By Marianna Levyash – Talk Radio News Service

Sara Collins of the Commonwealth Fund and Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation shared their differences over the costs and benefits of health care reform during a briefing held Friday at the Alliance for Health Reform headquarters in Washington, D.C..

The Commonwealth Fund recently released a study on how effective the system reform provisions are in the House and Senate bills. They found that both bills are practical and contain key provisions that target cost and quality.

“Both bills substantially expand coverage to 94-96% of people…the major effect is on the uninsured,” said Collins.

Butler disagreed, arguing that both bills will create “troubling areas of affordability in legislation.” Specifically, Butler expressed disapproval over proposals involving higher taxes and employee insurance mandates.

“We will soon see pressures to afford other things in our economy,” said Butler. “The cost is squeezing out funds to have for our education and other goals that we have in our society.”

Travis Martinez, University of New Mexico-Talk Radio News Service

Former Homeland Security Council Chairman Frances Fragos Townsend Thursday examined national security threats that continue to challenge the U.S. government, particularly in the arena of cybersecurity.

“We need the personnel we have inside the U.S. government with technical backgrounds in intelligence agencies who will be collectors who know how to ask the right questions,” said Townsend during a key-note address at the Heritage Foundation.

Townsend said that one of her last tasks as council chair was a $17 billion push for enhanced cyber security. However, Townsend explained that while the funds are now available, hiring new personnel will pose an obstacle since the U.S. will be drawing from a pool of employees who have experience in the private sector and could thus come to the jobs with conflicting interests.

Townsend also called for technical advancement in the analysis of security risks posed by weapons of mass destruction, either by a state or non-state actors. One of these risks, according to Townsend, is detecting those responsible.

“There has to be a degree of certainty on who you’re going to respond to,” said Townsend.

By Ravi Bhatia – Talk Radio News Service

Lisa Curtis, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation in Washington D.C., told Talk Radio News Service Monday that it would be a mistake for the United States to scale back its military efforts in Afghanistan after Hamid Karzai was declared President for another term by Afghanistan’s election commission.

“The whole election debacle was a setback for international efforts in Afghanistan,” Curtis said in a telephone interview. “That said, U.S stakes in the region are far too high to allow the imperfect election to cause us to think about scaling back the mission there.”

Karzai’s competitor, Abdullah Abdullah, dropped out of the race Sunday, citing the risk of voter fraud.

General Stanley McChrystal has requested 44,000 more troops in Afghanistan. President Barack Obama is expected to adopt a military strategy in the coming weeks.

Dennis Smith with the Heritage Foundation says that big decisions, such as health care, should be left to the smallest forms of government – i.e. individual members of the public. Smith argues that Americans are living in a whole new world in terms of government intervention and spending.

The Heritage Foundation’s Dennis Smith says that healthcare reform is just the tip of the iceberg for those concerned about government spending. Smith says that by 2029, the Federal government will be responsible for roughly 20% of all U.S. spending. (:27)

 

 Standard Podcast [0:27m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Dennis Smith, a Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, says that Americans will be “shocked” to wake up and discover that the government is forcing them to purchase health insurance. (:19)

 

 Standard Podcast [0:19m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

The Heritage Foundation’s Dennis Smith says that healthy Americans, particularly young folks, are not going to embrace being forced to spend their money on something they don’t think they need. (:40)

 

 Standard Podcast [0:40m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Dennis Smith with the Heritage Foundation says he fears that current healthcare reform legislation would place an undue burden on Medicaid, a program he calls “unsustainable.” (:44)

 

 Standard Podcast [0:44m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

By Leah Valencia, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

Former Homeland Security Adviser Frances F. Townsend called on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Monday to focus on information sharing among local governments and other government entities, warning that a failure to do so could impede the Department’s ability to prevent future terrorist attacks.

“If we do not get information sharing right, when there is another attack … there will be a problem with information sharing,” Townsend said during a presentation at the Heritage Foundation.

Townsend said the issue of information sharing often falls down the list of priorities for the current administration, but could be vital in the prevention and response to terrorism.

“This is not a sexy issue but it is one that will absolutely be our downfall in terms of stopping an attack,” she explained.

The DHS’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis outlined their key intelligence initiatives and reforms in a hearing before the house subcommittee on intelligence late last week. One priority mentioned included improved coordination and information sharing.

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano said the fundamental goal for protection is to better information sharing so that it occurs in a regular and timely manner.

“The key for protecting the homeland from attack is disseminating useable intelligence and information to our state, local, tribal and private sector partners, getting similar intelligence and information back from those partners for analytic work by Office of Intelligence and Analysis and the national Intelligence Community, and ensuring this two-way exchange happens on a real-time basis,” Napolitano said.

Townsend said drastic circumstances should not be necessary before this issue gets the attention it deserves.

“I think people sorely underestimate the consequences of a large scale cyber attack,” Townsend said. “There will be a cyber 9/11 and regretfully I think that is what it will take before people pay attention to these security issues.”

In this day and age of neurobiology (understanding of brain chemistry and neuro-anatomy), it is shocking to have an organization such as the Heritage Foundation release a report called “Adult Time for Adult Crimes – Life Without Parole for Juvenile Killers and Violent Teens.” It is not “compassionate conservatism;” it shows a lack of knowledge in regard to basic brain development.

I am not so naïve that I believe if a juvenile commits murder at 16 years old, that the day he or she reaches 21 they should be a get-out-of-jail-free card. But life sentences for a child or teen that commits an act of even horrendous violence when they are a teenager? Why keep them in for life? It is highly improbable that a disturbed young person who is in the prison system 24/7 can control his or her behavior for years at a time to “fool” the prison staff that they are remorseful and non-violent when they actually are not. There are cases where people have been freed and then commit horrible crimes, but juveniles are generally studied and evaluated frequently while incarcerated. By the time they reach adulthood, the criminal justice system knows a lot about them. The offenders who remain capable of violence years after committing the crime should be placed in a humane and structured prison/mental hospital facility.

According to the Heritage Foundation report, 43 states, the District of Columbia and the federal government have laws allowing for life without parole for juveniles. Although I think these laws in themselves are horrendous, why, if it is law in a super majority of states, is this is an issue now? The Heritage report states that it is because there is coordinated lobbying going on to change this. Maybe that is true, but more likely it is another way for conservatives to get on the “tough on crime” bandwagon as it always stirs up the base. It worked in California and drove voters to the polls. California prisons are now filled beyond human capacity due to the three strikes law. They can’t afford to keep their prison system in operation, but the voters were happy that California would not be “soft on crime.”

This entire proposal ignores how these young people became violent in the first place. Authors Robin Karr-Morse and Meredith S. Wiley in their book about violent and murderous juveniles, “Ghosts From the Nursery,” studied incarcerated young people. They write, “We can see that there are many kinds of ghosts from the nursery. Some result from biological factors such as head injuries or learning disabilities. Others emerge from familial experiences such as child abuse, domestic violence, or the impact of maternal depression or rejection. As children grow older, larger societal factors, such as chronic community violence, may compound the damage from earlier experiences. One factor by itself rarely creates antisocial outcomes in human development … a majority take root in the nursery, where few people are looking.”

The fact is that most juveniles who commit crimes have been abused, dropped or shaken in their early years or may have some congenital form of mental illness. That does not translate to the notion that society should let offenders out to roam free. It does mean that giving a life sentence to a juvenile is not justice; it is barbaric.

A psychologist I know said the rental car companies are about the only entities that understand brain development. They don’t rent cars to people who are younger than 25. The part of the brain that makes thoughtful decisions is not fully developed until the mid-20s. Therefore, putting someone in jail for life at the age of 16 or younger makes no sense except to the “tough on crime” crowd.

My advice is for the authors of the Heritage Foundation report to spend some time learning and understanding the roots of violent behavior and to study brain development before they continue to tout “life without parole” for even the most violent criminal acts by adolescents. Our laws that allow 14-year-olds to be incarcerated for life are at odds with other Western countries and put us in the company of countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. Hopefully those are not countries we want to emulate in terms of how they treat other humans. It is time our criminal justice system adjusted itself to what we know about human behavior and the brain. It is time we acted based on science and not just pure retribution.