***image2***
It's been one week since the Nov. 2 election. What do we know? We know that a record number of Americans have been investigating what it takes to become a Canadian citizen (Sunday Times). We know Michael Moore thinks there are at least 17 reasons not to slit our wrists (
). We know that if you look at the United States map from a different perspective, it's not so much red with a dash of blue as it is purple (
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/election/
). We know that concerns over the efficacy and veracity of the electoral process have only just begun (
).
This week, SFR takes a look at a variety of issues stemming from the election-from the mystery of provisional ballots to the future of abortion in the US. Finally, four local artists also contributed their views on the re-election of President Bush.
What Happened?
The election's over. New Mexico is still counting.
BY ZACHARY SMITH
The AP called it. CNN called it. The Farmington Times called it. By Nov. 9, Bush had close to a
***image3***
7,000-vote lead in New Mexico.
Despite early evidence that Bush had won, both Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron and Gov. Bill Richardson maintained that the uncounted provisional ballots would swing the state to Kerry.
Provisional ballot results are still being tabulated in most counties in New Mexico. In Santa Fe County, provisional ballot counting was completed over the weekend, with 516 going to Kerry and 148 going to Bush.
Provisional ballots are new to this election, required by the Help America Vote Act passed by the US Congress in 2002. They are designed to allow citizens to vote when they believe they are eligible but their names do not appear on the precinct lists. After the election, the provisional ballots are then verified. On the county level, that process won't be completed until Friday, Nov. 12. The official statewide count won't be released until Nov. 23.
Of course, after Ohio and Florida went red, New Mexico's place in this election became merely symbolic. But a symbolic victory may be important to both sides. Greg Graves, the head of the Republican campaign here, has accused Vigil-Giron and Richardson of doctoring the election results to save Richardson's national career. (The governor's stated belief that New Mexico would ultimately be won by Kerry by 1 percent seemed to flame these suspicions). The Secretary of State has defended the integrity of the election, saying that she has surveyed other states that have been called for a candidate and they are still counting provisional ballots too. "The GOP is ignorant to the election process," says Vigil-Giron. "There's a process, there aren't instant results that give a state immediately. I'm surprised the media in other states called the election, it was not based on anything but exit polls. Unless they have a crystal ball to see the provisional ballots, the election isn't over."
Santa Fe County Clerk Rebecca Bustamante concurs. "There's no way to change the results coming from us," she
***image4***
says. "The GOP should contact each county and do the count themselves."
Election-reform advocates, however, say New Mexico's process is far from perfect. "The problem with provisional ballots is that there's no uniformity in terms of examining and counting them," says Matt Brix, the state director of Common Cause, a national election reform organization. "Had New Mexico been in play, the count wouldn't be complete for many days. The process needs to be tightened up."
On Nov 8, Vigil-Giron announced the State had asked the New Mexico Supreme Court to clarify two district court rulings made Nov. 5 in Sandoval and Doña Ana counties regarding the amount of public information from rejected provisional ballots. The rulings may "violate state and federal laws," says Vigil-Giron. They allow political parties to see social security numbers and dates of birth." She wanted the Supreme Court to rule quickly so there could be uniformity in the state.
Provisional ballots weren't the only factor in play for the 2004 election. It also featured a massive shift from
***image13***
voting on Election Day to early voting. Early voting in 2000 comprised just under 200,000 votes. This year, 430,000 voted early. "I don't know what effect it had on the outcome, it may not have even effected turnout," says Bureau of Elections Director Denise Lamb. "You just have a base of dedicated voters, it shifts the time they vote but not the outcome."
Six states with record turnouts in 2000 implemented same-day registration: Minnesota, Maine, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Wyoming and Idaho. Election reform advocates say same-day registration would help New Mexico. "It would help avoid the provisional ballot. It would enfranchise, rather than disenfranchise many voters, and would be a smoother process," says Brix.
Assuming Wrong
Bush voters-they're not who, or what, you think.
BY EARL OFARI HUTCHINSON
Liberals and progressives made far too many wrong assumptions about Bush. They assumed that millions were so enraged at Bush for the Iraq debacle, in fear of his possible Supreme Court picks, angered at his corporate tax cut giveaways and the loss of thousands of jobs that they would storm the barricades to get him out. They assumed that spending a fortune on rock the vote drives, mass mailers, anti-Bush
***image14***
Web sites and media blitzes would drive millions of new anti-Bush voters to the polls.
They assumed that African Americans and Latinos were so furious at Bush snubs, assaults on civil rights and civil liberties, and the slash and burn of education and health programs they'd vote unanimously to oust him. They assumed that Bush voters were deluded, misinformed, poorly educated, Christian fundamentalist fanatics or racists. Bush got more votes than any other president in US history, won a majority of states, and topped Kerry in the popular vote.
That wouldn't have happened if these assumptions were right, and they weren't. The number of Latino votes hit record highs in some areas. But their votes as wrongly assumed didn't all go to Kerry. Nearly 40 percent of Latinos voted for Bush, and one-third of them described themselves as born-again Christians. Though the black voter turnout was greater this election than in 2000, more than 10 percent of blacks voted for Bush and, in crucial Ohio, it was 20 percent. Many blacks and Latinos were more wary, and distrustful of Kerry, and less hostile toward Bush and more conservative than was assumed.
The majority of Bush voters in the so-called red states were not the stereotypical religious crackpots and racists that progressives delight in painting them. They were white, and increasingly Latino, small business owners, ranchers, farmers, middle
***image5***
class professionals, and suburbanites. They are pro-business, anti-big government, pro-religious and family values.
Though racial, gender, and economic tensions and fears are driving forces behind white male devotion to Bush, it was wrongly assumed they are the prime reason for their devotion to him. Since Barry Goldwater's landslide loss to Lyndon Johnson in 1964, Republicans have branded government as a destructive, bloated, inefficient white elephant, weighting down the backs of middle-class Americans. That argument resonates with many workers because taxes are too
high, and government is too big, distant and removed. Though Bush's tax cuts are blatant sops to the rich and corporations, many small business owners and middle-class taxpayers also benefited from them.
While plant closures, high oil prices and job losses have devastated many families, the economic pain and suffering was not deep nor widespread enough, as wrongly assumed, to spark a wholesale voter revolt against Bush. And even if it had, it could not trump the genuine horror millions of Americans have of more terror attacks. That fear was one of Bush's two political aces. They bought
***image15***
Bush's pitch that he, not Kerry, will best defend them from attack. The last minute surface of the Osama bin Laden tape that promised more attacks drove that very real fear home. That worked in Bush's favor, not Kerry's, as wrongly assumed.
His other ace card was moral values. In his second debate with John Kerry, Bush flatly stated that he was opposed to abortion and gay marriage. That was the spark that evangelical voters needed to fire them up. Gay marriage bans which passed by overwhelming numbers in eleven states brought droves of evangelicals to the polls. Almost all backed Bush. In Ohio, one-fourth of voters called themselves church-going Christians. They were not, as wrongly assumed, typecast Christian fanatics. They backed Bush by a 3-to-1 spread over Kerry.
The National Election Pool confirmed that morals were their biggest concern. They deeply believed that marriage
***image6***
should be between a man and a woman, and that the fractured American family is under attack. That view is narrow, and bigoted, but given the deep Puritanism and adherence to Christian morals in America's heartland, anti-gay bans were not, as wrongly assumed, to them an illogical way to preserve the traditional family.
It was wrongly assumed that Bush had totally disgraced the presidency. But millions, no matter who holds the office, regard it with awe and respect. In the past century Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter and Bush Sr. were the only elected presidents to lose the White House. Even then, it took the Great Depression to beat Hoover,
***image16***
Reagan's celebrity name and charisma to beat Carter, and the insurgent candidacy of Ross Perot that snatched millions of Republican votes from Bush Sr. to beat him. In the National Election Pool survey, a majority of Bush supporters said they voted for the presidency.
It was wrongly assumed that Republicans would once more resort to fraud, chicanery and black voter suppression to win the White House. They didn't and liberals and progressives should closely examine that wrong assumption as well as the others to understand why Bush didn't have to cheat this time to win.
Four More Years
New Mexican environmentalists brace themselves.
BY ZACHARY SMITH
With Republican control of the White House and both houses of Congress, a number of anti-environmental bills may be on their way to becoming law. "We're not only concerned with what the Bush administration might do, but what they may not do," says Eric Jantz, staff attorney at the New Mexico Environmental Law Center. Here's a quick look at the bills at the top of the list.
THE ENERGY BILL
US Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) once called the proposed US Energy Bill the "Leave No Lobbyist Behind Act of 2003," but Republican leadership, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM), have announced
***image17***
they want to get the contentious bill passed. "We are very optimistic," says Domenici spokesman Matt Letourneau. "We were two votes short last time, it would appear the election put us over the top. It's safe to say it would be near the top [of the GOP agenda]."
A comprehensive Energy Bill-which has not passed Congress since 1992-is designed to define national energy policy. The bill before Congress now will benefit many corporations that have made investments in New Mexico.
Louisiana Energy Services-a group of mostly foreign-owned energy companies-would receive up to $1 billion from the government to help it build a uranium enrichment plant in southern New Mexico. The bill also reduces the amount of red tape required to license such a plant. Additionally, the bill reclassifies any nuclear waste generated by the plant so that disposal becomes the US Department of Energy's responsibility. "The bill is tailor-made for LES," says Lindsey Lovejoy, a lawyer representing the Nuclear Information and Resource
***image18***
Service, who has fought LES coming to New Mexico. "LES will get waste disposal from the government at a very good price."
Another subsidy in the Energy Bill is for uranium mining. As the bill's wording stands now, subsidies can't be given to a New Mexican uranium mining company. However, Hydro Resources, a company based in New Mexico that
has fought to begin uranium mining in Churchrock and Crownpoint, NM, is owned by a larger Texas company, Uranium Resources, INC. "I think it is ridiculous to think that if the parent company is receiving subsidies that the smaller company isn't," says Jantz.
TESTING
Increased nuclear activity doesn't stop with uranium enrichment and drilling, it may advance to nuclear testing, according to the National Nuclear Security Administration's proposed fiscal year 2005 budget. There is an outline for a plan to bring the US back to testing nuclear weapons underground. In 2005, the goal is to make a list of possible tests. In 2006, it's to prepare the equivalent of an environmental impact statement for nuclear weapons testing. "First, I think you can just forget about broadening the mission," says Jay Coghlan, director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico. "The evidence from the budget indicates a serious chance for full-scale nuclear testing by 2007." As for the proposed
***image7***
broader mission, Sen. Jeff Bingaman's (D-NM) spokeswoman says, "Sen. Bingaman's view was that Kerry would have done a better job at broadening [Los Alamos National Laboratory's] agenda."
CLEAR SKIES
The Navajo reservation in northwestern New Mexico, a poor and sparsely populated area, may bare the brunt of the so-called Clear Skies Act, which was introduced into the Senate and the House in 2003. The act proposes to reduce pollution from coal-fired power plants by using a credit system. Older plants with more pollution must buy "credits" from newer, more environmentally safe plants to keep operating. Eventually, the idea is that newer plants will be more successful financially. Some of the largest coal-fired power plants in the US exist on the Navajo reservation in New Mexico, and if the Clear Skies Act is passed, those plants will be able to buy pollution credits instead of upgrading pollution control equipment.
The concern for New Mexicans is mercury. "It's free-market pollution control," says Jantz. "They look at total mercury release across the US, but this will create mercury hotspots on Navajo
***image8***
land. It becomes an environmental justice concern. These old plants tend to be near low income or minority communities. If implemented, it's going to settle in those type areas as a neurotoxin. I'd expect to see health effects in these communities."
OIL AND GAS/WILDERNESS
After the House passed the Ojito Wilderness Act this year, there was a sense that New Mexico could build momentum in passing more wilderness bills. The growing Republican majority has called that into question. Activists like Steven Capra of the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance and Gov. Bill Richardson have fought against the US Bureau of Land Management allowing extensive oil and gas drilling on Otero Mesa. The future of that area has become grim. "Our experience thus far in our state with the [Bush] administration is that the federal agenda coming out of DC is having a great deal of influence on these federal agencies," says Joanna Prukop, the secretary of the state's Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department. Richardson offered a different drilling plan to the BLM, but it was rejected, and now the state is awaiting a final decision. Capra says that voters in the West sent a message to Bush that they cared about the environment with Kerry's wins in California, Oregon and Washington, as well as his close numbers (so far) in New Mexico. "You'll see a major fight in this state and throughout the West," he says. "What we really need to watch is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Opening that to drilling would be opening the floodgates on domestic drilling. One act destroying the wildest place in America means that no place is safe."
Governor Teflon
Analysts say even a red state won't keep Richardson down.
BY NADRA KAREEM
The Associated Press, CNN and additional media outlets may have declared New Mexico Bush territory, but if Gov. Bill Richardson's prayer, um, prediction, comes to pass, Kerry will ultimately win the state's five electoral votes. "The outcome isn't over yet," Richardson said last week. "I always predicted a 1 percent victory."
For the sake of his political career, those in the state GOP and others have asserted that Richardson can't afford to have New Mexico go red. However, political analysts and those within the Democratic Party say regardless of the outcome of the presidential election in New Mexico, Richardson will not be adversely affected.
"The New Mexico vote is very, very close and likely to go to Bush, but it's not going to affect Governor Richardson's reputation," says Larry Sabato, a political analyst who oversees the
***image9***
University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "Look at the map. New Mexico is in the middle of that vast sea of red." Sabato says it's surprising that the New Mexico race is as close as it is because Bush was leading by three to five points in public and private polls in New Mexico prior to Election Day. Accordingly, if Bush wins the state, "No one is going to hold that against Bill Richardson," Sabato says. "Just because he couldn't transfer enough of his popularity to Kerry is no reflection of him. Voters aren't automatons. They're not going to vote for Kerry because Bill Richardson or others tell them to."
Christine Sierra, associate professor of political science at the University of New Mexico, agrees with Sabato. "I don't think [Richardson] will be hurt," she says. "For one thing, 2008 is a long way off. I don't think that the failure of the state of New Mexico to vote for Kerry can be laid on him. It's a collective endeavor. This election was way beyond Bill Richardson. In particular, the evangelical movement was shown to be quite important in Bush's election. And so while the Democrats mobilized quite well, especially when you compare it to previous elections, that mobilization was not equivalent in it being institutionalized and really grounded in local communities as it was with the Republicans. The Democrats are going to have to build their social capital within communities that share the party's interests." Sierra believes that Richardson may be harmed more by Kerry losing the overall presidential race than the New Mexico race. "If Kerry would have won," Sierra says, "Kerry would have found a place for (Richardson) in his administration."
Even in the aftermath of Kerry's loss, Sven Steinmo, a political science professor at the University of Colorado, believes Richardson will emerge a star of the Democratic Party. "The
Republicans were able to appeal to an
***image19***
extra million voters, even moderates, even some Hispanics," says Steinmo, also the author of several books on politics in the US and Great Britain. Thus, "the Democratic Party is fighting over the question if they should be more liberal or centrist. Candidates like Salazar in Colorado or Richardson in New Mexico offer something unique. They can appeal to the liberal left, but they're in fact quite moderate. They attract minority voters but they also have a unique way of appealing to moderate centrist voters that will overwhelm any effect of Bush winning or losing. Richardson is one of the people that will be a leader for the next four years."
At present, Minnie Gallegos, chairwoman of the Democratic Party of Santa Fe County, considers Richardson to be such a political player she doesn't believe that if New Mexico is designated a red state, he will be hurt. "The governor is very popular. People love him," she says. Moreover, Gallegos doesn't think Richardson should be faulted for failing to convert his popularity in the state into a Kerry victory. "I think he tried his best to motivate people, but, you know, once [voters] started thinking about abortion and stuff like that, that's got to have some effect."
Richardson expressed similar thoughts at a recent press conference. "A vote for president is very personal," he said. "In local races, I'll have an impact… It's difficult to do that in a national race…The presidency is the most personal choice." Richardson added that he'll make an assessment of things he could have done differently in the Kerry campaign but believes he did his best. Not only did Richardson attend some 20 events with members of the Kerry campaign, he also attended 30 pro-Kerry rallies and registered 100,000 voters in the Four Corners region. "I worked very hard," he said. "I attended rallies, campaigned very rigorously. I'm exhausted." Richardson feels that Senator Kerry ran a good race and demonstrated his commitment to New Mexico by visiting the state eight times and buying several television and radio ads. "He came every time we asked…He was in Las Vegas, he was in Gallup. He was everywhere," Richardson said.
Richardson said he had a role in helping Kerry in New Mexico but is not ready to comment as to how his career will be affected if Kerry loses the state. "My only interest is having a successful legislative session," he said. "The second is running for re-election."
Bracing for the Roe-less Era
Abortion could go underground.
BY MOLLY M GINTY
Now that President George W Bush has been elected to a second term, he may appoint new Supreme Court justices who fundamentally disagree with the premises of
Roe vs. Wade
, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that provides US women the right to legal abortion.
In response to this threat, the Washington, DC-based Planned Parenthood Federation of America is stepping up the work of its Post-Roe Service Delivery Task Force-a group dedicated to exploring the legal and practical aspects of providing abortion despite a federal ban.
"Bush's election has prompted us to forge ahead with greater urgency," says Linda Williams, co-chair of the
***image10***
task force. "Reproductive freedom-a fundamental freedom that many of us have taken for granted-is now seriously at risk."
For the past four years, Williams and her group's 13 other members have explored the post-Roe challenge on many fronts.
Among other options, they've looked at maintaining services by strengthening state laws and the possibility of providing abortions in places where federal laws don't apply.
To prepare for what would likely be a health epidemic, they've urged physicians to get special training so they know how to treat infections, uncontrolled bleeding and other life-threatening complications caused by botched abortions.
During his first term, Bush slashed family planning programs and promoted "abstinence-only" sex education. He signed legislation that criminalizes some abortion procedures that are common after 12 weeks or injure a fetus. He has appointed more than 200 anti-choice federal judges. His appointed attorney general and secretary of Health and Human Services oppose keeping abortion legal.
"Immediately after Bush took office four years ago, we realized he would try to revoke
Roe vs. Wade
," says Williams. "Since three Supreme Court justices are nearing retirement and since Bush is likely to appoint anti-choice justices, we knew we had to be prepared."
Abortion services have already been curtailed, with only 13 percent of US counties offering an abortion provider, according to Medical Students for Choice, based in Oakland, CA. State legislatures have enacted more than 380 measures to restrict abortion since 1994, according to the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights.
Now before Congress: The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, that requires doctors to inform women before they have abortions at 20 weeks or later that the fetus may feel pain.
"We are absolutely delighted to have four more years with pro-life President Bush," says Carol Tobias, political director of the Washington, D.C.-based National Right to Life Committee.
Twenty states are likely to protect abortion rights in the face of a federal ban, with 10 states guaranteeing access to abortion in their state constitutions, according to a recent report from the Center for Reproductive Rights.
To maintain reproductive choice in the 20 "safe" states and to bolster it in the remaining ones, Planned Parenthood says reproductive-rights activism is needed on the local level.
"Women should lobby state legislators to eradicate laws that date from the 1800s and early 1900s and that call abortion murder," says Chris Charbonneau, second co-chair of the task force. "They should push state legislators to adopt modern-day laws like those in Washington, Maryland and California, the three states that have air-tight laws because these laws echo the wording of
Roe vs. Wade
."
Even if all 50 states outlaw abortion, task force members are looking at other ways to legally offer safe abortions.
They consider the possibility of operating abortion clinics on Native American reservations, which have laws independent of federal ones. They consider launching programs like Women on Waves, a Netherlands-based nonprofit that offers abortion in countries where it is illegal by performing procedures on a ship offshore. They consider lining the border of Canada-where abortion is legal and likely to remain so-with clinics that cater to US women.
If
Roe vs. Wade
is revoked, task force members say their biggest concern will be treating women harmed by botched abortions. "Just as they did before
Roe vs. Wade
, women with unwanted pregnancies will take desperate measures," says Wilson. "They will have back-alley abortions. They will insert sharp objects like coat hangers into their uteruses. And they will douche with toxic chemicals like lye or Clorox."
To prevent such a potential health crisis, task force members are urging doctors to get special training so they know how to treat the complications of botched abortions, which include infection, cervical tearing, uterine perforation and blood in the uterus.
Task force members admit, however, that their strategies offer no real substitute for
Roe vs. Wade
. They expect that abortion providers-fearing prosecution and violence at the hands of anti-choice extremists-would likely stop providing procedures. They expect that a sizable number of the 3 million women with unplanned pregnancies each year will take matters into their own hands.
Abortion rates were higher in the United States before the procedure was legal, Gloria Feldt, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, has said.
More than 200 US women died each year from the complications of illegal abortions in the decade before
Roe vs. Wade
, Stanley Henshaw, a senior fellow at The Alan Guttmacher Institute in New York, has said.
Task force members say that if
Roe vs. Wade
is overturned, poor and low-income women-who seek 57 percent of the 1 million abortions performed in the United States each year-will be the ones hardest hit. "Women with enough money will be able to find a way to terminate their pregnancies," says Williams. "They will go abroad or find qualified doctors to treat them behind closed doors. But poor women will be exploited. And they will die."
Those Left Behind
Educators and healthcare workers are worried about the future.
BY NADRA KAREEM
The re-election of President Bush has not only left residents of blue states
feeling helpless and depressed, it has also raised the anxiety levels of those in the education and healthcare fields. While school officials worry that Bush will continue to under-fund the No Child Left Behind Act, healthcare officials fret over the rising rates of medical care as well as the future of reproductive rights.
"I think that when [Bush] was reelected it was a sad day for America," says Rina Rivera, a nurse at La Familia Medical Center. "There's a lot of Americans without healthcare. There's no insurance."
Rivera says that while clinics receive grants to treat
***image11***
the low-income, such grants provide only enough funding to detect illness and not to treat it over a period of time.
"It's obvious that healthcare in general is in crisis, and it's very difficult for families to be able to get adequate healthcare for children and there are even more serious crises for adults," says Leah Steimel, director of Villa Therese Catholic Clinic. Steimel says that clinics that serve the poor have had to squeeze their resources. "Their resources are high in demand, and they have such a number of people they're trying to serve, and their ability to be able to serve those people is getting more and more difficult."
Steimel, who has a background in advocacy for immigrant healthcare, says some of the current problems plaguing healthcare date back to the 1996 Welfare Reform Act authorized by the Clinton administration. "That made it illegal for immigrant families that did not have social security numbers or legal residency to get healthcare or any kind of services in any place that receives federal or state funding. What we're seeing now is a combination of what was initiated by that law in 1996 and the few net providers having higher health insurance premiums, so more and more families are getting pushed out of the conventional methods to afford healthcare."
Steimel says President Bush has provided no solutions to these problems. "I personally don't have a lot of hope there's going to be real relief for low-income families, in particular for immigrants," she says.
While Planned Parenthood serves low-income patients as well, the organization's main concern is the imprint President Bush will leave on reproductive rights, says Chris Lalley, public relations director of Planned Parenthood of New Mexico. "We're obviously concerned that one of his goals in the next four years is to frankly criminalize abortion and overturn
Roe vs. Wade
," Lalley says. "When abortion came up in the debates he said he has no litmus test on appointing judges on the Supreme Court. We think that's a lie. One of his litmus tests for judges is that they be anti-abortion. I personally think he would like his legacy to be leaving the White House having overturned
Roe vs. Wade
. Ultimately I think President Bush is really dangerous for women in general."
Lalley also fears for the fate of sex education under the Bush administration. "If he would have his way, abstinence would be the only thing taught," he says. "Abstinence is good. We preach abstinence, but you can preach abstinence until you're blue in the face, and the fact of the matter is that people are going to choose to have sex. It's got to be abstinence, plus sex education. That equals safe sex."
The National Education Association, who backed John Kerry for president, is concerned with the umbrella of educational issues. "He had the most comprehensive reform plan of any candidate who's ever run for office, and he promised to fully fund No Child Left Behind," explains NEA spokesman Daniel Kaufman of the group's decision to back Kerry. "He also had an excellent proposal to increase teachers'
***image12***
salaries." Kaufman says now that Bush has been re-elected, he hopes the president makes an effort to ensure that schools have funding. "They're going through a very severe budget crisis. There's schools that are really strapped for cash for art and PE." For instance, in Santa Fe, elementary schools must fundraise to pay the salaries of physical education teachers. Kaufman says another NEA concern is that No Child Left Behind has resulted in educators teaching to the test rather than engaging in well-rounded instruction. He also takes issue with English language learners having to take standardized tests in accordance with No Child Left Behind, resulting in schools with large amounts of such students being punished for not making adequate progress. "Also, there's dropout programs (under No Child Left Behind) that the Bush administration did not fund."
University of Colorado political science professor Sven Steinmo has written extensively on education and healthcare and believes the future of both fields looks bleak. "Bush believes the most important thing to do is to have tax cuts, which means public services in both education and healthcare will have insufficient resources," Steinmo says. "What's going to happen in my view is that the quality of public education will decline as more and more kids will have to pass these tests, and more and more people will go to private schools."
Steinmo's predictions for healthcare aren't any more auspicious. "The cost of healthcare will continue to go up," he says. Consequently, people "won't get preventative healthcare. They will end up getting extreme care." As a result of the number of people expected to seek healthcare for chronic and degenerative illnesses, the trillion dollar deficit the government is experiencing may just go another trillion deeper.
