All 100 senators should agree START is vital first step

Posted on by

By Susan Shaer

Executive Director of Women’s Action for New Directions

A flu pandemic is nasty, brutish, and a global danger. All U.S. Senators and other leaders agree, and leap to keep everyone safe and healthy.

Another nasty, brutish and global danger, which additionally is outrageously expensive and out of synch with today’s defense needs, is the continued maintenance of our huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons. All our senators should agree on this.

However, since there are threats and plotters, the U.S. needs to have a strong and effective defense.

In his speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony, President Obama acknowledged these threats; and he also reiterated his call for a world free of nuclear weapons. As he has noted, they pose too much risk to all of us, as humans sharing a single planet. The longer nuclear weapons lurk, and grow, the graver the danger that they could fall into the wrong hands.

So how do we proceed toward the goal of liberating the world from the threat that nuclear weapons pose? The answer is simple: Step by step. The road to disarmament is, necessarily and rightly, long, and will take time and patience, and many steps that guarantee our safety and prevent any cracks in our security.

One of the first steps is to take stock of the existing nuclear arsenals – and then reduce the number. The reality is that it is possible, and it’s in the works. President Obama and President Medvedev committed to this goal months ago; and will soon sign onto a new START agreement (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) that pledges and ensures the U.S. and Russia will chip away at their huge stockpiles.

The fact is that the U.S. and Russia still hold onto around 95 percent of the world’s roughly 23,000 nuclear weapons. When the Cold War was drawing to a close, both countries acknowledged the urgent need to reduce these stockpiles, and signed onto START I. It was the largest and most complex arms control treaty in history.

Since that treaty expired on Dec. 5 of this year, the U.S. and Russia have been working to fashion a new treaty acceptable to both. A critical piece is a reliable system to provide an accurate assessment of the size and location of each country’s nuclear forces. The new treaty will reduce the strategic deployed arsenals of each country by about one quarter (to a ceiling of 1,675 within seven years).

After the treaty is finalized, it heads to the U.S. Senate for consideration– first in committee hearings, and then on the floor. There will be ample time for debate. There are many reasons for the Senate to ratify this treaty, and to do so with deliberate speed.

We have more than enough nuclear weapons to provide a strong defense; and to destroy life on the planet. We need to begin the long process of dismantling some of the thousands before they slip into the wrong hands.

Maintaining these many thousands is enormously, and wastefully, expensive.

We have better information than ever about Russia’s situation, and so are assured they are acting in accordance with the treaty. We should cultivate a positive relationship with Russia, particularly today.

The world is waiting for its leaders to choose a sane path to help keep from destroying the planet.

At least 67 Senators must vote to ratify START. This is a considerable number. And yet, really, it should have the support of all 100. START is in the interests of the U.S., it makes us safer, and ideally, it helps to build momentum toward the ultimate goal of a safer world without nuclear weapons.

This piece was provided by the American Forum, a nonprofit, nonpartisan, educational organization which provides the media with the views of state experts on major public concerns in order to stimulate informed discussion.

SC has more than nuclear power option

Posted on by

By Susan Corbett
Chair, SC Chapter, Sierra Club

During the recent 2010 gubernatorial debate, it seemed apparent the candidates have decided the energy future of South Carolina: nukes, nukes and more nukes.

Virtually every candidate spouted nuclear power as a “clean, green, homegrown” energy source that will be the solution to climate change and our energy needs. This characterization of nuclear as clean and homegrown is one of the biggest hoaxes perpetrated by the nuclear industry since the demise of their first round of economic boondoggles. (64 reactors left unfinished in the 80’s, in various stages of construction).

I cannot for the life of me understand how these candidates perceive nuclear as “homegrown’. Uranium is not mined in South Carolina, and most U.S. uranium is very low grade, making it uneconomical.  High grade uranium comes from foreign sources, and in fact most of the uranium we use presently comes from: Russia. Strike One – another foreign fuel source.

But how about the manufacturing and construction of nuclear reactors, that’s homegrown, right?

Wrong. At the recent Public Service Commission hearing where SCE&G asked for the first of what we believe will be many deadline extensions, it was revealed that virtually all major components of nuclear power plants are purchased in foreign countries like Korea, Japan and Italy.

In fact, the United States doesn’t even have forges large enough to make the reactor vessels, steam generators and other large parts needed for reactors. We are totally dependent on these foreign companies and the one or two manufacturers, like the plant at Doosan, Korea, for our big reactor parts.  We must get in line and wait our turn to get these key components, and pay whatever fee these companies charge, with all the money going out of the U.S.   Strike Two: all major parts produced outside the U.S. by foreign companies.

Two weeks ago, the usually permissive Nuclear Regulatory Commission rejected a modified version of the AP1000 reactor, designed by Westinghouse Electric Co., citing concerns about structural integrity.

This new design includes a mega-ton water containment system that sits perched on top of the shield building, using gravity to allow water to flow down around the reactor as a cooling system. The NRC review questioned the design of the shield building as suspect in withstanding earthquakes, tornadoes, air plane strikes or even high winds.

In other words, the major building that contains the reactor and ultimately shields us, the citizens, from the release of deadly radiation in the case of an accident, could itself fail. Although SCE&G assured the PSC these details would all get worked out, one must wonder about other design flaws, in an untested, unproven prototype reactor, which will operate in our backyard. Oh, and Westinghouse?   It’s owned by Toshiba, a Japanese corporation. Strike Three: a foreign-owned corporation with untested, unproven reactor design with serious safety questions.

Here’s my idea of a homegrown energy source: Up in Greenville, we have a U.S. corporation, G.E., producing wind turbines. They are using American-made parts and American workers. We could take these turbines down to the coast, and using our excellent port facilities at Charleston, and our excellent port facility workers, construct large wind farms off our coast to tap into the 2-4 Gigawatts ( that’s a HUGE amount) of offshore wind we know is available. We could use free American fuel to power all our coastal cities and then some, and never send a dollar out of state. Then we could help build wind farms up and down the Atlantic coast using our own homegrown technology and expertise.

Couple offshore wind with solar and rigorous energy efficiency programs that also put S.C. citizens to work, and we have a roadmap to true homegrown energy independence for South Carolina.

The privatized war in Afghanistan

Posted on by

From Facing South

Institute for Southern Studies

(Click on the number to go to the original source.)

  • Additional number of American troops President Obama plans to deploy to Afghanistan: 30,000
  • Total number of U.S. troops that will be there after the deployment: 98,000
  • Number of private contractors working for the U.S. in Afghanistan as of September 2009: 104,101
  • Percent by which that number grew between June and September: 40
  • Percent of the Defense Department’s workforce in Afghanistan accounted for by contractors: 57
  • Number of conflicts in U.S. history involving a higher percentage of contractors: 0
  • Percent of the U.S. presence on the ground during the Vietnam War accounted for by contractors: 13
  • Percent of the Defense Department’s 2008 budget devoted to contracts and grants: 82
  • Estimated value of Defense Department contracts in Afghanistan awarded to Texas-based Fluor and Virginia’s DynCorp: $7.5 billion
  • Amount Fluor’s PAC contributed to federal candidates in 2008: $305,499
  • Amount DynCorp’s PAC contributed to federal candidates in 2008: $51,999
  • Date on which a financial analyst announced that Fluor and DynCorp  stood to benefit from deployment of additional troops to Afghanistan: 12/2/2009
  • Amount by which Fluor’s share prices rose in that afternoon’s trading: 33 cents
  • Amount by which DynCorp’s share prices rose: 30 cents
  • Month in which DynCorp disclosed in a regulatory filing that it had made payments to expedite visas and licenses, potentially violating the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: 11/2009
  • The estimated total for these illegal payments: $300,000
  • Date on which an investigation was announced on behalf of DynCorp investors over possible securities law violations by the company: 12/3/2009
  • Value of a U.S. contract with DynCorp to train Iraqi police that federal auditors said was so mismanaged they were unable to determine how the money was spent: $1.2 billion
  • Year in which the U.S. Commission on Wartime Contracting is scheduled to release a comprehensive study of contracting in war zones: 2011

Leaked memo offers A-Z strategies on obstructing health care reform

Posted on by

Will SC Sen. Jim DeMint embrace or denounce tactics that snub South Carolina’s 707,00 uninsured?

Yesterday, Sen. Judd Gregg circulated a “how-to” guide to all his Republican colleagues that outlines how Republicans can obstruct and hold-up needed health care reforms in the Senate.  Judd’s memo details all the archaic procedural tools that Senate Republicans can use in their single-minded attempt to hold-up and attempt to kill health care reform.

Up to this point DeMint has given no indication he is at all interested in supporting health care reforms that would help South Carolinians.  Will DeMint embrace the obstructionist tactics put forth by Gregg or will he do the right thing and denounce these purely political tactics?

“Jim DeMint has a choice to make: he can side with partisan leaders in Washington and use parliamentary maneuvers to block health care reform, or he can show some courage and stand up for South Carolinians,” said Democratic Senatorial Campaign Communications Director Eric Schultz.

“Gregg’s memo confirms that Jim DeMint and his Republicans colleagues are using every trick in the book to derail commonsense health care reform.  Will Jim Demint continue to go along with these obstructionist tactics or will he muster the independence to stand up to his party and do what is right for South Carolinians?”

Don’t miss “Rethink Afghanistan”

Posted on by

dvdcovernew2-1

Join us on Sunday, Dec. 6, at 2:30pm for a free screening of Rethink Afghanistan, an 80-minute documentary about the US role in Afghanistan. The screening will be held at the Nickelodeon Theater, 937 Main St., in downtown Columbia. A discussion will follow, led by Dr. Stephen Sheehi of the Department of Arabic Culture at the University of South Carolina. Free and open to the public. For details about the film, see the web site. Sponsored by the SC Progressive Network and Carolina Peace.

LGBT groups spearhead Charleston anti-discrimination victory

Posted on by

Because of the collaborative effort among LGBT groups — including SC Progressive Network member organizations AFFA and SC Equality — the city of Charleston now has proactive legislation protecting LGBT people in both housing and public accommodations.

Last week, the Charleston City Council passed ordinances expanding the city’s existing policy prohibiting discrimination in housing to include age, sexual orientation and gender identity The council also passed a public accommodations ordinance prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, familial status, national origin, sexual orientation or gender identity.

The ordinances were presented to the mayor’s office in August by AFFA, SC Stonewall Democrats, SC Log Cabin Republicans, American Civil Liberties Union and South Carolina Equality–who paved the way by successfully introducing similar ordinaces in Columbia, SC, last year.

Charleston is the second municipality in the state to pass comprehensive human rights ordinances in housing and public accommodations that include sexual orientation and gender identity. Council Member Gary White said, “It’s a step forward in the right direction in making sure that we are not discriminating against anyone.”

Read the ordinances here.

Abortion shouldn’t imperil health care reform

Posted on by

By Sloane Wheelen

S.C. field coordinator for Planned Parenthood Health Systems in Charleston, a member of the SC Progressivve Network

The House vote to establish near-universal health care coverage came at a steep cost to women. That cost, issued as an amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), eliminates abortion coverage by private insurance companies even when women are paying for all or most of the premium with their own money.

Stupak’s amendment is a cynical attempt to push an anti-choice agenda that imperils badly needed reform. His amendment undermines the ability of women to purchase private health plans that cover abortion even if they pay for most of the premiums with their own money. This amendment reaches much further than the Hyde Amendment, which has prohibited public funding of abortion in most instances since 1977.

Before its introduction, health care reform measures in both the House and Senate contained agreed-upon language regarding abortion. Public funding would remain prohibited, and women with private health insurance would continue to receive the benefits they already have. Though this language satisfied neither side completely, it enabled health care reform to move forward without being derailed by abortion politics.

In addition to undermining the reform effort, the amendment would impact the more than one in four American women who have at least one abortion during their reproductive years. Tens of millions of women will be required to pay for health care coverage that expressly excludes one of their most commonly requested medical procedures.

The Stupak Amendment, like the Hyde Amendment, allows coverage of abortion only in cases of rape, incest and for medical complications that “place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.” However, if the woman’s health is in jeopardy – if her pregnancy risks organ failure or infertility but not death – then there is no coverage for care. The woman’s health, no matter how substantial and irremediable, is placed at risk.

Women’s health care should not be sacrificed on the altar of reform. President Obama repeatedly stated that under health care reform, “no one will lose the benefits they currently have.” The House bill now embraces a lesser ideal: No man will lose the benefits he currently has.

Is this sexual discrimination or abortion politics? Frankly, the two are inseparable. The 11th-hour amendment is just the latest example of statutes, regulations, medical standards and corporate policies that have caused women to pay more, suffer more and receive less: Pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills. The FDA imposed unwarranted and unscientific age limits on over-the-counter access to emergency contraception. Health insurance companies demand higher premiums from women than from men.

Women pay nearly 68 percent more than men – much of it resulting from the uninsured expenses of reproductive health care.

The promise of reform was supposed to remedy all that. Health care reform sought not only to expand coverage but also to reduce gender discrimination.

No longer would women have to pay more than men for the same insurance policy. No longer could pregnancy or womanhood be treated as pre-existing conditions. No longer would women be denied affordable contraceptives. And all women’s health centers finally would be recognized as essential community providers no less than centers that cater to other segments of the population.

Because of Rep. Stupak, the House further entrenched a two-tiered health care system that limits access to care for women.

If Congress is capable of enacting health care reform, it is capable of treating women as equals who don’t have to settle for less. Already, members of the House and Senate pro-choice caucus are pledging to withhold their final votes unless the Stupak Amendment is removed.

Abortion politics should not scuttle health care reform. That is why the Stupak Amendment must be eliminated.

This piece originally ran in The State on Nov. 29, 2009.

When Catholic bishops control health care for all of us

Posted on by

This piece, written by SC Progressive Network member Herb Silverman, ran in The Washington Post.

By Herb Silverman
Founder and President of the Secular Coalition for America and Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry

Q: U.S. Catholic bishops are defending their direct involvement in congressional deliberations over health-care reform, saying that church leaders have a duty to raise moral concerns on any issue, including abortion rights and health care for the poor. Do you agree? What role should religious leaders have — or not have — in government policymaking?

I wouldn’t want to be on a plane with a pilot who had never before flown, nor would I seek sexual guidance from a Catholic bishop who, presumably, had never “flown.” I also think Catholic bishops should have no moral authority when it comes to matters involving sex. The Catholic faithful may choose to live their lives based on pronouncements by priests, bishops, and the pope, and I support their right to do so. But bishops have no right to impose their sectarian beliefs on the rest of us.

Catholic bishops have injected themselves into Congressional deliberations over health-care reform for one primary reason, their updated scarlet A–abortion. And abortion is, after all, first a matter of having sex–which Catholic clergy condemn when it is outside of marriage; when it is within marriage if birth control is used; when it is between homosexuals (whose marriage they would also condemn); and even when it is with oneself (masturbation). Reasons for having abortions vary greatly, and include pregnancy that threatens the mother’s health or life, pregnancy that comes from rape or incest, likelihood of seriously deformed or incurably ill baby, an inconvenient pregnancy, an inability to support and care for a child, a dislike of children. Catholic clergy ignore individual cases with their one-size-fits-all pronouncement about abortion. Americans should be allowed to make up their own minds about the need for and morality of abortion, and should not be denied on the basis of the Catholic theology of sin.

This is not to condemn those from either the left or the right whose faith motivates them to enter the political arena or engage in political issues. However, whatever the motivation, Congress needs to make sure their policies are backed for good secular reasons. That is why we have as law the Three Commandments: don’t steal, murder, or commit perjury. Most of the other seven are sectarian and deal with whom, how, and when to worship. These are properly left for individuals to decide.

Since there are good secular reasons for providing health care for the poor, I see nothing wrong with Catholic bishops and other religious people advocating for reform. Unfortunately, if the bishops don’t get their way on abortion, the signs are that they will try to scuttle health care reform for millions of Americans. The irony is that some women have abortions because they could not afford contraception and cannot afford to provide for a baby because of our inadequate health care system. As far as I can tell, the biblical Jesus said nothing about abortion, but had a lot to say about the poor. Perhaps some Catholic bishops should ask themselves, “What would Jesus do?”

Public financing needed to avoid AG conflicts

Posted on by

This op-ed appeared in The State today. It was written by John Crangle, a longtime member of the SC Progressive Network and advocate for our clean elections initiatives.

By John Crangle
Common Cause of South Carolina

The controversy over Attorney General Henry McMaster’s acceptance and later return of $32,000 of campaign contributions from lawyers he hired to represent the state of South Carolina in a lawsuit against drug companies is yet another episode in a continuing chronicle of attorneys general taking campaign money from lawyers and parties having legal business with the state.
The problem arose when Attorney General Travis Medlock was running for governor, when Attorney General Charlie Condon was running for governor and U.S. Senate and now with McMaster running for governor.

The danger of conflict of interest, favoritism, abuse of office and corruption ia very real for attorneys general, who have in their jurisdiction great discretionary power. The attorney general can decide which lawyers are retained to represent the state in multimillion-dollar lawsuits, which in some cases produce huge attorney fees. Furthermore, the attorney general is in a position to file civil suits and to favorably settle suits benefiting an adverse party. In criminal matters, the attorney general has the power to decide whether to seek an indictment, whether to prosecute, whether to plead a case down or even dismiss.

All of these decisions can have catastrophic or highly beneficial consequences to the lawyers and parties involved. Many lawyers and clients would pay dearly for favored treatment by the attorney general in such cases.

It is all too easy for campaign contributions to influence the decision-making of attorneys general, especially in close cases where great civil or prosecutorial discretion is in play. Given the extensive history of public corruption in South Carolina over the years, it is not far-fetched to envision a future attorney general trading favors for campaign contributions.

Public financing of races for attorney general would be the best cure for the problem of corrupting campaign contributions. As a member of Gov. Jim Hodges’ Commission on Campaign Finance Reform in 2000-01, I argued that the danger of pay-to-play corruption was most acute in the office of attorney general due to the great discretionary power of the office and the enormous stakes involved in major civil and criminal cases. It also seemed that the cost of public financing for the attorney general race would be modest since at the time candidates were spending relatively small sums

The big objection to public financing is always that the taxpayers should not have to pay for the cost of election campaigns. Of course, the taxpayers already pay many costs of elections, including the expense of the S.C Election Commission, the county election commissions and all of the related costs of providing polling places, buying multimillion-dollar voting equipment and hiring poll workers. In case of election appeals and litigation, the taxpayers pay much of these costs too.

My proposal is to have an unprecedented public financing system for attorneys general whereby the ordinary taxpayers pay nothing, but the necessary money would be raised by a tax on campaign contributions to political candidates. As candidates for state and local office raise well over $20 million every four years, a tax of 10 percent would generate enough money to provide candidates for attorney general with public funds sufficient to communicate their positions and qualifications to the voters.

Supreme Court rulings give candidates the right to raise money for their own campaigns, so the state can only offer to give them public financing in exchange for voluntarily not raising money. So public financing alone wouldn’t accomplish our goals. But if we retain the existing laws that limit campaign contributions by source, amount and use, ban contributions from special counsel as suggested in a recent editorial column by Cindi Ross Scoppe and also add my proposal for public financing, we could deter conflicts of interest and abuse of office and inhibit corruption in the position of attorney general.

Finally, an especially and difficult manifestation of the problem is incumbent attorneys general raising funds for another office such as Congress or governor. Although we can’t prohibit an attorney general from raising money, for re-election or election to another office, we can prohibit an incumbent from transferring funds from an attorney general account to a campaign for another office. And we should.

Public financing for the attorney general’s race can serve as a pilot project. If voters and legislators conclude after a trial run that public financing has worked well for attorney general candidates, then public financing could next be tried for another office, such as governor or treasurer.