Requiring Voter ID at the Polls Reduces Minority Turn-Out, So Why Are the Feds Pushing It?
By Greg Mathis

Election reform is a serious issue in this country, one that has to be dealt with. But denying American citizens the right to vote is not the way to do it.

And that’s exactly what’s happening in states that implement new identification requirements. A new study shows that voter identification requirements designed to combat fraud may actually reduce turnout, particularly among voters of color.

Data recently released by the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University shows voter turnout for the 2004 elections was about 4 percent lower in states that required voters to sign their name or produce documentation. Turn-out was 10 percent lower for Hispanics and about 6 percent lower for blacks and Asians. With some states threatening to enact even stricter laws, it is a safe assumption that turn-out would be reduced even further. This is simply not acceptable.

Federal law currently requires first-time voters to verify their identity. Approved identification varies, ranging from social security cards to utility bills to signatures. Only one state, Indiana, currently requires voters to produce a government-issued photo ID. The federal government, however, would like to change that.

For the rest of the article, click here. 

Private Health Insurance Is Not the Answer
By Phil Mattera 

Healthcare reform is in the air.

Ideas for dealing with the 46 million Americans without medical insurance seem to be popping up faster than new cases of the winter flu. President Bush proposes to use tax deductions to help people buy individual plans. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to make it mandatory for everyone in his state to obtain insurance and would force employers who don’t provide coverage to pay into a fund.

Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards would raise taxes on the affluent to pay for subsidies to help those with low incomes obtain policies. Some members of Congress are promoting insurance purchasing pools for small businesses. An odd bedfellows coalition including the Business Roundtable, AARP, the Service Employees International Union and Wal-Mart is pushing for some kind of expansion of coverage but is not saying what form it should take.

What these varied plans have in common is the assumption that, at least for the foreseeable future, most of the working population (and their dependents) will continue to receive coverage through private insurance carriers. Public officials across the political spectrum are, in effect, seeking to expand the customer base for a highly profitable industry.

Surely, it is a good thing to provide coverage to the uninsured, but it is remarkable that almost everyone assumes that coverage has to come from for-profit (or, in some cases, private non-profit) providers. Despite the overwhelming evidence from other industrial countries — and even domestic programs such as Medicare — that government-run health plans are much more efficient, the U.S. political class seems to be on a mission to save private insurance.

For the rest of the story, click here. 

Today’s interview of the day comes from Dip Set capo Jim Jones. He’s ignorant than a mofo, but he makes me laugh!

To hear it, click here. 

Today’s photo of the day comes from an unoffical chapter of gay AKAs. Thoughts?

Today’s video of the day comes from the GREATEST MOVIE OF ALL TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!