1: A Resolution to Mediate Illegal Immigration Issues

IMMIGRATION POLICY CENTER, 03/26/12 Anti-immigration measures harm states economies. If unauthorized immigrants leave, states will lose workers, taxpayers, and consumers who earn and spend money in the state. Unauthorized immigrants comprised roughly 5.2% of the national workforce (or 8,000,000 workers) in 2010, according to a report by the Pew Hispanic Center. Experiences from states that have passed harsh immigration laws tell a cautionary fiscal tale: Alabamas HB 56 could shrink the states Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by up to $10.8 billion, according to Professor Samuel Addy at the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Alabama. Prof. Addy estimates that a loss of 40,000 to 80,000 unauthorized immigrants who earn between $15,000 and $35,000 annually could result in: 70,000 to 140,000 lost jobs with $1.2 to $5.8 billion in earnings; $2.3 to $10.8 billion reduction in Alabama GDP, or 1.3% to 6.2% of the states $172.6 billion GDP in 2010; $57 to $264 million loss in state income and sales tax collections; and $20 to $93 million loss in local sales tax collections. A 2011 report by Dr. Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda and Marshall Fitz found that deporting all of the unauthorized immigrants in Arizona would decrease total employment by 17.2%, eliminate 581,000 jobs for immigrants and native-born workers alike, shrink the state economy by $48.8 billion, and reduce state tax revenues by 10.1%. Similarly, Hinojosa-Ojeda and Fitz found that if all of the unauthorized immigrants in California were removed, the state would lose $301.6 billion in economic activity, decrease total employment by 17.4%, and eliminate 3.6 million jobs. A study released in July 2007 by the University of Arizonas Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy concluded that economic output would drop annually by at least $29 billion, or 8.2%, if all non-citizens, which include unauthorized workers, were removed from Arizonas workforce. About 14% of the states 2.6 million workers are foreign-born, and about two-thirds to three-fourths of non-citizens are unauthorized. Harsh immigration laws have produced severe worker shortages. The agricultural industry has been devastated in states that have passed harsh immigration laws. Immigrant workers have failed to show up for work and millions of dollars of produce has been left to rot in the fields. Legal U.S. workers have not been filling the open jobs. The uncertainty about how much labor will be available affects growers ability to prepare and plant for next year. After passing its immigration enforcement bill (HB 87), Georgias agriculture industry experienced severe labor shortages. A survey of farmers conducted by the Georgia Department of Agriculture found 56% of those surveyed were experiencing difficulty finding workers. Early reports from the state estimate economic losses for the 2011 growing season to be between $300 million and $1 billion. Alabama Agriculture Commissioner John McMillan stated, the economic hardship to farmers and agribusiness will reverberate throughout Alabamas economy, as one-fifth of all jobs in our state come from farming. A Georgia Restaurant Association survey found that nearly half (49%) of surveyed restaurants reported labor shortages, and 88% were concerned about future shortages. Lack of workers and related business losses have cut some restaurants revenue by as much as $80,000 per month. Harsh immigration laws result in lost tax revenues. States stand to lose millions of dollars in tax revenues if unauthorized immigrantsas well as legal immigrants whose lives are made difficult by the lawwere to leave. Unauthorized immigrants in the United States paid $11.2 billion in state and local taxes in 2010, according to data from the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy, which includes: $1.2 billion in state income taxes; $1.6 billion in property taxes; and $8.4 billion in sales taxes. Estimates for your state are available here. In Alabama, according to Professor Addy, HB 56 could result in a loss of between $56.7 and $264.5 million in state income and sales tax collections and up to $93.1 million lost in local sales tax collections. Harsh immigration laws discourage economic growth. Foreign companies employ 77,500 workers, or 5% of Alabamas workforce; the auto industry supports nearly 45,000 in the state. In November 2011, a German Mercedes-Benz executive, visiting an auto plant in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, was arrested during a routine traffic stop for failing to produce evidence that he was in the United States legally. Soon afterwards, a Japanese Honda employee was issued a ticket when his international drivers license was deemed insufficient. These examples illustrate the kind of bureaucratic hassle to be faced by authorized and unauthorized workers and executives alike under the new immigration laws. According to Gerald Dial, Alabama State Senate Republican whip and former HB 56 supporter, an unintended consequence of the legislation in that state has been to make other states more attractive for investors. Other states will say, Hey, you dont want to go to Alabama now, said Dial. Were probably going to lose those people. We wont know about it. There wont be a big red flag: Hey, we didnt go to Alabama, were going to go to Arkansas or were

going to go to South Carolina. Thats probably the most detrimental part of the whole bill. In Nashville, Tennessee, the Chamber of Commerce called harsh immigration-control legislation detrimental to work force development and international trade efforts, while the president of a local commercial real estate firm said it would make Tennessee unattractive to businesses looking to relocate. International tourism is an extremely profitable and growing market for the United States. In 2010, international visitors spent more than $134.4 billion in the U.S., and travel and tourism exports accounted for 24% of U.S. services exports and 7% of all U.S. exports. Despite the global recession, Mexican tourists spent $8.7 billion in 2010an 8% increase since 2009. Harsh enforcement laws could create an unwelcoming environment for international tourists, threatening this vital source of revenue. Harsh immigration laws make it more difficult and expensive for businesses to operate. Two of Indianas largest employers, Eli Lilly and Co. (a drug manufacturer) and Cummins Inc. (an engine manufacturer), published a statement arguing that Indianas proposed immigration enforcement law (SB 590) would impede their ability to compete globally and grow in Indiana. According to Eli Lilly and Co., Indiana has a sizeable and growing biosciences industry, with almost 90,000 employees and supporting a total of $22.7 billion in economic outputdirect, indirect, and induced. Spokesman Ed Sagebiel said the companys ability to thrive in Indiana is dependent on an environment that is welcoming. Similarly, Cummins Inc. highlighted 550 new high-paying jobs they brought to the state as a result of Indianas friendliness to new business. States could experience significant blows to tourism/convention profits. After Arizona passed SB 1070, major groups and associations cancelled events and conventions in the state. A report by the Center for American Progress (CAP) estimates that Arizona will lose $45 million in lodging revenue alone. Arizona was eventually forced to spend $250,000 for a marketing campaign to help improve its image after SB 1070 was enacted. Some proposed laws require the mandatory use of the E-Verify employment verification system. Bloomberg estimates that implementing E-Verify costs small businesses an average of $435 per year. There are also costs to U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who are erroneously flagged as not eligible to work by E-Verify and must take time off of work to navigate the bureaucracy to fix the error. State immigration enforcement laws mean businesses must incur additional costs. Economist Jeremy Thornton of Samford University points to the shadow costs employers incur when they take steps to protect themselves from the laws stiff penalties. Businesses will spend more on employee screening to protect themselves from provisions of the law that bar them from knowingly hiring unauthorized workers. There could also be increased litigation costs for businesses because any legal worker could sue the employer if they have hired an unauthorized worker. Every business that now has to comply with this legislation, thats just extra cost. And anytime you raise costs, businesses shrink, Thornton said. Businesses will likely have to spend more on third party assistance for employment eligibility paperwork and extra human resources staff. Alabama had to push back the deadline for businesses to obtain or renew their licenses due to the hardship placed on Alabama businesses that could not get business licenses in October because of implementation of the new law. The new law requires individuals and businesses obtaining or renewing business and store licenses to show additional documentation, which has led to long lines at courthouses and other delays. Implementing and enforcing harsh immigration laws cost states millions. Implementing these new measures will cost taxpayers dearly at a time when states are already having tremendous difficulty balancing their budgets. Potential costs include: Cost to Police: Costs associated with a projected increase in arrests and overtime. Cost to Jails: Costs associated with a projected increase in jail population. Other Criminal-Justice Costs: Cost of projected increase in prosecutorial and public-defender staff, jail space, court rooms, and support offices needed to handle increased caseload. Costs to State Agencies: Costs associated with additional personnel and time necessary to check the identification documents of all persons applying for certain state benefits. Also, cost of foster-care for children of detained immigrants. Costs to Schools: Costs associated with checking and reporting the immigration status of children enrolled in schools and lost federal or state funding for schools due to decreases in school enrollment. Legal Costs: Legal costs incurred by the state to defend against lawsuits. Some states that considered immigration enforcement laws in 2010-2011 backed off once they considered cost estimates for implementation. In Kentucky, an enforcement bill died after an estimate showed it would cost the state $89 million per year to enforce. In Louisiana, a bill was withdrawn when it was estimated to cost $11 million to implement. In Tennessee, immigration bills are stalled in 2012 until sufficient funds can be generated to finance it. In 2011, the General Assembly Fiscal Review Committee found that their proposal would increase expenditures by $3 million for the first year and $1.8 million every year after that. In Indiana, state police said they would have to spend $5 million to train for and enforce the law. States will have to spend millions to defend laws in the courts. Most anti-immigration measures have immediately been challenged on constitutional and other grounds. Defending the law in the courts can be very expensive.

 Utahs immigration control bill, HB 497, has cost taxpayers more than $85,000 to defend in federal court. The price tag will likely increase a great deal before a final ruling is reached. In Arizona, seven lawsuits were filed to stop implementation of SB 1070, and other states are likely to see numerous lawsuits against similar legislation. At the end of February 2011, Arizona had already spent more than $1.5 million defending SB 1070. Farmers Branch, Texas, has already spent about $3.2 million to defend itself since September 2006, when it launched the first of three ordinances. The city has budgeted $623,000 for legal expenses through the rest of the fiscal year related to the ordinance defense. Legal costs could exceed $5 million by the end of the fiscal year. Riverside, New Jersey, rescinded an ordinance that penalized renting to or employing unauthorized immigrants after the town of 8,000 accumulated $82,000 in legal fees. Migration Information Organization How many foreigners (in all categories) obtained US lawful permanent residence in 2009? In 2009, 1,130,818 foreign nationals became lawful permanent residents (also known as green-card holders) according to the Department of Homeland Security's Yearbook of Immigration Statistics 2009. The total number represents a 2.1 percent increase from 2008 (1,107,126) and a 34.5 percent increase from 2000 (841,002). Of the 1.1 million new green-card holders, 463,042 (40.9 percent) were new arrivals who entered the country in 2009, and 667,776 (59.1 percent) were status adjusters. The status adjusters arrived in the United States in any year before 2009, but their green-card applications were approved during 2009. In which categories did permanent immigrants enter in 2009? Of the 1.1 million new lawful permanent residents, 47.4 percent were an immediate relative of a US citizen, 18.7 percent came through a family-sponsored preference, and 12.7 percent entered through an employment-based preference. Another 15.7 percent adjusted from a refugee or asylee status, and 4.2 percent were diversity-lottery winners. The number of newly arriving permanent immigrants under the employment-based preference reached the lowest level since 1999. How many people applied for permanent immigration to the United States through the green-card lottery? The Immigration Act of 1990 established the Diversity Visa Lottery (also known as the green-card lottery) to allow entry to immigrants from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. The act states that no more than 55,000 diversity visas are made available each fiscal year. Of the 55,000 visas, 5,000 have to be used for applicants under the Nicaraguan and Central America Relief Act of 1997, thus reducing the available number to 50,000. Applicants registered for the 2011 lottery (run between October 2 and December 1, 2009) were selected at random from over 12.1 million qualified entries. The number of qualified entries totaled 5.5 million in the 2007 lottery, 6.4 million in the 2008 lottery, 9.1 million in the 2009 lottery, and 13.6 million in the 2010 lottery. (The Department of State does not release the total number of applications received, only of qualified entries.) Which countries did permanent immigrants come from? Disaggregated by country of birth, 14.6 percent of LPRs came from Mexico. The top five countries of birth Mexico, China (5.7 percent), the Philippines (5.3 percent), India (5.1 percent), and the Dominican Republic (4.4 percent) accounted for 35.0 percent of all persons who received lawful permanent resident status in 2009. Persons born in the next five countries Cuba (3.4 percent), Vietnam (2.6 percent), Colombia (2.6 percent), Korea (South and North) (2.3percent), and Haiti (2.1 percent) made up another 12.9 percent of all lawful permanent residents, so that the top 10 countries of birth made up nearly half of the total (47.9 percent). In 2006 the Pew Hispanic Research Center indicated that illegal immigrants account for about 4.9% of the civilian labor force, or 7.2 million workers out of a total U.S. labor force of 148 million.[14] One immigration research group reported that the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. was 12.5 million in August 2007 at its peak. This decreased by 1.3 million to 11.2 million by July 2008 (11%) due to either increased law enforcement or fewer job opportunities.[15] Immigrants to the U.S. are concentrated at both the high- and low-income ends of the U.S. labor market, determined largely by their educational attainment. In 2004, at the low end, half of workers age 25 and older who lacked a diploma were from Mexico and Central America. These workers were employed in jobs that required little formal education, such as construction labor and dishwashing, and on average they earned much less than did the average native worker. [16] Between 2000 and 2007 the fastest growth rate was in Georgia where the immigrant population grew by 152% between 2000 and 2007. California, the state receiving the greatest number of immigrants, grew by 10.2%, Florida by 16.7%, and Texas by 32.7%.17.[17] Short-term undocumented workers account for about 40% of all undocumented workers and they are very beneficial to

seasonal job types like farming and construction services.[18] Arizona has the highest number of undocumented immigrants than other states in US. They contribute about 12% a share of the workforce. [19] The undocumented immigrants are filling gaps in fields where there is a low job demand among Americans workers because of a low pay. Per Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association 2010 report GA farmers suffered because of new state regulation for reporting and not hiring any undocumented immigrant. GA farmers lost more than 50% of the labor and crops because of limited labor force. [20] Most undocumented immigrants pay sales, federal and state income taxes. In addition they also spend millions per year which support US and helps create new jobs. The Texas State Comptroller report in 2006 that the 1.4 million undocumented immigrants in Texas alone added almost $18 billion to the state's budget, and paid $1.2 billion in state services they used.[21] Spending for public education of undocumented immigrant children in K-12 public education in Minnesota for 20032004 was a total of $78.76 million to $118.14 million. [31] For the same time period, total spending in New Mexico at the state and local levels for undocumented immigrant schoolchildren was about $67 million. [32] During April 2006, Standard & Poor's analysts wrote: "Local school districts are estimated to educate 1.8 million undocumented children. At an average annual cost of $7,500 (averages vary by jurisdiction) per student, the cost of providing education to these children is about $11.2 billion."[33] Reuters reported that undocumented immigrants, as well as legal immigrants in the country less than five years, generally are not eligible for Medicaid. However, they can get Medicaid coverage for health emergencies if they are in a category of people otherwise eligible, such as children, pregnant women, families with dependent children, elderly or disabled individuals, and meet other requirements. The cost of this emergency care was less than 1% of Medicaid costs in North Carolina from 20012004 and the majority was for childbirth and related complications.[35] USA Today reported that "Illegal immigrants can get emergency care through Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor and people with disabilities. But they can't get non-emergency care unless they pay. They are ineligible for most other public benefits."[1] In 2006, the Oklahoma Health Care Authority estimated that it would spend about $9.7 million on emergency Medicaid services for unauthorized immigrants and that 80 percent of those costs would be for services associated with childbirth.[36]

2: A Resolution Concerning Hawaiian Independence

The Telegraph, June 2008 For almost two months, the self-proclaimed Hawaiian Kingdom Government has peacefully occupied the grounds of the Iolani Palace, residence of the islands' last two monarchs, operating a shadow government from a tent erected in its stately grounds. Her Majesty Mahealani Kahau, a descendant of Hawaii's last king who was elected "head of state" by the group, and her ministers gather each day to debate how to achieve their goal of restoring Native Hawaiian rule. "We are here, we are real, we are in business," declares the group's website, which outlines its aim to "remove all laws, policies, rules and regulations" of the "occupying power" and "return Hawaii's independent status". The group, which claims 1,000 followers, is demanding the dissolution of the State of Hawaii and the return of land and bank assets totalling billions of dollars. Hawaii has about 200,000 Native Hawaiians, or knaka maoli, out of a population of 1.3 million. The Hawaiian Kingdom Government is just one of a number of sovereignty groups, many with similar names, waging independence campaigns. All aim to "right the wrong" inflicted on Native Hawaiians in 1893 when a small, mostly American group of sugar plantation owners and other businessmen overthrew the Hawaiian monarchy with the support of US troops sent ashore from a Navy warship. The then monarch, Queen Liliuokalani, gave up her throne "to this superior force of the United States of America" and was imprisoned in the Iolani Palace in Honolulu, built by her brother King Kalakaua. In 1898, Hawaii was annexed by the United States and in 1959 became the 50th US state. "The Hawaiian kingdom was unlawfully taken over by a coup d'etat and then those that took it over formed an illegal government and then ceded Hawaii to the United States," said Leon Siu, minister of foreign affairs for the Hawaiian Kingdom, another sovereignty group that shares many of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government's aims. "There was never a lawful transfer of either jurisdiction or title, therefore what we are doing is asserting that the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists." Mr Siu said he was engaged in discussions with several countries as well as the United Nations as part of a bid to achieve "international recognition of our nation", in part by reviving treaties Hawaii had with other nations, including Britain, in the 19th century. Sovereignty groups cite the so-called "Apology Resolution" signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993 which acknowledged the 100th anniversary of the overthrow and apologised to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the US. "The legal cause for the restoration of the kingdom is air-tight," said Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois, who has been advising Hawaiian independence groups since 1992. In addition to devising a draft constitution for one group, the Nation of Hawaii, Professor Boyle sued the US in the US Supreme Court in 1998, demanding the restoration of Hawaiian independence and reparations "for all the harm inflicted on the Kingdom of Hawaii". He said rather than dismissing the case as "something totally frivolous" the court met several times to discuss it before

determining the kingdom "was a non-recognised sovereign that does not have access to the US courts". "Based on this experience I simply told them that we would have to wait until the Kingdom of Hawaii has achieved substantial diplomatic recognition and then I could file something in the international court of justice." He described the occupation of Iolani Palace as "a very significant step in terms of their struggle to restore their kingdom their dignity and their land" and remains confident that Hawaii will at some stage achieve independence. "Native Hawaiians operate in accordance with the Aloha spirit, which is similar to Mahatma Gandhi's Satyagraha force, and I take the position that if Gandhi can throw the mighty British Empire out of India with Satyagraha, Native Hawaiians can throw the mighty American empire out of Hawaii with Aloha." Sovereignty groups reject as divisive and inadequate legislation being pursued by the state's Office of Hawaiian Affairs that would grant Native Hawaiians partial self -governance akin to that of American Indian tribes. The State of Hawaii has so far turned a blind eye to the peaceful gatherings of Hawaiian Kingdom Government. Noone has been arrested and members have been careful not to break any laws. "As long as they comply with the permit conditions, they may continue to request permits to meet," Deborah Ward, of the state's Department of Land and Natural Resources, told the Associated Press. Cultural Survival Organization April 2010 Modern Hawai'i, like its colonial overlord, the United States of America, is a settler society. Our Hawaiian people, now but a remnant of the nearly one million Natives present at contact with the West in the 18th century, live at the margins of our island society. Less than 20% of the current population in Hawai'i, our Native people have suffered all the familiar horrors of contact: massive depopulation, landlessness, christianization, economic and political marginalization, institutionalization in the military and the prisons, poor health and educational profiles, increasing diaspora. When the United States military invaded our archipelago in 1893 and overthrew our constitutional monarchy, our fate as an outpost of the American empire was sealed. Entering the U.S. as a Territory in 1900, our country became a white planter outpost, providing missionary-descended sugar barons in the islands and imperialist Americans on the continent with a military watering hole in the Pacific. Today, Hawaiians continue to suffer the effects of haole (white) colonization. Our language was banned in 1896, resulting in several generations of Hawaiians, including myself, whose only language is English. Our lands and waters have been taken for military bases, resorts, urbanization and plantation agriculture. Under foreign control, we have been overrun by settlers: missionaries and capitalists, adventurers and, of course, hordes of tourists, nearly seven million by 1998. The latest affliction of corporate tourism has meant a particularly insidious form of cultural prostitution. The hula, for example, an ancient form of dance with deep spiritual meaning, has been made ornamental, a form of exotica for the gaping tourist. Far from encouraging a cultural revival, as tourist industry apologists contend, tourism has appropriated and cheapened our dance, music, language, and people, particularly our women. Burdened with commodification of our culture and exploitation of our people, Hawaiians now exist in an occupied country whose hostage people are forced to witness, and for many of us to participate in, our collective humiliation as tourist artifacts for the world's rich. The example of the "trust" lands is a good case study of the subjugation of Native Hawaiians. The American Congress allotted nearly 200,000 acres of the poorest agricultural lands to Native Hawaiians under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921. Ostensibly for farm and residential use, the lands are marginal, situated in inaccessible areas, and undeveloped. Additionally, no monies were allocated to improve the lands. These illegal uses now include airports, military reservations, public schools, public parks, even private homes and county refuse dumps. While these illegal uses continue, so too has the rise of legitimate applications for lots. By 1999, the waiting list for pastoral and residential lots on the islands of O'ahu, Maui, Hawai'i, Kaua'i, and Moloka'i totaled over 29,000 applicants. Meanwhile, illegal and other non-Native uses continue on more than 130,000 of the allotted 200,000 acres. Obviously, the state of Hawai'i and the federal government are active agents in continued alienation of Hawaiian natural resources, abuses of Native civil and human rights, and denial of economic and political self-determination. As in the case of the trust lands, military expropriation of Native lands, and the abuse of such lands for bombing, troop maneuvers, and other destructive actions, has also become a focus of intense protest. The American military controls over 30% of the most populated island of O'ahu, and other large land areas on the islands of Hawai'i, Maui, and Kaua'i. Today, hula h...lau have evolved into sites of both cultural and political resistance. When the Hawai'i legislature sought to pass legislation in 1998 preventing gathering of vines and flowers used for adornment in the hula, more than 1,000 Hawaiians demonstrated against the bill. Predictably, legislators had been encouraged to submit the bill by a group recently arrived from California whose stated purpose was the protection of private property. Apart from the clash between American individualistic values and Native communal use values, the legislative effort to prevent the gathering rights of hula h...lau had the unintended effect of further uniting cultural groups, thereby increasing the strength of cultural resistance. The Akaka-Secession Bill - named after its key sponsor, U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii - defines a process in which the federal government, through the Department of the Interior, would recognize a native Hawaiian governing entity and could lead to the secession of that entity from the United States of America! The impact of this entity on private property in Hawaii is unknown and could have dramatic, unforeseen consequences. Angel Fire Corporation The Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill is highly controversial, unconstitutional, and dangerous to all 50 states. Also known as the Akaka bill, it would authorize federal recognition for a phony Indian tribe

invented out of thin air. The purpose is to protect over 160 race-based programs under court challenge because of a Supreme Court decision. It would carve up Hawaii by race and set a precedent for similar balkanization throughout America. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has repeatedly condemned this bill as race-based and divisive. 20% of Hawaii's people, completely integrated and intermarried, living working and praying side by side with everyone else throughout all neighborhoods, would be singled out by law solely because they have a drop of native blood, and given a new government. 75% of them have less than 25% native blood. Many of them oppose the whole idea of a race-based government. Beginning January 17, 2004 and continuing ever since with intensive advertising and community outreach, fewer than 25% of ethnic Hawaiians have placed their names on a racial registry expected to be used as a tribal roll. But if the bill passes Congress, a race-based government can be created to protect the wealth and power of Hawaii's race-based institutions and to keep federal dollars flowing to Hawaii. There will never be a vote by all ethnic Hawaiians or by all Hawaii's people on this issue, even though a newspaper poll yielded 75% opposed, two scientific surveys a year apart showed 67% opposed, and a Zogby poll released December 2009 showed most people are opposed. Ethnic Hawaiians who sign up for the "tribe" get to vote for a "tribal" council and get federal recognition; ethnic Hawaiians who oppose it (probably a majority), and the remaining 80% of Hawaii's people, are shut out. The bill allows a negotiated settlement dividing up Hawaii's lands and resources without any ratification vote by the tribe's members or by the people of Hawaii. No other state has 20% of its people eligible for an Indian tribe whose members also vote for the governor and legislators who will negotiate with the tribe. The U.S. Department of Justice under President Bush repeatedly objected to the bill; while the DOJ under President Obama forced major changes to it as a condition for supporting it. 200 years ago Kamehameha the Great unified all the Hawaiian islands into a single multiracial Kingdom; today the Akaka bill seeks to split up Hawaii. The Hawaiian "tribe" would be the largest in America. According to Census 2000 it would have over 400,000 possible members. 240,000 of them live in Hawaii, 60,000 in California (more than any current California tribe), and 100,000 in the other 48 states. A population study in September 2005 projects nearly a million "Native Hawaiians" by year 2050. This huge "tribe" would compete against genuine tribes for federal handouts at the expense of all America's taxpayers. Hawaii Senators Inouye and Akaka sat on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee for many years, even though there have never been any tribes in Hawaii. They constantly inserted "Native Hawaiians" into legislation intended to benefit real Indians and Alaska natives. Because of court challenges, they now want Congress to make it official that "Native Hawaiians" are federally recognized as a tribe. Nearly all Hawaii politicians, both Democrat and Republican, favor the bill to make all America's taxpayers keep sending money to Hawaii! Bill supporters justify it partly by saying that ethnic Hawaiians have the worst statistics for income, education, unemployment, drug abuse, and diseases; but such victimhood claims are mostly bogus because they ignore that ethnic Hawaiians are 13 years younger on average than other groups, and about 3/4 of "Native Hawaiians" each have more than 3/4 of their ancestry from Asia and Europe.

3: A Resolution to End Gerrymandering of US House Districts

The Columbian, January 2012 If theres one thing regular folks know about post-Census redistricting, its that gerrymandering is bad. The term was first used in 1812 when then-Gov. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts was blamed for a district so manipulated for partisan purposes that it resembled a salamander. It has become a label for any redistricting efforts that give advantage to one party over another. It should, however, be reserved for those times when hyper-partisan districts also arent compact and contiguous. In the just-completed work of the Washington State Redistricting Commission, there doesnt appear to be much evidence of classic gerrymandering. Washington is considered a leader in a form of redistricting that takes the power away from whichever party is in power and gives it to a commission with two Republicans and two Democrats. New maps must have bipartisan support. That hasnt reduced the likelihood of districts that favor one party over another or districts that protect incumbents. What this balance of power has done is create plans that protect both parties incumbents. Commissioners created so-called swing districts only where no incumbent existed or where the underlying demographics made safe districts impossible. At least most of the safe partisan districts are relatively compact and contiguous. The exception is the new 9th Congressional that meanders from the Tacoma Dome to Harborview Medical Center in Seattle and Bellevue. It includes First Hill, Leschi and Mount Baker in Seattle, both landings of the Mercer Island floating bridge, Renton, SeaTac, Kent, Federal Way and the Port of Tacoma. With Mercer Island as the metaphorical meal, this political amphibians jaws are spread open on either side. Its southern tail slaps the part of Tacoma that includes the home of its incumbent Democratic Rep. Adam Smith. What do all of these disparate parts of Puget Sound have in common? By adding up the minority populations in these areas, the commission was able to create the seemingly contradictory entity known as a majority-minority district. That is, minority residents make up more than 50 percent of the district. Such a district was a goal of the commissioners, partly at the urging of advocacy groups who think it will enhance the political clout of under-represented minority groups and partly for fear of lawsuits under the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the Federal Voting Right Act. The commission also ended up with four majority-minority districts among the 49 legislative districts the 11th, 33rd and 37th in Seattle and the 15th in Yakima. Tacomas 29th is close, at 48 percent. But unlike the 9th Congressional District, the legislative districts are all relatively compact and contiguous. The new 9th also may be based on a creative

reading of court rulings that have tried to find the balance between diluting minority populations among several districts to reduce clout and packing those populations into a single district to prevent them from influencing elections in more than one district. The decision that provides most guidance is Thornburg v. Gingles, which created a test that aggrieved minority groups must meet. To show discrimination, the groups must be large enough and compact enough to make up a majorityminority district, they must be politically cohesive and they must show that bloc voting by whites has thwarted their preferred candidates. Unlike in Yakima, it is questionable whether any single minority group in Western Washington could have met that test. The new 9th, for example, is a collection of Asians (21 percent), Hispanics (11.8), blacks (11.2), other nonwhites (5.8), mixed race (5.57), Pacific Islanders (1.28) and Native Americans (0.8). As shown, they are not geographically compact and it might be a stretch to say there is political cohesion between say, Korean Americans in South King County, blacks in south Seattle and Asians in Bellevue. The final maps do lower the odds for a legal challenge from minority groups. And the new 9th has a characteristic that it lacked before. What had been a nominally swing district having elected one Republican in its 20 years of life is now safely Democratic. Economist, June 2011 ONE lowly state senator from southern California, upon seeing the states new electoral maps and realising that no incumbent member of Congress currently lives in a district to be drawn around her home, spontaneously declared: Im in, Im in, Im in, Im in, and thus became a candidate for the House of Representatives in Washington, DC. Other state senators, assemblymen and US representatives were rather less effusive. Several suddenly found themselves sharing a district with political allies who may now become rivals, or facing a much less sympathetic electorate. This chaos among Californias incumbent politicians is a good sign. For the new lines of 177 districts, released on June 10th and to be finalised by August 15th, were drawn, for the first time, by a genuinely independent commission of citizens, not by state legislators. The panels mandate is to make compact, contiguous districts that preserve natural communities of interest such as ethnic groups, and to ignore politics altogether. The commissioners do not even have voter-registration statistics or the addresses of incumbents. The revolutionary new idea is that, instead of politicians choosing their voters, voters should choose their representatives. This marks a dramatic change in the history of American democracy. The practice of rapacious boundary-drawing dates back to the Founding Fathers. Patrick Henry, who famously demanded liberty or death, tried to draw a congressional map of Virginia to deny his foe James Madison election. In 1812, the partisans of Elbridge Gerry, then governor of Massachusetts, drew a state-Senate district so bizarre that its salamander shape led to the term gerrymandering, which persists to this day. By contrast, a related flaw, called malapportionment, was largely fixed in the 1960s. Until then, districts across America had very different populations but equal representation, so that some (mostly rural) communities were over-represented in legislatures and Congress, while others were under-represented. But in 1964 the Supreme Court enshrined the principle of one person, one vote. It requires districts to have the same population, so that their boundaries must be redrawn after every census (ie, once a decade). Because most states still let their legislators do this redrawing, gerrymandering has remained a problem. In democracies with proportional representation (as in continental Europe), maps are not very important. But in Americas winnertakes-all system, where the candidate with a plurality of votes becomes the representative and all other votes count for nothing, maps are crucial. Thus legislators like to draw lines that, in the jargon, pack more of their supporters into one district to make it safe, or crack a hostile block of voters into several districts, and so, with many variants, forth. Such gerrymandering can be extremely partisan when the majority party in a legislature draws districts that favour its candidates, as the Republicans did in Texas a decade ago. But it can also happen on a bipartisan basis, when both parties agree on maps that favour the incumbents. Californias legislature did this in 2001, producing cynically squiggly districts that made most of the seats safe for whichever Republicans or Democrats already held them. In the 612 races of Californias last four elections, only seven seats have changed from one party to the other. Over the years, several states have tried to scrub their maps clean of such shenanigans. Iowa was first in 1980, making redistricting largely apolitical, although the legislature must still approve all maps. But Iowa is a homogenous and geographically simple state, and its system was not copied. Some 19 other states, aside from California, have established commissions, either as the main mapmakers or as advisers to the legislature. But most of these panels are still, one way or another, appointed by politicians, with varying degrees of independence. Arizonas commission, the result of a ballot measure in 2000, was the most promising, but its maps were fought over for seven years in the courts. So now comes Californias reform, which could be the great experiment that other states will follow, according to Tim Storey, a redistricting analyst at the National Conference of State Legislatures. Also approved directly by voters, in two separate ballot measures, this commission consists of 14 members, chosen in a complex but rigorous process, partly by lottery. In its diligence and transparency, it has been above reproach. The hope among many voters, of course, is that more districts will thereby become competitive, forcing politicians to become more moderate. It helps a lot that California has also adopted a non-partisan primary system with the same aim. Analysis by the Public Policy Institute of California, a think-tank, shows that the maps do indeed make several additional districts toss-ups (see chart), with Democrats benefiting slightly more. On the other hand, Californians may also have set themselves up to be disappointed, says Paul Mitchell at Redistricting Partners, a consultancy. The new system is certainly shaking up the ant farm, but its still an ant farm, and political extremism has many causes, not just gerrymandering. One only needs to look at the US Senate, whose members are all

elected statewide, and therefore not gerrymandered at all, to see that. But at least from now on voters are a bit more likely to feel that they had a genuine choice, and that they deserve what they chose.

4: A Resolution to Suspend and Destroy Joseph Kony and the LRA

RESOLVE ORGANIZATION We have compiled some key statistics on the influence of LRA violence on the populations of DR Congo, South Sudan, the Central African Republic (CAR), and Uganda in order to help us keep in mind the scale of the crisis, and to be familiar with the most current facts and details on the crisis. Deaths TOTAL: More than 2,400 killed by the LRA in DR Congo, CAR, and South Sudan since 2008, as of December 2011 [10] DR Congo: Over 1,900 killed between September 2008 and December 2010 [1] South Sudan: 216 killed between December 2008 and November 2009 [2] Central African Republic: 175 killed between February 2008 and November 2010 [3] Uganda: about 100,000 killed between 1986 and 2007 [5] Abductions TOTAL: More than 3,400 abducted by the LRA in DR Congo, CAR, and South Sudan since 2008, including over 1,500 children as of March 2011 [10, 11] DR Congo: 2,615 people abducted, including 886 children, as of December 2010 [4] South Sudan: 149 abducted between December 2008 and November 2009 [2] Central African Republic: 352 abducted, including many children, as of November 2010 [6] Uganda: 66,000 people/youth between the ages of 14 and 30 from the mid-1990s to 2006 [7] 30,000 children (under 18) abducted from 1988 to 2004 [8] Internally Displaced People TOTAL: 438,504 LRA-induced displacements in DR Congo, CAR, and South Sudan as of December 2011 [9] DR Congo: 347,360 IDPs in LRA-affected areas of DRC as of December 2011 [9] South Sudan: 70,000 estimated number of people displaced due to LRA violence as of December 2011 [9] Central African Republic: 21,144 displaced in southeast Central African Republic as of December 2011 [9] Uganda: approximately 1,700,000 internally displaced from 1986 to 2007 [5] Refugees TOTAL: 28,390 total number of refugees due to LRA violence in DR Congo, CAR, and South Sudan, as of December 2011 [9] DR Congo: 5,800 approximate number of refugees as of December 2011, largely from Central African Republic [9] South Sudan: 17,231 refugees as of December 2011, mainly Congolese [9] Central African Republic: 5,359 refugees in southeast Central African Republic as of December 2011, mainly Congolese [9] RESOLVE ORGANIZATION For over two decades, the Lords Resistance Army (LRA) has terrorized central Africa, targeting civilians in a brutal campaign of abduction, murder and forced displacement. The LRA was founded in northern Uganda in 1986 by Joseph Kony in response to the marginalization of that region by the Ugandan government. However, the LRA soon lost popular support in northern Uganda and evolved into a group that survives by terrorizing communities and abducting children to fight its battles. In recent years it has not been active in Uganda, but instead operates in the remote border area between Congo, South Sudan and Central African Republic (CAR). In its 24 years under the direction of Joseph Kony, the LRA has been responsible for the following: The perpetration of mass atrocities: The Lords Resistance Army is responsible for grave crimes against civilians, including the mass killings, rapes, and mutilations of thousands of Ugandan, South Sudanese, Central African and Congolese civilians. Since September 2008, the LRA has embarked on one of the most devastating waves of violence in its history, killing over 2,400 people, abducting over 3,400, and displacing upwards of 460,000. The enslavement of children: In order to replenish its ranks, the LRA has forcibly-recruited thousands of children to be used as soldiers and sex slaves. In northern Uganda alone, Kony and his forces abducted an estimated 30,000 children. The disruption of communities: LRA attacks have displaced hundreds of thousands of people in Congo, South Sudan, Central African Republic and Uganda over the past two decades. These attacks have disrupted the very fabric of community life, targeting schools, churches and marketplaces. The communities that LRA violence has affected most are already among the poorest and most remote in all of Africa. The LRA targets people, such as the Acholi and the Zande, that have little representation in the governments througout the region. These governments and their military forces have neglected to protect civilians from the LRA and have committed widespread abuses against civilians themselves. U.S. and international leaders have consistently underestimated or ignored the strength and tenacity of the LRA, which

has contributed to half-hearted policy measures that have failed to stop LRA violence and allowed Joseph Kony and his commanders to cut a swath of human destruction across central Africa. We seek an end to these injustices and greater leadership towards lasting peace from regional and international leaders . NEW YORK TIMES , MARCH 2012 The Lords Resistance Army is a notorious renegade group in central Africa that have murdered, raped and kidnapped tens of thousands of people with impunity. The army originated as a Ugandan rebel force in the 1980s and morphed into a fearsome, cultlike band of marauders that have terrorized villagers in at least four African countries. It is led byJoseph Kony, a self-proclaimed prophet known for ordering massacres, mutilating opponents and kidnapping countless children turning girls into sex slaves and boys into prepubescent killers. Mr. Kony has been wanted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court since 2005. Exiled to a fiefdom on the border of southern Sudan and Congo, Mr. Kony in 2007 emerged from the wilderness indicating a willingness to sign a historic peace deal with the Ugandan government that would disband his army. But in April 2008, he backed out, saying he needed more time to consult Ugandan elders. American efforts to combat the Lords Resistance Army took place during the Bush administration, which authorized the Pentagon to send a team of 17 counterterrorism advisers to train Ugandan troops and provided millions of dollars worth of aid, including fuel trucks, satellite phones and night vision goggles, to the Ugandan army. Those efforts scattered segments of the army, but its remnants dispersed and regrouped in Ugandas neighboring countries, especially the Democratic Republic of Congo. In October 2011, President Obama ordered the deployment of 100 armed military advisers to central Africa to help regional forces combat Mr. Konys group. Even so, many people were not aware of the horrors and brutality wrought by Mr. Konys army. On March 5, 2012, the conflict became topic No. 1, when Jason Russell, the co-founder of an activist group called Invisible Children, posted a video, KONY 2012, on YouTube and Vimeo that attracted more than 50 million viewers and generated hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations on the first day alone and rocketed across Twitter and Facebook at a pace rarely seen for any video, let alone a half-hour film about rebels in central Africa. In a testament to the explosive power of social media, Mr. Russell managed to make Mr. Kony and the Lords Resistance Army household names in a matter of days, baffling diplomats, academics and Ugandans who have worked assiduously on the issue for decades without anything close to the blitz of attention that Mr. Russell and his group have generated. Criticism of the Kony Video Gripping and evocative though it is, the video has alarmed many veteran observers of the devastation Mr. Kony and his fighters have left in their wake over the years. Many specifically take issue with the video and Mr. Russells organization, Invisible Children, for how they present the fight against the rebels, as well as how the organization spends its money behind the scenes. Not until halfway through the film does Mr. Russell mention that the war he describes is no longer happening in Uganda, where he sets the documentary. The Lords Resistance Army left the country years ago, migrating to more fragile nations like Congo. Another complaint among critics is that the film fails to mention the human rights abuses by the Ugandan military, and that Mr. Russells narration could imply that there are as many as 30,000 child soldiers in Mr. Konys army today. After years on the run, the group is believed to be down to hundreds of fighters, though they still prey mercilessly on civilians. Others take issue with the amount of money Invisible Children which brings in and spends millions of dollars a year dedicates to officer salaries, filmmaking costs and travel, as opposed to on-the-ground programs to help rebuild the lives of people traumatized by decades of conflict. More Background on Kony and His Army In December 2010, C. J. Chivers of The New York Times wrote about a document that gave an insiders view into what he called Mr. Konys exaggerated style of public weirdness and calculated ferocity. The Lords Resistance Army, he wrote, was the offshoot of a failed rebel movement led by Alice Lakwena, who said she was possessed by a troupe of spirits who urged her to war. Mr. Kony has presented himself over the years as the channel through which these lingering voices communicate from the beyond. His guerrilla dossier, Mr. Chivers said, smacked of a peculiar brand of bush opportunism. Ms. Lakwena, after her forces were routed in the 1980s, said the spirits had abandoned her, and she fled to Kenya, where she passed her final years in a rambling, alcoholic daze. Mr. Kony promptly took her place, insisting he was the spirits new vehicle.

5: A Resolution to Abolish the Federal Department of Education

College Board PSAT semifinalist cut-offs show disparity between state education Alabama 210 Alaska 214 Arizona 209 Arkansas 203 California 219

Colorado 212 Connecticut 219 Delaware 215 District of Columbia 223 Florida 210 Georgia 215 Hawaii 215 Idaho 208 Illinois 214 Indiana 212 Iowa 209 Kansas 211 Kentucky 208 Louisiana 210 Maine 213 Maryland 220 Massachusetts 223 Michigan 209 Minnesota 213 Mississippi 205 Missouri 210 Montana 208 Nebraska 210 Nevada 208 New Hampshire 214 New Jersey 221 New Mexico 206 New York 217 North Carolina 214 North Dakota 202 Ohio 212 Oklahoma 206 Oregon 215 Pennsylvania 216 Rhode Island 211 South Carolina 208 South Dakota 205 Tennessee 212 Texas 215 Utah 203 Vermont 212 Virginia 218 Washington 218 West Virginia 202 Wisconsin 209 Wyoming 202 Commended 201 International 223 New England Boarding Schools 223 Huffington Post July 2011

FOX NEWS, September 2011 Like many Republicans, Atlanta's Stella Lohmann -- a blogger, teacher and former journalist -- is fed up with mandates, funding requests, lawsuit avoidance and a one-size-fits-all approach to education and says the federal government has undertaken a massive overreach. Now, her question on what Republicans are going to do about it asked during the Fox News/Google debate on Thursday night -- has re-ignited a once-novel debate over eliminating the U.S. Education Department. And judging by the GOP candidates' reaction, the option may come back in vogue, if not into reality. "I am going to promise to advocate the abolishment of the federal Department of Education," said former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson. "What I would do as president of the United States is pass the mother of all repeal bills on education," said Minnesota

Rep. Michele Bachmann. "Then I would go over to the Department of Education, I'd turn off the lights, I would lock the door and I would spend all the money back to the states and localities." "You need to dramatically shrink the federal Department of Education, get rid of virtually all of its regulations," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich chimed in. Indeed, all of the GOP candidates said they would either get rid of the department -- created in 1980 under President Jimmy Carter -- or seriously diminish its function. Their uniform responses earned wild applause during the debate. But the idea isn't new, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, pointed out, and Republicans haven't met words with actions. "In 1980, when the Republican Party ran, part of the platform was to get rid of the Department of Education. By the year 2000, (that issue) was eliminated, and we fed on to it," Paul said. "Then ... Republicans added No Child Left Behind." Indeed, every year from 1980-2000, Republicans included in their platform the plank: "The federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula or to control jobs in the market place. This is why we will abolish the Department of Education," read the 1996 platform that accompanied the presidential nomination of thenSenate Minority Leader Bob Dole. But by the mid-1990s, abolition was no longer a priority, recalled Bill Wilson, president of Americans for Limited Government. "I don't think they saw it as a big winner as such. They were looking for political talking points not policy." Whatever the reason the plank has slipped from the platform whether because Republicans have moved onto other agenda items, or because Americans did not find it palatable, prudent or possible -- the department continues to grow from its statistical collections and college loan processing. By 2002, it had added a massive new mandate with the blessing of President George W. Bush. Aimed at increasing performance through testing, the bipartisan No Child Left Behind is in part responsible for exploding the education budget. President Obama's 2012 spending request for the department is $77.4 billion for discretionary spending up from $46.2 billion 10 years earlier. The department itself notes it has the third largest budget despite having the smallest staff of 15 Cabinet agencies. The spending has conservatives shouting mad in the era of debt and deficit. But liberals, too, complain No Child Left Behind is too burdensome on teachers and school districts. On Friday, Obama announced that he was going to propose an opt-out. "We're going to let states, schools and teachers come up with innovative ways to give our children the skills they need to compete for the jobs of the future. Because what works in Rhode Island may not be the same thing that works in Tennessee -- but every student should have the same opportunity to learn and grow, no matter what state they live in," Obama said. Despite distaste for the program, the president's move brought criticism from both sides. "Advancing a controversial waivers plan will not only hamper efforts to chart a new course, but will prolong the failed policies of the past," wrote Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee in an op-ed in The Washington Examiner. "In the absence of congressional reauthorization, we understand why the Obama administration is taking this action; we are keenly aware of the calls from parents, teachers and administrators for change -- sooner rather than later. Waivers are an imperfect answer to the stalemate in Congress and, at best, can provide only a temporary salve," said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers. Though the union and many Democrats are unlikely to sway from supporting the Education Department, Wilson said getting rid of No Child Left Behind may be the avenue to abolishing a major bureaucracy. "Any law that has automatic waivers you gotta question why it was passed in the first place, he said. Wilson suggested that Congress could eliminate the department through an evolutionary process adopted by a bipartisan committee tasked with choosing which programs are worth retaining and where they would be placed. He proposed a three-to-five-year dissolution plan that gives everybody time to adjust programs on the state and local level and to give federal workers at the department time to find their next job. The odds are long, he admits, though they could go up "substantially" in 2013. "Anything in this town is going to be less than 50-50," Wilson said. But, there is an "increasing ideological convergence from both the left and the right that there's a real problem that has to be addressed. Given where we're going and all the indications, by 2013 the finances are going to be in such dire situation that they're going to have to look at bold moves. US Dept. of Education - ED currently administers a budget of $68.1 billion in discretionary appropriations (including discretionary Pell Grant funding) and operates programs that touch on every area and level of education. The Department's elementary and secondary programs annually serve nearly 16,000 school districts and approximately 49 million students attending more than 98,000 public schools and 28,000 private schools. Department programs also provide grant, loan, and work-study assistance to more than 15 million postsecondary students. One final note: while ED's programs and responsibilities have grown substantially over the years, the Department itself has not. In fact, the Department has the smallest staff of the 15 Cabinet agencies, even though its discretionary budget alone is the third largest, behind only the Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services. In

addition, the Department makes over $120 billion in new loans annually. A wide range of management improvements have helped limit administrative costs to approximately 2 percent of the Department's discretionary budget and only about 1 percent of all grants and loans made by the Department. This means that ED delivers about 99 cents on the dollar in education assistance to States, school districts, postsecondary institutions, and students.

6: A Resolution to Allow Tobacco Companies to Advertise Cigarettes

Teen Help Organization Approximately 440,000 Americans die each year from diseases related to smoking. About 90% of all smokers started as teen smokers. 90% of the above 440,000 is 396,000 teen smokers. 396,000 smokers who started as teens die each year from smoking related diseases Each day 6,000 children under the age of 18 start smoking. Of those, 2,000 will keep smoking. That is 800,000 new teen smokers every year. 1. Among Americans, smoking rates shrunk by nearly half in three decades (from the mid-1960s to mid-1990s), falling to 23% of adults by 1997. In the developing world, tobacco consumption is rising by 3.4% per year. 2. Cigarettes cause more than one in five American deaths. 3. Smoking-related diseases cost the United States more than $150 billion a year. 4. Over 50,000 people a year die from secondhand smoke in the US alone. 5. In the 1980s, tobacco companies started working on making fire-safe cigarettes. Ones that would be less likely to ignite furniture or clothing and cause fires. As of 2002, only one of the hundreds of U.S. cigarette brands uses fire safe technology, and cigarettes are still the number one cause of fire-related deaths. 6. In the US, smoking causes about 445 new cases of lung cancer every day. 7. Tobacco kills more Americans than AIDS, drugs, homicides, fires, and auto accidents combined. 8. US-based multinational Philip Morris the worlds biggest cigarette company was the worlds ninth largest advertiser in 1996, spending more than $3 billion. 9. A survey a few years ago found that nearly 80% of American advertising executives from top agencies believed cigarette advertising does make smoking more appealing or socially acceptable to children. 10. In 1997, the tobacco industrys spending on advertising in the United States was about $15 million a day ($5.7 billion for the year). Quit Smoking Central 11. The tobacco industry is one of the most prosperous industries in the world. In fact the tobacco companies combined earn annual income of up to $15 billion. Specific tobacco companies are even richer than many developing countries in Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe. 12. Judging by what has happened in previous decades, tobacco companies orbig tobacco as otherwise known have employed divers tactics to sharp and influence tobacco regulation and policy in general. Tobacco companiesdread the effects of rapidly spreading smoking laws which are increasingly banning smoking in public places. 13. With certainty the industry is amongst those with the highest levels of litigation. Tobacco companies such as Philip Morris in the United States have suffered serious tobacco lawsuits filed by relatives and victims ofsmoking diseases such as lung cancer, other cancers and cardiovascular diseases. 14. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has since concluded that the conflict between tobacco and public health is absolutely irreconcilable. For this reason there is total intolerance of the tobacco industry by the UN. On its part the industry has employed economic power and marketing andadvertising prowess and even the media to discredit growing concerns about second hand smoking. This strategy is also known by another name as "manufacturing doubt". The industry is known to commission own research to discredit anticipated research findings of ongoing mainstream science against tobacco. 15. Tobacco companies such as Philip Morris tobacco have also employed serious million dollar philanthropic initiatives into social programs including sporting events in order to generate positive public image. The goal is essentially to expand the tobacco market and increase the number of people who smoke. In China for instance, a tobacco company was given permission by the government to reconstruct a school damaged by an earthquake. On leaving, the company left banners up across the elementary school glorifying tobacco smoking. 16. Even though the government of China is party to the FCTC it still controls and enjoys up to 8% of government revenue contribution from tobacco taxes. Anti-smoking laws are rather relaxed in China and business involved with tobacco off spins appear to have ongoing government respect to the extent of influencing government policy and general tobacco decision making. During the Beijing Olympics of 2008 smoking in public places was banned in China save for bars, restaurants and hotels as the behest of business. 17. As a result of the tobacco industry invisible yet effective under-hand influences on tobacco control policies; WHO through the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) that came into force in 2005 blocks big tobacco interference in global health policies and implementation of this global tobacco treaty. 18. The FCTC is a binding international treaty ascended to by over 160 countries. Since 2005 tobacco industry has sought to side track its implementation. Attempts have included tobacco companies trying to help the writing of

tobacco smoking laws in member countries and blocking passage of smoke free laws amongst other things. 19. It is a fact that tobacco companies have sought to weaken legislation on tobacco in countries such as Germany, Argentina, Latin America and the Caribbean amongst many others. In essence the industry is incensed by the WHO objectives of preventing tobacco uptake, maximizing cessation and prohibiting smoking in public places. This stands in the way of the commercial objectives of the industry. 20. Despite efforts somewhat insincere to consciountise the public on dangers of smoking, the industry routinely seeks to maximize tobacco uptake and makes sure nicotine addicts continue to smoke. They do not in reality fancy quit smoking products let alone stop smoking programs which ultimately promotes smoking cessation. 21. As far as the anti-smoking movement is concerned, the tobacco industry is not and neither can it be a partner in effective and sincere tobacco control. On the contrary the big tobacco sees itself as a legitimate and sincere stakeholder in tobacco regulation initiatives. WHO anticipates the industry is determined to continue influencing and interfering in the implementation of effective tobacco control. Delays through side tracking of the implementation plan will only prolong the industry's massive tobacco profits. SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY Images of sleek, young bodies, taut and tanned, engaged in heroic athletic feats illuminate the page on which the words "Performance Counts" loom large. But appearing in a small box in the righthand corner of the page is the Surgeon General's warning: "Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy." Every year 350,000 people die from tobacco-related illnesses. Smoking is directly responsible for 85% of all deaths from lung cancer. The Surgeon General has declared smoking the chief avoidable cause of death in our society. Not only are cigarettes one of the most lethal products around, but also one of the most addictive. According to a recent report from the Surgeon General, the nicotine contained in cigarettes is as addictive as heroin and cocaine. Yet, this lethal product which contains a very powerful addictive drug can be legally bought and sold. And, along with soap and margarine, it is promoted through advertisements in the popular media. In 1971, cigarette ads were banned from the TV screen and radio waves, but recent figures show that the tobacco industry continues to spend over $2 billion every year promoting cigarettes through other means, such as magazines, newspapers and billboards. During the next Congress, legislators will be asked to pass a law that would forbid all cigarette advertising in magazines and newspapers. The tobacco industry and its advertisers have attacked the proposal as violating fundamental moral rights. Does society have a right to ban the advertising of cigarettes? Anti-smoking activists argue that everyone has a basic right to freedom of expression, but only insofar as no harm comes to others as a result. When freedom of expression results in harm to others, society is morally obligated to restrict this freedom. Cigarette advertising, one form of free speech, causes grave harm. Of twelve published studies that have examined the effect of cigarette advertising, nine have shown that as cigarette ads increase, so too does smoking. And, smoking now accounts for at least 350,000 tobacco-related deaths each year. The costs of smoking to society as a whole are also staggering. According to a recent government report, cigarette smoking is responsible for an estimated $23 billion in health care costs annually and over $30 billion in lost productivity. Furthermore, cigarettes are the leading cause of residential fires and fire deaths in this nation. Society is morally obligated to ban the promotion of a product linked to so much suffering and devastation and that places such a drain on society's resources. Those opposed to the promotion of cigarettes also argue that society has a duty to protect the right of individuals not to be deceived or manipulated. And, according to Joe Tye, a staunch critic of the tobacco industry, "No advertising is more deceptive than that used to sell cigarettes. Images of independence are used to sell a product that creates profound dependence. Images of health and vitality are used to sell a product that causes disease and suffering. Images of life are used to sell a product that causes death." Critics argue that cigarette advertisements also rely almost exclusively on psychological manipulation. Alluring images of power, prestige, glamour, success, vitality and sex appeal are held before the public's eye, creating a positive association between "the good life" and smoking. Such ads bypass conscious reasoning. They unconsciously arouse in a person a powerful desire that is not rationally weighed against one's own best interests. Society's obligation to ban such deceptive and manipulative practices becomes all the more compelling when such practices are used to prey on minors. And young people are, in fact, the target of the tobacco industry's advertising campaigns. To maintain sales, the tobacco industry must recruit more than 2 million people every year to replace those who die and those who quit smoking. Since 90% of beginning smokers are children or teenagers, this means that the industry must entice at least 5000 youngsters daily to take up smoking. So it's to the young that the industry directs its pitch, appealing to their lifestyles and aspirations. Closeups of muscular surfers and slender, sexy women promise the shy teenager popularity and sex appeal. Shots of hang-gliders, mountain climbers, ski racers and aerobic dancers promise adventure or athletic prowess. Perhaps the most sinister of the ads is that which reads: "If you're not an adult, don't smoke." What better way to manipulate an adolescent into smoking? Society has a moral duty to ban such brainwashing of unwilling, unsuspecting consumers into taking up a habit that will eventually kill them, or so critics claim. Opposing restrictions on cigarette ads are those who agree that society has a right to restrict freedom of expression when the exercise of this freedom causes harm to others. But, they argue, while cigarettes themselves may be harmful, cigarette advertising is not. First, contrary to the critics' claims, ads for cigarettes do not cause people to smoke, just as ads for soap don't cause people to bathe. People take up smoking for a variety of reasons. For teenagers, it's often peer pressure or imitating adults that factor in as the principal reason. In one five nation study, only 1% of the seven to

fifteen-year-olds interviewed mentioned advertising as the most important reason they started smoking. At most, cigarette ads function to persuade people who already smoke to switch brands. Second, the charge that cigarette ads intentionally deceive consumers is unjustified. The images portrayed in cigarette ads are realistic ones. There are, in fact, skiers, tennis players and aerobic dancers who smoke. Furthermore, how can cigarette ads be accused of hiding the truth with the Surgeon General's warning prominently stamped across each and every ad? Nor can cigarette ads be banned on the grounds that they manipulate consumers. The tobacco industry's advertising ploys are no different from any other industry's techniques to promote its products. Consumers are well acquainted with the rules of the game in advertising. People should be expected to take care of themselves whether they are reading an ad for cigarettes or passing by an enticing display in a department store. Nor can it be said that the industry aims its ads at minors. The R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company has even gone as far as running full-page ads in national magazines asserting, "We don't advertise to children," along with ads advising young people not to smoke. Unless it can be factually demonstrated that cigarette advertisements cause direct harm to others, society has no right to impose any further restrictions on ads. Those opposed to banning cigarette ads also point out that respect for individual freedom demands that consumer preferences and choices be respected. Society has no right to impose its preferences on its members by limiting their exposure to products that are legally bought and sold. While society may act as a critic of consumer choice, it has no right, and certainly no duty, to limit that choice, and banning cigarettes ads would do just that. Finally, tobacco supporters claim that banning cigarette ads would deliver few benefits, while producing great harm. There is no evidence that banning cigarette ads would stop people from smoking. In five countries where cigarette ads have been banned, per capita consumption of cigarettes has risen, not decreased. While tobacco advertising bans would fail to deliver the benefits its supporters hope forthe reduction of smokingthey would, without a doubt, produce great harm. First, banning cigarettes ads would deprive consumers of valuable information. Such ads relay important information on the tar and nicotine content of cigarettes which some smokers use in their decisions to switch brands. Second, any further encroachment on the freedom to advertise cigarettes would place all freedom of expression and freedom of individual choice in serious jeopardy. If society declares a ban on ads for cigarettes, which may be harmful, but which are legal to purchase and use, what will prevent it from banning the promotion of countless other products known to be harmful in some way? Will ads for butter and cheese be banned because they contain large amounts of cholesterol? Such practices cannot be tolerated in a society that prides itself on freedom. Deciding whether society should pass a sentence on selling smoke will require us to choose between an obligation to do all we can to prevent harm and suffering, and the value we place on freedom of expression and freedom of choice.

7: A Resolution to Put a Fee on Plastic Bags at Stores

OLR RESEARCH REPORT PROS AND CONS OF BANNING PLASTIC BAGS Jurisdictions that have banned the bags or are considering a ban do so because the bags are non-biodegradable, contribute to litter, and are made from crude oil and natural gas, which are non-renewable resources. Discarded plastic bags are a particular problem in less developed countries, where they serve as breeding grounds for malaria-carrying mosquitoes, generate toxins when burned, and clog drainage systems, causing floods. Plastic bags that clogged drains in west India have been blamed for causing floods that killed more than 1,000 people. Discarded bags can also pose a hazard to wildlife. Aquatic animals and birds can become entangled in, or choke on, the bags. Some groups, such as the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade association, prefer increased recycling to an outright ban. They contend that a ban will lead consumers to use paper bags instead. Although paper bags are made from a renewable resource and are biodegradable, their production generates more air and water pollution, and it takes more energy to manufacture and recycle them. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, only about 7.8% of the plastic bags, sacks, and wrapping in the municipal waste stream were recycled in 2006. Other groups, such as reuseablebags.com, opt for a plastic bag tax, such as the one Ireland first levied in 2002. Seattle, Washington became the first American city to adopt such a tax earlier this year. For more information about plastic bag taxes, please see OLR Report 2008-R- 0421 (attached). U.S. CITIES ADOPTING OR CONSIDERING BANS San Francisco, California In 2007, San Francisco became the first U.S. city to ban non-biodegradable plastic carryout bags. Supermarkets with more than $2 million in gross annual sales and pharmacies with at least five locations in San Francisco must provide their customers at least one of the following three choices: (1) specially marked biodegradable plastic bags, (2) paper carryout bags made of at least 40% post-consumer recycled content and containing no old growth fiber, or (3) cloth or plastic reusable bags more than 2.25 mils (.00225 inches) thick. (Old growth fiber refers to uncut, virgin forest with very little human-caused disturbance.) Failure to comply is an infraction punishable by fines of $100, $200, or $500 for the first, second, and subsequent violations, respectively. Violators also are subject to civil penalties of $200, $400, and $600 for the first, second, and subsequent violations, respectively.

Oakland, California All stores with annual sales of at least $1 million, except restaurants, must offer customers at least one of the following: a (1) compostable or biodegradable carryout bag; (2) paper carryout bag containing at least 40% post-consumer recycled content and containing no old-growth fiber; or (3) reusable bag made of cloth or other machine-washable fabric or other durable material suitable for reuse. A warning will be issued to a store on its first failure to comply, and the first, second, and third offenses after a warning are punishable by fines of $100, $200, and $500, respectively. However, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch issued an injunction against the Oakland ban in April, 2008, and ordered the city to study the matter further. The judge found evidence that (1) the ban, coupled with a shortage of compostable plastic bags, would increase the use of paper bags, and (2) it is uncertain whether paper bags are more or less environmentally friendly than plastic bags. Dallas, Texas The Dallas City Council heard recommendations for a plastic bag ban on October 14, 2008, but appears unlikely to approve such a move, according to the Dallas Morning News. The newspaper reported that staff recommended initially imposing a 5-cent fee on each plastic bag, with a ban taking place in between three and five years if the fee did not substantially reduce the number of bags. Westport, Connecticut The Westport Representative Town Meeting voted in September 2008 to ban plastic bags starting in March, 2009. Retailers must provide only recyclable paper bags, reusable durable plastic bags that meet certain requirements, or reusable cloth or fabric bags. Retailers who continue to provide plastic bags will be ordered to stop or face a $150 fine. Starting four days after the initial fine, an additional $150 fine will be imposed for each day a retailer continues to violate the ban. The ordinance (attached) defines retail sales as sales occurring in retail stores, sidewalk sales, farmers' markets, flea markets, and restaurants. It excludes yard and tag sales, and sales by non-profit organizations. According to assistant town attorney Gail Kelly, Westport adopted the ordinance under its general regulatory and police and environmental protection powers (CGS 7- 148 (7) and 7-148 (8), respectively). Other U.S. Cities Maui, Hawaii, has banned plastic bags effective in 2011. An Ann Arbor, Michigan city council member proposed banning plastic shopping bags in that city in July, 2008. Baltimore, Maryland, rejected a ban that would have affected stores with at least $500,000 in gross revenue in July, 2008. According to the Baltimore Sun, Annapolis, Maryland, is also studying the issue. Pasadena and Santa Monica, California are considering bans. The Hawaii County Council on October 10, 2008 failed to override the mayor's veto of a ban on plastic carryout bags. According to The New York Times (Westport First in State to Ban Plastic Bags, September 28, 2008 at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/nyregion/connecticut/28bagsct.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss, New Haven rejected a ban last year, but the measure's sponsor, alderman Roland Lemar, plans to reintroduce a revised version this November. CORPORATE ACTIONS Ikea Home-furnishing chain Ikea began charging 5 cents each for plastic shopping bags in 2007. The company intended to reduce its plastic bag use by 50%, from 70 million a year, to 35 million a year. According to this Ikea website,http://www.ikea.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/IkeaNearYouView?storeId=12&StoreNumber=411&langId=1&catalogId=11001&ddkey=IkeaNearYou, the company actually reduced its plastic bag usage in the U.S. by 92%. Ikea stopped offering plastic bags entirely on October 1, 2008. Whole Foods Markets Whole Foods announced in January 2008 it would stop offering plastic grocery bags, and instead allow customers to choose between paper or reusable bags. Officials estimate the nationwide chain, which has more than 270 stores in the U.S. and U.K., distributes about 150 million plastic bags a year. Wal-Mart Wal-Mart announced in September 2008 it would reduce its plastic shopping bag waste in its 7,390 worldwide stores by one-third by 2013. The one-third reduction will entail a 25% reduction in U.S. stores and 50% reduction in stores elsewhere. It will do this by reducing the number of plastic bags its stores distribute, encouraging the use of reusable bags, and allowing customers to recycle plastic shopping bags. The company estimated this could reduce energy consumption by about 678,000 barrels of oil a year and reduce annual carbon dioxide emissions by 290,000 metric tons. More information is available on line athttp://walmartstores.com/FactsNews/NewsRoom/8628.aspx. ECOMERGE CORPORATION

Pros:

They are convenient They are durable and can be used more than once They take up less space in a landfill than paper bags (Washington Post)

 It takes 91% less energy to recycle a pound of plastic than it takes to recycle a pound of paper. (Recycling rates of either type of disposable bag are extremely low, with rates of 10-15% for paper and 1-3% for plastic.) Cons:

500 billion to 1 trillion plastic bags are used every year, worldwide About 1 million plastic bags are used every minute. A single plastic bag can take 20 to 1,000 years to degrade The U.S. goes through 100 billion single-use plastic bags. This costs retailers about $4 billion a year Plastic bags remain toxic even after they break down Every square mile of ocean has about 46,000 pieces of plastic floating in it. The average family accumulates 60 plastic bags in only four trips to the grocery store Anywhere from .5% to 3% of all bags winds up recycled. Ten percent of the plastic produced every year worldwide winds up in the ocean. 70% of which finds its way to the ocean floor, where it will likely never degrade. 80% of Americans choose Plastic over Paper. 100 billion plastic bags are thrown away in America each year. 12 million barrels of oil are needed for 100 billion bags The oil used in America for plastic bags is greater than the entire oil demand of Iceland, or North Korea. 500 billion plastic bags are used worldwide. San Francisco had a cleanup effort, and figured out that in the end, it cost them 17 cents to clean up one plastic bag. Multiplied by 100 billion, you end up with 1.7 trillion dollars spent cleaning up plastic bags in the US. Only 1% of plastic bags are recycled Usually "recycling" a plastic bag means that the bags are shipped to a foreign country with lax to nonexistent "recycling policy," and just burnt instead. A bag-tax would greatly reduce use - Washington D.C. put a 5 cent fee on all disposable bags and saw an 80% reduction. Ireland did the same, but a 33 cent tax instead, and cut consumption 94% within a year. 4 billion plastic bags end up as liter annually if we tied the plastic bags together it would circle the earth 63 times that is approximately 1,792,000 miles!! (the circumference of the earth is approximately 28,000 miles around the equator! THE DAY, February 2011, Hartford - A bill intended to sharply reduce the use of plastic and paper shopping bags by requiring stores to impose a 5-cent-per-bag fee may be the only practical way to change public behavior about an environmentally harmful product. Or, it would inflict economic harm on retailers and customers at a time they can ill afford it, with a product that's actually relatively benign. Those opposing views were presented by speakers representing environmental groups and retailers during a public hearing of the state legislature's Environment Committee Wednesday. While a similar bill raised in 2008 failed to win passage, since then one Connecticut town, Westport, has acted on its own to ban single-use bags from its grocery stores, pharmacies and other stores. Two representatives of that town told the committee that after some initial resistance, residents have adopted the habit of bringing reusable bags to stores, and it has become a point of pride for the Fairfield County community. They and other speakers also noted that bans on non-reusable bags are working in communities including San Francisco, Brownsville, Texas, and several countries in Europe and elsewhere, and that retailers such as Ikea charge for bags. With a nickel-per-bag charge at all stores, speakers said, Connecticut residents would be motivated to bring their own reusable bags to stores more consistently, and a large litter and pollution problem would be reduced. The pending bill pertains to both plastic and paper bags, but nearly all of the testimony referred to plastic bags. "There's no way my preaching to them or your preaching to them is going to get them to change their behavior," Martin Mador, legislative chair for the Connecticut chapter of the Sierra Club, said about consumers. "We're going to have to give them a financial incentive." Stan Sorkin, president of the Connecticut Food Association, disagreed that "Bring Your Own Bag" campaigns at stores haven't been working. "Usage rates have gone up dramatically," he said, though he did not provide supporting numbers. More customers are adopting the habit voluntarily, Sorkin said, and are bringing used plastic bags to store recycling bins rather than throwing them in the trash. He added that most of those that do get thrown away are burned in incinerators rather than dumped in landfills, where the bags, made from petroleum-based resins, do not decay for 100 years or more. "It's a cost-effective product that can be recycled," he said. Recycled plastic bags are turned into such products as planks for decking and playground equipment. Also arguing against the bill was Tim Phelan, president of the Connecticut Retail Merchants Association, and Steve Rosario, Northeast regional director for the American Chemical Counsel, an organization that represents manufacturers. "The timing of this would create a hardship at a time when retailers are trying to climb out of the worst times

economically," Phelan said. "What do you suggest we do?" asked state Sen. Edward Meyer, D-Guilford, co-chairman of the committee, referring to the harmful effects of the bags when they are ingested by wildlife, clog sewer systems and pollute land and waterways. Phelan advocated for more places where bags can be recycled and more public education to encourage recycling. Citizens Campaign for the Environment representative Louis Burch, however, urged the lawmakers to shepherd Connecticut into the "growing movement" to make single-use plastic bags the exception rather than the rule at stores. He reminded them that the bill would have retailers send the 5-cent fees collected to the state to be used for recycling initiatives. Both retailers and customers could save money if fewer bags were used, he said, and towns would save money by having fewer bags to dispose of in incinerators and landfills. A related bill also debated Wednesday would expand the 5-cent bottle redemption fee, now imposed on beer, soda and water bottles, to juice, teas and sports drinks. The same groups that favored the bag bill also supported this bill, while retail representatives opposed it.

8: A Bill to Require Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods

Colorado State University September 2010 Quick Facts... Mandatory labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods in the United States has been proposed, but not enacted, at the national, state, and local levels. Those in favor of labeling emphasize consumers right to know whats in their food. Opponents of labeling point out the expense and logistical difficulties of labeling, and the fact that no significant differences have been found between GE and conventional foods. Implementation of mandatory labeling will require resolution of several complex technical issues. Whether or not to require labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods is a key issue in the ongoing debate over the risks and benefits of food crops produced using biotechnology. Bills requiring mandatory labeling have been introduced in Congress and in the Colorado legislature, and there have also been attempts to place citizens initiatives on statewide and local Colorado ballots. The most common GE crops in the United States are soybean, corn, cotton, and canola. Because many processed food products contain soybean or corn ingredients (e.g., high fructose corn syrup or soy protein), its estimated that 60 to 70 percent of processed foods in grocery stores include at least one GE ingredient. Current Labeling Policy The U.S. Food and Drug Administration currently requires labeling of GE foods if the food has a significantly different nutritional property; if a new food includes an allergen that consumers would not expect to be present (e.g., a peanut protein in a soybean product); or if a food contains a toxicant beyond acceptable limits. Early in 2001, the FDA proposed voluntary guidelines for labeling food that does or does not contain GE ingredients (seewww.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodLabelingNutrition/ucm 059098.html) Pros and Cons of Mandatory Labeling There are many arguments both in favor of and against mandatory labeling of GE foods. Those arguments are summarized below. Pro-labeling Arguments

Consumers have a right to know whats in their food, especially concerning products for which health and environmental concerns have been raised (Raab and Grobe, 2003). Surveys indicate that a majority of Americans support mandatory labeling. (However, such surveys often do not specify the effect on food prices.) least 21 countries and the European Union have established some form of mandatory labeling (Gruere and Rao, 2007; Phillips and McNeill, 2000). For religious or ethical reasons, many Americans want to avoid eating animal products, including animal DNA. Anti-labeling Arguments

Labels on GE food imply a warning about health effects, whereas no significant differences between GE and conventional foods have been detected. If a nutritional or allergenic difference were found in a GE food, current FDA regulations require a label to that effect. Labeling of GE foods to fulfill the desires of some consumers would impose a cost on all consumers. Experience with mandatory labeling in the European Union, Japan, and New Zealand has not resulted in consumer choice. Rather, retailers have eliminated GE products from their shelves due to perceived consumer aversion to GE products (Carter and Gruere, 2003). Consumers who want to buy non-GE food already have an option: to purchase certified organic foods, which by

definition cannot be produced with GE ingredients. The food system infrastructure (storage, processing, and transportation facilities) in this country could not currently accommodate the need for segregation of GE and non-GE products. Consumers who want to avoid animal products need not worry about GE food. No GE products currently on the market or under review contain animal genes. (However, there is no guarantee that this will not happen in the future.) Issues with Mandatory Labeling Although mandatory labeling of GE ingredients may appear to be a straightforward measure, there are several complex issues that need resolving prior to implementation. What specific technologies for crop variety development would require a label?

The target of most labeling efforts is food products that were genetically engineered, that is, they contain genes artificially inserted from another organism. However, some legislative proposals have defined the term genetically modified more broadly to include an array of techniques that were used by plant breeders well before the GE era. What percentage of a GE ingredient must be present in a food before a label is required?

A commonly proposed threshold level is one percent. In other words, if any ingredient of a product exceeds one percent GE content, the product needs labeling. One percent is the labeling threshold decided upon by Australia and New Zealand. The European Union has decided on a level of 0.9 percent, while Japan has specified a five percent threshold. Thresholds as low as 0.01 percent (the approximate limit of detection) have been recommended (Hansen, 2001). Would meat, eggs and dairy products from livestock fed transgenic crops

Some labeling proposals include these products among those that would require labels. However, the biological rationale for doing so has not been demonstrated, that is, DNA or protein from inserted genes have not been found in livestock products. How should regulators verify claims that a food is or is not genetically engineered?

There are two ways this can be done: Content-based verification requires testing foods for the physical presence of foreign DNA or protein. A current application of this type of procedure is the analysis and labeling of vitamin content of foods. Methods for detecting the presence of GE components in crops and processed foods are discussed by Auer (2003). As the number of transgenes in commercialized crops increases, the techniques for detecting an array of different transgenes have become more sophisticated (e.g., Shrestha et al., 2008). Process-based verification entails detailed record-keeping of seed source, field location, harvest, transport, and storage. This is similar to the procedure used to certify shade-grown coffee or organic foods. The steps and issues involved with implementing this type of identity preservation system are explained by Sundstrom et. al. (2002).

What is the economic impact of labeling?

The cost of labeling involves far more than the paper and ink to print the actual label. Accurate labeling requires an extensive identity preservation system from farmer to elevator to grain processor to food manufacturer to retailer (Maltsbarger and Kalaitzandonakes, 2000). Either testing or detailed record-keeping needs to be done at various steps along the food supply chain. Estimates of the costs of mandatory labeling vary from a few dollars per person per year to 10 percent of a consumers food bill (Gruere and Rao, 2007). Consumer willingness to pay for GE labeling information varies widely according to a number of surveys, but it is generally low in North America. Another potential economic impact for certain food manufacturers is that some consumers may avoid foods labeled as containing GE ingredients. Colorado Consumer Attitudes Toward GE Foods Researchers at Colorado State Universitys Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics have undertaken a series of surveys and analyses to understand Colorado consumers attitudes toward GE food, especially potatoes (Loureiro and Hine, 2004). Their survey of 437 supermarket shoppers in four Front Range communities in the Fall of 2000 found that 78 percent supported mandatory labeling of GE foods. However, the respondents were not willing to pay a premium for such labeling. Women appeared to favor mandatory labeling more than men, younger consumers were less likely to support mandatory labeling, and those who considered themselves better informed about biotechnology were less concerned that GE foods be labeled. GM ORGANIZATION 2008 Labeling GM food has been under close scrutiny especially in the United States. It seems that most biotech companies are against it for fear that it will prevent consumers from eventually avoiding

buying foods that might contain genetically modified crops as ingredients. But lack of proper labeling might work against the consumers themselves when it comes to having the right to know. Different camps on the debate seem to have their own reasons and it is important that more people should be able to know what these are. Despite the lack of proper labeling for foods that contain GM crops for ingredients, the use of such crops has actually been growing from year to year. And because of the lack of proper labeling for foods with genetically modified crop ingredients, many Americans may be totally unaware of how much of the food they are taking contain GM crops as ingredients. It might surprise a lot of Americans today that as early as 2002, American supermarkets have about 60 percent of products on their shelves known to contain GMOs. Along that time, statistics have shown that only a 14 percent of American consumers believe that over half of the food on the supermarket shelves contain food products with GMO. What is even more surprising is that only 19 percent of American consumers believe that they have eaten a GM food product. This just shows that the typical American consumer is not given the proper information to the type of food products that they are eating today. This credit goes to the few powerful biotech companies handling a majority of the GMO market today. The reason why there is a great disparity between low consumer awareness and the reality behind the high percentage of GMO food products in the market is the lack of proper labeling. Biotech companies believe that labeling products as containing GMOs may prove to be unfair to them. It might have a negative impact on GM food products that may bring down sales of many of the current food products containing genetically modified food ingredients. And statistics may give proof to this. A little more than half of Americans (54 percent) say that labeling GM foods will have a negative effect on their purchasing decision. The reason it seems for biotech companies to fight against GM food labeling is economically-based. They might lose their business in case consumers become aware of certain products containing GMOs are labeled as such. But doing so might look like shortchanging the ordinary American consumer. Every consumer should have the right to know what they are putting on their dinner table. But what the biotech companies are doing is that they are trying to hide behind the cloak on improper labeling to drive their business success. It is the fear of consumers on the possible effects of GM foods that biotech companies seem to loathe. Some of these fears might prove to be unfounded. But instead of biotech companies trying hard to fight off putting labels on GMO food products, why not try to convince people on the safety of GM foods and dispel the fears that consumers seem to have on them, if they do say that they are unfounded fears in the first place. That seems to be the most logical way, with giving each side a fair shake. Davidson College - Some statistics on GM foods: In the U.S. in 1999, more than 40% of corn, more than 50% of cotton, and more than 45% of soybeans were genetically modified crops (Ahmed, 2002). At least 60% of products in US supermarkets contain GMOs (Ahmed, 2002) Yet only 14% of Americans correctly believed more than half of food products in U.S. supermarkets were made with GM ingredients (Program on International Policy Attitudes, 2003). Only 19% of Americans had thought they had eaten a GM product (Program on International Policy Attitudes, 2003). 45% of Americans think GM foods are safe for consumption (The Genetic Engineering Action Network, 2003). When asked if GM products would improve quality of life, only 39% of Americans agreed (The Genetic Engineering Action Network, 2003). 35% thought it would make diminish their quality of life (The Genetic Engineering Action Network, 2003). An overwhelming majority of Americans (94%) think GM foods should be labeled, but only about half (54%) said it would negatively affect their purchasing decision (The Genetic Engineering Action Network, 2003).

9: A Resolution to Mandate Sex Education

GUTTMACHER INSTITUTE, February 2012 SEX, PREGNANCY AND ABORTION Although only 13% of U.S. teens have had sex by age 15, most initiate sex in their late teen years. By their 19th birthday, seven in 10 teen men and teen women have had intercourse.[1] Between 1988 and 20062010, the proportion of never-married teens aged 1517 who had ever engaged in sexual intercourse declined from 37% to 27% among females, and from 50% to 28% among males. During the same period, among teens aged 1819, that proportion declined from 73% to 63% among females, and 77% to 64% among males.[2] The pregnancy rate among young women has declined steadily, from 117 pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 1519 in 1990 to 68 per 1,000 in 2008. [3] The majority (86%) of the decline in the teen pregnancy rate between 1995 and 2002 was the result of dramatic improvements in contraceptive use, including an increase in the proportion of teens using a single method of contraception, an increase in the proportion using multiple methods simultaneously and a substantial decline in nonuse.

Just 14% of the decline is attributable to decreased sexual activity.[4] Of the approximately 750,000 teen pregnancies that occur each year,[3] 82% are unintended[5]. Fifty-nine percent end in birth and more than one-quarter end in abortion.[3] In 2009, there were 39.1 births per 1000 women aged 1519, marking a historic low in the birthrate. This rate represents a 37% decline from the peak rate of 61.8 in 1991.[6] The 2008 teenage abortion rate was 17.8 abortions per 1,000 women. This figure was 59% lower than its peak in 1988, but 1% higher than the 2005 rate.[3] Compared with their Canadian, English, French and Swedish peers, U.S. teens have a similar level of sexual activity, but they are more likely to have shorter and less consistent sexual relationships, and are less likely to use contraceptives, especially the pill or dual methods.[7] The United States continues to have one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the developed world (68 per 1,000 women aged 1519 in 2008)more than twice that of Canada (27.9 per 1,000) or Sweden (31.4 per 1,000).[8] Every year, roughly nine million new STIs occur among teens and young adults in the United States. Compared with rates among teens in Canada and Western Europe, rates of gonorrhea and chlamydia among U.S. teens are extremely high.[9, 10] TEENS' REPORTS OF FORMAL SEX EDUCATION In 20062008, most teens aged 1519 had received formal instruction about STIs (93%), HIV (89%) or abstinence (84%). However, about one-third of teens had not received any formal instruction about contraception; fewer males received this instruction than females (62% vs. 70%).[11] Many sexually experienced teens (46% of males and 33% of females) do not receive formal instruction about contraception before they first have sex.[12] About one in four adolescents aged 15-19 (23% of females and 28% of males) received abstinence education without receiving any instruction about birth control in 20062008[12], compared with 89% in 1995.[13] Among teens aged 1819, 41% report that they know little or nothing about condoms and 75% say they know little or nothing about the contraceptive pill.[14] School Health Policies and Programs In 2006, 87% of U.S. public and private high schools taught abstinence as the most effective method to avoid pregnancy, HIV and other STDs in a required health education course.[15] Sixty-five percent of high schools taught about condom efficacy and 39% taught students how to correctly use a condom in a required health education course.[15] Seventy-six percent of high schools taught about the risks associated with teen pregnancy as part of required instruction,[13] and 81% taught about the risks associated with having multiple sexual partners.[15] In 2006, public school districts were more likely to require pregnancy prevention to be taught in high schools than in elementary or middle schools (86% vs. 27% and 70%, respectively).[15] Similarly, public school districts were more likely to require instruction on STI prevention in high schools (87%) than at the elementary and middle school levels (33% and 77%, respectively).[15] ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF SEX INFORMATION Adolescents consider parents, peers and the media to be important sources of sexual health information.[16] Seventy percent of male teens and 79% of female teens report talking with a parent about at least one of six sex education topics: how to say no to sex, methods of birth control, STIs, where to get birth control, how to prevent HIV infection and how to use a condom.[11] Girls are more likely than boys to talk with their parents about birth control or how to say no to sex.[11] Even when parents provide information, their knowledge about contraception or other sexual health topics may often be inaccurate or incomplete.[17] More than half (55%) of 7th12th graders say they have looked up health information online in order to learn more about an issue affecting themselves or someone they know.[18] The Web sites teens turn to for sexual health information often have inaccurate information. For example, of 177 sexual health Web sites examined in a recent study, 46% of those addressing contraception and 35% of those addressing abortion contained inaccurate information.[19] Exposure to high levels of sexual content on television is associated with an increased risk of initiating sexual activity, as well as a greater likelihood of involvement in teen pregnancy.[20] SEX EDUCATION POLICY Currently, 20 states and the District of Columbia mandate both sex and HIV education; one state mandates sex education alone, and another 13 states mandate HIV education.[21] A total of 37 states require that sex education include abstinence: Twenty-six require that abstinence be stressed, while eleven simply require that it be included as part of the instruction.[21]

 Eighteen states and the District of Columbia require that sex education programs include information on contraception; no state requires that it be stressed.[21] Thirteen states require that the information presented in sex education classes be medically accurate and factual.[21] However, a recent review of 13 commonly used abstinence-only curricula found that 11 had incorrect, misleading or distorted information.[22] Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia require that sex education be age-appropriate.[21] In December 2009, Congress replaced the rigid Community-Based Abstinence Education Program with a new $114.5 million teen pregnancy prevention program to support evidence-based interventions, as well as other programs that have demonstrated promise.[23] In March 2010, Congress created through health care reform a five-year Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP). Its stated purpose is to educate adolescents on both abstinence and contraception and to prepare them for adulthood by teaching such subjects as healthy relationships, financial literacy, parent-child communication and decision-making.[23] Through another provision in the health care reform legislation, Congress also renewed the Title V abstinence-only program for five years. This funding stream makes available $50 million annually for grants to the states to promote sexual abstinence outside of marriage.[23] Statistics show that more than 50% of American teenagers lose their virginity by the age of 17. It also shows that sex education in schools is well accepted only by 7% of American parents. The other 93% still consider it a taboo to talk about sex to their children, and resort to making up the ever popular stories of birds and bees. But do they stop for a moment and think that it is not the presence of sex education in schools, but its absence that has made the rate of teen pregnancy go up to such a high level? Given below are some more arguments for sex education. Stress on Abstinence Most schools that do provide sex education, have an 'abstinence is the best solution' approach to it. They stress on abstinence as the perfect way to be totally free from any problems whatsoever, related to sex and sexuality. Which actually makes sense. We all believe that prevention is better than cure, so why not just wait for the right age to engage in sexual activity. The two most important things that you need to be sexually active, namely the mind and the body, are not fully matured when kids are in school. It puts them in grave danger, physically and psychologically. Hence stressing the importance of restraint and abstinence through sex education is a great advantage. Birth Control Schools that don't use the abstinence approach, prefer to go the 'safe sex' way. They have accepted the fact that the sexual activities of teenagers and even pre-teens cannot be controlled by a mere class taken in school. They know that the students have other resources thanks to the various forms and forums of information that are available today. So the schools would rather give them tips on how to engage in safe sex, by using appropriate birth control measures if they are sexually active, than preaching abstinence. They train them on using different methods of birth control, and also the dangers of teenage pregnancy. Information about STDs It is only through sex education in schools, that students will get proper and honest information about sexually transmitted diseases. The grave dangers that these diseases pose to them, the physical and mental torture that they may have to go through if they fall prey to an STD, not to mention the social stigma associated with them, are well explained. This instills in the students a sense of responsibility that creeps out of fear for their health and life. As a result they behave more responsibly. It is often seen that sex education is not taken seriously. Students tend to look at it as a subject of ridicule, and either don't attend the classes, or if made compulsory, either engage in snickering and giggling, throughout. They seem to be aware of much more than the person who's teaching them about it, thanks to numerous movies, sitcoms, and other media, propagating sex as a style statement. The sensationalizing of sex in school has reached such a level that teens will engage in sex, just to prove how 'cool' and 'popular' they can be. There's little that sex ed can do for them. And it's not just the students, but the faculty too. If they really want to take sex education for children to a whole new level of understanding and importance, then they should have more than the customary classes that they do, and hire people who are trained and well informed to teach the students about it. Religious Beliefs and Sentiments Many groups of people believe that when it comes to sex education, the cons outweigh the pros, for one very simple reason. They believe, beyond a doubt, that their children should not be exposed to something as crude as sex education, in their school days because their religion does not permit it. It goes against their religious beliefs and sentiments, and they do not accept it, on principle. It becomes very difficult to argue with people when they bring religion to the forefront. And so, many schools prefer to leave this sensitive issue untouched.

Misinterpretation of 'Education' As opposed to 'abstinence only' education, when schools propagate safe sex, they run the risk of having their information misinterpreted by the students. We will all agree that we can listen to hours and hours of lecturing about any topic, but finally do exactly what we want. Unfortunately, it is the same with sex education. Students may listen to the lecturers going on and on about safe sex, but in the end, engage in unsafe sex. They will justify saying that they learned about it in school, and that if teachers did not want them to engage in sexual activities, they never should have brought up the topic in the first place. Curiosity can make them take foolish steps which they will undoubtedly regret later. As you can see, the possibility of the debate about the pros and cons of sex education reaching a consensus is something that will take a while to happen. Until then, all we can do is hope that the children realize their responsibilities towards their bodies and towards their minds.

10: A Resolution to end Felon Re-enfranchisement in all states

Schroth and Associates Poll, April 2001 Percentages who support restoring the voting rights of felons African Americans 75% Democrats 48% 18-34 year olds 47% Non-Cuban Hispanics 46% Republicans 17% American Civil Liberties Union In 11 states, you can lose your right to vote for life. The ACLU is fighting to restore the voting rights of formerly incarcerated people so that they, like all Americans, will be heard. In a democracy, voting is a right, not a privilege. Yet in our democracy, well over five million Americans are unable to participate in this most basic, fundamental right of citizenship because of past criminal convictions. As many as four million of these people live, work, and raise families in our communities, but because of past convictions are still denied the right to vote. Studies have shown that the benefits of voting are numerous. Individuals who vote generally help to make their communities safer and more vibrant by giving to charity, volunteering, attending school board meetings, serving on juries and participating more actively in their communities. Research has also shown that individuals who vote are less likely to be rearrested. Felony disfranchisement disproportionately impacts people and communities of color. Over 1.4 million of our disfranchised citizens are African-American. The development of felony disfranchisement law is tied to the history of racial discrimination in America. In 1870, during the post-Civil War Reconstruction era, the Fifteenth Amendment was passed banning race-based disfranchisement. In order to restrict the political participation of newly-enfranchised African-Americans, Southern states began to use criminal disfranchisement laws as a tool to suppress the AfricanAmerican vote. While disfranchisement laws already existed, a number of Southern states tailored their laws to target African-Americans. For example, Mississippi revised its constitution to impose disfranchisement as a penalty specifically for crimes of which African-Americans were most frequently convicted. Over 100 years later, these laws remain in effect. The scope and impact of the disenfranchisement laws in the United States are beyond comparison, especially with regard to the continued deprivation of voting rights after incarceration. Of the 5.3 million Americans barred from voting due to a criminal conviction, most of which are non-violent in nature, thirty-nine percent have fully completed their sentences, including probation and parole, yet such individuals are still deprived of their right to vote. In several states, people with criminal records encounter a variety of other barriers to voting, including, most often, cumbersome restoration processes or lengthy waiting periods before rights restoration applications may even be submitted. The ACLU is fighting to restore the voting rights of formerly incarcerated people so that they, like all Americans, can exercise their political voice. PRO Felon Voting CON Felon Voting

1. Trusting a Felon's Judgment PRO: "We let ex-convicts marry, reproduce, buy beer, CON: "We don't let children vote, for instance, or own property and drive. They don't lose their freedom noncitizens, or the mentally incompetent. Why? Because we of religion, their right against self-incrimination or their don't trust them and their judgment... right not to have soldiers quartered in their homes in So the question is, do criminals belong in that category? time of war. But in many places, the assumption is that And I think the answer is clearly yes. People who commit they can't be trusted to help choose our leaders... If we serious crimes have shown that they are not trustworthy." thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn't Roger Clegg, JD President and General Counsel of the let them out of prison in the first place." Center for Equal Opportunity Debate held by the Legal Steve Chapman Columnist and Editorial Writer at the Affairs Debate Club Nov. 1, 2004 Chicago Tribune "Too Many Ex-Convicts Aren't Able to Vote," StarTribune of Minneapolis-St. Paul Aug. 15, 2006 2. Racism and Felon Disenfranchisement PRO: "[R]acial minorities are overrepresented in the CON: "The frequently heard charge is that disenfranchising felon population based upon factors that cannot be felons is racist because the felon population is explained by non-racial reasons... disproportionately black. But the mere fact that blacks make up a lopsided percentage of the nation's prison population Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the discriminatory doesn't prove that racism is to blame. impact of Washington's felon disenfranchisement is Is the mostly male population of the prisons evidence of attributable to racial discrimination in Washington's reverse sexism? Of course not: men commit the vast criminal justice system." majority of serious crimes - a fact no one would dispute Farrakhan v. Gregoire (229KB) 2-1 decision and that's why there are lots more of them than women United States Court of Appeals for the 9th behind bars. Circuit Jan. 5, 2010 Regrettably, blacks also commit a disproportionate number of felonies, as victim surveys show. In any case, a felon either deserves his punishment or not, whatever his race. If he does, it may also be that he deserves disenfranchisement. His race, in both cases, is irrelevant." Edward Feser, PhD Instructor at Pasadena City College "Should Felons Vote?," City Journal Spring 2005 3. Congressional Authority over Voting PRO: "There are three potential constitutional bases for CON: "Most prominently, the 14th Amendment makes Congress's authority to enfranchise non-incarcerated felon voting a state prerogative, not a federal one... offenders for federal elections : The senators' bill [Count Every Vote Act of 2005], by - Congress's supervisory power over federal elections, contrast, tosses out the Constitution and declares in no rooted in Article 1, Sec. 4; uncertain terms that felon voting should be a federal issue... - Congress's enforcement power under Section Five of If voters choose to change state laws regarding felons and the Fourteenth Amendment, and voting, it's their prerogative. Federalism allows for such - Congress's enforcement power under Section Two of state-level experimentation, and it's at the state level where the Fifteenth Amendment." the consequences of new felon-voting laws will best be Gillian E. Metzger, JD Professor of Law at Columbia judged. Congress should let the process play itself out, as University Law School Memorandum to the US House the Constitution allows it to." of Representatives Subcommittee on the Washington Times "Felons and Democratic Constitution, Oct. 20, 1999 Politicking," www.washingtontimes.com Mar. 8, 2005 4. US Voting Rights Act of 1965 PRO: "It is plain to anyone reading the Voting Rights CON: "The Court of Appeals (Jos A. Cabranes, Circuit Act that it applies to all 'voting qualification[s].' And it Judge) concludes that the Voting Rights Act must be is equally plain that [New York Election Law] 5-106 construed to not encompass prisoner disenfranchisement [which denies the vote to incarcerated felons and felons provisions such as that of New York because (a) Congress on parole] disqualifies a group of people from voting. did not intend the Voting Rights Act to cover such These two propositions should constitute the entirety of provisions and (b) Congress made no clear statement our analysis. Section 2 of the Act by its unambiguous indicating an intent to modify the federal balance by terms subjects felony disenfranchisement and all other applying the Voting Rights Act to these provisions... voting qualifications to its coverage. [T]here are persuasive reasons to believe that Congress did The duty of a judge is to follow the law, not to question not intend to include felon disenfranchisement provisions its plain terms. I do not believe that Congress wishes us within the coverage of the Voting Rights Act, and we must to disregard the plain language of any statute or to therefore look beyond the plain text of the statute in invent exceptions to the statutes it has created. The construing the reach of its provisions... majority's 'wealth of persuasive evidence' that Congress We therefore conclude that [The Voting Rights Act] was

intended felony disenfranchisement laws to be immune not intended to - and thus does not - encompass felon from scrutiny... includes not a single legislator actually disenfranchisement provisions." saying so. But even if Congress had doubts about the Hayden v. Pataki (404 KB) 8-5 decision United States wisdom of subjecting felony disenfranchisement laws to Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit May 4, 2006 the results test of 2, I trust that Congress would prefer to make any needed changes itself, rather than have courts do so for it." Sonia Sotomayor, JD Supreme Court Justice and former Circuit Judge of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Dissent in Hayden v. Pataki (404 KB) May 4, 2006 5. Constitutionality PRO: "The Eighth Amendment 'succinctly prohibits CON: "Unlike any other voting qualification, felon 'excessive' sanctions,' and demands that 'punishment for disenfranchisement laws are explicitly endorsed by the text crime should be graduated and proportioned to the of the Fourteenth Amendment.... They are presumptively offense'... Thus, the states that continue to exclude all constitutional. Only a narrow subset of them - those enacted felons permanently are outliers, both within the United with an invidious, racially discriminatory purpose - is States and in the world." unconstitutional." Pamela S. Karlan, JD Professor of Public Interest Law Alex Kozinski, JD Circuit Judge, U.S. 9th Circuit Court at Stanford University "Convictions and Doubts: of Appeals Dissent (97 KB) in Farrakhan v. State of Retribution, Representation, and the Debate over Felon Washington Feb. 24, 2006 Disenfranchisement," Stanford Law Review, Vol. 56, No. 5, 2004 6. Voting While in Prison PRO: "[T]he argument that allowing prisoners to vote CON: "[P]rison is meant to be a punishment. A custodial would be costly and impractical is ethically sentence has always resulted in loss of freedom and loss of unjustifiable. Similarly, the fact that prisoners lose democratic rights for the duration of a prisoner's sentence. many freedoms does not imply they should lose all their Why change that?... civil rights. The main point of a prison sentence is to show the offender Denying prisoners the right to vote is likely to and society as a whole that criminal behaviour results in undermine respect for the rule of law... Allowing loss of freedom and most of the rights that freedom offers." prisoners to vote, by contrast, may strengthen their Jonathan Aitken, JD Member of British Parliament and a social ties and commitment to the common good, thus convicted felon "Prisoners Don't Care About Their Right promoting legally responsible participation in civil to Vote," UK Telegraph, Dec. 15, 2006 society." Jeff Manza, PhD Prfessor of Sociology and Political Science at the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University Christopher Uggen, PhD Distinguished McKnight Professor of Sociology at the University of Minnesota Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy, 2006 7. Automatic Restoration of the Vote PRO: "You should be eligible to vote as soon as your CON: "I don't think you reward the franchise to those who feet hit the street. You paid your debt." commit the most horrific crimes. Full restoration of every Tara Andrews, JD Former Executive Director of right is inappropriate... Justice Maryland "Tara Andrews Candidate for MD [I] support current law that gives nonviolent, first-time Senate Focuses on African American Men Not felons the vote after a three-year waiting period, among Voting," Aug. 20, 2006 other restrictions." Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., JD Former Governor of Maryland (R-MD) www.washingtontimes.com Jan. 24, 2006 8. Voting Before Fines and Restitution Paid PRO: "People should not be barred from voting solely CON: "We believe a rational basis does exist for the because they are unable to pay back their fines, fees and Legislature to deny felons the right to vote until they have interest. If we truly want people convicted of felonies to completed their entire court-ordered sentences, including re-engage with society, become rehabilitated, and feel a payment of criminal penalties, victim's restitution, and legal part of a broader community (thus creating incentives fees, rather than separating out various sentencing aspects." not to recidivate) then our State should do everything possible to re-incorporate these individuals into Rob McKenna, JD Attorney General of the State of mainstream society. In terms of being a just and even Washington Sam Reed Washington Secretary of

handed society, it is not fair if thousands of people are unable to re-gain their voting rights because they are poor... People who are wealthy or have access to money are able to repay their financial debts and poor people (the vast majority of people who have felony convictions) are not. This is an unjust system."

State "State to Appeal Ruling Granting Voting Rights to Felons Who Owe Fines," Seattle Times Mar. 29, 2006

Alexes Harris, PhD Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Washington Email to ProCon.org, Jan. 13, 2010 9. Social Contract Theory PRO: "Despite its initial attractiveness, the use of CON: "As a policy justification, Locke's social contract social contract theory to defend felon theory has withstood the test of time; it served a rationale disenfranchisement is in fact specious. Under a regime for the enactment of felon disenfranchisement laws in the of disenfranchisement, an individual who breaches the past, and remains a compelling argument today. social contract continues to be bound by the terms of When someone commits a crime, he commits it not just the contract even after being stripped of the ability to against the victim, but against our entire society. Protests take part in political decisions. However, contract that time served is enough, and that society should prioritize doctrine does not allow an injured party to force the the rehabilitation and reintegration of felons should fall on breacher to perform its contractual duties without the deaf ears. injured party performing its own. The contract can be Opponents of disenfranchisement claim that the inability to terminated or the injured party can accept the vote stymies felons' 'remittance into a law-abiding society.' performance, but the injured party cannot simply pick Yet they neglect to explain why the tonic of voting did not and choose which terms will remain and which will curtail felons from committing crimes initially." not... George Brooks, JDAttorney "Felon Social contract theory and the objectives of punishment Disenfranchisement: Law, History, Policy, and Politics," fail to provide a satisfactory explanation for the denial Fordham Urban Law Journal2005 of one of the most fundamental rights to millions of citizens." Jason D. Schall, JD Associate with Steptoe & Johnson LLP "The Consistency of Felon Disenfranchisement with Citizenship Theory,"www.sentencingproject.org2004 10. Felons and Political Party Affiliation PRO: "We know for a fact that nonunion, blue-collar, CON: "Sentimentalism and cold calculation combine to Caucasian men vote very disproportionately make felons' voting attractive to liberals. They know that Republican, and when you look at the felon population criminals often come from disadvantaging circumstances in the state of Washington, they are overwhelmingly and think such circumstances are the 'root causes' of nonunion, blue-collar, male Caucasians." criminality. As for the calculation, it is indelicate to say but indisputably true: most felons - not all; not those, for Paul Berendt Former Washington State Democratic example, from Enron's executive suites - are Democrats. Or Party Chairman"Democrats Flag 743 Votes They Say at least were they to vote, most would vote Democratic." Felons Cast,"Seattle TimesMay 7, 2005 George F. Will, PhD Contributing Editor at Newsweek"Give the Ballot to Felons?,"NewsweekMar. 13, 2005 PRO Felon Voting CON Felon Voting

11: A Resolution to Legalize Physician Assisted Suicide

PRO Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide PRO: "The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. The exercise of this right is as central to personal autonomy and bodily integrity as rights safeguarded by this Court's decisions relating to marriage, family relationships, procreation, CON Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide 1. Right to Die CON: "The history of the law's treatment of assisted suicide in this country has been and continues to be one of the rejection of nearly all efforts to permit it. That being the case, our decisions lead us to conclude that the asserted 'right' to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause." -- Washington v. Glucksberg (63 KB) US Supreme Court Majority Opinion June 26, 1997

contraception, child rearing and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment. In particular, this Court's recent decisions concerning the right to refuse medical treatment and the right to abortion instruct that a mentally competent, terminally ill person has a protected liberty interest in choosing to end intolerable suffering by bringing about his or her own death. A state's categorical ban on physician assistance to suicide -- as applied to competent, terminally ill patients who wish to avoid unendurable pain and hasten inevitable death -- substantially interferes with this protected liberty interest and cannot be sustained." -- ACLU Amicus Brief in Vacco v. Quill (72 KB) American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Dec. 10, 1996 2. Patient Suffering at End-of-Life PRO: "At the Hemlock Society we get calls daily CON: "Activists often claim that laws against euthanasia and from desperate people who are looking for assisted suicide are government mandated suffering. But this someone like Jack Kevorkian to end their lives claim would be similar to saying that laws against selling which have lost all quality... Americans should contaminated food are government mandated starvation. enjoy a right guaranteed in the European Declaration of Human Rights -- the right not to be Laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are in place to forced to suffer. It should be considered as much prevent abuse and to protect people from unscrupulous doctors of a crime to make someone live who with and others. They are not, and never have been, intended to make justification does not wish to continue as it is to anyone suffer." take life without consent." -- Rita Marker, JD Executive Director Kathi Hamlon Policy -- Faye Girsh, EdD Senior Adviser, Final Exit Analyst International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Network, "How Shall We Die," Free Suicide "Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Frequently Asked Inquiry Winter 2001 Questions," www.internationaltaskforce.org Jan. 2010 3. Slippery Slope to Legalized Murder PRO: "Especially with regard to taking life, CON: "In a society as obsessed with the costs of health care and slippery slope arguments have long been a feature the principle of utility, the dangers of the slippery slope... are far of the ethical landscape, used to question the from fantasy... moral permissibility of all kinds of acts... The situation is not unlike that of a doomsday cult that Assisted suicide is a half-way house, a stop on the way to other predicts time and again the end of the world, only forms of direct euthanasia, for example, for incompetent patients for followers to discover the next day that things by advance directive or suicide in the elderly. So, too, is are pretty much as they were... voluntary euthanasia a half-way house to involuntary and nonvoluntary euthanasia. If terminating life is a benefit, the We need the evidence that shows that horrible reasoning goes, why should euthanasia be limited only to those slope consequences are likely to occur. The mere who can give consent? Why need we ask for consent?" possibility that such consequences might occur, as -- Edmund D. Pelligrino, MD Professor Emeritus of Medicine noted earlier, does not constitute such evidence." and Medical Ethics, Georgetown University "The False Promise -- R.G. Frey, DPhil Professor of Philosophy, of Beneficent Killing," Regulating How We Die: The Ethical, Bowling Green State University "The Fear of a Medical, and Legal Issues Surrounding Physician-Assisted Slippery Slope," Euthanasia and PhysicianSuicide 1998 Assisted Suicide: For and Against 1998 4. Hippocratic Oath and Prohibition of Killing PRO: "Over time the Hippocratic Oath has been CON: "The prohibition against killing patients... stands as the modified on a number of occasions as some of its first promise of self-restraint sworn to in the Hippocratic Oath, as tenets became less and less acceptable. References medicine's primary taboo: 'I will neither give a deadly drug to to women not studying medicine and doctors not anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this breaking the skin have been deleted. The mucheffect'... In forswearing the giving of poison when asked for it, quoted reference to 'do no harm' is also in need of the Hippocratic physician rejects the view that the patient's choice explanation. Does not doing harm mean that we for death can make killing him right. For the physician, at least, should prolong a life that the patient sees as a human life in living bodies commands respect and reverence--by painful burden? Surely, the 'harm' in this instance its very nature. As its respectability does not depend upon human is done when we prolong the life, and 'doing no agreement or patient consent, revocation of one's consent to live harm' means that we should help the patient die. does not deprive one's living body of respectability. The deepest

Killing the patient--technically, yes. Is it a good thing--sometimes, yes. Is it consistent with good medical end-of-life care: absolutely yes." -- Philip Nitschke, MD Director and Founder, Exit International "Euthanasia Sets Sail," National Review Online June 5, 2001

ethical principle restraining the physician's power is not the autonomy or freedom of the patient; neither is it his own compassion or good intention. Rather, it is the dignity and mysterious power of human life itself, and therefore, also what the Oath calls the purity and holiness of life and art to which he has sworn devotion." -- Leon Kass, MD, PhD Addie Clark Harding Professor, Committee on Social Thought and the College, University of Chicago "Neither for Love nor Money," Public Interest Winter 1989 5. Government Involvement in End-of-Life Decisions PRO: "We'll all die. But in an age of increased CON: "Cases like Schiavo's touch on basic constitutional rights, longevity and medical advances, death can be such as the right to live and the right to due process, and suspended, sometimes indefinitely, and no longer consequently there could very well be a legitimate role for the slips in according to its own immutable timetable. federal government to play. There's a precedent--as a result of the highly publicized deaths of infants with disabilities in the 1980s, So, for both patients and their loved ones, real the federal government enacted 'Baby Doe Legislation,' which decisions are demanded: When do we stop doing would withhold federal funds from hospitals that withhold all that we can do? When do we withhold which lifesaving treatment from newborns based on the expectation of therapies and allow nature to take its course? disability. The medical community has to have restrictions on When are we, through our own indecision and what it may do to people with disabilities - we've already seen fears of mortality, allowing wondrous medical what some members of that community are willing to do when no methods to perversely prolong the dying rather restrictions are in place." than the living? -- Stephen Drake. MS Research Analyst, Not Dead Yet "End of Life Planning: Q & A with Disabilities Advocate," Reno These intensely personal and socially expensive Gazette-Journal Nov. 22, 2003 decisions should not be left to governments, judges or legislators better attuned to highway funding." -- Los Angeles Times "Planning for Worse Than Taxes," Opinion Mar. 22, 2005 6. Palliative (End-of-Life) Care PRO: "Assisting death in no way precludes giving CON: "Studies show that hospice-style palliative care 'is virtually the best palliative care possible but rather unknown in the Netherlands [where euthanasia is legal].' There integrates compassionate care and respect for the are very few hospice facilities, very little in the way of organized patient's autonomy and ultimately makes death hospice activity, and few specialists in palliative care, although with dignity a real option... some efforts are now under way to try and jump-start the hospice The evidence for the emotional impact of assisted movement in that country... dying on physicians shows that euthanasia and assisted suicide are a far cry from being 'easier The widespread availability of euthanasia in the Netherlands may options for the caregiver' than palliative care, as be another reason for the stunted growth of the Dutch hospice some critics of Dutch practice have suggested. We movement. As one Dutch doctor is reported to have said, 'Why wish to take a strong stand against the separation should I worry about palliation when I have euthanasia?'" and opposition between euthanasia and assisted -- Wesley J. Smith, JD Senior Fellow in Human Rights and suicide, on the one hand, and palliative care, on Bioethics, Discovery Institute Forced Exit 1997 the other, that such critics have implied. There is no 'either-or' with respect to these options. Every appropriate palliative option available must be discussed with the patient and, if reasonable, tried before a request for assisted death can be accepted... Opposing euthanasia to palliative care... neither reflects the Dutch reality that palliative medicine is incorporated within end-oflife care nor the place of the option of assisted death at the request of a patient within the overall spectrum of end-of-life care." -- Gerrit Kimsma, MD,MPh Associate Professor in Medical Philosophy Evert van Leeuwen, PhD Professor in Philosophy and Medical Ethics Center for Ethics and Philosophy at Free University in Amsterdam (Amsterdam,

Netherlands) "Assisted Death in the Netherlands: Physician at the Bedside When Help Is Requested" Physician-Assisted Dying: The Case for Palliative Care & Patient Choice 2004 7. Healthcare Spending Implications PRO: "Even though the various elements that CON: "Savings to governments could become a consideration. make up the American healthcare system are Drugs for assisted suicide cost about $35 to $45, making them far becoming more circumspect in ensuring that less expensive than providing medical care. This could fill the money is not wasted, the cap that marks a zerovoid from cutbacks for treatment and care with the 'treatment' of sum healthcare system is largely absent in the death." United States... Considering the way we finance -- International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide healthcare in the United States, it would be hard to "Frequently Asked Questions," make a case that there is a financial imperative www.internationaltaskforce.org (accessed May 27, 2010) compelling us to adopt physician-assisted suicide in an effort to save money so that others could benefit..." -- Merrill Matthews, Jr., PhD Director, Council for Affordable Health Insurance "Would Physician-Assisted Suicide Save the Healthcare System Money?," Physician Assisted Suicide: Expanding the Debate 1998 8. Social Groups at Risk of Abuse PRO: "One concern has been that disadvantaged CON: "It must be recognized that assisted suicide and euthanasia populations would be disproportionately will be practiced through the prism of social inequality and represented among patients who chose assisted prejudice that characterizes the delivery of services in all suicide. Experience in Oregon suggests this has segments of society, including health care. Those who will be not been the case. In the United States, socially most vulnerable to abuse, error, or indifference are the poor, disadvantaged groups have variably included minorities, and those who are least educated and least ethnic minorities, the poor, women, and the empowered. This risk does not reflect a judgment that physicians elderly. Compared with all Oregon residents who are more prejudiced or influenced by race and class than the rest died between January 1998 and December 2002, of society - only that they are not exempt from the prejudices those who died by physician-assisted suicide were manifest in other areas of our collective life. more likely to be college graduates, more likely to While our society aspires to eradicate discrimination and the most be Asian, somewhat younger, more likely to be punishing effects of poverty in employment practices, housing, divorced, and more likely to have cancer or education, and law enforcement, we consistently fall short of our amytrophic lateral sclerosis... Moreover, although goals. The costs of this failure with assisted suicide and 2.6 percent of Oregonians are African American, euthanasia would be extreme. Nor is there any reason to believe no African American patients have chosen that the practices, whatever safeguards are erected, will be assisted suicide." unaffected by the broader social and medical context in which -- Linda Ganzini, MD, MPH Professor of they will be operating. This assumption is naive and Psychiatry and Medicine Senior Scholar, Center unsupportable." for Ethics in Health Care at Oregon Health & -- New York State Task Force on Life and the Law "When Science University "The Oregon Experience," Death Is Sought: Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the Medical Physician-Assisted Dying: The Case for Palliative Context," newyorkhealth.gov 1994 Care and Patient Choice 2004 9. Religious Concerns PRO: "Guided by our belief as Unitarian CON: "As Catholic leaders and moral teachers, we believe that Universalists that human life has inherent dignity, life is the most basic gift of a loving God- a gift over which we which may be compromised when life is extended have stewardship but not absolute dominion. Our tradition, beyond the will or ability of a person to sustain declaring a moral obligation to care for our own life and health that dignity; and believing that it is every person's and to seek such care from others, recognizes that we are not inviolable right to determine in advance the course morally obligated to use all available medical procedures in every of action to be taken in the event that there is no set of circumstances. But that tradition clearly and strongly reasonable expectation of recovery from extreme affirms that as a responsible steward of life one must never physical or mental disability... directly intend to cause one's own death, or the death of an BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That Unitarian innocent victim, by action or omission... Universalists advocate the right to selfWe call on Catholics, and on all persons of good will, to reject determination in dying, and the release from civil proposals to legalize euthanasia." or criminal penalties of those who, under proper -- United States Conference of Catholic Bishops "Statement on safeguards, act to honor the right of terminally ill Euthanasia," on www.usccb.org Sep. 12, 1991 patients to select the time of their own deaths;

and... BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED: That Unitarian Universalists, acting through their congregations, memorial societies, and appropriate organizations, inform and petition legislators to support legislation that will create legal protection for the right to die with dignity, in accordance with one's own choice. -- Unitarian Universalist Association: The Right to Die With Dignity, 1988 General Resolution (45 KB) Unitarian Universalist Association 1988 PRO: "Living wills can be used to refuse extraordinary, life-prolonging care and are effective in providing clear and convincing evidence that may be necessary under state statutes to refuse care after one becomes terminally ill. A recent Pennsylvania case shows the power a living will can have. In that case, a Bucks County man was not given a feeding tube, even though his wife requested he receive one, because his living will, executed seven years prior, clearly stated that he did 'not want tube feeding or any other artificial invasive form of nutrition'... A living will provides clear and convincing evidence of one's wishes regarding end-of-life care." -- Joseph Pozzuolo, JD Professor, Neuman College Lisa Lassoff, JD Associate, Reed Smith Jamie Valentine, JD Associate, Pozzuolo & Perkiss "Why Living Wills/Advance Directives Are an Essential Part of Estate Planning," Journal of Financial Service Professionals Sep. 2005 10. Living Wills CON: "Not only are we awash in evidence that the prerequisites for a successful living wills policy are unachievable, but there is direct evidence that living wills regularly fail to have their intended effect... When we reviewed the five conditions for a successful program of living wills, we encountered evidence that not one condition has been achieved or, we think, can be. First, despite the millions of dollars lavished on propaganda, most people do not have living wills... Second, people who sign living wills have generally not thought through its instructions in a way we should want for lifeand-death decisions... Third, drafters of living wills have failed to offer people the means to articulate their preferences accurately... Fourth, living wills too often do not reach the people actually making decisions for incompetent patients... Fifth, living wills seem not to increase the accuracy with which surrogates identify patients' preferences." -- Angela Fagerlin, PhD Core Faculty Member, Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar Program, University of Michigan Medical School Carl E. Schneider, JD Chauncey Stillman Professor for Ethics, Morality, and the Practice of Law, University of Michigan Law School "Enough: The Failure of the Living Will," Hastings Center Report 2004

12: A Resolution Implementing a Fair Tax System

GEEK POLITICS January 2009 1. Pro: The fair tax is much easier to understand than the current convoluted tax income tax system. When an entire industry (tax accountants) has been created to understand paying taxes, there is a problem. The picture below is Representative John Linder holding the 132 page Fair Tax Act in contrast to over 60,000 pages of U.S. tax code. 2. Con: That industry would be completely destroyed, and many jobs in the IRS would be lost. There would still be jobs to work on taking in the money, but many less than what is needed currently. 3. Pro: Transparency. Transparency in government is always a good thing. With over 60,000 pages in the current tax code, most people have no idea what is in it. What happens is the people who have more money pay accountants to find loop holes that get them out of paying taxes. Poorer people cant afford the accountant so they just end up paying the base rate. With the fair tax it is easy to see that everyone pays the same rate on the things they buy. 4. Con: The sales tax would have to be pretty high to stay revenue neutral, i.e. bring in the same revenue for government as the current system. The bill that is currently in Congress is at 30% and independent groups have said the number is probably closer to 34%. This is a pretty large amount of money added to each thing we buy. This is especially true when you think of big ticket items. A $20,000 car suddenly cost $26,000. For somebody who has been saving under the current tax code, this would be a hard hit. 5. Pro: With a national sales tax, there would no longer be a tax on investments. This would obviously be really great for the stock market. There would be a lot of money that would come in from the sidelines and help turn the markets around. It would also encourage venture capital to invest in entrepreneurs to help fuel the American dream. Many jobs could be created with this new influx of capital.

6: Con: Along the same lines as number 4, the large sales tax would discourage people from buying things. Our economy is very heavily dependent on consumers, and a large sales tax would probably make some people spend less on things, save more, and pay off debt. Now, personally I would take almost all of that as a pro. In the long term it would be a benefit, with more people out of debt they could really stimulate the economy as opposed to spending money they dont have which got us into the current mess. However, in the short term reducing consumer spending could have some impact, and this is an argument anyone against the fair tax will probably give. 7: Pro: The fair tax would hopefully increase productivity in our country. Currently, we have an income tax that gets progressively more burdensome the more money you make. This reduces the incentive to work harder and be productive the higher you move up the ladder. Taxing consumption makes a lot more sense than taxing production. 8: Con: The fair tax increases entitlements. From Wikipedia: Under the FairTax, family households of lawful U.S. residents would receive a Family Consumption Allowance (FCA) based on family size (regardless of income) that is equal to the estimated total FairTax paid on poverty level spending according to the poverty guidelines published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Opponents of the plan criticize this tax rebate due to its costs. Economists at the Beacon Hill Institute estimated the overall rebate cost to be $489 billion (assuming 100 percent participation). In addition, economist Bruce Bartlett has argued that the rebate would create a large opportunity for fraud, treats children disparately, and would constitute a welfare payment regardless of need. 9. Pro: A huge pro of the fair tax is it would significantly broaden the tax base. Illegal activity (such as selling drugs) that creates large amounts of income would now get taxed. Under the current system we just get lots of rich drug dealers. Under this system they now get taxed every time they buy something. Along the same lines, this would also tax illegal immigrants. This would go a long way towards solving the illegal immigration problem. 10. Con: Opponents of the fair tax claim it could create an underground economy of people trying to evade taxes. Under a sales tax, intermediate goods that are a part of production would not be taxed. This creates potential for businesses to claim something is an intermediate good when really it is the end product that should be taxed. This would however constitute evasion and the bookkeeping that would be mandated for businesses should prevent most of this. US NEWS May 2010 Daniel Mitchell at the Cato Institute says it is time to implement a simple and fair flat tax, but Holley Ulbrich, senior fellow at the Strom Thurmond Institute at Clemson University, says a flat tax would further shift the tax burden to the poor and middle class. Your feedback: Both your commentators had valid points. The present tax code represents both a huge burden in time and money to taxpayers, and a legacy of congressional corruption embodied in thousands upon thousands of special deals. It is also an example of micromanaging social engineering run amok. However, it should be possible to simplify the system to such an extent that the tax code would comprise 100 pages, instead of 67,000. Begin by eliminating the special deals: Any provision in the tax code which was not utilized in 75 percent of all returns this year would be removed from the code. Next, any provision not utilized in 80 percent, then 85 percent, until the code applies equally in practice, not just theory, to nearly all taxpayers. For now, a graduated tax systemjust far less complicatedwould seem a prudent course. Once it is simplified, and thousands of variables are taken out of the equation, it would be much easier to judge cause and effect and to adjust tax rates accordingly. JIM BURDICK Rocky Face, Ga. A properly implemented flat tax (consumption tax, sales tax, FairTax, whatever you want to call it) would be neither disruptive nor unfair as Ms. Ulbrich thinks. Gradually phasing it in, by reducing income taxes as the flat tax is implemented, would allow everyone to adjust. Secondly, I disagree with Ms. Ulbrich that it would be unfair and redistribute the burden. As I envision it, we would not pay tax on our needs (or our investments) but only on our wants. A basic amount for food, shelter, clothing, and transportation would be exempted or rebated. This means that the poor would pay no tax, just as they do not now pay tax. We would pay tax on what we spend but not on what we invest. I think the tax load would be distributed pretty much as now, without the possibility for Congress to tinker and without the complicated tax code. I am talking about a tax at the point of purchase. Everyone will know exactly what it takes to support the government. I am not in favor of a value-added tax. It is hidden, so we do not know what we pay for tax, while it burdens the economy. FRANK ZOZ Waterloo, Iowa

It is easy to see why a flat tax is preferred by rich individals, foundations, and corporations. A flat tax, even with some adjustments, is inherently regressive. And the rich always prefer others to carry the load. Holley Ulbrich complains that the current system is too complex. Most of that is due to lobbyists for the well-to-do and connected who can pay to influence Congress to put in more benefits for them. Yes, the system can be made less complex; but that would reduce or eliminate provisions favoring the higher-income groups, not a likely scenario. JIM COPENHAVER Chandler, Ariz. The real answer, and the only one with any chance of succeeding, is a very simplified version of our current progressive tax system. One with no itemized deductions or credits, increased personal-exemption amounts and no more than four or five progressive brackets. To increase savings and investments, the following types of income would be taxed at reduced rates, by allowing a special 50 percent deduction: qualified interest and dividend income, long-term capital gains, and retirement and Social Security income. Let's take the social engineering out of our current system; stop catering to the special interest groups; and make the system fair, simple, and easy to administer for everyone who wants to pay his fair share (no more, no less). ROBERT SMETANA Downers Grove, Ill. Under the flat tax, you will still have the Gestapo IRS, and politicians will continue to manipulate the tax code to suit their own advantages. Under the FairTax, you will be taxed on new purchases only. We have a huge underground economy that does not pay any taxes. We also have millions of illegal aliens working who do not pay taxes, as well as nefarious services, such as drug dealers, gangsters, hookers, etc., who do not contribute to our tax system. The rich do not pay their fair share of taxes due to their trusts. But with FairTax, all will contribute by paying taxes at the cash registers. We need change, but our system of taxation is broken beyond repair. Our tax code is so complex that even the IRS cannot decipher what is written. If you call the IRS with a simple question, you will get a different answer each time you call. Is that fair or what?

13: A Bill to Reform Healthcare

Medicare Trustees Report Basic Statistics In 2010, 47.5 million people were covered by Medicare: 39.6 million aged 65 and older, and 7.9 million disabled. About 25 percent of beneficiaries have chosen to enroll in Part C private health plans that contract with Medicare to provide Part A and Part B health services. Total benefits paid in 2010 were $516 billion. Income was $486 billion, expenditures were $523 billion, and assets held in special issue U.S. Treasury securities were $344 billion. Total Medicare expenditures have risen by 9.0 percent per year since 2000. Enrollment growth during that time was only 1.8 percent per year; thus, a per capita growth rate of 7.0 percent is driving overall Medicare growth. For more statistics, see here. Fiscal Solvency The financial status of the HI [Hospital Insurance] trust fund was substantially improved by the lower expenditures and additional tax revenues instituted by the Affordable Care Act. However, the HI trust fund is now estimated to be exhausted in 2024, 5 years earlier than was shown in last years report, and the fund is not adequately financed over the next 10 years. Office of the Actuary (OACT) Forecasts Medicare expenditures represented 3.6 percent of GDP in 2010. Under current law, costs would increase to about 5.6 percent of GDP by 2035 under the intermediate assumptions and to 6.2 percent of GDP by the end of the 75-year period. However, it is important to note that Medicare expenditures are almost certainly understated because of unrealistic substantial reductions in physician payments scheduled under current law and may be further understated (and to a greater degree).

Center For Medicare AdvocacyGeneral Medicare Category # of people with Medicare 65 & older or under 65 & disabled # of elders (65 & older) w/ Medicare Statistics 44.8 million projected for 2008 43.1 million 2006 ACTUAL 37.6 projected for 2008 Source and Notes CMS Data Compendium 2007, Populations, Medicare Enrollees for Selected Years. CMS Data Compendium 2007, Populations, Medicare Enrollees for

# of people w/ Medicare who are younger than 65 & disabled % of people w/ Medicare who are younger than 65 & disabled % of elders (65 & older) w/ health insurance before Medicare existed % of elders (65 & older) w/ health insurance now Medicare beneficiary median family income Income less than 100% of the federal poverty level Income < 400% FPL ($43,320) Income > $80,000 Medicare administrative costs Medicare Advantage (private plans) average non-medical costs

36.1 million 2006 ACTUAL 7.1 projected for 2008 6.9 million 2006 ACTUAL 16% (2005)

Selected Years. CMS Data Compendium 2007, Populations, Medicare Enrollees for Selected Years. June 2008 MedPAC data book, page 22.

50% 95% are covered by Medicare (2005) 87% of non-institutionalized seniors also have supplemental insurance (2004) $20,400 (2002) 16% (2005-2006) 77% (2005) 4% (2002) 1.7% of expenditures (2006) 13.1% broken down by: Marketing & sales (2.4%), Adminstration (6.6%), Reinsurance (.1%) and profit (4%) (projected for 2007) 1985 (from 1.35% to 1.45%)

Kaiser, 4/2003.

Administration on Aging, A Profile of Older Americans: 2006. Kaiser Medicare Chartbook 2005, page 6. Kaiser Family Foundation, State Health Facts, Distribution of Medicare Enrollees by Federal Poverty Level. June 2008 MedPAC data book, page 25. Kaiser Medicare Chartbook 2005, page 6. CMS Data Compendium 2007, Medicare Administrative Expenses Selected Fiscal Years. GAO-08-359 February 2008, p. 27. Marilyn Moon, Urban Institute.

Last time the Medicare tax rate was increased

Since 1994, no cap on maximum taxable earnings for Medicare

CMS Data Compendium 2007, Medicare Annual Maximum Taxable Earnings, 1966-2007.

Spending increase per 5.4% (2002-2006) June 2008 MedPAC data book, page 9. beneficiary Private Health Insurance Spending increase per 7.7% (2002-2006) June 2008 MedPAC data book, page 9. beneficiary Medicare Part C (Medicare Advantage, Medicare Managed Care: Private Plans) Category # of Medicare Advantage (MA) contracts Statistics 523 (2008) 8.9 million (2008) # of beneficiaries in MA plans Increased from 4.6 million in 2003 20% (2007) Increased from 11% in 2004 7.63 million (2008) March 2008 MedPAC report, p. 244. Source and Notes Kaiser Family Foundation, Medicare Advantage Contracts: 2008.

% of people in Medicare who are enrolled in MA plans # of enrollees in plans offering Prescription Drugs Access to MA Medicare Advantage Plan Enrollment, by

March 2008 MedPAC report, p. 237. CMS, Prescription Drug Coverage Enrollment Information, Beneficiaries with Prescription Drug Coverage.

100% of beneficiaries March 2008 MedPAC report, p. 237. have access to MA plans CCP 6,262,374

Plan Type CCP = Coordinated Care Plans HMO = Health Maintenance Organization PPO = Preferred Provider Organization PFFS = Private Fee For Service MSA = Medical Savings Account Local HMO 5,788,677 Local PPO 473,697 PFFS 1,661,889 Regional PPO 146,013 MSA 1,268 PPO Demo 0 Other Demo 2,718 Cost 312,363 Kaiser Family Foundation, Medicare Advantage Plan Enrollment, by Plan Type. CCP 14.2% Local HMO 13.1% Local PPO 1.1% PFFS 3.8% Regional PPO 0.3% MSA 0% PPO Demo 0% Other Demo 0% Cost 0.7% Kaiser Family Foundation, Medicare Advantage Plan Penetration, by Plan Type. CCP 402 Local HMO 279 Local PPO 123 PFFS 70 Regional PPO 11 MSA 9 PPO Demo 0 Other Demo 15 Cost 16 Kaiser Family Foundation, Medicare Advantage Contracts, by Plan Type. Total 1,130,264 Dual Eligible 815,569 Chronic or Disabling 176,598 Condition Institutional 138,097 CMS, Medicare Advantage Part D Enrollment Data, Special Needs Plan Data. Total 443 Dual Eligible 270 Chronic or Disabling 107 Condition Institutional 66 CMS, Medicare Advantage Part D Enrollment Data, Special Needs Plan Data. $59 billion GAO-08-359 Feb. 2008, page 1. $87 per member per month (2007) GAO-08-359 Feb. 2008, pages 6 and 3. $8.3 billion paid out in total (2007) $783 per beneficiary per GAO-08-359 Feb. 2008, page 27. month (projected 2007) $699 per beneficiary per Extrapolated from other data.

Medicare Advantage Plan Penetration, by Plan Type (2007)

Medicare Advantage Contracts, by Plan Type (2008)

Special Needs Plans (SNP) Enrollment, by SNP Type (2007)

SNP Contracts by SNP Type (2008)

Cost of MA program in 2006 Average amount above a plans bid that CMS gives to MA plans

Average MA payment per beneficiary Average traditional Medicare payment per

beneficiary MA payment as a percent of traditional Medicare costs Program payments that exceed traditional Medicare expenditures, by plan type (2006)

month (2007) 113% (2008) March 2008 MedPAC report to the Congress, page 238.

Excess MA payments Excess MA payments over 10 years Medicare Part D Category # of beneficiaries in Part D Plans # of beneficiaries in stand-alone Prescription Drug Plans (PDP) # of beneficiaries in MA-PDs and other Medicare health plans with drug coverage # of beneficiaries with non-Medicare drug coverage (Government and private retirees)

HMO 110% Local PPO 117% Regional PPO 110% PFFS 119% March 2008 MedPAC Report to Congress, pg. 247. March 2008 MedPAC report to the $10 billion Congress, page 246. Projected excess CBO, Medicare Advantage: Private Health payments of $149 billion Plans in Medicare, June 28, 2007. (2009-2017)

Statistics 25.4 million (2008) 17.39 million (2008) 8.01 million (2008) 14.19 million (2008) 54 plans per state

Source and Notes CMS, Prescription Drug Coverage Enrollment Information, Beneficiaries with Prescription Drug Coverage. CMS, Prescription Drug Coverage Enrollment Information, Beneficiaries with Prescription Drug Coverage. CMS, Prescription Drug Coverage Enrollment Information, Beneficiaries with Prescription Drug Coverage. CMS, Prescription Drug Coverage Enrollment Information, Beneficiaries with Prescription Drug Coverage. Kaiser Family Foundation, Prescription Drug Plans.

Average # Part D plans per state (2008)

Low: 47 (Alaska) High: 63 (Pennsylvania) $39.86 (2008) $36.66 (2007)

Average premium for PDP for 2008 % of PDPs with coverage in donut hole # of PDPs with brand name coverage in donut hole # of plans that are Low-Income Subsidy eligible Low-Income Medicare Beneficiaries Category # beneficiaries with incomes below 100% of the Federal Poverty Level # beneficiaries with incomes 100%125% of the Federal Poverty Level # beneficiaries with incomes 125%200% of the Federal Poverty Level # of beneficiaries estimated eligible for LIS # of beneficiaries enrolled in LIS Statistics 6.9 million (16%) (2005) 3.9 million (9%) (2005) 8.7 million (20%) (2005) 12.5 million (2008) 13.2 million (2007) 9.4 million (2008) 29% (2008) 1 plan (2008) 495 (2008) 483 (2007) 411 (2006)

Kaiser Family Foundation, Average Premium for PDPs. Avalere, Beneficiaries and the 2008 Medicare Part D Marketplace, slide 21. Avalere, Beneficiaries and the 2008 Medicare Part D Marketplace, slide 21. Kaiser Family Foundation, Prescription Drug Plans that are Low-Income Subsidy Eligible.

Source and Notes June 2008 MedPAC data book, page 25. June 2008 MedPAC data book, page 25. June 2008 MedPAC data book, page 25.

CMS, Prescription Drug Coverage Enrollment Information, LIS Eligible Beneficiaries. Kaiser Family Foundation, Low-Income Subsidy

% of beneficiaries enrolled in LIS who are deemed through another program % of estimated eligible beneficiaries enrolled in QMB % of estimated eligible beneficiaries enrolled in SLMB # of dual eligibles # LIS enrollees whose plan lost benchmark status # LIS enrollees reassigned to a new plan with the same sponsor # LIS enrollees reassigned to a new plan with a different sponsor # LIS enrollees who must choose a new plan Appeals Category Rates of full and partial reversal of denials Connecticut Category # of people w/ Medicare # of people w/ Medicare Advantage # of uninsured % of uninsured who are from working families % increase in workers premiums, 2000-2004 % increase in workers salaries, 20002004 % decrease in residents with employer provided health insurance % of people w/ Medicare who are 65 and older

84% (2008) 33% 13% 7.5 million (2006) 2.56 million (2008) 965,482 (2008) 1.15 million (2008) 442,719

Recipients. CMS, Prescription Drug Coverage, 2008 Enrollment Information. CBO, A Detailed Description of CBOs Cost Estimate for the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. CBO, A Detailed Description of CBOs Cost Estimate for the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. Kaiser Family Foundation, Dual Eligibles: Medicaids Role for Low-Income Medicare Beneficiaries. CMS, Limited Income and Resources. CMS, Limited Income and Resources, Reassignment Data. CMS, Limited Income and Resources, Reassignment Data. CMS, Limited Income and Resources, Chooser Data.

Statistics Under Construction

Source and Notes

Statistics 540,170 (2008) 54,825 (2007) 353,092 (2006) 33% (2006) 58.8% 14.4% 5% (20052006) 87.3% (2004) US 84.6% 12.7% (2004) US 15.3% 14% (20052006) US 16%

Source and Notes Kaiser Family Foundation, (KFF) Total Medicare Beneficiaries. KFF, Total Medicare Advantage Enrollment. Kaiser Family Foundation, Health Insurance Coverage of the Total Population. Kaiser Family Foundation, Uninsured Rates for the NonElderly by Family Work Status. CT Health Care for All, 2004. CT Health Care for All, 2004 Universal Health Care Foundation of Connecticut, Eroding Employer-Based Health Insurance Highlights Need for Real, Fundamental Change. Kaiser Family Foundation, Distribution of Medicare Beneficiaries by Eligibility Category.

% of people w/ Medicare who are disabled # of people Medicare enrollees who are at or below 100% of the Federal Poverty Level Miscellaneous Category # of overall US populace w/ chronic conditions % of non-institutionalized

Kaiser Family Foundation, Distribution of Medicare Beneficiaries by Eligibility Category.

Kaiser Family Foundation, Distribution of Medicare Enrollees by Federal Poverty Level.

Statistics 133 million (2005) 87% (2002)

Source and Notes Partnership for Solutions, Chronic Conditions: Making the Case for Ongoing Care. Kaiser Medicare Chartbook 2005, page

Medicare beneficiaries with at least one chronic condition 1 CC = 3% 2 CC = 6% 3 CC = 10% 4 CC = 12% 5+ CC = 68 % (2004) 99% of Medicare expenditures are for beneficiaries with 1 or more chronic conditions 5.6 days (2006) 6.0 days (2000) 34 days (2006) 31 days (2000) $10,304 (2006) 19 (2006) Visits down 57% since 1997 (preprospective payment) 1970 1987 2002 1 10% 15% 19% 2 9% 12% 13% 3 7% 9% 7% 4 5% 6% 5% 5 2% 3% 2%

5.

% of Medicare spending on people with chronic conditions

Partnership for Solutions, Chronic Conditions: Making the Case for Ongoing Care, page 27.

Average length of hospital stay for Medicare beneficiaries for shortstay hospitals Average length of skilled nursing facility stay for Medicare beneficiaries per discharge Average reimbursement per skilled nursing facility discharge Average # of home health visits per episode

CMS Data Compendium, Utilization, Medicare Short-Stay Hospital Utilization. CMS Data Compendium, State Data, Medicare Skilled Nursing Facility Utilization by State. CMS Data Compendium 2006, State Data, Medicare Skilled Nursing Facility Utilization by State. June 2008 MedPAC data book, page 131- 132. Glenn Follette and Louise Sheiner, The Federal Reserve Board, The Sustainability of Health Spending Growth, table 11.

Mean out-of-pocket spending, by income quintile for the elderly population, as a share of income

14: A Bill to Abolish the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program

GO BANKING RATES SEPTEMBER 2010 Colleges have been getting a bad rap during the last few years of the recession. Sure, graduating from a university is an achievement everyone should be proud of. Burning the midnight oil, pouring sweat, tears and the occasional blood create memories that are priceless. What isnt priceless, though, is the skyrocketing tuition and student loan debt that many students are stuck with after graduation. That is, except for some public service workers. Lets not even get into college graduates who are looking for credit card debt forgiveness. While all schools promise a rewarding educational experience that lasts you a lifetime, they hardly ever mention the student loans that probably cling onto you for just as long. Many college graduates end up so burdened under this debt that it affects other important aspects of their personal lives as well. Unless you have a rich relative, well-planning parents or were eligible for scholarships, student loan repayment in a non-lucrative industry could make you reevaluate your five-figure (sometimes, even more) investment. Fortunately, theres help. It may sound silly, but to fight off your mountain of debt, your salvation may be in working for a non-profit. To Forgive Debt is Divine In 2008, graduating seniors had an average accumulative student debt of over $27,000. This includes student loans like Stafford and Perkins loans, parent loans and private student loans. Thats a heavy load to carry before you even get to the real world. Fortunately, in July of last year, the Department of Education made two provisions effective that could help borrowers alleviate some of that debt. The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program (PSLF) and the Income-Based Repayment (IBR) plan were designed to help those working in eligible public service jobs tackle their Federal Direct Loans. How PSLF Works After 10 years of qualifying loan payments and employment in eligible public service jobs, the remaining federal loans will be forgiven under the PSLF program. However, only qualifying payments made after October 1, 2007 apply towards the 120 months of repayment. Borrowers must also be working at an eligible public service job for the entire 10 years, not including periods of deferment or interruptions. So if you lost your job, that break between your next job, assuming it is also eligible, doesnt count towards the 10 years. This means the earliest your student debt can be forgiven is October 1, 2017, and

that is only if you have any unpaid debt remaining. PSLF can cover federal student loans liek Stafford Loans, GradPLUS loans and consolidated loans as long as they are switched to the Federal Direct Loan program. You might have the option to consolidate your loans into a Direct Loans, but as always, weigh the pros and cons before doing so. How IBR Works So how much debt will you be paying back during those 10 years of eligibility? That is where IBR comes in. The program was designed to help borrowers cap monthly payments based on their income and household size. IBR works in conjunction with the PSLF, but is also its own separate program that isnt limited to just public service workers. In order to qualify for IBR, borrowers would need to have a high enough student debt-to-income ratio in that it would take more than 15 percent of what they earn above 150 percent of the poverty level to pay off their loan on a standard 10-year payment plan. Under these guidelines, most borrowers pay less than 10 percent of their income. The program also forgives any debt remaining after 25 years of qualified payments. That only matters, of course, if youre not eligible for the PSLF. The amount youd have to pay on your loan depends on your annual income. In some cases, if you fall under the threshold of both categories of income and people in household, you arent required to pay anything. In addition, any interest accrued on the loan is added to the total amount owed and is eligible to be forgiven once the allotted term is up. What Jobs Qualify For PSLF? In order to be eligible for the PSLF, you need to make sure you have the right job. It can get a little complicated trying to find out if you qualify because there isnt actually an application for the program available yet. Though qualified payments made since October 2007 are retroactively applied. In any case, if your job meets the following requirements, you should be eligible: Your employer is a nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization. You work for the federal, state, local or tribal government. These jobs include the military and public schools and colleges. You also qualify if you serve full-time in the AmeriCorps or Peace Corp. You work full-time or multiple part-time jobs for eligible employers that equal 30 hours or more per week. If your job does not fall under these categories, it doesnt necessarily mean you are excluded from the debt relief program. The Department of Education have other criteria that, if met, can make you eligible for the program. While the PSLF program is in place, it actually isnt fully up and running yet. The Department of Education is still in the process of developing an application process, but encourage those interested and think they are eligible to look out for updates. Its a good idea, too, because the last thing you want to do is find out the work and payments youve done thus far dont apply. You can find out more information at IBRInfo.org. Does the PSLF and IBR help you with your student debt? Does this motivate you to look for work in the public service sector?

US NEWS MAY 2008 One of the Education Department's top higher education officials says there are significant problems with two of the most-trumpeted new loan forgiveness programs designed to help students afford college. The public service loan forgiveness program that will begin in 2009 makes good headlines, Diane Auer Jones, assistant secretary for postsecondary education, told attendees of a Washington, D.C., College Savings Foundation conference this month. But many idealistic students hoping to get out from under their federal education debts will be sorely disappointed, she says. "Guess what? You have to make 10 years of payments," before the remainder of the loan is forgiven, she notes. And most federal education loans are 10-year loans, which means there will be nothing left to be forgiven. The Education Department is worried "some students will see the program and take on more debt than they would have otherwise, not realizing it is unlikely that most of it will be forgiven," she says. In addition, the new "Teach grants" that this year started paying up to $4,000 a year to those studying to be teachers in needy schools will turn into costly mistakes for the vast majority of recipients, she says. Teachers who do not end up working in classrooms that qualify as "high need" will see those grants they received while in school turn into loans. Jones says the Education Department's experience with other similar programs indicates 80 percent of the recipients of Teach grants will have to pay them back with interest. The problem, she says, is that newly graduated teachers are having trouble getting hired by what she called "dysfunctional" but needy schools. Robert Shireman, director of the Project on Student Debt, says that people should realize the new public service forgiveness program will help only those who take low-paying public service jobs. Borrowers who take on high-paying government or nonprofit jobs will have to pay off their loans, he said. Anyone hoping to take advantage of the loan forgiveness program should make sure to consolidate loans with the

federal government's new Income-based Repayment option, Shireman said. That way, low-paid public service workers will have to pay only a reasonable portion of their salary toward their loans, which could be lower than the regular loan payment. After 120 payments, the remainder of the loan will be forgiven. More information can be found at ibrinfo.org. Congressional staffers say they are working on fixes to the Teach grant law to prevent the kind of unhappy surprises Jones warns of. A major education bill currently being discussed in House-Senate negotiations would broaden the definition of high-need classrooms and give the Education Department the power to give breaks to students who try but fail to get hired by needy schools.

15: A Resolution to End Gene Patents

Wired Science April 2010 When you went to sleep last Sunday night, 20 percent of your genome belonged to a researcher or company. One day later, following federal district court judge Robert Sweets ruling, it belonged to you. Some activists cheered the landmark decision on general principle, but for others, it was a business and medical matter. They say the end of gene patents could be a boon for patients, who will benefit from gene-testing companies competing for their business. Theyll have to deliver products to the marketplace faster, better and cheaper. Theres all sorts of ways to make money, said Dan Ravicher, executive director of the Public Patent Foundation and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, which pitted civil rights activists and patient groups against Myriad Genetics, a Utah provider of tests on its patented breastcancer-risk genes. Im a strong conservative. I believe companies are good and competition is good. Myriad and its supporters, including the Biotechnology Industry Organization, had argued that gene patents were necessary. They made commercial profits possible, and potential financial rewards drove research. Ravichers foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, and their supporters including the American Medical Association, American Society of Human Genetics and March of Dimes said this simply wasnt true.

Beyond the absurdity of gene patents imagine patenting gold, the human arm, or gravity they said that patents had hurt patients, stifled business and stunted research. Myriads monopoly prevented women from getting second opinions on their breast-cancer gene tests. More broadly, existing gene patents dissuaded researchers from studying sections of the genome that were already claimed, and high licensing fees discouraged would-be entrepreneurs. In a public statement, Myriad Genetics said it would appeal the decision. My hope is that this ruling stands and companies will need to actually innovate and create new advances based on genetic findings, not dependent on sole access to them, wrote Linda Avey, CEO of personalized genomics company 23andMe, in a comment on the Genetic Future blog. Rather than relying on obscure patent language and legal strategies, companies will need to develop products that are competitively positioned. One area of competition will be in the interpretation of gene mutations. Gene testers dont just plug a DNA sequence into a computer and wait for the result. They use an arsenal of interpretive techniques, and must update their approaches with new research. There are a lot of algorithms that each of us uses. Some are more right than others. There are differences in how you study mutations, weight them, and interpret the data, said Wendy Chung, a Columbia University breast cancer researcher and plaintiff in the lawsuit. Chung said that Myriads tests are well-regarded, but theyve lagged in interpreting rare gene variants that each person

has, but because theyre so unique, have not been ascribed a clinical significance. On the academic side, there are a lot of people trying to computationally guess what the functions of these variants will be. Myriad has been conservative in saying, if we dont know what it is, then we wont make guesses, said Chung. Gene-testing companies will also compete to do the best job explaining often-ambiguous genetic results to their customers. Business relationships with insurance companies and health care providers will become even more important. And companies will still be able to patent tools used to interpret genes. Companies can compete on quality, speed and taking the burden off hospitals, said Robert Cook-Deegan, a Duke University gene policy expert. The decision does threaten some business models but it opens the gate for others. Breast Cancer Action June 2011 From a U.S. Perspective Gene patenting is a highly profitable business. Over 20 percent of the human genome is patented, including the gene for breast cancer. [1] Throughout the United States and abroad, these patents directly impact patient health care by placing limits on gene research and testing. By granting these gene patents, the U.S. Patent Office has put corporate profits before the health and well-being of patients, and the time has come to stop this practice. The gene patents problem moved to the forefront of public debate because of a lawsuit challenging patents on two genes that correlate with increased risk for breast cancer and ovarian cancer (BRCA1 and BRCA2). Breast Cancer Action, along with the Association of Molecular Pathology, the American Civil Liberties Union, and other patients and researchers sued Myriad Genetics and the U.S. Patent Office in 2007, arguing that genes are not patentable since they are facts of nature. Myriad Genetics, which controls the patent and charges women over $3,000 for a test, sent cease-and-desist letters to other researchers looking at the BRCA1/2 genes. Myriad will not let other companies test for the genes and thus prevents women from getting a second opinion. Myriads high charge keeps some payers from approving the tests. Gene Patents Threaten Public Health Gene patents have a detrimental impact on health care and research.[2] Gene patent holders often use their exclusive control to charge excessive fees for diagnostic testing and prevent other researchers from utilizing the specific gene for further research. [3] Gene patents can prevent more accurate, affordable, and complex diagnostic tests from being developed.[4] Recent research suggests that dozens or even hundreds of genes may be involved in diseases like Alzheimers. When researchers cannot get permission from the patent holder to perform research on a gene that contributes to the disease they are working on, progress is delayed. Possessing a gene for a disease does not mean a person will develop the disease. Most genetic tests offer only an estimate of the chances for developing a particular disease and fail to account for the influence of other genes and environmental factors.[5] The predictive power of the test for BRCA breast cancer mutations is high for persons from families with a history of particular kinds of breast or ovarian cancer but very low for women without a family history of breast cancer. In fact, many women who test positive for a BRCA1 mutation do not get the disease.[6] The patenting of genes drives research toward looking for gene-to-disease correlations and away from environmental and other factors that also lead to increased risk of disease. Environmental factors, such as chemical exposure, play a major role in breast cancer.[7] One cannot patent and profit from identifying a chemicals link to increased risk for breast cancer, but you can patent a gene sequence and profit by charging exorbitant fees to test families of persons with breast cancer to see if they have the gene that your test links to the disease. Moving Forward The Fight to End Gene Patenting

The plaintiffs won the first round when the district court agreed that genes are facts of nature and not patentable. The case was then heard by the Federal Court of Appeals, whose decision expected this summer will likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. This appeals court usually sides with patent holders, so we must prepare to continue fighting for an end to gene patenting. If the Supreme Court declines to hear the case or rules against the plaintiffs, we will need action by Congress to keep more genes from being patented. A bill in Congress would ban the patenting of all naturally occurring genes and DNA sequences. Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) and Rep. David Weldon (R-FL) are about to reintroduce the Genomic Research and Accessibility Act, which they first introduced in 2007. This bill ensures an end to further patents on our genes and DNA, and assures equal and fair access to genetic tests and medicines. The law would not take back patents already granted, but the Genomic Research and Accessibility Act would be an important step, along with victories in the courts (which can determine that certain gene patents, like the BRCA1 & BRCA2 patents, are invalid). Together a court victory and legislation would bring an end to the patenting of our genes. Womens health activists play a crucial role in the fight to end gene patenting. The breast cancer gene patent lawsuit was the first legal victory in the fight to end human gene patenting and helped educate the public and policymakers on the issue. What can you do? Call your members of Congress today, and tell them to cosponsor the Genomic Research and Accessibility Act, which Rep. Becerra will reintroduce. Talk to your friends and family about why you are working with Breast Cancer Action and others to stop the patenting of our genes. Write to your local papers and blog about the issue. The health and well-being of all patients must come before corporate profits, and ending gene patents will help create a fair, just, and less costly health care system

II.

From an International Perspective

By Luigi Palombi, Ph.D. The Centre for the Governance of Knowledge and Development, The Regulatory Institutions Network, The Australian National University, ACT, Australia

Its hard to imagine how and why it happened, but it did. Myriad Genetics has the exclusive legal rights over usage of the human genetic mutations that are linked to familial breast and ovarian cancers in the United States and many other countries. In June or July 2011, the Federal Court of Appeals will rule on whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office got it right when it granted Myriad such a patent over something none of its scientists invented.[8] This is a very important ruling, not only for American women but for women around the world. The Myriad case is not just about patent law. Its about the future of medical and scientific research. And its about a right we all should possess regarding the ability to control who does what with our bodies. Despite President Bill Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair declaring that the human genome was to be made freely available, more than half of the genes discovered have become the subject of privately owned intellectual property rights. Patents have been granted over many, many human genes and proteins, the unique structures that make us what and who we are. This ruling in June or July will clarify the legal position and, hopefully, in upholding the decision of Judge Sweet of the district court,

will send shockwaves around the world. We all want better and cheaper diagnostics, drugs, treatments, and cures for cancers and other diseases and, while the patent system plays a role in driving medical innovation, it is only one of many things that do. Publicly funded research also plays a crucial role. It was Mary-Clair King and her team, who labored for 16 years at UCSF, who discovered the link between breast cancer and the BRCA1 gene on human chromosome 17q. Myriads scientists, who had access to the medical history of thousands of Utah women, information which these women freely provided to the University of Utah, were then able to use this information, together with Kings discovery, to identify some of the key genetic mutations. But does that give Myriad the right to say it invented the BRCA gene mutations? More to the point, does it give Myriad the right to exclude other clinicians and scientists that want to utilize the genetic mutations to develop cheaper and more accurate diagnostic tests? In Australia, Myriads patent partner, Genetic Technologies, tried to use Myriads Australian patents over BRCA to close down all of the laboratories that had been performing BRCA genetic testing (apparently without Myriads permission). The attempt failed, but only because of the enormous public outcry that led to a full-scale Senate inquiry. During that inquiry, Australian scientists gave evidence of how they were denied the ability to conduct BRCA research for two years because Myriad and its Australian partner couldnt work out who had the right to authorize the research. Finally, they got permission, but in the meantime, the cost of the research had tripled. The pending Federal Court of Appeals decision will hopefully clear the road of these kinds of patent land mines, which only cripple the doctors and scientists that are seeking medical and scientific advancement for the benefit of all humankind. Sure, lets reward real ingenuity and invention with a patent, but lets also keep genes and proteins, things no one invented, out there for doctors and scientists to access and use so that private interests cant hinder them as they travel down the medical research road to give us better and cheaper diagnostics, drugs, treatments, and hopefully, cures. Pro Con Isolated gene sequences are new, not "part of nature" Geoffrey M. Karny. "In Defense of Gene Patenting." Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News. April 1, 2007: "A person who discovers a new function of a known DNA sequence, such as its previously unknown association with particular disease, can patent a method of using the isolated sequence to detect susceptibility to that disease. Isolated DNA sequences do not occur in nature. They are new." Gene patents do not apply to natural genes According to the US government's Human Genome Project website, "In general, raw products of nature are not patentable. DNA products usually become patentable when they have been isolated, purified, or modified to produce a unique form not found in nature."[1] Kevin E. Noonen. "Falsehoods, Distortions and Outright Lies in the Gene Patenting Debate":"The patents claiming genes do not claim products of nature. The simple distinction is that gene claims recite that the genes are "isolated," thereby putting to rest the canard that a patent holder may ask for a royalty from you because your liver is "using" a patented gene. The cDNA copies of genes that form the basis for human gene patenting are "made by man" and not products of nature because they do not exist in nature prior to being synthesized in a test tube by a scientist." Gene patents are non-obvious. Supporters of gene patenting say gene function is not obvious and that genes are not mere discoveries because the genes are patented together with inventive descriptions of how they can be used for Genes are part of nature so should not be patented Biodiversity of this planet is the common heritage of humankind. Living organisms are no one's inventions and therefore never be patented and put under private control. Living organisms should not be placed on the same level as human technnical inventions. Patents may make access to genetic resources more difficult and in some cases block that access altogether. Gene sequences can be discovered and mapped, but not invented The very definition of patents suggests that it is related to invention rather than discovery. Opponents of gene patenting argue that genes are pure discoveries, rather than inventions. They also point out that with modern automated gene analysis techniques, the nonobviousness of genes is becoming doubtful. Genes can be re-ordered, but not invented "Patenting life is owning life." Third World Network: "whilst I create my carburettor out of materials that have nothing to do with delivering measured amounts of petroleum, I introduce genes or traits into an organism only if they already exist as such in another organism or organisms. Can I patent a car because I fit it with a different kind of carburettor from another car? Therefore breeding and genetic engineering reorganise something existing; they do not create anything de novo. Considering achievements in reorganising as if they were inventions, is a distortion of meaning, with the aim of distorting reality. This distortion is made for a specific purpose, for controlling living things in the same way as one can control machines one has

diagnosis or therapy. Gene patents do not give ownership over others' genes Geoffrey M. Karny. "In Defense of Gene Patenting." Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News. April 1, 2007: "Crichton and other critics often ask, 'How can anyone own my genes?' The answer is that they cannot. What someone can own is a DNA sequence that he or she was the first to isolate and that is useful." Gene sequencing can be "useful" and thus can be patented. Gene sequencing is very "useful", at criteria for patents under US law and elsewhere, as it allows the determination of the effects of genes and how they can be adapted to certain bio-medical or bio-agricultural products."Patenting life is owning life." Third World Network Gene sequencing can be "novel" and thus can be patented. Gene sequencing can certainly be "novel", another criteria for patenting under USPTO rules, in the sense that it has never been done before. Certainly the knowledge, and possibly the gene modifications can be entirely new. Gene sequencing can be "non-obvious" and thus can be patented. Gene sequencing can certainly be "non-obvious", one more US Patenting and Trade Office rule for patents, which means that no other individual skilled in the field could have necessarily easily performed the discovery. This is evidenced by the great investments and technologies that must be used to sequence any gene.

invented." Uses of genes may be patentable, but not genes themselves Sgolne Aym, a medical geneticist at the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research in Paris and head of the PPPC, told The Scientist: "What is patentable is the inventive process if you can describe how to use a gene for a specific purpose but not the gene itself."[2] Genes cannot be owned practically, are part of commons David Koepsell. "The Case Against Gene Patents." Practicing Law Institute. June 13, 2009: "I argue that the genome is a commons. There are parts of the world that cannot be owned in any practical sense. Radio spectra are my favorite example. Theres no way to exert ownership over a particular band. [...] I argue that genes [...] are simply unencloseable. Parents all over the world are reproducing patented genes, technically violating the patents on those genes because they havent sought permission and arent paying royalties. The idea is absurd, of course. This is why the practice is absurd. Unmodified genes simply cannot be owned, nor should they be." No certainty that a patented gene sequence is unique to a species "Patenting life is owning life." Third World Network: "If we use the determination of the nucleic acid sequence constituting a gene as a criterion for patenting, and I understand that this is the case, how would we know that the sequence is unique to the organism being patented? The number of species on earth is estimated to be 10 to 60 million. So far, we know the nucleic acid sequences of all the genes only for one species, the bacterium Escherschia coli. Assuming that the patenting of a nucleic acid sequence can be allowed only if it is new to life, which would make it a genuine invention, could we ever be certain that a nucleic acid sequence which we find in an organism is really new to life? Obviously not. If we allow patenting for a mere determination of nucleic acid sequences, how will we cope with the sequences which are the same but are in different species?"

Research: Do gene patents help or harm research and development? Pro Patents provide incentive for R&D investment in product Geoffrey M. Karny. "In Defense of Gene Patenting." Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News. April 1, 2007: "In the noise and misinformation about gene patents, basic, common-sense principles are lost. These principles have supported the patent system for over 200 years and have contributed to the technological greatness of this nation and to the benefits that technology brings to humankind. They bear repeating. The inventor brings something new to the world. The patent Con Gene patent monopolies impair research and development David Kravets "ACLU: Human Gene Patents Infringe Speech." ACLU. May 13, 2009: "Myriad Genetics, owns the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes associated with hereditary forms of breast and ovarian cancer. They also own the only currently available diagnostic test for these genes, which they sell for a little over three thousand dollars. And they control the right to allow testing and experimentation on these genes. It is no exaggeration to say that Myriad controls every facet of those genes. As a result,

provides the incentive to bring it to market. many women have been unable to get vital health And new biomedical and agricultural products information, and scientists have been unable to improve the human condition." perform important research without paying large sums of money to Myriad." Little evidence exists that gene patents hurt research Timothy Caulfield. "Do gene patents Gene patents impair research on diseases Julian hurt research?" Science Progress. October 29, Borger. "Rush to patent genes stalls cures for 2009: "There is little evidence that the problem disease." Guardian.co.uk. December 15, 2009: exists. There is lots of social angst, but no "Vital medical research aimed at developing good data showing a widespread patent screening methods and cures for congenital thicket/anti-commons phenomenon. A large diseases is being stifled by the rush to patent 2007 study by the American Association for human genes and the corporate use of those the Advancement of Science found very little patents to maximise profits. A poll of American evidence of an anticommons problem. A laboratory directors found that a quarter of them 2005 study done for the National Academy of had received letters from lawyers acting for Sciences found only 1 percent of the scientists biotechnology companies ordering them to stop surveyed reported suffering a project delay of carrying out clinical tests designed to spot early more than 1 month due to patents." warning signs for Alzheimer's disease, breast cancer and an array of other disorders." Gene patents do not offer monopoly power to inventors Geoffrey M. Karny. "In Defense of Patent licenses are very costly, impair R and D Gene Patenting." Genetic Engineering and Michael Crichton. "Patenting Life." New York Biotechnology News. April 1, 2007: "It is also Times (Op-Ed). February 13, 2007: "Apologists not a monopoly, even though the right extends for gene patents argue that the issue is a tempest to a class of things, because a monopoly is in a teapot, that patent licenses are readily defined by market power. As many a available at minimal cost. Thats simply untrue. disappointed inventor well knows, having a The owner of the genome for Hepatitis C is paid patent is no guarantee of commercial success. millions by researchers to study this disease. Not Quite simply, a patent is granted to provide the surprisingly, many other researchers choose to inventor and/or his company or investors the study something less expensive." incentive to undertake the costly and risky Gene patenting can violate freedom of thought. U.S. process of further development and District Judge Robert W. Sweet of New York commercialization. They will do so because ruled in November of 2009 that a case against they can charge enough for the product to gene patents by Myriad Genetics of Salt Lake recover their investment. [...] In return, the City could proceed. This was on the basis that public gets the invention, but not for free. Gene patents grant Myriad ownership rights over What it gets for free is the new technical products of nature, laws of nature, natural knowledge to build on because the patent must phenomena, abstract ideas and basic human disclose how to make and how to use the knowledge and thought, and that this could invention in terms that a person skilled in that violate the First Amendments protections over technology can understand. And, after the freedom of thought. patent expires, the public even gets the Gene patenting invites malicious lawsuits from invention for free." patent-holders Gene Patenting. Debatabase. Gene patents allow others to use and profit-from April 14, 2009: "In those twenty years of a invention Geoffrey M. Karny. "In Defense of patents duration, any prospective research is Gene Patenting." Genetic Engineering and carried out in fear of recriminations and law-suits Biotechnology News. April 1, 2007: "The from the patent-holder. Academic medical invention must be described in a manner to scientists are scared into discontinuing research enable other people skilled in that technology lest there institution be hit by a costly law-suit to make and use it. This permits others in the from a patent holder." field to build on the new knowledge. Finally, the invention must be clearly claimed so that the public knows the scope of the limited property right." Gene patent are a necessary evil. Advocates for gene patents put for ward the point that Gene Patents is a necessity to understand the tiniest of details of nature and its organisms through R&D. Economics/Innovation: Do gene patents encourage biotechnological innovation? Pro Gene patents are essential to future of biotech Con Gene patents do not incentivize innovation David

industry Danny Rose. "Gene patents ban 'would hit biotech'." Sydney Morning Herald. November 5, 2009: "Changing Australian law to explicitly rule out patents being applied to human genes would drive research jobs and investment dollars offshore, an expert panel says. [...] The potential change, now under consideration by a Senate inquiry, also threatened to 'bring the Australian biotech industry to its knees', says the Institute of Patent and Trademark Attorneys of Australia (IPTA), which staged the panel event on Thursday. [...] 'It would seriously affect the biotechnology industry in that it would be difficult to attract investment in research that has commercial opportunities if it couldn't be protected,' IPTA councillor Trevor Davies said while at the event in Sydney." Gene patents help drive major economic breakthroughs. Genetically engineered plants and animals, such as GM maize or lab mice designed to be prone to cancer, should be patented as they help bring about invention of new medicines through research on them. This may lead to major breakthroughs in the field of medicines and other related fields in diagnosis of various diseases.

Koepsell. "The Case Against Gene Patents." Practicing Law Institute. June 13, 2009: "patents to non-new discoveries [such as gene sequences] does not encourage innovation, and sitting on what are essentially laws of nature, so far upstream, actually stifles downstream innovation." Gene patents imagine R&D only done by private companies Gene Patenting. Debatabase. April 14, 2009: "Most research is not done by private companies. The Human Genome Project has contributed by far the greater amount of knowledge in this area. In some cases it seems that private companies have speedily patented genes, which public scientists claim to have discovered first. The percentage of Biotechnology firms budgets spent on R&D is minimal. Indeed, banning patenting actually protects the public investment into genome research which could become wasted if private companies stifle attempts to research into genes, on which they hold a patent." Gene patents are perverse commercial exploitation of nature. The commercialization of genes, through gene patents, creates a perverse incentive for the fast paced growth or commercial exploitation. A naturally-occurring gene can be patented as an isolated sequence, which could mean paying the patent holders for naturally occurring genes as the species evolve. Gene Patents lead to Human Beings becoming merely properties. Adversaries of Gene Patents argue that at sometime in future,advancement in Science may lead to Identical genes,leading to Human beings becoming merely puppets in the hands of Gene Patent holders. Gene patents are on a road to duplicity. The AntiGene Patents flock states that Gene patents could lead to Duplicity of Human Beings,which could lead to people being replaced by other people(Exactly like them) without anyone finding out.This would give rise to the most covert type of crimes.

Public health: Can gene patents maintain public health and safety? Pro Many major biotech products have come from patented genes Julian Borger. "Rush to patent genes stalls cures for disease." Guardian.co.uk. December 15, 2009: "Products such as the cervical cancer vaccine, Gardasil, would never have been made available to the public were not its key components - including genes from the human papillomavirus - protected by patent law, said Obranovich." Con Gene patents can harm patient care and pricing Michael Crichton. "Patenting Life." New York Times (Op-Ed). February 13, 2007: "Canavan disease is an inherited disorder that affects children starting at 3 months [...] When the gene was identified in 1993, the families got the commitment of a New York hospital to offer a free test to anyone who wanted it. But the researchers employer, Miami Childrens Hospital Research Institute, patented the gene and refused to allow any health care provider to offer the test without paying a royalty." Gene patents impair rapid study of spreading

diseases Michael Crichton. "Patenting Life." New York Times (Op-Ed). February 13, 2007: "The plain truth is that gene patents arent benign and never will be. When SARS was spreading across the globe, medical researchers hesitated to study it because of patent concerns. There is no clearer indication that gene patents block innovation, inhibit research and put us all at risk." Gene patents harm efforts to tailor medicine to individuals Michael Crichton. "Patenting Life." New York Times (Op-Ed). February 13, 2007: "Even your doctor cant get relevant information. An asthma medication only works in certain patients. Yet its manufacturer has squelched efforts by others to develop genetic tests that would determine on whom it will and will not work. Such commercial considerations interfere with a great dream. For years weve been promised the coming era of personalized medicine medicine suited to our particular body makeup. Gene patents destroy that dream." Gene patents and bio-engineering may harm environment/society. Research in genes may lead to the evolving of new, incurable diseases which will lead to further complications. Instead of advancement, it may actually harm society. Gene patents and research could do harm to the environment. The group opposing gene patents state that Nature is something best left to itself. Further experiments may lead to irreversible disasters.

16: A Resolution to Set a Limit on Funding in the Presidential Election Campaigns

Active Candidates alphabetical order Current as of (date last updated) Funds Raised (click to see FEC report with links to individual and committee contributions) $20,949,494 Funds Spent Amount Remaining (cash on hand) Personal Financal Disclosures (click for report of assets, liabilities, other financial data, and tax returns) - Public Disclosure Report - 2010 Income Tax Return - Public Disclosure Report - Public Disclosure Report - 2010 Income Tax Return - Public Disclosure Report - Public Disclosure Report - Public Disclosure Report - 2010 Income Tax Return - Public Disclosure

Gingrich (Rep.) Johnson (Lib.) Obama (Dem.) Paul (Rep.) Roemer (Ind.) Romney (Rep.) Santorum

2/29/2012

$19,406,463

$1,543,032

2/29/2012

$685,597

$674,133

$11,463

2/29/2012

$161,531,472

$79,160,409

$84,674,461

2/29/2012 2/29/2012

$34,354,651 $510,502

$32,987,165 $469,601

$1,367,486 $43,251

2/29/2012 2/29/2012

$75,380,575 $15,699,090

$68,111,646 $13,100,785

$7,273,352 $2,598,305

(Rep.)

Report - 2010 Income Tax Return Pros Cons . Even under the most radical proposals for reform, loopholes exist that enable candidates to spend more or reach their audiences through alternative means. This was precisely the kind of development that led reformers to want to close the soft-money loophole. As with the tax system, the more elaborate the regulation, the more obscure and distorting the ways that are adopted to get around it. Most campaign finance reform proposals actually have the effect of limiting speech. By limiting the amount of money a candidate can spend, what they can spend it on, and the time and nature of the message they can send, candidates speech is limited. This is particularly true if the money being spent is the candidates own. Attempts to limit the ability of political parties and special interest groups to run so-called "issue ads" during certain segments of campaigns have a similar effect. While one effect of reform might be to increase the number of viable candidates, tangible limits are placed on the speech of all candidates. Even the most radical campaign finance reform proposals have yet to eliminate corporate or union contributions. Short of such bans, the potential for large organizations to swamp the donations of individual voters still exists. Additionally, limitations on the voice of unions, businesses and special interest groups are another potential infringement on the rights of free speech and

Reform has the effect of levelling the playing field for candidates. Candidates of enormous leadership potential but small wallets have failed due to the lack of resources. Under a reformed campaign finance system it will be more difficult for well-financed candidates to win purely because of the money they have. Incumbent candidates have a unique advantage over challengers in the present system because of their direct connections to important sources of money.

Campaign finance reform advances the goal of a broader marketplace of ideas, advancing the objectives of free speech, assembly, and thought. Under the present system, minor party candidates voices are trampled by the booming voice of large, well-funded campaign operations. The heavy cost of campaigning discourages many potential candidates from entering contests.

Campaign finance reform gives the individual donor a voice more comparable to other interests. At present, the enormous amount of money channelled into campaigns by large corporations, unions, and special interest groups (Political Action Committees) overwhelm the smaller, limited contributions of individual donors. Under many campaign finance proposals, limits are suggested for these large group donations. Such limits increase the significance of donations by individual voters, likely increasing the responsiveness of candidates to voters/donors and accountability. Additionally, the increased significance of individual contributions encourages voter

participation and activism.

assembly. Who is to say that a union members contribution to their organizations political action committee isnt significant speech comparable to the individual gesture they make when they donate to a candidate themselves? It is reasonable that union members or shareholders choose to trust their leaders to use their money in order to best advance their interests. There is actually more turnover in public office than some critics of the present campaign finance systems would like to admit. Retirements, scandals, and careful allocation of party resources make turnover possible under a variety of scenarios. Turnover also has significant negative effects, as critics of term limits have pointed-out. The more often new officeholders begin their jobs the steeper the "learning curve" for a new Congress, or other legislative body becomes. Even after the complete elimination of contributions by groups, the temptation to bow to the wishes of special interests may remain. Additionally, pressure from within ones own party, personal ideological commitments, and a candidates sense of the majoritys opinion in their district will still hold enormous influence on their voting record - regardless of whether the politician feels they should vote differently. The desire of many candidates to move on to higher and higher office also potentially exerts pressure on voting choices.

Campaign finance reform will make elections more competitive, thus resulting in more turnover or "fresh blood" in politics. This is valuable in challenging old orthodoxies and bringing in new ideas. It will also make it easier for members of ethnic minorities and the working class to seek office - such groups are disproportionately deterred from candidacy by the current need to raise huge sums of money.

Campaign finance reform will reduce corruption in government by discouraging candidates from "selling themselves" to special interests bidding for their votes. Candidates will be less beholden to special interests, and thus, more amenable to listening to good reasons when making decisions about public policy.