December 1, 2012 - December 7, 2012, The Afro-American
A9
COMMENTARY
Common Sense Can Save Us From The Fiscal Cliff As the Congress returns to Washington from the Thanksgiving district work period, our most urgent responsibility is reaching the compromises on taxes, government programs and the national debt limit that will avoid pushing our nation off the “fiscal cliff.” If ever there was a time for common sense to prevail in Washington, that time is now. I stand with President Obama in our understanding that we must do everything within our power to bring Rep. Elijah our national expenditures and Cummings revenues closer into balance. We also understand, however, that we must do so thoughtfully and fairly - with a surgeon’s knife, and not with an axe. These issues were at the heart of this year’s electoral contests, elections in which the American people weighed the Democratic and Republican alternatives. A clear majority of the voters supported the President and his vision. America voted for a budget strategy of shared sacrifice and shared opportunity – a bipartisan agreement that could chart the course toward both a stronger economy and bringing our national books into balance. We did not vote for proposals that would balance our national books on the backs of middle class working families, government workers and those of us who are just barely getting by. In a Nov. 20 address to the Economic Club of New York, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke urged Congress and the president to achieve a budget compromise and, thereby, avoid the serious danger of our falling again into recession. Chairman Bernanke also stressed that Congress must raise the federal debt limit to prevent the government from defaulting on the “full faith and credit” of the United States. At the same time that we address these immediate economic dangers, he argued, we also must reduce the federal debt over the long run to ensure economic growth and stability. I am hopeful that my Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives were listening to the chairman’s advice. On balance, that common sense prescription for compromise acknowledges the wisdom of President Obama’s balanced
approach to avoiding the “fiscal cliff.” Both Wall Street and Main Street are apprehensive about the prospect of a general tax increase (beginning on income earned after Jan. 1), while, at the same time, both military and domestic federal programs are sharply reduced. One would have to be an extreme federal budget cutter, moreover, to relish another slash and burn fight over raising the national debt limit. We have not forgotten that an ideologically driven attack back in 2011 on what previously was a bipartisan perspective toward the debt limit pushed us into this “fiscal cliff” in the first place. Most Americans strongly support a bipartisan budget compromise – and I agree. Fortunately, the United States Senate passed the Middle Class Tax Cut Act (S.3412) on July 25 of last year that could – and should – avoid the fiscal cliff in the immediate term, while also serving as a starting point for further congressional action to address our vexing economic issues. For one year (2013), the proposed Middle Class Tax Cut Act would extend the current federal income tax rates for individuals earning less than $200,000 annually ($250,000 for married couples). It also would extend tax credits important to middle class Americans and avoid expanding the application of the Alternative Minimum Tax. These actions would protect 98 percent of America’s tax payers from an immediate increase in our taxes. However, for the most affluent 2 percent of our citizens (primarily those who receive the bulk of their income in capital gains), the tax rate would be increased to 20 percent (which still would be less than the rate most Americans pay on earned income). President Obama has declared that he would immediately sign this short-term proposal on taxes – as soon as the House of Representatives agrees. I would be inclined to support such a practical action by the House, especially if it were coupled with an increase in the federal debt limit and a reasoned compromise on “sequestration.”
As I have repeatedly explained to my House colleagues, the sequestration budget axe forced upon our country by Tea Party ideologues in the 2011 Budget Control Act would be devastating to our economy as we work to grow our way out of the Bush Recession. Unless the Congress acts to modify the currently scheduled budget slashing, both military and non-military programs will be harmed – and our overall economy as well. Maryland’s economy would be among those most devastated. On balance, Marylanders receive about $17 billion more each year from our relationship with the federal government than we are paying in federal taxes. An average Marylander is about $4,200/ year better off. As a result, our local economy would be especially vulnerable to sequestration cuts in federal spending. In fact, according to The Center of Regional Analysis at George Mason University, sequestration could translate into the loss of 100,000 Maryland jobs.
We can avoid that fiscal cliff, but only if common sense, and not ideology, prevails. Congressman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) represents Maryland’s Seventh Congressional District in the United States House of Representatives.
A Resurrection of the Black Church in Local Politics
The 2012 presidential election has raised a challenge for several different interest groups regarding the role of faith communities dominated by people of color. Critical to the Nov. 6 Election Day results were the efforts and voice of the Black Church and the Black preacher. The Black Church undeniably got the vote out. Here in Maryland the ballot dealt with issues of justice and empowerment. Not to mention that much of the electorate was divided along racial lines. Rev. Kevin A. Few interests failed to solicit the support of faith leaders Slayton Sr. from the Black community. Specifically, Black clergy were courted for their support of ballot issues pertaining to same-sex marriage, expanding gambling and educational opportunities for immigrants. Many of these interests determined early in their campaigns that the support of the faith community was critical. But over the course of several months only one television ad highlighted the support of an Asian, Hispanic, Islamic, Jewish or Caucasian faith leader. Black preachers from various Protestant denominations, many of whom were overwhelmingly democratic in party
affiliation were out front and center. Interestingly enough at various points after the civil rights movement, there have been those that would ask if the Black Church had any relevance in our society. More specifically they wondered aloud if the power of the Black Church died along with the voice of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I’m reminded that it was during the 1970s, sociologist E. Franklin Frazier asked had the church “died an agonized death in the harsh turmoil” of the 1960s. More recently, Professor Eddie Glaude, Jr. suggested that the Black Church, as we know it, was dead. Still, from the 1970s through the present, as a disproportionate number of Black folk continued to grapple with bias and poverty, many found that the church was the only place to find encouragement and hope. There is no doubt that the Black Church remains a very dynamic and formidable force for change in American society. Much of that influence and power is autonomy, making it the ultimate social institution in African American history. There is no greater or more powerful institution that exists today for any group of people than that of the Black Church. But there is work to be done if the Black church wants to retain its power. First, there is the task of establishing a prominent voice in party politics. If you are going to be a true voting block within the Democratic Party the church must demand the absolute resolve of retaining the language of “God” in its platform. The Evangelical church has assured this language in the Republican platform. When Democrats voted to amend their party’s platform to include the word “God” there was chaos at the convention. The Black Church must remind the Democratic Party that they should never so easily turn their backs on God. Without God there
would be no Democratic Party. Without God there would have been no women sitting in the seats of elevated power within the party. Without God there would be no African, Hispanic or Asian speakers at the convention. Without God there certainly would not have been a Black Man awaiting the re-nomination of his party to the highest elected office in the land. The Black Church cannot afford to get to the Promised Land and forget the promise. Secondly, the Black Church must bring the devastating chaos of Black violence to the forefront of the public square. No longer should they allow the debate of presidential politics to ignore the enormous loss of life in poor urban communities all across this country. Anytime the number of deaths in one city outnumber the amount of deaths by those engaged in actual war, silence cannot be a viable option. Now the Black church is faced with forging agenda that address faith principles. The Black Church must demand that the political machinery engage beyond the casual visits to worship services by office seekers. To ensure that the Black Church is never accused of being dead the church must: 1) Engage in community organizing 2) Manage personal influence 3) Establish and solidify coalitions and 4) Lobby lawmakers effectively. If we fail to heed this prophetic call to transform the world, may we be found guilty of treason against James Weldon’s Negro Anthem. Kevin A. Slayton, Sr. is the Associate Minister of Social
Justice at the Douglas Memorial Community Church in Baltimore and the Faith-based Liaison to the Mayor of Baltimore. He is also pursuing a doctoral degree in Public Administration at the University of Baltimore
Obamacare: What’s Next for Cancer Caregivers? Cancer strikes without regard to politics. One in two men and one in three women will hear the dreaded words: “You have cancer” and 75 percent of households will care for a cancer patient at some point. No matter their political persuasion, cancer patients and caregivers will benefit from the next stages of Affordable Care Act (ACA) implementation. Cancer poses a plethora of challenges--physical, psychological, emotional, social, logistical, and financial-to both cancer patients and their families. The costs of unreimbursed medical care, even for people who have health insurance, caused 62 percent of personal bankruptcies in 2007, according to a study by Harvard researchers. For patients’ family caregivers, every hour spent agonizing about insurance and financial issues is an hour that’s not supporting the cancer patient’s primary needs: sustaining normalcy, maintaining hope and restoring health. The future of the ACA has been in limbo since its passage in 2010, leaving cancer families wondering if future treatments would be covered, for how long, and with what financial impact on the rest of the family. Family caregivers bear the brunt of the financial stresses associated with a cancer diagnosis while the patient is otherwise engaged, often fighting
By Deborah J. Cornwall
for his or her life. Regardless of the outcome for the cancer patient, research has found that severe and prolonged cancer care giving can measurably shorten a caregiver’s life. The passage of the Affordable Care Act was intended to ensure access to quality care with maximum quality of life, minimum administrative complexity and significantly reduced financial stress. It will ensure that all Americans will have: • Health insurance coverage. Access to insurance coverage will be available even for those who change jobs, and coverage must be approved or continued regardless of gender or pre-existing conditions. No one will need to worry about an insurer cancelling coverage or — effective Jan. 1, 2014 —being charged more when they receive a cancer diagnosis. • Earlier cancer detection. The earlier cancer is detected, the more likely it is to be survivable. Effective Jan. 1, 2013, the act provides for reduced or no-cost preventive and screening services for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer, three of the most prevalent cancers. • More extensive Medicare drug coverage. The Medicare Part D prescription cap in coverage (known as the “donut hole”) will be narrowed over time and eventually eliminated (by 2020). • Longer coverage for children. Children up to the age
of 26 can continue coverage under parents’ health insurance policies. • No lifetime limits (now) or annual limits on payments (by 2014). Patients won’t have to postpone treatments for fear of costs being incurred after an arbitrary limit has been reached. • Coverage for clinical trials. Beginning on Jan. 1, 2014, coverage will be provided for anyone eligible to participate in a clinical trial that is appropriate to treat the patient’s condition, which can results in longer life and potential survival. Uncertainties remain that are important to cancer families as Congress confronts the “fiscal cliff,” mandated budget cuts that are scheduled to take effect Jan. 1 if Congress doesn’t resolve the financial stalemate. Under that scenario funding would be jeopardized for cancer research, clinical trials and breast and cervical cancer screening programs. In spite of the uncertainties, cancer-affected families can now focus on managing their loved ones’ treatment, supporting their living and maintaining their hope for a cancerfree future—the core of effective care giving. Deborah J. Cornwall is the author of ‘Things I Wish I’d Known: Cancer Caregivers Speak Out.’