Today on AirTalk, we talk about El Monte's sugary drink tax, the latest news from the HIV/AIDS conference in Washington, D.C., a possible Bay Area driving tax, a new study on teacher merit pay, and Santa Monica's proposed smoking ban for new tenants in condos and apartments.
El Monte puts the squeeze on sugary sipping
El Monte city officials are hoping a soda tax will help the San Gabriel suburb avoid financial insolvency.
The city is struggling with falling sales tax revenues, high labor costs and decreased state funding. To help close some of the financial gaps, tonight the city council will consider declaring a fiscal emergency.
That move would allow the city to hold a special election in fall, when residents would vote on a tax proposal that would place a tax on sugary drinks. Sugar-sweetened beverages would be hit with a one cent per ounce tax, if voters approve the measure.
A city report says the tax could bring the city as much as $7 million in annual revenues. But, is it fair to levy a sin tax and not address the health costs associated with the offending substance? Or is this a proactive way to stave off bankruptcy that other struggling California cities have opted for?
Guest:
Andre Quintero, mayor of El Monte
George Hacker, Senior Policy Advisor, Health Promotion Policy, Center for Science Public Interest
Scientists discuss a cure for AIDS at international conference
Some of the world's leading HIV/AIDS researchers say that a cure can be found - but at a price.
Over twenty five thousand scientists, doctors and HIV/AIDS activists are gathered in Washington D.C to discuss new tools and therapies in the fight against the virus, including home testing kits and pharmaceutical solutions.
A worldwide strategy was also unveiled; “Towards an HIV Cure” aims to provide a detailed guide to the key priorities when it comes to the fight against AIDS. On the part of the United States, President Obama yesterday pledged 150 million dollars to help poor countries slash infection rates, while Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton told attendees in a keynote speech that “the U.S. is committed and will remain committed to achieving an AIDS-free generation.”
More than 34 million people worldwide are living with HIV, and 2.5 million were infected last year.
Is there enough publicity around the continued risk of HIV infection? Would you consider using a home testing kit to reveal your status? Or does home testing run the risk of people not seeking appropriate treatment if they discover they’re HIV positive outside of a medical facility?
Guests:
Dr. Michael Gottlieb, HIV physician practicing in Los Angeles and the first to identify AIDS as a new disease in 1981
Renee Heffron, HIV/AIDS researcher, University of Washington
Bay Area on the road to a mileage tax
Last week, San Francisco transportation officials inched one step closer to taxing drivers for every mile they log in the region. Officials approved a long-range study of the benefits of a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) tax, and are advocating for the tax to be imposed.
VMT taxes have been floated on small and large scales in the past. Pilot studies have been conducted throughout the U.S. The idea is to deter people from driving long distances, reducing traffic and pollution. The money raised goes to mass transit and infrastructure revenue.
As recently as last year, Washington’s Congressional Budget Office released a report supporting a VMT tax. It suggested installing electronic equipment on each car to track mileage, and payments being made at gas stations. One criticism decries that hybrids and hummers would be taxed at the same rate.
How does a VMT tax compare to the original intent of the gas tax? Would it affect how much you drive, where you live and where you work?
Guests:
Randy Rentschler, Legislation & Publics Affairs Director, Metropolitan Transportation Commission; MTC is the transportation planning, coordinating and financing agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area.
Darrin Roth, director of highway operations, American Trucking Association
Does teacher merit pay merit another look?
When students perform well in school, they can look forward to success in later life. It’s a concept that has been supported by numerous studies, and it just seems to make sense. But a big component of students’ classroom performance has to do with good teachers.
Enter the idea of teacher merit pay. The concept behind merit pay is simple: teachers get higher salaries if their students test higher. Teachers’ unions and education experts have long denounced the system, seeing it as demeaning and ineffective. Many argue that it would result in a type of teaching that wouldn’t lead to actual learning, with teachers focusing more on drilling test answers into students than their understanding of the material.
However, a new study by researchers at Harvard, University of Chicago and UC San Diego purports to show that merit pay does actually work. In the nine Chicago-area schools where they conducted the study, they found that teacher merit pay led to higher student test scores.
An even more successful method of raising scores was “loss aversion,” where teachers were given an initial bonus and then had to pay back the rewards they didn’t earn.
Should this type of merit pay be implemented in elementary schools? Could teachers become demoralized by the system? Could it end up turning them against each other? Or would it lead to more successful classrooms?
Guest:
Sally Sadoff, Assistant Professor, Rady School of Management, University of California, San Diego, co-author of the study with Roland Fryer (Harvard University) and Steven Levitt and John List (University of Chicago), "Enhancing the Efficacy of Teacher Incentives through Loss Aversion: A Field Experiment"
Kevin Welner, director of the National Education Policy Center located at the University of Colorado at Boulder and professor of education policy at the University of Colorado at Boulder School of Education
Does Santa Monica’s proposed residential smoking ban go too far?
The Santa Monica City Council is scheduled to vote today on an ordinance that would ban smoking for new tenants in apartments and condos.
The ordinance, originally approved by a 4-2 vote on July 10, would allow existing tenants to continue smoking in their residences if they seek to have them designated as “smoking.” Neighbors would be responsible for enforcing the new rules, by filing actions in small claims court. Fines for smokers would be $100 for a first offence, $200 for the second, $300 for the third.
The goal is to protect non-smokers from the carcinogens in secondhand smoke, which can seep through walls and vents. But what’s a smoker to do?
This proposal is on top of a law that went into effect in September 2010 that made it illegal to light up on private balconies, porches and decks within a 25-foot radius of doors, windows and vents. And if you think you can head out to the beach for that puff, think again. It’s also unlawful to smoke in many public spaces, including beaches, parks and outdoor dining areas.
An editorial in Sunday’s Los Angeles Times argues that this new ordinance simply goes too far. And two Santa Monica Council members, Kevin McKeown and Pam O’Connor agreed, the first time around at least.
How are officials likely to vote today? Is this ordinance the right way to protect non-smokers? Or does it go too far? Is it fair to limit tenants’ rights to smoke in their own homes?
Guest:
Bobby Shriver, Councilmember, Santa Monica City Council
Dr. Michael Ong, Associate Professor of Medicine at David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA