still telling it like it is every single chance he gets. Who wouldn't love to bring that guy to turkey dinner at your conservative in-laws' house?
3) Glenn Beck and DVR, saving you the money and trouble of going out to buy a bottle of Absinthe.
2) Sarah Palin for her new book Going Rogue.
1) Michael Steele, who is probably secretly working for the Democrats.
[Note from BFIA:
If you have no idea where you can tune in to hear Air America Radio,
that is because AAR, progressive talk radio, is nowhere to be found on
the air in Iowa. Iowa's publicly owned airwaves are completely
saturated with conservative talk, from border to border, with so few
exceptions they are hardly worth mentioning, although we do mention one below. But thanks to the free and open internet, you can stream AAR at http://airamerica.com/]
BFIA asked Iowa Progressives to share their Thanksgiving gratitude list. Here are the responses.
- I am thankful for term limits and the ability to help return Senator Grassley to his farm for a peaceful retirement in 2010.
- President Obama, David Plouffe, Axelrod
- If Johnson Co. progressives GOTV, Janelle Rettig will win the Johnson Co. Board of Supervisors special election in January.
- A Department of Agriculture that cares about small farmers and are taking on large agri-business. And in the end, will give the American people a healthier lifestyle and food choices.
- Howard Dean!
- The 2010 budget for the Dept of Veterans' Affairs will be $112.8 Billion, with the largest annual increase in its history. This includes expanded services to women vets, eligibility for thousands of veterans previously denied, and addressing PTSD and TBI.
- We can be thankful that Iowa's Supreme Court justices were able to see the inherent discrimination in Iowa's opposite-sex-marriage-only law, and that they had the cojones to vote for what was right rather than for what was right-wing.
- We can be thankful that the lack of an adequate supply of "swine flu" vaccine prevented the mass forced vaccination plans that media pundits and Big Pharma were trying to bring about through generating public hysteria.
- We can be thankful that the short-fused, impulsive John McCain is not POTUS during these trying times.
- We can be thankful that our US Senator Tom Harkin refused to give up on the public option, even when those in the media were declaring it dead and gone
- Republicans are no longer in power and seem to be steadily losing ground (but corporations seem to be more powerful than ever)
- The internet is still neutral and appears it will be for a good while
- Despite the hate mongers on the right, marriage equality is the law in Iowa and is slowly nearing the time when they will no longer be able to defeat it.
- And, we can also be thankful and amazed actually, that Ed and Lynn Fallon
somehow managed to insert a progressive talk radio program into the packed
right-wing line-up at 98.3 WOW-fm. The station apparently felt it
would be safe to allow one hour of rational talk in the midst of a
daily 14 hour line-up of right-wing talk that includes Sean Hannity,
Glenn Beck, Dennis Miller, Michael Savage, and Mark Levin - yes, that's
right, 14 hours solid, every weekday.
WOW's sister station in Des Moines, WHO, simultaneously
runs a packed conservative line-up, with Rush Limbaugh, Steve Deace,
Jan Mickelson, and Michael Medved, for about 12 hours daily, without
the don't-blink-you-might-miss-it hour for "balance" that WOW
provides. I guess that's how much time it takes to get people to
believe falsehoods.
We should be thankful we're not all dittoheads, when you think about it. Happy Thanksgiving!
BFIA: How do you feel about the BST controversy with milk and cows?
Thicke: You are referring to rBST, which stands for recombinant bovine somatotropin. For people who aren't familiar with rBST, this is a synthetically produced hormone that is similar to a hormone that cows naturally produce, but which is injected into cows so they have a higher level of the hormone, which stimulates them to produce more milk. The term “recombinant” means that the synthetic version of bovine somatotropin is made through a process involving genetic engineering.
The FDA approved of the use of rBST in 1994, and it became popular with conventional dairy farmers because more milk could be produced by cows injected with rBST. There were some side effects. It was more stressful for cows producing that much more milk, stress on the cows’ udders, their metabolism, and so on. Some consumer groups have resisted the use of rBST in milk production.
The U.S. is one of the few developed countries that allows rBST to be used. European Union countries and Canada do not allow it. Consumer groups have long been concerned about some of the potential health effects of rBST, claiming that it is not as well researched as it should be. Due to pressures from consumer groups, just within the last year, rBST has been largely withdrawn from the market in the U.S. This happened because the companies that process and market milk said customers don't want it so we don’t want to buy milk from cows treated with rBST. So, it was phased out rather quietly in that way.
BFIA: There's another controversial subject of genetically modified food – can you tell us about your position on that?
Thicke: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are now part of our culture here in agriculture — in the Midwest in particular. Some 85-90% of corn and soybeans are genetically modified. There are some controversies, and some consumer groups who do not want to have these genetically modified foods in the foods they eat. And so people have been calling for some time for labeling, and I would support that — labeling of foods that have genetically modified ingredients. I think labeling is something that could be done easily enough.
Frankly, there's not been a lot of research on the health effects of genetically modified foods. Some argue that “well, they’ve been around for ten years and nobody's died from them so they must be okay.” The fallacy of that argument is that nobody has really studied to see if somebody has died, or has had some negative health effects from genetically modified foods.
In the very few feeding trials that have been done on animals, there have been some red flags raised. For example, in lab rats eating GM foods, there have been low birth weights, increased death rates and some compromising of the functioning of the animals' internal organs. So I think, frankly, that we haven't studied GMOs enough and we should be looking more closely. One research scientist in Scotland did a feeding trial on GMO potatoes and found that rats eating the GMO potatoes had many negative health effects. When he published his data, he was ostracized by his colleagues. Actually, he was fired, and his research data was taken away from him. So, there is politics involved when research results indicate something that's not positive about GMO foods.
BFIA: Can you tell us about CAFOs and how you feel about this issue in Iowa?
Thicke: CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) are very controversial in Iowa. Many people who live in the countryside who have had a CAFO built near them have been very concerned that their quality of life has been compromised, and some will say their health has been compromised. Some have said they can't open their windows in the summertime, or they have had to live in their basement, or they have had to vacate their houses because the odors and toxic fumes were so offensive to them. Frankly, the rules and laws we have in Iowa protect CAFO owners more than they do residents of rural communities. I think that's a problem.
I am calling for several measures to better regulate CAFOs. One is to increase the required separation distances of new CAFOs from existing rural communities and rural residences. I think we need to increase separation distances to help prevent these negative effects on residents who live in rural areas.
I am also calling for the Iowa legislature to reinstate local control. That has been a controversial issue since 1995, when the legislature took away from county governments any authority to regulate where CAFOs are built. If we could reinstate local control, so county governments had a say in where these CAFOs are sited, it would help somewhat in alleviating the conflicts in rural areas between CAFO owners and rural citizens.
A third thing I am calling for is a reduction in the size requirement for construction permits on new CAFOs. Now, a construction permit is not required unless a new building will house 2500 or more hogs. So, of course, many buildings are being built at 2499 hogs, to avoid the need for a construction permit. I think we need to reduce that size requirement by half, so that more of these buildings would be required to have a construction permit and would be more closely regulated.
BFIA: These things you advocate, would they make agriculture stronger in Iowa or would it make it harder for farmers to make a living?
Thicke: It would help to alleviate conflict in rural areas. I think we have to look at agriculture as being multidimensional. It's not just about profitability. It also has to do with preserving and protecting the ecological base that agriculture depends upon. And, agriculture has to be compatible with the needs of rural communities. Just the other day a farmer who lives in Davis County, who has several CAFOs built near his home, asked a question that really sums up the whole issue: He said, “How many people have to suffer so that a few people can make some money?” To me, that sums up the conflict over CAFOs in rural Iowa.
In most hog CAFOs, the hogs are not owned by the farmer who raises the hogs. The hogs are owned by corporations that supply the hogs and the feed. The farmer owns the building and raises the hogs on contract. The farmer is paid on a per-hog basis to raise them. So we've gotten away from our traditional farm culture where farmers owned their animals. In some sense, the profitability is being taken out of the community, because the farmers are only paid a small percentage of the total profitability of raising the hogs.
Hog farmers are now in a vulnerable position. Most of Iowa’s CAFO hogs are owned by corporate contractors, but farmers have little or no negotiating power over the terms of their contracts. With the current oversupply in the hog market, farmers are in a precarious position because their contracts could be modified or cancelled by the corporate hog owners. Already, some Iowa farmers who raise hogs on contract have received notice of termination of their contracts. Of course, farmers need those contracts to pay off their CAFO buildings, which may take 5 or 10 years to pay off. If a farmer’s contract were to be cancelled before the building is paid for, the farmer would be left with an empty building without income to pay for it.
This has been a major problem in the poultry industry in southeastern U.S. Many poultry producers built expensive CAFO buildings to raise poultry for contracting corporations, but when poultry production came into oversupply, the producers’ contract pay rates were reduced, and they were required to regularly invest in building improvements in order to keep their contracts. Poultry growers in southeastern U.S. complain that it is difficult for them to make a living because the corporations who own the poultry they raise have squeezed the profits out of their grower contracts. I fear that Iowa hog producers may find themselves in a similar predicament in the future. ~
Jay
Mattsson, previously a Minneapolis school teacher, stayed in Iowa after
getting his MA in Professional Writing. He had experience hosting an
interview show on the radio every week for 18 months and worked as a
book editor, associate producer and freelance writer/editor before
joining a full-service audio-production company in 1998. Active in
Democratic politics, Jay was a member of the Statewide Leadership
Committee on the Obama for President Campaign.~
Check back next Wednesday for Part III of BFIA's exclusive with Francis Thicke. Visit the candidate's website thickeforagriculture.com
Health Care Reform Update: Science or Rationing? by Alta Price, M.D.
Health care reform proposals to encourage the scientific study of medical testing or medical treatments will help improve our health and lower costs. The anti-reform myth that comparative effectiveness research is code for rationing is ridiculous. I guess it is just more evidence that the GOP doesn’t have much understanding of science – whether it is evolution, climate change, or medical research.
Although I think medicine is a great profession, it is not a very scientific discipline. I always loved science, which is why I specialized in pathology, the study of disease. Pathology is about diagnosis – including laboratory testing – which appeals to me more than the treatment side, which I consider the “art” of medicine. As a pathologist, I know a thing or two about the science of screening for disease. And I spend a lot of time looking at breast biopsies and cervical biopsies. So this whole brouhaha about recommendations for mammography and pap smears is right up my alley. In case you missed it, here is a New York Times article about the issue, “Screening debate reveals culture clash in medicine”.
Doctors make all sorts of recommendations to their patients for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes scientific studies show that our recommendations are not helpful. In fact, they could cause harm. A recent case to illustrate this point is treating post-menopausal women with hormone replacement therapy. Based on what we understood at the time, we thought hormone replacement would decrease women’s risk of heart attacks and strokes, as well as protect against dementia. We weren’t sure if it would increase the risk of breast cancer. And we knew it could cause uterine cancer. I only became aware recently of the role Wyeth played in getting favorable studies published in the medical literature to promote the use of hormones in post-menopausal women. Wyeth made literally billions of dollars every year selling Premarin and Prempro for this purpose. When a huge federal study came out in 2002, it turned out that hormone replacement therapy increased a woman’s risk of heart attack, stroke, dementia, and breast cancer. In fact, when everyone stopped taking hormones, breast cancer rates decreased within a few years. This is a perfect example of scientific research funded by the federal government improving our health and lowering costs.
Likewise, many doctors feel it makes sense to screen women with mammograms starting at the age of 40. As it turns out, when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force looked at the scientific research they found that annual mammograms for women between the age of 40 and 49 do not result in a significant decrease in deaths from breast cancer. In other words, the women in the screened group were just as likely to die of breast cancer as the women in the non-screened group. For women 50-69, screening decreased the rate of breast cancer deaths. Those are the facts.
The next question is what do you do with those facts? Well, one way to improve a screening test is to screen a population more likely to have the disease. In fact, that is why mammograms help women 50-69 – they are more likely to get breast cancer. So if you could identify which women age 40-49 are more likely to get breast cancer, it is possible that subset of women will benefit from regular mammograms. Interestingly, if you go to the actual recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, that is what they say (scroll down to Clinical Considerations). And after all the hysteria, I think I’ll quote at length:
• The precise age at which the benefits from screening mammography justify the potential harms is a subjective judgment and should take into account patient preferences. Clinicians should inform women about the potential benefits (reduced chance of dying from breast cancer), potential harms (e.g., false-positive results, unnecessary biopsies), and limitations of the test that apply to women their age. Clinicians should tell women that the balance of benefits and potential harms of mammography improves with increasing age for women between the ages of 40 and 70. • Women who are at increased risk for breast cancer (e.g., those with a family history of breast cancer in a mother or sister, a previous breast biopsy revealing atypical hyperplasia, or first childbirth after age 30) are more likely to benefit from regular mammography than women at lower risk. The recommendation for women to begin routine screening in their 40s is strengthened by a family history of breast cancer having been diagnosed before menopause.
Notice also that it requires a doctor to explain to the woman in the 40-49 age range the benefits and risks of mammography, and to help her decide whether she should be screened. In a society where not everyone has a primary care doctor, it may make more sense just to screen all women starting at age 40. Hopefully, health care reform will enable everyone to have access to a doctor so they can receive personalized care right for them.
So what is the relationship between rationing and scientific research into best clinical practices? Well, as far as government-run programs like Medicare, there is very little relationship. A doctor and a patient are free to do pretty much whatever they want, whether it is scientifically sound or not, and Medicare will pay for it. By the way, I am not saying this is a good thing! But again, that is the way it is now. Also, nothing in the health care reform bills in Congress would change the fact that doctors and patients in Medicare (as well as in the new public plan) are free to do whatever they please. In fact, one reason the Congressional Budget Office thinks premiums might actually be higher in the public plan is because the government plan “would probably engage in less management of utilization by its enrollees” – i.e., the plan would pay even for testing or treatments that were not based upon good science.
The situation is different with private insurance companies. They are much more likely to deny payments for testing or treatments that have no scientific support. I would worry much more about private insurers taking the new recommendations too far and deciding not to pay for mammograms for women in their 40’s. You don’t see the anti-reformers having hysterics about private insurers rationing care based on scientific research, even though under the current system and health care reform proposals before Congress right now, if medical research is going to be misused for rationing, it will be in the private sector.
Have a safe and happy Thanksgiving. As a special service, Families U.S.A. has provided this handy “Talking Turkey” guide for those of you spending the holidays with relatives who watch too much Faux News!
Let the Conversation Begin: A Unified Approach to the Economic Crisis by Tracy Kurowski
On December 3, President Obama will convene a summit on jobs. With the national unemployment rate officially in the double-digits, the economic crisis has affected every sector of our nation's economy having dramatic results on the ability of local governments to raise revenues. Since states, cities and counties must balance their budgets, their response has been to cut costs in the forms of more layoffs. Not only does this result in reduced services for the rest of us, across the country, public sector job cuts are now contributing seriously to the overall unemployment rate.
There are glimmers of hope. The rate of job losses has declined, there is marked job growth in the health sector and temporary jobs. Also, reports that inventory numbers are down could lead to calling people back from layoff. Already John Deere's Ottumwa plant has called back 400 of its workers.
However, the economy isn't a zero-sum game. Job losses in manufacturing cannot simply be replaced with jobs in the service sector to end up where we began. When our country loses well-paying manufacturing jobs to lower-paying service sector jobs, or jobs that no longer promise defined-benefit pensions, there is less income, less spending and less security for our nations retirees. A full 17% of our nation's economy is driven by consumer spending. American consumers need jobs to fund this habit. When over the course of the last two decades, the income could not keep up with habits, credit filled the hole. Now that the credit markets have dried up and consumer debt is at untenable levels, this system cannot sustain itself.
What we are currently seeing isn't the ususal expand-contract economic model economic pundits speak of. We are witnessing the degeneration of the neoliberal economic system. What fills that vaccuum nobody knows. But on December 3, officially that conversation begins. Whether the Obama Administration will approach the crisis with band-aids or with serious deliberation over policy, is to be seen. But organized labor needs to ensure that policies like the Employee Free Choice Act - so workers in the service-sector have more freedom to negotiate the wages and benefits our forefathers in the manufacturing sector established - are part of the discussion.
Last week AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka held a conference call with the Economic Policy Institute, National Council on La Raza and others to talk about a unified approach to the economic crisis. Below are remarks about that forum, and a suggested platform moving forward.
Here is an excerpt from an article at the AFL-CIO blog, by Seth Michaels. Reprinted with permission.
~The Economic Policy Institute (EPI), AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, and other leaders have joined together to call for urgent action to create jobs and rebuild the economy.
In a live webcast panel discussion, the consensus was clear: Without quick action, an entire generation could be mired in economic turmoil. The nation can, and must, put people back to work—while addressing critical needs for the future of our communities. [see C-span coverage of the event]
The scale of the jobs crisis is obvious: Since the beginning of the recession, more than 8 million jobs have been lost. The official unemployment rate is at 10.2 percent, with more than 26 million unemployed or underemployed. These figures are even more severe among African American and Latino communities. Young people are at risk of permanently stunted opportunity, and the jobs crisis is rebounding throughout the country with increased hunger and poverty, massive numbers of home foreclosures and diminished access to health care.
In addition to Trumka, participants in today’s discussion included NAACP President Benjamin Jealous; National Council of La Raza (NCLR) President Janet Murguia; Leadership Conference on Civil Rights President (LCCR) Wade Henderson; and Deepak Bhargava, executive director of the Center for Community Change. EPI President Larry Mishel moderated the conversation, which Jealous called the beginning of a national human rights movement for economic opportunity.
Trumka laid out five critical points that must underlie a new jobs agenda:
1. Extend the lifeline for jobless workers. 2. Rebuild America’s schools, roads and energy systems. 3. Increase aid to state and local governments to maintain vital services. 4. Fund jobs in our communities. 5. Put TARP funds to work for Main Street.
An Iowa Perspective on Coal's Assault on Human Health by Paul Deaton
When we consider the use of coal in Iowa, there are many of us who remember the coal trucks plying the streets and alleys of our childhood, dropping loads of the black stuff down chutes leading to a basement coal bin and then to our gravity furnaces. Through the winter, people shoveled coal into the burning embers to heat their homes. Coal ash was shoveled out and in the spring, it was tilled it into gardens and spread on fields. Coal ash was also sent to dumps. On the farm, coal was purchased with seeds, feed and grain. It was part of a background to life that did not consider the potential harm to human health we now know it represents. On Wednesday, November 18, 2009, Physicians for Social Responsibility released a groundbreaking medical report, “Coal’s Assault on Human Health,” which takes a new look at the devastating impacts of coal on the human body. If we are interested in the environment, social justice and global survival, it is worth reading “Coal’s Assault on Human Health” and you can view the executive summary here or download the entire report here.
The report covers the health risks of the entire lifecycle of coal from mining, washing and transportation to combustion and disposal of the coal ash. The effects of coal on human health are well known. Coal combustion releases mercury, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous to human health. These pollutants cause cumulative harm on three major body organ systems: the respiratory system, the cardiovascular system, and the nervous system. The report also considers coal’s contribution to global warming, and the health implications of global warming.
In Iowa, the most significant issue regarding coal is its combustion for electricity and energy. A lot of states use coal for energy. The difference with Iowa is that we get 70% of our electricity from burning coal compared to a national average of 50%. Iowa companies have been slow to react to the recently gained awareness of the urgency of controlling emissions to protect human health.
During a public meeting in Iowa City, William Fehrmann, President of MidAmerican Energy, stated that 97% of the electricity its company generates comes from coal fired power plants. Energy executives like Mr. Fehrmann would not be addressing their ratio of coal to natural gas and renewable in their energy mix unless the United States government were intervening with the proposed CAP and Trade legislation currently in the congress or unless there is a cost savings. The cost of coal electricity to MidAmerican is low. As you may know, MidAmerican Energy is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, which recently bought the BNSF railroad. The BNSF is a major transporter of coal and the acquisition represents, at some level, a step towards a vertically integrated coal operation for Warren Buffet’s company. Companies like MidAmerican Energy appear to be going the wrong way, and resist government initiatives to regulate CO2 emissions.
Another issue is that the Iowa Department of Natural Resources is being subject to the same budgetary pressures as the rest of state government. The practice of director Leopold has been to reduce the staff in the compliance area to adjust to budget cuts. At a recent public meeting at Lake MacBride State Park, he indicated that he significantly cut back on inspectors, and this was before the Governor announced a ten percent across the board cut. One hopes that the state remains in compliance with federal regulations. We can expect that the Iowa DNR will do the minimum it can to comply and stay within a shrinking budget.
These budget cuts affect air and water quality monitoring, and mercury is an example of what the Iowa DNR monitors. In a July 21, 2009 post to the Iowa DNR web site, “The Iowa Department of Natural Resources has confirmed the presence of mercury above consumption advisory levels in tissue samples from large mouth bass collected from Red Haw Lake in Lucas County, Upper Centerville Reservoir in Appanoose County, and Grade Lake in Clarke County.” In addition, there have been advisories for fish caught in the Cedar and Iowa rivers. The majority of non-naturally occurring mercury in the environment comes from coal combustion.
From the Physicians for Social Responsibility report and from living in Iowa, it is clear that there are issues with coal that need to be addressed. The trouble is that there are no easy solutions, and while members of PSR understand the health consequences of using coal, the majority of Iowans do not. PSR makes these public policy recommendations, which I quote at length.
“The first of those recommendations is that emissions of CO2 be cut as deeply and as swiftly as possible, with the objective of reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million. The reduction of CO2 emissions, an urgent necessity for achieving satisfactory health outcomes, should be pursued through two simultaneous strategies: 1) strong climate and energy legislation that establishes hard caps on global warming pollution coming from coal plants; and 2) the Clean Air Act. Since its enactment, the Clean Air Act (CAA) as implemented by the EPA has been effective in reducing a wide variety of air pollutants, from nitrous oxides to volatile organic compounds. CO2 and other greenhouse gases emitted by coal plants have been designated pollutants under the CAA. The EPA should be fully empowered to regulate these gases under the CAA so that coal’s contribution to global warming can be brought to an end.”
“PSR recommends that there be no new construction of coal-fired power plants, so as to avoid increasing health-endangering emissions of CO2 as well as criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants.”
“The U.S. should dramatically reduce fossil fuel power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides so that all localities are in attainment for national ambient air quality standards.”
“We should establish a standard, enforceable by the EPA and based on Maximum Achievable Control Technology, for mercury and other hazardous air pollutant emissions from electrical generation.”
“Finally, the nation must develop its capacity to generate electricity from clean, safe, renewable sources so that existing coal-fired power plants may be phased out without eliminating jobs or compromising the nation’s ability to meet its energy needs. In place of investment in coal (including subsidies for the extraction and combustion of coal and for capture of carbon and other pollutants), the U.S. should fund the improvement of energy efficiency, the expansion of conservation measures, and the research, development, and implementation of clean, safe, renewable energy sources such as wind energy, solar, and wave power.”
“These steps comprise a medically defensible energy policy: one that takes into account the public health impacts of coal while meeting our need for energy.”
As Iowans, implementation of these policies may seem beyond our control. Our best defense is to become more informed of the full costs of burning coal for electricity, including the cost to our health. The cost of electricity produced by coal is more than the price of a kilowatt hour of electricity on our utility bill. As we become informed of coal’s true costs and impacts, we should also engage with our friends, family and elected officials on the issue. The new report gives us a valuable piece of information. Without our reading it and taking action it may be nothing more than more bytes on the internet. Our future depends on each of us making it more than that.
Get Senate Debate Updates Today From Health Care for America NOW! HealthCareforAmericaNow.org
Thursday, Majority Leader Harry Reid unveiled the health care bill he's going to bring to the Senate floor for debate. The bill makes health care more affordable for middle-income families. It would end insurance industry abuses. And it gives us the choice of a public health insurance option to keep the insurance companies honest.
To be sure, the bill is not perfect - health care should be more affordable for everyone, employers should be asked to pitch in their fair share, and while this bill is more fairly financed than previous proposals, it could be paid for entirely by asking those who can most afford it to pitch in their fair share.
As Loretta Johnson of Virginia said as the bill was unveiled, "Now, in my opinion, there's probably some room for improvement. But I know, Senator Reid and the Senators standing here today are as committed as we are to making sure people can afford the care they need."
The bill is a great step forward and one that deserves debate and a fair, majority vote in the U.S. Senate.
That is what we're fighting for - a fair, majority vote on this bill, nothing less.
Tomorrow, the Senate will decide if it wants to move forward with debate on the health care bill. 60 Senators will be needed to simply start the debate. Next, the bill will be discussed and put up for amendments. Then, it will be voted on, all within the next few weeks.
As the process moves forward, we will be working to improve the Senate bill where possible and make sure it does not get weakened. Along the way, we'll be asking you for your help to make sure your Senators allow the fair vote on this health care bill that this country deserves.
Here are a few ways you can get up-to-date information on the debate in Congress:
* Subscribe to our Twitter feed to get daily updates with health reform information * Join our Facebook page to connect with others who are fighting for reform * Sign up for free text message alerts on your cell phone to be the first to know about breaking news as it happens
Winning this fight will take energy, enthusiasm, and dedication. But we're confident that if we work together towards our shared goal of quality, affordable health care for all, we can make history.
*IBLTV is a group of citizens from the Iowa City/Cedar Rapids area who are concerned about the decline in the quality of local television. Fight local media consolidation, as it leads to an unaccountable medium that enriches itself while disregarding the need to serve the public good.
*The rational counter to 'The Point,' 'The Counterpoint' critiques and corrects the daily editorial by Sinclair Broadcasting's corporate vice president, Mark Hyman, that is broadcast on all Sinclair-owned television stations across the country
by Paul Deaton
Here is 
HealthCareforAmericaNow.org
