The discipline of children is a controversial topic today.

I recently saw an article describing the negative effects of corporal punishment on children – likening it to child abuse. It said that it teaches violence, destroys self esteem, and generally demeans both parent and child.

This is just another example of the twisted values of today’s generation of misled theoreticians. To support this point of view I’d like to quote an article written by a psychologist and 40-year veteran of our educational system, Mr. Don Henthorn, entitled, “There’s Research And Then There’s Research.”

“I’ve been a psychologist for almost 40 years, also a teacher, guidance counselor, and administrator. In my opinion, the research (relied upon today) is patently false. The research designs are seriously flawed. Using similar methods I could produce studies proving that corporal punishment inflicted by loving parents takes far less time and is far more effective. In social studies today, little valid information comes from research because examination of all the variables is politically incorrect. Many present day researchers have never passed Methods of Research 101, let alone advanced classes. They start with the flawed presumption that children have an advanced capacity to understand the need to behave similar to adults. Children see it quite differently. They view these methods as a sign of weakness. They feel in control with no fear of consequences. Today, drugs are often used as last-resort correctives.

“The phrases 'authoritative discipline' and 'positive behavior intervention' are too fuzzy and nebulous to get hold of. Parents and principals will tell you they get zero results with children who need discipline the most. With both parent(s) working, time outs, withholding of rewards, serious talks, etc., can not be utilized consistently because parents simply aren’t there when they need to be!

“Proponents of these 'theories' fail to make a distinction between abuse and loving punishment because they have a skewed perspective as to what constitutes violence. When spanking was common, experiential data shows there was far less abuse of children and women. Communities took an active role in disciplining abusers, and physically corrected children had love and respect for their parents. We need town meetings to examine public opinion and historical perspective rather than relying on questionable experts. Also police and protective services should not give credence to theories based on dubious research.”

Many Indian tribes were able to enforce discipline through social pressure, but only because they shared similar values and lifestyles. Today, we don’t have any social pressures to speak of. There is no greater family and few of us care what our neighbors think.

Native peoples never struck their children. Our society did without such punishments because the tribal communities’ social pressures were significantly more powerful in controlling and directing acceptable behavior than the splintered and unsupported American family of today. Many native peoples did have warrior societies that occasionally disciplined adults corporally to insure their compliance, but the most dominant method of force was the threat of humiliation or ostracism.

Today, our citizens share so many different moral and ethical codes that, despite a certain nostalgia and belief in a moral majority, no common morality or value guidelines exist. Without powerful social pressure to encourage citizens to live by a common code, and without the threat or fear of corporal consequence to take its place, there remains only the weak and vacillating exhortation to “behave,” “grow up,” “come to task”, etc. These gobbledy-gook encouragements are part of the poorly theorized, improperly studied precepts of educators, sociologists and parents catering to the whims of undisciplined “experts.”

Looking to nature, every species has to discipline its youth as they push the envelope of willful behavior. This is a natural process toward maturity, but first attempts begin long before the individual has reached a level of intellectual maturity to find a motivation for correct behavior.

Animals are quick and decisive in dealing with this “testing” by their young. Fear of pain is their most effective teaching tool. The quickest way for a child to learn not to touch a hot stove is for them to burn their fingers. The consequences of one’s actions are learned behavior starting with a young child’s first attempts at self reliance.

From those early falls is born a sense of caution; from burned fingers comes a respect for fire. Obviously there is the potential for injury, even fatality, from experimentation – and parents are forced to take more drastic measures to insure children will not take unknown risks simply because they are not yet familiar with the consequences.

When it comes to survival, discipline is fairly easy to accomplish, but social discipline is more difficult. The reasons to “behave” and the benefits of appropriate behavior are not as clear-cut.

As children, most of the baby boom generation was subjected to the “rod” theory, and looking back now, it was pretty effective. We understood that this “discipline” was not from anger and knew that our parents and other adults had our best interests in mind. Since we were also shown sufficient affection, understanding and praise by these same individuals, it was neither demeaning or destructive to our self-esteem. We observed it in nature, and knew it to be a natural occurrence.

Fifty years ago, with corporal punishment a regular form of consequence for undesirable behavior in children and even young adults, it was safe to walk down any street, leave your car and house doors unlocked, and trust your children to do exactly as they were asked–most of the time. Though we had this closet type of violence in every home, society itself was relatively violence free and, if it occurred at all, it was dealt with immediately and harshly.

Today in our more “enlightened” society, where any kind of corporal punishment or spanking is deemed a first cousin of child abuse, and where even verbal correction can be termed a form of abuse, violence is at an all time high. Society demands it for entertainment and in many places the common citizen no longer feels safe in their own home.

Family temperament, volatility and atmosphere create different personalities and a need for different types of discipline. One solution does not fit every child. But the concept that one can appeal to a disturbed young person’s “good sense” to “behave” denies the basic nature of all species to indulge themselves in selfish behavior and test the limits of social control. Only a few species have the social constructs to successfully discipline without corporal adjustment and the only ones successful on this continent were determined to be ignorant savages!

What can be done with young people who, for whatever reason, are simply too willful to be controlled with words or threats that do not have physical pain lurking around to back them up? While their parent(s) may be abusive, disinterested or just afraid the neighbors will call protective services, these youths (usually male) are used to all the disciplinary measures currently in favor and are unfazed by their application. It only takes only one or two of these “fearless” children to infect a classroom or group with disruptive behavior.

Anyone who has children knows that the time line for effectively teaching discipline is short indeed. If we miss our opportunity during early development, we allow unbalanced children to develop an unnatural acceptance of misfortune in their lives. The result? They have little fear of consequences and even “fear of pain” becomes an ineffective technique. They have “formed” and there is no going back.

We think of today as the age of reason. Many people have the misguided expectation that children will respect and accept verbal direction if it is put to them in a quiet and instructively respectful manner. This is no more true for children than it is for adults.

Take the law for example. If the law did not have teeth in its consequences, even reasonable people would begin to take liberties with it, finding ways of rationalizing their actions to explain their disdain of its observance – like stopping at a stop sign. Everyone knows these signs are put there to direct traffic in a safe manner to protect all drivers. Everyone also knows that even when we can see that there is no clear and present danger, we are a still asked to obey – with the consequence of a punishment if we do not. If there were no consequence, individual drivers would begin to bend the law and rationalize their behavior to their own opinions regarding danger.

To find a balance between effective discipline and affection is the test of parenting. We would like to believe that the human animal is evolving into a more enlightened creature – but the state of the world suggests otherwise. Despite paying lip service to grander concepts, the spectacles of sex and death that were rampant in declining Roman society are beginning, once again, to dominate as forms of entertainment for the masses – a sure sign of civilization in decline.

The implication that previous generations disciplined with corporal punishment were somehow damaged, demeaned or improperly treated is ludicrous. Consider the statistics measuring the levels of violence and depression in youth and you will find increases since the advent of these new concepts of discipline.

Talk to anyone born before 1970 and you will find few who consider reasonable corporal punishment to have been damaging to their development, psyche or self-esteem. To say that corporal punishment has no place in the rearing of children in a dangerous world is, in itself, a dangerous theory. The only real argument against corporal punishment today is that today’s parents are so imbalanced themselves that they would not administer such punishments in prudent and reasonable ways. But that is a discussion for another day.

Fear forces us to learn many lessons related to facing the inherent dangers found in the natural world. Fear of consequence causes human adaptation. Much of this learned adaptation results directly from pain experienced when we make mistakes that threaten our balance or direction in that world. Corporal punishment, reasonably applied, is one of the more useful tools individuals have for insisting that their experience and wisdom is demonstrated to their children in a way that is certain to guarantee, if not their compliance, their attention and/or survival.

Today’s violence is gratuitous and self-serving. Its insidious acceptance into our mediums of entertainment and daily lives affects our children in a much more profound manner than any momentary pain and humiliation they might face enduring a five second spanking. Lack of guidance, self-discipline and success does a lot more to damage the self-esteem of our youth than corporal punishment ever would.

James BlueWolf is an artist and writer. He lives in Nice.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

 

 

Singing resumes, group suicides and closing doors mark the desperation of a new year.

State workers face pink slips to the tune of 20,000 more jobless.

In Florida, an unemployed executive assistant in her late 50s entered a karaoke for work contest –something that seems as surreal as the movie “Rollerball.” She sang about her plight to obtain employment to the tune of “Summer Lovin’,” from “Grease.”

Men in suits walk circles on the sidewalk holding their resumes pasted on cardboard signs in Los Angeles.

A few months back a Southern California couple took their lives and the lives of their children after the man and woman were concurrently laid off.

Small business owners are reporting as few as one customer a day, all over the place.

Taxpayers will receive an IOU from the State of California if taxes are owed to them.

During National Recovery Month, recovery programs are closing up shop for lack of funds to provide services.

The pebble in the pond theory cited by Virginia Satir describes the impact that one pebble dropped in a pond creates, causing reverberations that hit the shore, getting larger with each wave and returning the waves from the shore back into the pond – still moving until the waves eventually lose steam after many cycles and calm waters ensue, until the next pebble hits.

So this boulder in the ocean is causing crazy tidal waves – the kind that cause panic and hopelessness.

In Denver President Barack Obama raced to reverse the economic spiral by signing a monster stimulus package into law Tuesday. He’s preparing a new $50 billion foreclosure rescue for scads of people facing the loss of their homes.

Automakers headed to Washington seeking bailout billions.

General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC are getting rid of thousands more jobs.

Obama hopes a $787 billion stimulus plan package of federal spending and tax cuts will revive the economy and save some millions of jobs. Some individuals will soon receive $400 and $800 will go to couples.

“None of this will be easy. The road to recovery will not be straight. We will make progress, and there may be some slippage along the way. We have begun the essential work of keeping the American dream alive in our time,” Obama said Tuesday.

The package might restore order to the financial system to some degree. But housing prices continue to plummet, household wealth diminishes and millions suffocate with the weight of unmanageable debt.

The deteriorating job market eliminates paychecks from the economy.

Widgets, gadgets, knick knacks and curios are out. Water bills, mortgages and power bills must be paid.

The recession caused slews of families to examine spending habits and adjust accordingly for the sake of survival. Perhaps, if there’s any benefit to the economic crisis, it is that Americans were forced to face an epiphany that gluttony must cease.

However, with that said, college students are dropping out, some to eliminate the financial burden

A large majority of the nation's unemployed are educated. Essential programs are hacked from public school budgets daily. Overachievers are losing advanced placement courses in high schools, remedial students losing the courses that insure success, sports, extracurricular and arts disappearing from the fabric of curriculum.

The medical field is an active employment market, unfortunately only a fraction of Americans can afford to see a doctor. When jobs are lost, benefits are lost. In California a great number of doctors are awaiting pay for services that are covered by Medi-Cal. The unsigned state budget stalls the process.

I saw a man standing in the pouring rain Tuesday. He held a cardboard sign that simply said “HUNGRY.” I believed it. He was shaking and appeared emaciated.

The country and the world are pained with this paradox and hoping against hope for a solution.

Mandy Feder is an award-winning writer and editor who is a Lake County News columnist and contributor.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

The Konocti Unified School District (KUSD) is currently making plans and decisions for the 2009-2010 school year. We want to make sure that whatever decisions we make improve our current programs and support student success.

These financially difficult times have forced everyone to take a very close look at all of our programs. This is a very good thing. We must determine what is working well and should be preserved and even expanded. We also need to look at what is not working and should be modified or eliminated from our program.

You are our clients. We value your opinions and insights. In the upcoming days, there will be several opportunities for you to express your opinions. We have scheduled five special board meetings in February so that we can hear your opinions and insights. These meetings will take place from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. on the following days and at the following locations:

• Feb. 17: In the Oak Hill Middle School multi-purpose room;

• Feb. 19: East Lake Elementary School cafeteria;

• Feb. 24: Lower Lake Elementary School cafeteria;

• Feb. 25: Burns Valley Elementary School cafeteria;

• Feb. 26: Pomo Elementary School cafeteria

The driving force behind our making these decisions is the current fiscal situation in California and our district.

We have been cutting costs in the district for several years now. Last year, KUSD cut a million dollars out of our $28 million budget. The majority of these cuts were made away from the classroom; for example, we eliminated the assistant superintendent and district curriculum and instruction positions.

Yet, the budget reductions keep coming. We are expecting to have to cut close to a million more dollars at mid-year when the state decides on this school year’s (2008-09) budget. Projections are that we will need to cut another $1 million next year.

In late October, we formed committees of district personnel, parents, and community members to investigate and recommend methods to increase our revenue and decrease our spending. These recommendations were presented to the KUSD Board of Trustees on Feb. 4. Copies of the recommendations can be obtained at the District Office or can be emailed.

Schools receive monies from the state and federal governments based upon student enrollment and attendance. The easiest way to increase revenue is for our students to attend school more regularly. If we increase our overall district attendance by 1 percent, then we will earn another $180,000. More importantly, when our students attend more, they learn more, and will be better prepared for life.

Lowering costs is a far more difficult problem because we have cut so much already that we are down to cutting personnel and consolidating our services. This is where we need your opinions and input. KUSD has been the leader in determining ways that the county, city of Clearlake and other school districts can join together to reduce our purchasing costs and prevent the duplication of services.

This will certainly save dollars, but not enough to balance our budget. We must do something that will significantly reduce our costs over a long period of time, while at the same time improving our overall services to the students.

The consolidation committee has recommended three plans to do this. They are ranked below in order of costs saved.

Plan No. 1: Close Oak Hill Middle School and make Burns Valley, Pomo and Lower Lake Elementary

Schools serve kindergarten through eighth grade (K-8). East Lake would remain a K-8, but with a higher enrollment.

Plan No. 2: Close Oak Hill Middle School and make Burns Valley a K-3 and Pomo a fourth through eighth grade school. Lower Lake Elementary becomes a K-8. East Lake would remain a K-8, but with a higher enrollment.

Plan No. 3: Close Burns Valley Elementary and have Pomo and Lower Lake both continue as K-6 schools with expanded enrollment including former Burns Valley students. Oak Hill continues as a 7-8 school and East Lake a K-8.

There are many pros and cons to each of these plans. The committee felt that the best way to judge a plan was by using the following criteria:

1. Is it beneficial for students by improving opportunities for learning?

2. Will it save money?

3. How does it affect the parents and community?

4. What is the impact on certificated and classified staff members?

5. Can it be done by the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year?

The pros and cons of each of these plans will be further discussed at the February board meetings at each site. In addition, all parents and staff will receive a Connect Ed phone survey on Friday, Feb. 27, at 7 p.m. We ask that you vote for the plan that you think best meets the above criteria at that time. If you are unavailable to answer the survey at that time, you will receive another call on Saturday morning (Feb. 28) at 10 a.m. Your opinion is important and valued.

The Konocti Board of Trustees, your elected representatives, has placed our students’ academic and personal growth until graduation as their Overriding Goal. To do this, their priorities are: safety, low class sizes and intervention programs. They want to reduce the number of combo classes (two grade levels in one classroom), make sure that the smallest class sizes are in the lower grade levels (K-3), and make the last personnel cuts those who directly work with students in the classroom.

The board also emphasized the importance of art, music, drama, career tech (vocational education) and athletics in grades K-12. In short, the board of trustees has mandated that we provide a full curriculum, in fully staffed, safe classrooms. These are superb goals that we can achieve and our children deserve.

Thanks so much for your willingness to help us make wise decisions that improve our educational services. Together, we will make sure that the Konocti Unified School District is known statewide for students who receive the education necessary for a happy, productive life.

William MacDougall, Ed.D, is superintendent of the Konocti Unified School District.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

In recent weeks, in his pitches to Congress and the public on the need to pass the economic stimulus bill, President Barack Obama has made several claims about what it would do. (Republicans, too, have made stimulus boasts of their own.) But these pronouncements are not a sure thing:

• Obama repeatedly said the plan “will save or create up to 4 million jobs.” Obama downgraded that estimate to 3.5 million once the House and Senate agreed on a less-expensive compromise bill. The projections come from at least three economists, but all say there is great uncertainty in their estimates.

• Republican House members claimed their substitute legislation tops that, creating “6.2 million jobs.” But their calculation is even more fraught with uncertainty and is not backed up by independent economists.

• Obama said the bill doesn't contain “a single earmark.” But whether one calls them “earmarks” or not, the Senate certainly added items that will benefit particular states. For example: $50 million for programs under the California-Bay Delta Act and $500 million for National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Md.

• Obama claims that funds in the bill will result in “every American” having health records computerized “within five years.” But experts doubt it can be done that quickly.

• The president also says electronic health records will save billions of dollars. But the Congressional Budget Office says that even a decade of expected savings are unlikely to pay back the government what the government will spend on health IT.

• The president said the bill will modernize the nation's electricity grid, reducing consumption by 2 percent to 4 percent. That's optimistic. Industry reports say that a new grid could reduce energy consumption by up to 4 percent, but not until 2030 and at a cost much greater than the stimulus bill would cover.

Analysis

Amid much debate and disagreement over an economic stimulus package, President Obama has been pushing a bill that he says will help the economy and American workers in all sorts of ways. The two chambers of Congress have agreed on compromise legislation that comes close to what Obama backed.

In his prime-time press conference Feb. 9, an op-ed that was published in the Washington Post and in speeches to both the public and government employees, Obama has made his case again and again, citing various claims about what the bill would do. We take a look at a few of his not-so-certain pronouncements.

Jobs, jobs, jobs

In the Feb. 9 press conference, Obama said: “And that is why the single most important part of this Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is the fact that it will save or create up to 4 million jobs – because that's what America needs most right now.”

The president, along with stimulus supporters, has made this claim several times, stating that the House bill would create either 3 million or 4 million jobs by the end of 2010. On Feb. 11, Congress agreed on compromise legislation, which is $20 billion to $40 billion less expensive than bills passed by the two chambers; Obama said that bill would create 3.5 million jobs. The numbers are based on projections made by several economists – but those economists aren't completely sure. They can't be. As we pointed out recently on The FactCheck Wire, economic modeling is relatively new, and largely untested, particularly with the kind of recession figures we’re seeing today. Obama would do better to say “could create” or “experts estimate,” rather than making such a definitive claim.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com, told the House budget committee on Jan. 27 that the House bill would lead to 3 million more jobs by the end of 2010 than there would be without the stimulus. A week earlier, he put the number at 4 million. But, as he told the Associated Press, there’s no guarantee.

Zandi, quoted by the AP: “The models are based on historic experience. And we're outside anything we've experienced historically. We're completely in a world we don't understand and know.”

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office gave a significant range in its job creation figures, saying that the bills would create anywhere from 1.2 million to 3.6 million jobs by the end of next year.

Christina Romer, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, from Vice President Biden’s office, published a report in early January that said between 3.3 million and 4.1 million jobs would be created as the result of a slightly smaller recovery plan. But, they acknowledged, “[T]here is considerable uncertainty in our estimates: both the impact of the package on GDP and the relationship between higher GDP and job creation are hard to estimate precisely.” They called their range “reasonable.”

Yet another economist, Allen Sinai, founder of Decision Economics Inc, has said the stimulus could save 3 million to 4 million jobs as well. But, he told the New York Times, “I’m not sure I believe my own models. We’re in uncharted waters here.”

With several economists coming up with similar figures, Obama seems to be on fairly safe ground. Still, Nobel laureate economists can’t agree on whether the stimulus bill contains the right kind of measures to aid the crisis-plagued economy or how much help spending and tax relief will bring. Nor can the economists the president relies on present their projections with a high degree of certainty. Obama might be right about the job-creation ability of the plan, but it’s also possible the effect of the stimulus will be more in line with the low end of CBO’s range – or, in fact, it could have no effect at all.

Jobs, jobs, jobs – the Republican version

House Republican Leader John Boehner and Republican Whip Eric Cantor have repeatedly claimed that a GOP alternative stimulus plan would create “twice the jobs as the House Democrats’ plan at half the cost” – that's 6.2 million jobs, according to Boehner. Sounds even better, right? If only someone could be certain of that number.

The figure comes from the House Republicans’ own calculations. When we asked whether any independent economists endorsed the Republican claims, a spokesman for the Republican staff of the Ways and Means Committee produced none. CBO did not analyze the GOP's substitute, which failed by a vote of 170 to 266 on Jan. 28.

How did Republicans arrive at their 6.2 million figure? The Web site of Rep. Dave Camp, the ranking Republican member of the Committee on Ways and Means and a sponsor of the substitute, explains that the GOP's estimate is based on a 2007 paper by economists Christina and David Romer, a husband-wife team at the University of California, Berkeley. Yep, that's the same Christina Romer who is now chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers.

The Romers' analysis of tax changes since World War II concluded that “tax changes have very large effects” on the economy. Specifically, they said their data suggested that a “tax increase of 1 percent of GDP [gross domestic product] lowers real GDP by about 3 percent” or lower, but at least by 2.2 percent. Flipping the Romers' calculations, GOP staffers figured that a tax cut of 1 percent of GDP would produce growth of 2.2 percent. Then, using a different report (Christina Romer's analysis of Obama's plan), the Republicans further calculated that their own party's proposed cuts would yield 6.2 million jobs over two years.

Republicans point to Romer's position in Obama's administration, as if to prove their figures are justified. However, these aren't her calculations. Plus, the Romers stressed in that 2007 report that their estimates were larger than other economists had come up with and “are not highly precise.” (Indeed, in the CBO’s analysis, which it says gives a range that “encompasses a majority of economists’ views,” the nonpartisan group gives a high and low multiplier for several government measures; the tax cut multiplier ranges from 0.5 to 1.7.) More recently, Christina Romer, in a Jan. 9 paper estimating the effects of the Democratic plan, didn't use the 2.2 multiplier even though that meant a lower job estimate for the tax cuts in Obama's plan. Instead, she used a 1 percent multiplier.

We were unable to contact Romer directly, but a White House spokesperson told us the GOP analysis “makes a fundamental error” by assuming that added jobs from tax cuts would show up by the end of next year. “It fails to take into account the fact that tax changes affect the economy with delays,” the spokesperson said. Actually, even if the 2.2 multiplier were correct, the number of jobs added due to the GOP's proposed tax cuts would be only 1.7 million by the end of next year, according to White House calculations. GOP leaders themselves acknowledged in a document detailing their calculations that any such projections “are largely speculative, and the conclusions are generally dictated by the assumptions made by the authors.”

In other words, who knows? As macroeconomist Arnold Kling recently wrote, we'd have to construct alternate universes and try out different policies to see what effect tax cuts actually have in real life. Absent that, we're left with models that reflect economists' (or politicians') biases.

No earmarks?
 
Obama said in his Monday night press conference that the stimulus “does not contain ... a single pet project, not a single earmark, and it has been stripped of the projects members of both parties found most objectionable.”

The “pet projects” may not have been so easily identifiable in the House bill, but watchdog groups picked out some in the Senate version. “To say there are no earmarks, would not be an accurate statement. There are very few," said Citizens Against Government Waste President Tom Schatz, “[M]embers [of Congress] have gotten much more creative.”

Schatz rattled off a few examples that were in the Senate version: $198 million for benefits for Filipino veterans; $2 billion for a near-zero emissions coal plant, which would most likely go to the FutureGen project in Illinois; $500 million for National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Md. Members’ names weren't attached to the items. Still, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois has supported FutureGen, and why wouldn’t Maryland Sens. Barbara Mikulski and Benjamin Cardin be pleased to see funds go to their state? Such items meet the group's definition of what qualifies as “pork.” For the record, funds for the near-zero emissions plant were stripped out of the final conference report, but the Filipino veterans benefits and funds for NIH buildings are still there.

The investigative journalism site ProPublica, in a story published with MSNBC.com, identified several more questionable projects that members argue create or save jobs – for their own constituents. The Associated Press, too, found it noteworthy that Obama promised an audience in Elkhart, Indiana, that a bill with no pork would bring roadwork and perhaps a new downtown overpass.

Yet, any of these pet projects very well could lead to jobs. What critics see as “pork,” people who stand to benefit would see as necessary funds to boost local economies.

Pork for mice?

And, as Schatz notes, it’s much more difficult to identify who may have requested what. Republicans have charged that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi benefits from some pork in the compromise legislation: She has long pushed for protection for the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse in wetlands in the San Francisco Bay area, and the final bill calls for millions for wetlands restoration that could pay for such a “pet project.” But it was the Senate bill that said a sum of money ($50 million) “may be used for” programs under the California Bay-Delta Restoration Act. The House bill included no such stipulation, calling only for $50 million for a “Watershed Rehabilitation Program.”

It’s worth noting that the Senate also stipulated that another $50 million “may” be used for the Central Utah Projection Completion Act. Would that be $50 million of pork for Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch and Robert Bennett? Or a necessary stimulus for a vital project? The funding for both the California and Utah programs survived in the final conference report.

A Pelosi spokesman told the Washington Times that she had no involvement in directing the funds to the harvest mouse project, noting that “restoration is key to economic activity, including farming, fisheries, recreation and clean water.”

Obama may be right about the House bill, which was indeed stripped of a few items that representatives questioned, as he said. Our colleagues at PolitiFact.com also called the office of Republican Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona, an outspoken opponent of earmarks, and spokesman Matthew Specht told them: “Yeah, we agree that the House version can probably be considered earmark-free.”

Health IT

In his op-ed, and in his Jan. 24 video address, Obama repeated a claim about the stimulus bills' investment in electronic health records:

Obama op-ed, Feb. 5: “Now is the time to protect health insurance for the more than 8 million Americans at risk of losing their coverage and to computerize the health-care records of every American within five years, saving billions of dollars and countless lives in the process.”

During the presidential campaign, Obama often talked about electronic health records and the money that technology would save. But would it be billions? And can we computerize all of Americans’ health records in five years? Experts say it will be tough to speed up adoption that quickly, but they agree it's a laudable goal with plenty of money-saving, and health-improving, benefits. Health IT can do away with duplicate tests, reduce medical errors and bad drug interactions, and increase prevention efforts.

We dug into this issue last summer, finding that the adoption of electronic medical records has moved along at a crawl – only 12 percent of physicians and 11 percent of hospitals had electronic records systems in 2006, according to the CBO. The majority of doctors haven’t implemented the technology, experts told us, because it’s expensive, because not all of the many systems that are available can communicate with each other, and because it takes some time for an office to change its operations in such a major way. Dr. Rainu Kaushal, a professor of public health at the Weill Medical College of Cornell University, told us that the right policies could lead to 90 percent of practitioners adopting electronic systems, but “I think it's pie in the sky for the next five years.” Kaushal said eight to 10 years was a reasonable estimate.

Catherine Desroches, an instructor at the Harvard Medical School who has researched health IT, told us it would take “tens of billions to hundreds of billions of dollars to really have a fully interoperable national system.”

The compromise legislation includes $19 billion to speed up adoption. Most of the money would be in the form of payment incentives from Medicare and Medicaid for physicians who use electronic records.

We called Desroches again to ask for her take on the stimulus bill. Using the money for incentives for health care providers and infrastructure support, she said, could increase the rate of adoption, since those were the two main barriers she found in a survey of health IT use. As for getting all records computerized in five years, she said: “It’s certainly not going to be easy. But with a concerted effort at the federal level that actually has money behind it we could definitely speed up adoption.”

While the CBO agrees that health IT will save the government money in the long run, those savings are far outweighed by what the government will spend for the next 10 years.

CBO: Increased spending in the near term would be partially offset by Medicare savings in later years; as a result, those provisions would increase deficits by about $30 billion through 2014 but would yield savings in later years, reducing the net 11-year impact to $17 billion total through 2019.

It's worth noting that the CBO report only looks at government savings, not what insurance companies, doctors, hospitals or patients could potentially save from the use of health IT.

Power grid

During an early February speech at the Department of Energy to endorse the stimulus package, Obama said that “just these first steps towards modernizing the way we distribute electricity could reduce consumption by 2 to 4 percent.” He didn't mention any specific “steps,” but according to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the final compromise bill includes $11 billion for smart-grid efforts, including those to modernize the electricity grid. Industry projections show that the U.S. could reduce consumption by as much as Obama says, but it will take more than 20 years and a lot more money than the stimulus provides.

A study by the Electric Power Research Institute, an industry think tank, concluded that the deployment of a so-called smart grid “could potentially” reduce annual U.S. energy consumption by 1.2 percent to 4.3 percent of projected electricity usage in 2030.

But EPRI was looking at much more than the “first steps” that are in the stimulus bill. Rather, the EPRI report's projected consumption decline would come about through full transition, nationwide, to a smart grid that wouldn't be completed until 2030. A smart grid is an umbrella term for a variety of technological improvements to or replacements for the current system of electrical distribution and transmission from power sources to homes and businesses. Such improvements include wires that can handle more powerful currents and systems that can show a homeowner how much electricity a particular household item is using.

Rebis James, director of the Energy-Technology Assessment Center for EPRI, told FactCheck.org that only a “small fraction of homes and distribution centers” currently have such communication systems. A study commissioned by the Edison Electric Institute concluded that the cost of implementing a smart grid nationwide “will total about $880 billion.”

But money might not be the issue. As one power line developer told The New York Times, “We absolutely have no problem — underscore, no problem — financing our transmission grid.” Rather, the developers all point to regulatory hurdles that they say are hindering smart grid implementation.

When asked how close the U.S. might be to attaining the savings outlined in the EPRI report, James replied that it was “a long way away.”

Sources

Zandi, Mark. “The Economic Outlook and Budget Challenges.” Written Testimony of Mark Zandi before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives, 27 Jan. 2009.

Zandi, Mark. “The Economic Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,” 21 Jan. 2009.
Fram, Alan. “FACT CHECK: Will stimulus create more than 3 million jobs like Democrats say? Maybe not.” Associated Press, 2 Feb. 2009.

Elmendorf, Douglas W. “Testimony on the Economy and Stimulus.” Congressional Budget Office, Director’s Blog, 27 Jan. 2009.

Elmendorf, Douglas W. Letter to Sen. Judd Gregg. Congressional Budget Office, 11 Feb. 2009.
Romer, Christina and Jared Bernstein. “The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan,” 9 Jan. 2009.

Andrews, Edmund L. “Economy Shed 598,000 Jobs in January.” New York Times, 6 Feb. 2009.
 “Democrats’ ‘Stimulus’ Bill Under Fire, House GOP has a Better Solution.” U.S. House Republican Leader John Boehner’s blog,  2 Feb. 2009.

Cantor, Eric. “Smarter, Simpler Stimulus.” U.S. House of Representatives Office of the Republican Whip, 30 Jan. 2009.

The President’s Senior Economic Advisors’ Research Shows the Republican Substitute Could Create 6.2 million Jobs over the Next Two Years. U.S. House of Representatives Ways & Means Republican Press Office, 28 Jan. 2009.

State by State Breakout of Job Creation Under the Republican Substitute to H.R. 1. U.S. House of Representatives Ways & Means Republican Press Office, 5 Feb. 2009.

Romer, Christina D. and David H. Romer. “The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks.” University of California, Berkeley, March 2007.

DeLong, Brad. “Dueling Multipliers.” Grasping Reality with Both Hands blog, 29 Jan. 2009.

“Results of Applying the Methodology Advocated by Dr. Christina Romer and Dr. Jared Bernstein for Measuring the Job Creating Effects of the Republican Substitute to H.R. 1.” U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means Republicans, 28 Jan. 2009.

DeLong, Brad. “Christie Romer Is Confirmed.” Grasping Reality with Both Hands blog, 31 Jan. 2009.
Grabell, Michael. “The Stimulus Bills: House vs. Senate.” ProPublica, 10 Feb. 2009.

Interview with Catherine Desroches, instructor at the Harvard Medical School,” 9 Feb. 2009.

Congressional Budget Office. “H.R. 1 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.” Cost Estimate, 26 Jan. 2009.

111th Congress, 1st Session. H.R. 1, as passed by U.S. House of Representatives.

111th Congress, 1st Session. H.R. 1 Amendment, as passed by the U.S. Senate, 10 Feb. 2009.

Interview with Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, 9 Feb. 2009.

Grabell, Michael and Christopher Weaver. “In the Stimulus Bill: An Earmark by Any Other Name.” ProPublica, 5 Feb. 2009.

Woodward, Calvin. “FACT CHECK: Obama has it both ways on pork.” Associated Press, 9 Feb. 2009.
“Stimulus bill includes projects that some consider earmarks.” PolitiFact.com, Feb. 2009."

"Power Delivery and Utilization Update." Electric Power Research Institute, Jan 2009.

"Transforming America's Power Industry: The Investment Challenge, 2010-2030," prepared by the Brattle Group for The Edison Foundation. Nov 2008.

Wald, Matthew L. "Hurdles (Not Financial Ones) Await Electric Grid Update." The New York Times, 6 Feb 2009.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. It is a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

“No need to state the obvious,” my father used to say.

I’ll be rebellious for just a moment though.

February is Black History Month. The United States has its first black president, Barack Obama. We typically and rightfully celebrate the lives of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks and Harriet Tubman during February.

There are famous black figures and some unsung heroes who I would like to honor this month.

An article “Greening the Ghetto” by Elizabeth Kolbert appearing in the New Yorker (Jan. 12) explores the work of Van Jones, founder and president of “Green For All.”

Jones is attempting to find a solution for poverty and global warming at the same time.

In the article Jones is quoted as saying: “I love Barack Obama. I’d pay money just to shine the brother’s shoes. But I’ll tell you this. Do you hear me? One man is not going to save us …”

Jones is building what he calls an “everybody movement,” and it moves across the lines of class and color to achieve solutions for all. He wants to involve young people in the green economy.

This society is often disconnected, focusing on differences rather than commonalities. There is reason to celebrate a leader in this era seeking to bond rather than separate for the sake of common good.

About 15 years ago I was fortunate enough to see Maya Angelou speak. I have been reading her work since I was nine or 10 years old.     

Angelou is a poet, award-winning writer, journalist, activist, performer, director and professor. She is a three-time Grammy Award winner for her autobiographical spoken-word recordings.

As she spoke in her deep, haunting tone, filled with painful truths and hard-earned triumphant joy, she became three-dimensional. All the writing I read so intently for years jumped from the pages and had a voice.

What an honor it was to be in the same room and breath the same air as her.

Similarly, a couple of years ago I had the honor of attending a jazz performance where Wynton Marsalis led a band that literally brought tears to my eyes.

President Obama and Frederick Douglass have a lot in common for two men born in different centuries. Douglass was an abolitionist, women's suffragist, editor, orator, author and reformer. He also ran on the US Equal Rights Party ticket for vice-president with Victoria Woodhull, the first woman to run for president of the United States.

He believed in equality of all people, whether black, female, Indian or immigrant. He often said, “I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong.”

On a lighter note, sometimes hilarious, sometimes political, sometimes profane and always relevant, Chris Rock gives power in a poignant punch with raw and unbridled humor.

George Washington Carver was a scientist, botanist, educator and inventor. He was called by Time magazine in 1941 “Black Leonardo,” referencing Leonardo da Vinci.

He placed emphasis on advocacy of sustainable agriculture, improvement of racial relations, mentoring children, poetry, painting and religion.

Oprah Winfrey survived abuse and molestation. She was a runaway at 13 and was sent to a juvenile detention home where she was denied admission for lack of beds.

Her broadcast career began at 17, when she was hired by WVOL radio in Nashville and two years later signed on with WTVF-TV in Nashville as a reporter and anchor.

She saved a struggling Chicago talk show that in less than a year became “The Oprah Winfrey Show.”

Winfrey is also a distinguished and serious actress, which stirred the desire to create HARPO Productions Inc.

Fact: HARPO is Oprah spelled backwards.

She was named one of the 100 Most Influential People of the 20th Century by Time magazine, and in 1998 received a Lifetime Achievement Award from the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

What’s more American than baseball? Jackie Robinson was born in Georgia in 1919 and raised by a single mother of five children.

He excelled at all sports. At UCLA, he became the first athlete to win varsity letters in four sports: baseball, basketball, football and track. In 1941, he was named to the All-American football team.

Money problems forced him to leave college. He enlisted in the Army and after objections of racial discrimination. He left the Army with an honorable discharge.

In 1947 Robinson joined the Brooklyn Dodgers, pioneering integration in professional sports.

He was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York in 1962.

We all speak in our own tongue, bringing beauty and change to the world in an individual manner. I think of the exterior of a person as a soul shell, the container of that particular human being. While I am pleased to honor each of these incredible people for their contributions to the world during this important month, the month of my own birth, I’m glad to belong to one race, the human race.

Mandy Feder is an award-winning writer and editor who is a Lake County News columnist and contributor.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

On a recent morning as I exited Carl’s Jr. restaurant in Santa Rosa, I happened to see a young man rummaging through a garbage can on the other side of the parking lot. Walking to my car, I watched him pull out, open and inspect several bags of discarded remnants until he found something that looked good enough to keep.

Immediately experiencing a complete disappearance of any hunger for the food that I had just purchased for myself, I approached the young man and handed him my breakfast and a $20 bill that had been floating around in my purse. The gratitude in his sunken eyes was testament to the fact that, in the words of a song by the band, Downhere, “We are a Cathedral made of people, in a Kingdom that the eye can’t see ...”
 
There’s more to this or any simple act of kindness, for that matter, than might meet the eye: Today’s physicists now believe that our entire universe is made of interconnected strings of energy; that the appearance of separation of matter is an illusion, and that energy can never be destroyed.

Astronomers have also pinpointed a timeframe, around 16 billion years ago, for when this energy began its rapid, eternal dispersal throughout space, but no one thus far has told us exactly where it originated or what caused it to finally have its Big Bang.

Some 2,000 years ago, however, a radical rabbi began stirring up trouble among his peers with wild notions of a Loving Father, a Kingdom and an invitation for all to join the banquet here on Earth. He told his followers that following death, He would be back, that they would know Him in anyone they met – if they just had the eyes to see.

Furthermore, he gave his disciples a mission: Remember me by spreading this message to the whole world, high and low, rich and poor, to every tongue and every nation. What a Kingdom he dreamed of, where everyone could recognize their connectedness, in a beautiful banquet of life and love here in the Kingdom of our own lovely planet!
 
Unfortunately, His message was/is often misunderstood, twisted, and distorted by a lot of people, who, bless them, thought/think they were/are doing the right thing by Jesus. Even still, can you imagine if the Kingdom actually did come, on Earth as it is in Heaven? (If you are reading this and you have a problem with the whole concept of Heaven, replace the word with Peace, tranquility, etc., like it was for you before you were born. Do you have any recollection of pain or suffering before you were born? No. So just go with that for the moment.)

Many great teachers and leaders have imagined, worked for and even died for such a Kingdom; a Kingdom that, in fact, already exists, albeit mostly invisibly within Earth’s inhabitants. Can this Kingdom become free from its prison within our hearts, so that Earth can be the banquet of peace and justice that so many have envisioned?
 
I believe so, but freeing this Divine energy we were all born with requires a new perception – from all realms of the religious spectrum. This, in a nutshell, is what I think Jesus came to Earth to teach all of humanity. He knew, long before today’s scientists could prove it, that His life was found everywhere, even down to underneath a rock or inside of a piece of split wood. This is why I know that I met Jesus today at the garbage can.
 
To folks on the liberal side, I implore you to live up to your “tolerant“ liberal label and not be prejudiced, hateful and discriminatory of the very people whom you think are prejudiced, hateful and discriminatory … Are your enemies’ hateful arguments winning you over? No? Well then, guess what? Your hateful arguments are likely to keep the fire of discontent burning on their side as well.

How can the two sides come together when each side says the other side has to make the first concession? It’s ridiculous to think that you will attract support by being just as ugly as your opposition. Do you disparage people of faith, calling their God silly, or just a myth, or do you proclaim that they must be ignorant or intolerant if they go to a church that you perceive as different or intolerant, or if they go to church at all?

Are you, yourself, ignorant of the fact that Jesus spoke in veiled language and parables for very crucial reasons – and that to throw Him out with the bathwater you, yourself are guilty of being ignorant and intolerant? Do you think you will win converts to your quests for ending the war, protecting the whales, feeding the poor, etc., by repelling millions of potential partners?

Do you realize that you are ignorant of the fact that many people of faith are working harder for a lot of these same causes than you could ever imagine? Are you aware that Jesus was more Liberal than you could even try to be? Standing in your own corner all the time, throwing stones, you are unlikely to see the real picture.
 
On the conservative side in this country, many people appear to also be greatly inspired by the Bible, which they often use to explain how they arrived at their strict or “family values” viewpoints and interpretations. Let me remind you that God’s new covenant is still in effect, and has been since the most liberal of any priest on the face of the Earth first spoke the words that announced the new law: Love. Every commandment was neatly summed up in that law!

Jesus put an end to the thousands of years of suffering under the burden of hundreds of very rigid, xenophobic and hateful religious rules that kept anger and fear in the forefront of everyone’s life. Can you get past the pre-new covenant times and try doing things Jesus-style? If you want someone to agree with you, open your heart, see Jesus in them and act accordingly.

Many people disagreed with Jesus and look how they treated him. Maybe the person you hate has a point to consider that you hadn’t thought of before. If Christ could forgive the very people who nailed him to the cross, how could you possibly hold on to feelings of anger toward people who don’t share your religion or who don’t vote the way you vote? Is it your business or God’s business? Will you bring more people to the Light by hating them or by loving them? Seriously, how can people possibly “know we are Christians by our love," as the old song goes, if you go around breaking the most important commandment?
 
Then there are those who think they don't have any religion. Are you one of these? Believe it or not, everyone has a religion! For some it is conspicuously found in the honest following and devotion of the words of great Avatars, but for others it is found in money, success, playing video games, bossing your employees around, keeping a clean house, surfing the Internet, etc., ad infinitum. Do some people make keeping their car washed and polished into a religion? The answer is yes!

To discover your religion, just figure out where most of your attention goes, because that’s where the bulk of your energy flows. Someone might be the biggest fan of Buddha, or maybe he proudly wears a golden crucifix around his neck, for example, but if his life’s energy is given over to becoming rich and powerful, his religion is not Buddhism or Christianity; it is money that he worships.
 
Today when I fed the man in the parking lot, not only was I feeding him, but I was feeding Jesus, and I was feeding myself. We are, all three, interconnected in the “cathedral made of people” created by the God of the Universe. From a scientific standpoint, the energy that freed itself from my body probably resulted in a corresponding release of his happiness neuro-peptides, which hopefully also caused the movement of neurons that wired together to form a memory of this simple act of giving.

Someday this received love might be remembered and shared with others, thereby keeping the flow of love on its neverending expansion. Will it save his life, get him off the streets, cure his addictions or be the one thing that gave him reason to live for another day? Who knows. I’m not in the business of deciding that. I can only do my part each moment in helping to spread the God-given Love energy to everyone I encounter, in whatever way I can.
 
I personally choose to worship the One who gave His life for teaching simply and most humbly that we can discover the Kingdom by remembering always that our path must be walked with Love – the eternal energy gift that exists inside and outside us. A church is nice, a Bible is nice, putting money in the offering plate on Sunday is nice, but the main point is to be the Love that we so desperately want to see in the Kingdom.

Some may call Him crazy to actually die for such a simple idea, but if He could die for it, I can certainly live by it; in the pew and at the garbage can.
 
Gale Tompkins-Bischel attends United Christian Parish in Lakeport.  

{mos_sb_discuss:4}