Jay Fleitman for Congress

A Betrayal in Redistricting

2011-12-06T06:23:00.001-08:00

Senator Rosenberg:

You were a chairman of the commission which just redrafted the Massachusetts districts for the U.S. House. I’m sure you were hoping that no one back home would notice that you sold out your constituents. We did.

It was a foregone conclusion from the beginning that representation from Western Massachusetts would be reduced from three seats to two. The public hearings were a charade. In order to obtain the increases in population required to keep both John Olver’s and Richard Neal’s districts, these districts would have had to expand far eastward into territory surrounding Boston. The power brokers in the eastern part of the state would never give up the influence of the extra House seat. The two seats in Western Mass. would be centered in Springfield and Worcester, in order to insure the predominance of the Democratic majorities of the cities. John Olver would have to be retired. Your commission had no choice.

A major task for your commission was to redraw the lines of these new districts, with the goal of maximizing the protection of the Democrat incumbents that possess these seats. Senator Rosenberg, there is no whining or outrage here on my part. This is how the game is played, and this is part of the spoils won by the majority party in any state.

You accomplished your task with a precision that few would notice, unless one was carefully watching and attuned. Almost all of the Republican challengers for the House from 2010 were carved out of their previous districts by your plan. Bill Gunn is no longer part of the Berkshires; I am gone from Richard Neal and the Hampden County towns that I won. Marty Lamb, Mike Stopa, and Brian Herr, McGovern’s main challengers from 2010, are out of his district. Tom Wesley was taken from Southern Worcester County and put in with Barney Frank. Sean Bielat was taken out of his district with Barney Frank. All of these candidates have had their previous campaign structures dismantled, and their future efforts hobbled. Again, I’m not whining. You did a remarkable job in this. I’m impressed.

It was also clear from the outset that the Democrats would have to split up the block of suburban Republican towns that make up Southern Massachusetts from 495 in the east to the border of Springfield in the west. You accomplished this as well, giving half to Mr. McGovern and half to Mr. Neal.

Senator, this is what became a political problem for you. James McGovern now had a district that was dangerously Republican, even with Worcester in the middle. Worcester is not all that Democratic. Your commission realized that McGovern needed more Democratic voters. Where to get them?

Amherst and Northampton, your home towns, were attached to Worcester County to bolster James McGovern’s hold on this new district. Your constituent towns suddenly became the distant outposts, very far from the center of power in their new congressional district.

There is nothing in common to join our part of Hampshire County with Worcester. Northampton and Amherst have geography and a history of commerce that ties us with the other towns and cities up and down the Connecticut River Valley. Your assertion that the having U Mass in Amherst and the U Mass Medical Center near Worcester somehow makes us natural companions was remarkably absurd. I was surprised when you used this rather limp excuse to to cover for the true political nature of the decision which has left Northampton and Amherst a vestigial appendix on this district.

Certainly, I expect you to argue that we need to give McGovern a chance to show that he cares for our towns. Don’t expect much. Distance counts, and Worcester has the votes. We will only have occasional McGovern sightings. McGovern will always know that Northampton and Amherst will deliver Democratic votes, and he won’t have to do much to get them.

McGovern is a good fit politically for these towns, but this valley would otherwise have had its Democrat with Richard Neal, and he’s much closer to home.

So Senator, the interests of your home towns were sacrificed for the benefit of your party. Northampton and Amherst will be Congressional afterthoughts for at least the next ten years in order to protect McGovern.

You have thrown the interests of your constituents under the bus. A reasoned voting public should notice such a cynical disregard of their interests, and remember it in the voting booth.

HOLDER MUST GO

2011-11-16T20:26:00.000-08:00

The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the U.S. Eric Holder has been all wrong from the beginning.

The entire country saw the video of members of the New Black Panther Party in front of a polling place in Philadelphia, dressed in paramilitary uniforms, wielding clubs, and yelling racial threats at white voters. By the time Holder took office, the Bush administration had won the civil suit against these perpetrators. Holder soon dropped the charges, claiming there was insufficient evidence.

Really? Everyone else saw the video.

Holder’s true motivation was revealed by his statement “when you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, to compare …. that with what happened in Philadelphia, …does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line for my people.” No, Mr. Holder. The point was to protect the voting rights for all Americans. Same crime, just different players.

Members of the Dept. of Justice resigned, revealing that they had been instructed by Holder not to prosecute minorities for civil rights violations. Is this the Obama post racial presidency?

Holder pushed to have the five 9/11 defendants headed by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed tried in civilian court rather than by military tribunal, the traditional venue for war related crimes. In the middle of a national economic catastrophe, this maneuver would have cost the taxpayers 2 billion dollars, given the terrorists a public propaganda platform, and put the people of New York City at risk for reprisal. All for a poorly thought out ideological statement that remains resistant to comprehension.

It was Holder that personally resurrected the closed case against CIA members involved in counter-terrorism after 9/11. He did this over warnings by President Obama and the objections of 7 previous directors of the CIA. Professional prosecutors under the Bush administration had investigated and cleared the agents of wrongdoing, and it was revealed that Holder had never bothered to read their memos before reopening the case. More misguided ideology, and the case was ultimately dropped in July, 2011.

In August, Holder’s justice department raided the Gibson Guitar Company, confiscating ebony fingerboards imported from India and used to make high range guitars. This action was taken under the Lacey Act, signed by McKinley in 1900, that protects against importing illegal plant products. It didn’t matter to Holder that the Indian government certified these products as quite legal. To our justice department all would have been fine if Indian workers had done some form of finishing of the fingerboards. Holder’s action threatened to close in the middle of an unemployment crisis two American plants which make valuable export products and which employ 1500 people. The justice department should have better things to do.

Other guitar manufacturers in the U.S. that use the same part were not raided. The CEO of Gibson Guitar is a registered Republican who contributes to Republican candidates. The owners of Gibson’s chief competition contribute to Democratic candidates.

Fast forward to Fast and Furious. The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms under the Justice Department decides to sell thousands of automatic weapons to Mexican drug gangs in order to trace the flow of weapons. Bonehead. One of those weapons killed an American border agent. Who knows how many Mexican law enforcement agents and civilians are killed using these guns. Next we’ll sell processed uranium to arms dealers in Pakistan and see if it shows up in Iranian nuclear weapons.

This taxpayer funded secret program was exposed, and in his testimony before Congress, Holder stated that he had only heard of it a few weeks before. Trouble for Holder began when investigative reporters uncovered memos describing this program in great detail were sent directly to Holder a year before this testimony. Our chief law enforcement officer may be seen as having lied to Congress. This is a felony.

In his defense, Holder claims that he receives hundreds of memos and did not read these. If we accept his explanation, then the attorney general is simply lazy or incompetent. There is a pattern here. When Holder filed suit against Arizona to block its revised immigration law and was brought before Congress to explain, he admitted that he had not read the Arizona bill. He had heard about it on the news. Remarkable, as the bill was only thirteen pages long.

Eric Holder is supposed to be an Obama favorite. If this American justice, then we are a banana republic.

Picking Sides

2011-10-16T11:25:00.000-07:00

By most recent estimates, 31% of Americans identify themselves as Democrats, 29% as Republicans, and 38% as Independent. The profile is different in Massachusetts, with 37% of voters seeing themselves as Democrats, 11% as Republicans, and 52% as Independent. What characteristics determine this identification? Certainly, how one’s parents, family, friends, and occupational/social milieu are positioned on the political spectrum may be very influential on the formation and maintenance of someone’s political identity. Affiliation with a political party may be driven by the propaganda of gross and inaccurate caricatures, such as that Democrats are Communists or Republicans are all Rich White folks. A person’s particular beliefs on one or more key issues, such as abortion, immigration, or energy and global warming may lead to their affiliation with the party that seems more aligned with those positions, though party breakdown on specific issues is not monolithic. However, I believe that there are far more fundamental beliefs that lead someone to choose their political team.

The single most obvious divergence between the parties has to do with the belief of the role of government in America. Democrats see our society as fundamentally being a group effort. We are all in this together. The government is the projection of collective decision making. As such, the government is inherently good and should play a very central and large role in our national life. Republicans believe that we are a society that fundamentally prizes and protects expanded degrees of freedom for our individual citizens. Americans should strive and live as they see fit. Government is necessary and has defined tasks, but should be kept limited and on a short leash. This is why Republicans frequently refer to the Constitution, which was penned by thinkers who did not trust centralization of power and was written specifically to control the potential abuses of big government. For Democrats who view a strong central government as the good and necessary expression of the common purpose, the Constitution is referred to infrequently and is viewed as an inconvenient quaint relic of a passed era.

There is a different basic ethic between adherents to the two parties. Democrats focus primarily on ameliorating the impact of failure in our society. Whether of fault or of no fault of the individual, Democrats look to soften the blows of poverty, familial disarray, school failure, or even just income disparity of unspecified degree. The Democratic model of “little guy” is the victim of the system, oppressed by racism or greed. Democrats operate through the auspices of the government as the agency best positioned to address these problems. The government operates for social justice by redistributing income by taxation and government largess.

Republicans concentrate on cultivating the conditions which lead to success. If government is to intervene, it is to enable the individual, whether rich or poor, to find and access the levers of achievement, and then enjoy the results of work and effort. Opportunity is provided, but outcome is not guaranteed. The Republican “little guy” is the budding entrepreneur who builds a business in his garage or the poor kid who picks himself up by the bootstraps and works his way through college.

There is a difference in whom the parties do and do not trust. Democrats trust members of the government who are seen as agents of the collective dedication to doing good. Democrats generally distrust their fellow citizens, who they believe will make unenlightened and self serving decisions. Business interests are the ultimate root of corruption. Extensive rules and regulations are necessary to control these economic and personal impulses. This is the source of the authoritarian streak of the Democratic Party.

Republicans do not trust members of the government. Corruption is to be expected as politicians and public workers once in place could manipulate their position to amass power and to maintain their office. American citizens are in a far better position to decide what works for their own lives than are bureaucrats. Republicans run the risk of seeming to believe that it’s every man for himself. However, protecting every citizen’s right to self determination is a grand societal effort.

Once the attachment to a party is made, members of the team accept and defend stances taken by their party even if they are destructive and nonsensical. Our politics are currently very partisan and polarized. Positions taken from core beliefs become absolutely unacceptable to the other side when those opposite core principles are challenged.

And then there are the independents.

WHO WRITES THIS STUFF?

2011-09-18T14:46:00.000-07:00

Television talking heads; newspaper editorial columns; letters to the editor. It’s the same left wing craziness over and over. There must be some central think-tank for half baked ideas from which this nonsense is distributed at 3 AM through encrypted email, secret notes, and pneumatic tubes, a web of misinformation designed to distract the minds of America with implausible silliness.

There is so much to choose from, it’s hard to know where to start.

1) Republicans and the Tea Party want to protect the rich. ( I love this one) Yep, they found us out. All of the millions of blue collar conservatives across the U.S. sit around planning on how to make sure that millionaires continue to have piles of moolah. We may not know these people at all, but shucks, we love them so much! It doesn’t matter to us what else is sacrificed for the future of country. American corporate tax rates are second highest in the world and drive our jobs overseas. Tax the rich: it couldn’t be profligate governmental spending. We’ll try keeping tax rates low only because we adore them rich folk. But wait! All the super rich like Bill Gates, George Soros, Warren Buffet, and the Hollywood fat cats are behind the Democrats. What’s that about?

2) Republicans want to balance the budget on the backs of the poor. (Corollary of #1) Liberal/Progressives (yes, we know you’re the same thing, but being “liberal” isn’t cool anymore) are good and kind people, they love the poor. Conservatives are bad and nasty, they hate the poor. If we want to reform Medicare, social security, or Medicaid so they don’t go bankrupt next week, we must hate the poor! Want to reduce the size of the 14 trillion dollar federal debt, hate the poor! Shrink the energy department, hate the poor! Democrats are willing to raid the social security trust fund until its empty, keep the poor in perpetual dependency on welfare, and deny the poor educational choice for their children in order to protect the unions. That’s true love.

3) It’s Bush’s fault. Or maybe Eisenhower? How about Coolidge? Now Obama is blaming Mother Nature and bad luck. Oh come on. Bush may have blown some important decisions, but he never had the lack of grace and respect to blame his predecessor and anyone else he could think of. The last three years of the poor economy are the President’s. Obama has replaced “The buck stops here” with “I didn’t do it!”

4) The financial stimulus was not big enough. This is the email that went out last week to the lefty talking heads list:

“If we make the nonsense huge enough, then gullible Americans will think that the enormous amount of taxpayer dollars we threw down the hole was actually ok. Should we try and convince America that it should have been twice as big? Maybe we should go for three times as big? Hell with it, let’s talk the clowns into believing that the stimulus should have been four times bigger. This email is not for general circulation.”

5) The Republican candidates for president are political dwarfs. Really? We have three governors, three long term congressmen including a former speaker of the house, a prior senator, and a corporate CEO who was also a District Federal Reserve chairman. Wasn’t it the Democrats in 2008 who nominated a candidate for president with virtually no qualifications or experience?

6) Democrats are the party of civility (the good guys remember?). That’s why they can call the Tea Party members suicide bombers, terrorists, and racists that “can go straight to hell”. Nice.

7) The Tea Party is Racist. I could argue this by saying that I’ve been at many Tea Party rallies and meetings, and have never seen any racism, and this would be true. However, this one is vicious and makes me too angry for a measured response. These allegations so readily thrown around by liberal/progressives are simply foul, shameful, and libelous. What is truly displayed is a political and intellectual bankruptcy on the part of the left, who have no other response to the differing ideas by a spontaneous political movement of Americans than to throw around what they believe is their most powerful invective. The left has taken to accuse anyone who disagrees with their credo as being racist. Just like the boy who cried wolf, no one is paying attention any longer.

Yes, indeed. The left needs some new material.

In Our Backyards

2011-08-02T20:40:00.000-07:00

There was a particularly telling interchange during the debate between the candidates for the ward 3 city council seat in Northampton. One candidate expansively described his notion that the large swath of open space in the ward known as the Meadows should be made more available for public recreational use. When his opponent countered that this was in fact private property owned by some of the few remaining city farmers, the first candidate scoffed at the idea of respecting private ownership and dismissed this aspect as a nuisance to be overcome in the realization of his quest for the greater public good. If I was a home owner in the ward, I would seriously wonder what help I would get from this counselor if the city were to come after my property under the guise of eminent domain. This resonates with one of the most egregious of Supreme Court decisions of this era. In Kelo vs. the City of New London, the court allowed for an expanded assault on private property rights. An issue of national importance appeared in a city ward debate.

In my years on the Northampton school committee and board of health, issues that were truly national in scope would appear translated into our local discussions. Most notable was the encroachment of government on the liberties of citizens. The controversy around the establishment of a hookah smoking bar came before the board of health and a public forum several years ago. I believed that the board was responsible for public health, not personal behavior. If a citizen of age who is informed about the dangers of smoking wanted to engage in poorly considered behavior for themselves, then it was not the city’s right to limit that behavior. The board of health’s job was to make sure the people who did not want to be exposed to the smoke were adequately protected. The public hearing broke down into competing positions. The thirty and under participants made the argument that if they were old enough to go to war, vote, and pay taxes, then had the right to make their own decisions. The over 50 crowd made the argument that smoking is bad, they knew better, and that smoking should be banned.

The same issue appeared years earlier in the school committee discussions on school choice. I believed that parents should have as many choices as possible for their families, and that the school choice program offered families without economic means some options as had families that could afford private schools. The school administration and city government felt that these children were public property, a communal livestock that needed to stay in the public pen for the good of the farm. Here was government limiting choice, rather than enlarging the scope of freedoms.

Issues around fiscal responsibility of government are easily evident locally. In discussions at the committee, board, or city council level about spending, there seemed to be no recognition that we were talking about real money, taxpayer dollars harvested from property taxes or state income taxes that came from the pockets of our fellow citizens and neighbors. We were spending play money picked from trees, disconnected from its true origins. Local officials used the same camouflage as the federal government, referring to the need for revenue enhancement instead of raising taxes.

The struggle around citizen entitlement appeared on the docket during my time in city politics. The school committee was always desperately short of money. I scoured the budget to find funds that could be redirected to the books we needed, and for supplies that teachers were buying with their own funds. There was $20,000 that was used to subsidize food services so that school lunch prices were kept artificially low; not for needy parents who had free lunch subsidies, but for all of the other parents who could pay. Some members of the committee felt that parents were entitled to these low cost lunches. I felt that the children were entitled to new books, and teachers should keep their salaries.

We do not have to go to the Supreme Court or Congress to engage with the most profound political struggles of our time. They are manifested locally, and are more immediate and intimate in our communities. Local politics is not insignificant. Who we elect and how they behave is deeply important. If you are only watching the national news, you are missing the battlefront in your backyard

FAT CAT CONFIDENTIAL

2011-07-10T10:50:00.001-07:00

Critics on the left want redistribution of income. Joe the plumber heard this directly from candidate Obama. The liberal view of the overripe fruit to be picked for redistribution is quoted from one respondent to my last column:
“ the word ‘earn’ carries a connotation of hard work and just desserts, which doesn’t mean sitting on your behind and collecting dividend income from trust funds and stock portfolios….most of America’s top earners have investments, often inherited, which bring them income without a lick of work.” A nation of Daddy Warbucks, pockets stuffed with Monopoly money.
I believe I’m in the top 20% of earners in the U.S. My parents grew up poor in New York, my father working two and sometimes three jobs to support his family. My older sister dropped out after one semester in college, and my older brother graduated from several years of reform school. My parents stressed to me the importance of hard work and education. I went through college on a merit scholarship, loans, the money I earned working during holidays and summers, and about $1,000 per year from my parents. I spent four years in medical school accruing more debt instead of earning income. I then worked 110 hours per week as an intern at less than $2.00 per hour, and invested four more years training at very low levels of salary. Money was thin during my first years of practice in Massachusetts, but my wife and I immediately began saving for retirement. Money was put away regularly for college starting when my daughter was three and my son was one. For many years our house was furnished with leftovers, and some rooms had no furniture at all. We bought cheap cars so that we could save. And yes, we put that money into investments: retirement funds, my office, our home, and we get dividends from Massachusetts municipal bonds. Over thirty years, it adds up. We made these choices to work hard, save, and not spend. To the left I am a fat cat ready to skin.
This is the story of small business men and women all across America. They work hard and long hours, as there is no boss more demanding then success or failure that is solely your own responsibility. They put up their own money and are at risk for the money they borrow and unpaid bills if the business fails. These folks create commerce where nothing was before, without which the government has little to tax. These business people create jobs. They are everyday heroes. I hope they succeed and invest money in stocks and bonds that can be recirculated to build roads, schools, and other businesses.
Corporate CEOs are suspected villains. The press gets apoplectic when a corporate CEO receives the same income as Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean. I’m thankful for these CEOs. They are highly trained and experienced stewards of big business. Without their success our companies fail here and in competition with foreign concerns. Economic activity is lost, and there is less demand for their suppliers and vendors. Jobs are lost, and there is less wealth for the government to tax. They produce value for their shareholders, but their success is indispensable to our society. Yes, there are corrupt CEOs as there are corrupt politicians, but I would have our children collect trading cards of our successful CEOs over sports stars.
Governmental redistribution of income is not a new idea.
“From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” Karl Marx
This didn’t work very well for the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and now Greece. Many established socialized countries are working hard to undo the last forty years of redistributive government. Sweden and Canada are prime examples of the prosperity that follows the reduction in government size and control. Our current government is running in the opposite direction. Some people won’t learn.
A just society certainly protects the poor and sick. Great disparities of income and class warfare are not desirable. Stripping high earners of income to redistribute wealth penalizes hard work, investment, and innovation, and is scapegoating. The best way to reduce the gap between rich and poor is to improve opportunity at the bottom. Improved education particularly in the sciences and vocational training, and government policies that encourage the return of jobs to the U.S. such as a sharp reduction in corporate tax rates and relief from over-regulation would be more fruitful approaches.

Banning Fairness

2011-06-09T08:00:00.001-07:00

A gaggle of activists flocked into Boston demanding a new state tax code that would shift the burden to higher income residents who are accused of not paying their fair share. The President is hitting the campaign stump, promoting the maintenance of an obscene level of government spending and debt in the protection of America as a fair society. Honestly, I don’t know what they exactly mean.

The word “fair” should be removed from adult discourse. It is a subversive word. “Fair” is supposed to mean that both parties in an agreement have determined that the value in the outcome is deemed equal to each, but the word in politics is most often used as a weapon to manipulate and sabotage the person with whom you are not agreeing. There are presumptions made by the use of this word in political discourse. In order for one position to be fair and therefore right, there has to be the assumption that one side is truly right and the other definitely wrong. Without that assumption, the side that plays the “fair” card is simply expressing a subjective opinion, which carries no more weight than the viewpoint of other side. Every ten year old recognizes this. Using fairness also presumes that the party arguing for fairness knows what is right and wrong and that the other side either lives in ignorance, or is to selfish to abide by this moral certainty. The side that calls on fairness to win the argument stakes out the moral high ground, with the hope that the other party will be shamed and intimidated into submission. Fairness then requires that something of value is lost to the side that is not fair, because without value, there is no concern about fairness.

We should agree to ban the use of “fair” after we leave the fifth grade playground. “Fair” should be replaced with “legal”, “contractual”, and “agreed-upon” to more reflect adult reality. By the way, the more academic version “equity” should also be thrown out on the same heap.

In the name of fairness, Democrats at the federal level are shielding entitlement spending from any reconsideration of structure or spending levels. This is in the face of an immense debt burden that looms over the future of the next generations. My parent’s generation suffered through the twin traumas of the Great Depression and World War II, and then buckled down to build an industrial giant that they passed onto their children. My generation, faced with the likelihood of profoundly damaging the prospects of our children’s future, is whining about getting a fair share of entitlement spending in Medicare and social security. This doesn’t seem too fair to me. For the good of the country’s impending financial catastrophe, let’s agree to postponing eligibility for these entitlements by one year, a maneuver that would save billions, assuming that the federal government could keep itself from turning around and then squandering those savings.

I am not against graduated income taxes. However, the top 5% of Americans earn 33% of the income in the U.S. and pay 57% of federal income taxes. The top 25% on the income scale earn 66% of the U.S. totaI and pay 85% of federal taxes. Over 45% of Americans pay no income taxes at all. So, what is fair, and what is fair enough? Money gets redistributed from one person who earned it to someone else who didn’t. Who is in a rightful position to make this determination, and on what moral certainty do they rely?

I believe that all Americans with any income should pay some state and federal taxes, even if the amount is quite nominal. There are two reasons for this: first, every citizen benefits from the services provided by each level of government, whether it is for schools, roads, police and fire protection, or national defense, and should contribute to the cost. More importantly, we as a people can never have a real conversation about the level of government spending if nearly one half of our citizens don’t care because they pay no taxes and yet enjoy those benefits at the expense of the other half. Every citizen with an income should pay some taxes. I think that’s fair.

Musings on THE Birth Certficate

2011-05-13T16:55:00.000-07:00

I withheld this column last week to congratulate President Obama on dispatching Osama Bin Laden.

I also thank Obama for finally releasing his birth certificate and ending the torment that was this issue. The President is correct; it was an unnecessary distraction from the profound problems we face as a nation. However, the President was fully complicit in perpetuating the birther thing by not releasing the document far earlier. Was his delay an act of stubbornness? Obama is no fool. He must have calculated that keeping this alive helped him politically. The prevailing wisdom is that it marginalized his conservative opposition. Perhaps Obama allowed the issue to percolate precisely because it was a distraction from the bad economic, political, and international news that is ingrained in the fabric of his presidency. Whatever Obama’s reasons were for letting this nonsense fester, it did him and the nation no good. However, there was something real behind the life that this issue took on. That is the feeling that the President is somehow “foreign”.

I have no doubt that there is an unfortunate racial aspect to this perception, and it is compounded by the President having a name that is distinctly Islamic at a time when the West is in the midst of a civilizational cold war with the Muslim world. I suspect that Obama the person has had to deal with this throughout his entire life, and to his and America’s credit he has obviously navigated very successfully. However, most of Obama’s foreignness has to do with his character and politics.

Despite the efforts of the media and Obama to minimize the significance of the personal associations he has had with the likes of Ayers, Reverend Wright, and more recently Pastor Smith, a narrative develops of a President comfortable in a world of extreme politics. The beliefs reflected by these chosen associations are far distant from those of a majority of Americans.

Obama’s campaign of apology for the U.S. in foreign lands that dominated his first year in office put the President on the outside. Americans are generally proud of their role in the world. Though by no means perfect, our system generates great wealth, innovation, and freedom, and we as a nation have sacrificed treasure and life to support the cause of liberty throughout the world. Having the President who is the face of America demean the nation to foreigners implies a disloyalty not readily accepted of a President.

Obama seems to be a closed and distant personality as a public figure. No matter how hard I listen to his speeches, I find it almost impossible to get a read on what he is thinking. I’m not sure if it is because his content is often inconsistent or purposely vague, but the President often seems to be studiously hiding his real intentions. As such, the American public, both on the right and the left, have in him a blank slate, ascribing to him beliefs of their own for good or bad that his later behaviors often belie. Being difficult to connect with, Obama has been an unknown.

Mr. Obama is not the first president I have found alien. I was initially appalled by the election of Ronald Reagan who seemed to be such an intellectual lightweight. Stories of his falling asleep in cabinet meetings and his “down home” speeches made me cringe. Then I had an epiphany about this man. As I listened to one of his homilies, I realized that Reagan was not talking to me, a Northeast Ivy Leaguer. He was addressing that large body on Americans throughout Midwest, South, and West who are our blue collar working neighbors and who are the heart of this nation. From this perspective, Reagan’s communication was true genius. As his presidency unfolded, Reagan’s remarkable qualities became evident.

I can’t tell to whom Obama speaks.

Perhaps what makes this president most foreign to many Americans is what seems to be his view of America. Joe the Plumber heard that we need to redistribute wealth. 45% of Americans pay no federal income taxes. More money is being paid out through entitlements than is coming into the government in taxes. We learned to work hard, succeed and build for our families and country. Our children will work hard to give up the fruits of their labor to a government of entitlement that is buried in debt. Obama’s America is a foreign country. What America is this? Where’s the birth certificate?

Health Care and Liberty

2011-03-16T07:19:00.000-07:00

This is a Paul Revere moment, a wakeup call. Deval Patrick and the Massachusetts State House are legislating a fundamental change in the funding of health care. In the process, basic freedoms are being stripped from the citizens of Massachusetts, and the population is unaware.

What is being ordained in the name of cost control is a payment system known as capitation, or global payment. The State/Insurance Industry consortium will mandate that the healthcare provider is given a lump sum payment for each patient, from which the cost for services for that person will be deducted. The healthcare provider keeps what’s left. The less spent on that person, the more the provider earns.

To the consumer, healthcare is still “free”, as insurance pay for it all. There still remains reason for the consumer to expect unlimited services. Under capitation, the responsibility for saying no to the consumer is passed downstream from the government or insurer to the healthcare provider, setting up a new perverse incentive in which the patient-provider relationship is potentially more adversarial. Consumers have to worry about whether decisions made for their healthcare are more about the provider’s bottom line than their well being.

The medical community in Northampton worked with capitation some twenty years ago, as Blue Cross / Blue Shield trialed a system called the Western Mass. Health Plan. It failed, as neither the physicians nor the patients tolerated it. Now we’re back to the future.

What is now far more dangerous is the erosion of individual freedom brought about by this healthcare payment reform. The citizen’s sovereignty over basic decision making that intimately affects the individual and family is stripped away. Imagine if access to food in Massachusetts was organized in the same way by mandate of the state government. The supermarket gets $400 per month to feed your family. The owner consults expert guidelines and makes food choices decided to be in your family’s interests, and keeps what he does not spend on you. No American would tolerate this usurpation of authority in our daily lives, and yet the citizens of the Commonwealth will be forced to accept this in our medical decision making. By putting the healthcare provider on the hook for this money, the “local expert” will make the healthcare choices, perhaps in conflict with the unique needs of each individual and family.

By this new legislation put forward by the Governor, he has arrogantly assumed that the state does have the right to appropriate self governance in healthcare. The cadre of government experts and paternalistic academics that have crafted this approach presume that the consumer is incapable of making reasoned decisions about the best way to spend limited health care dollars. This is not nearly my experience as a practicing physician for over 25 years. Once given good information, I have seen that individuals are great at making decisions that work for them and their families.

The Governor is proud that this new legislation is a partnership between the government, Insurance, and healthcare industries. Strikingly missing from this discussion is the input and partnership of the citizen. I have been at many professional forums about healthcare payment reform given by government, academic and insurance experts. In all of them, the citizen is simply fodder for the system, subject to processing. None of these discussions are premised on the primacy of a free and informed individual at the core of controlling health care decision making and the control of healthcare costs.

It is the consumer’s money that pays for health care. Whether the insurance premium is paid for directly or is part of the employee compensation package, the dollars spent are ours. The government subsidized systems such as Medicare, Medicaid, or the Massachusetts Commonwealth Care and Connector, are paid for by our taxes. Creating a health care financing system that puts the consumer in charge of the dollar, rewards frugality, and protects against disaster is not difficult. Using a combination of healthcare savings accounts and catastrophic insurance, consumers shop for the healthcare they want, and keep the money they do not spend. This has already been done statewide in Indiana.

If we in Massachusetts cede control over aspects of our lives, either out of a lack of vigilance or inaction, then we deserve to lose our freedoms.

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” Thomas Jefferson.

Tea Party Reflections: February Column

2011-02-08T20:36:00.000-08:00

A friend expressed great surprise that I had interacted with the “extremist” right-wing Tea Parties during my campaign for Congress in Southern Massachusetts. He is intelligent and politically moderate, and so his response brought into focus the pervasiveness and persuasiveness of the media’s misrepresentations of the Tea Party movement.
This is a firsthand account: I have been there myself. I have spoken to Tea Party groups of less than twenty and to over 200 members. These organizations reside throughout our region, including the Knox Trail Tea Party, the Worcester, Paxton-Rutland-Leicester, Webster-Dudley-Oxford, Blackstone, Sutton, and the Calvin Coolidge Tea Parties. There are also the 9/12 groups of Chicopee and East Longmeadow, as well as the libertarian Massachusetts LPA. I have been to their rallies, and I have talked to these folks individually. They were an integral part of my campaign, and I prized their support.
The people who joined to Tea Parties are your neighbors. They work hard for a living, or are retired folks, though some of them lost their jobs during this terrible recession. They may be blue collar or they are college educated professionals. It is my experience that there were more women than men. Some Tea Party members are Republicans, fewer were Democrats, and most are political independents. Many of them were never involved in politics before.
The Tea Partiers love their families as well as their country, and these twin drives motivate them to leave their homes behind for meetings and rallies on nights and weekends, after long days at work. They are passionate about their patriotism, but theirs is not a blind allegiance to the flag. The Tea Parties have a deep, intuitive understanding of the spirit and values embodied by U.S. Constitution, those of defending a society that treasures and protects individual freedom. The government exists through the permission of the populace, and the impetus for decision making is decentralized. They are fiscal conservatives, recognizing the necessity to give up some of the fruits of their labor to the government through taxes, but demanding that their hard earned dollars are used responsibly. They seek to preserve these values for the society that will be inherited by their children.
Tea Party members are angry about the erosion of these values, but they do not hate. I have been at many different Tea Party events during my campaign, and never saw evidence of racism. Never. Not once. Attacks on the Tea Party movement as racist is at best misguided and misinformed, but more likely are attempts by political opponents to marginalize these good people and neutralize their popular political clout. I find these attacks to be malicious.
Tea Party members are a cross section of common folks, who are willing to part from their families to resist the encroachment of an enlarging centralized government that is seen as insinuating itself in the economic lives and personal decision making of its people. The Tea Party members attend local meetings, and have travelled to the nation’s capitol in rallies of hundreds of thousands. It is a broad and spontaneous popular movement, and when I have been at these meetings, I get a sense of the fire that lit the American Revolution. I am thankful that this passion for liberty still lives and that the descendents of revolution are yet with us.
To dismiss the Tea Party is to miss the chance to witness a remarkable movement in American history. I have been lucky to have been present through two great social upwellings during my life, that of the “1960’s” and now the Tea Party movement. Certainly, the nature of the politics of these two movements are different and both are rooted in their respective eras, but the similarity of emotion and romance of a people seeking to turn the values of our society is unmistakable. Both have altered the trajectory of American history.
The future of the Tea Party is of course uncharted. It could peter out after its recent electoral success. It could develop into its own political party, or fuel the evolution and revitalization of the Republican Party. It wrestles with remaining a movement dedicated to issues of liberty and fiscal conservatism or taking positions on some of the “social issues” such as abortion rights, on which most of the Tea Party membership does not share universal agreement.
However the Tea Party’s future unfolds, I am glad they are here, and this nation needs their continued vigilance in the future.

The Political Extorion Epidemic

2011-01-08T07:26:00.000-08:00

Manipulation in politics is like the weather in New England. They are the natural order of things and complaining about them will get you nowhere. However, the recent political battle in Washington over the Bush tax cuts has put me over the edge, and I’m baying at the moon.

Let me blame Congressman Anthony Weiner (Dem) of New York and his colleagues for inspiring this column. They made the rounds on cable news and talk radio during the fight over the extension of the Bush tax rates, and their willful and blatant attempt to manipulate voters in support of their position was well beyond tolerance. These partisans aggressively attacked the extension of the existing tax rates as a gift to “millionaires and billionaires”, and as a windfall for the “super wealthy and fabulously rich”. They knew full well, and must have believed that the public did not know, that higher tax rates preferred by Weiner and his coalition began with individuals at incomes of $200,000 and married couples of $250,000. These people are hardly “fabulously wealthy”, they are far more numerous than the millionaires, and are predominantly small business owners. Weiner et al proclaimed over various cable news networks that they were protecting the middle class, never once mentioning that the preservation of current tax rates for those above $200,000 in income did not affect middle class tax rates. Nor do they concede that an alternative protection for all Americans against future tax increases is to reduce government spending. These facts about the tax rate extension are purposely not divulged by these proponents of higher taxes, and the class warfare distortions offered by Weiner and colleagues were designed to whip up voter antipathy towards this bill.

Do our politicians believe that the newspeak use of misrepresentative names on major pieces of legislation will fool the public? Is the new health care reform bill really a “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”? I suppose it does protect those with pre-existing conditions from losing their coverage, and it does extend coverage to those who can’t pay for insurance by opening Medicaid coverage which is then free to them. Under this act health insurance becomes far more expensive for the vast majority of Americans who currently purchase their own insurance and to the employers who cover so many of our citizens. The subsidized coverage mandated by this bill adds at least hundreds of billions to the federal deficits to be picked up by future taxpayers, and counts on hundreds of billions to be sacrificed from Medicare, threatening coverage for seniors. This is hardly the definition of “Protection and Affordable”. The “Dream Act” was the title for the recently failed legislation on illegal immigration. How about a simple “Act Relative to Alternative Paths to Citizenship”? As citizens, we need a discussion on how we balance our laws and the needs of our nation with a humane approach to the illegal immigrants. We don’t need an advertising jingle.

Negative labels are used in political discourse as weapons of personal assault to silence opposition by impugning their integrity and undermining their moral authority. To neutralize the influence of the Tea Parties, they were stamped as “racists” in the media despite being untrue. Discussions about immigration reform are fought through accusations of ”immigrant bashing”. There are many of these labels in play. The use of assaultive labeling is designed to win political battles by giving the user the moral high ground from which the opponent is bullied and shamed, and from which a supporting constituency can be built and manipulated. It is a vicious strategy.

Politicians violate our democracy when obscuring their positions on issues and by hiding their background in order to win election. The voter must know a candidate’s beliefs in order to make a reasoned judgment on who will make decisions in government. No single individual in office is so important as to subvert the democratic process.

I fully acknowledge that both sides of the political spectrum distort and manipulate, but we confront serious issues as a nation. We need to discuss the wisdom of raising taxes during a recession, and how progressive we want our tax code. How much do we want our government to grow and how much of our personal and societal treasure should the government absorb? Distorting truth to progress a particular position poisons reasonable discussion and destroys deliberation. We do have some politicians who speak their truths and do not resort to lies: they are called statesmen.

Instate Tuition for Illegal Immigrants: Gazette Column 1

2010-12-21T18:06:00.000-08:00

Within two weeks of being elected, Governor Patrick resurrected a proposal for instate tuition for illegal immigrants. With a taxpayer subsidy of $9,000 per year at current charges for in-state versus out-of-state tuition, and a recent estimate of 500 eligible students, this would amount to 18 million dollars of taxpayer dollars over four years at a time when both the state and UMass budgets are under tremendous pressure. Just last month UMass Amherst announced an 8% budget shortfall for the next fiscal year and is hoping for more out of state students to make up the difference. With a faltering economy, the taxpayers of Massachusetts are hurting. It is no surprise that Governor Patrick waited until after the election to bring up this idea. This proposal was killed in Massachusetts four years ago, but here it is again. Elections do have consequences.
Why offer this particular benefit for this group? Certainly, more basic entitlements that could be given to illegal immigrants are beyond the limits that are acceptable to taxpayers. We are not providing taxpayer supported housing. We are not providing healthcare insurance or food stamps, or subsidies for heating costs. As the parents of these students are illegally in this country and therefore are likely to have little reportable income, will we then be extending further financial aid beyond the in state tuition break to these families to help them afford four years of education? Where does it end?
Implicit in this proposal is that the children of illegal immigrants who reside in Massachusetts are more valued by the people of Massachusetts than the children of fellow American citizens who happen to reside outside the state. Geography trumps citizenship as the out of state American family is not offered this same taxpayer generosity of the lower tuition. If these children are to be the responsibility of the taxpayers of their state of origin who should bear this financial burden, then the same argument can be made for the children of illegal immigrants extending to their nation of origin. It is very possible that the American children from other states are also poor and are in need of access to affordable higher education as they may come from states without state university systems. We are all descended from immigrants, and it is not the fault of these children that they were brought here illegally. Given the enormous price of higher education in the U.S., it is not the fault of out of state American families that they are also looking for relief from the burden of the costs of educating their children. The taxpayers of Massachusetts are being positioned to extend our hand preferentially to the families that are here illegally.
We must consider the issue of fairness to the Massachusetts taxpaying family. The cost of educating their children is one of the greatest financial difficulties faced by most families. There are no tax breaks for families that must shoulder costs that now exceed 50,000$ each year for a private college education. As the money for the in-state tuition subsidy for children of illegal immigrants comes from taxpayer dollars, we should consider the need for relief of Massachusetts families as their tax dollars are subsidizing this new entitlement. Perhaps this proposal should be coupled with tax deductions for education costs for residents of Massachusetts, though I have no doubt that the Governor would scream that this loss of revenue is not affordable.
Offering entitlements to illegal immigrants incentivizes their setting up residence in Massachusetts, and the taxpayers of this state must recognize that there are costs associated with this. It costs taxpayer dollars for the public education of these children, and medical costs that are not reimbursed become a taxpayer liability. There is the loss of tax revenues by economic activity that is driven underground. The underground economy is even now a great problem in Massachusetts. In my recent Congressional campaign through Southern Massachusetts, I heard from builders and contractors throughout the region that they are losing income and are having their businesses threatened by illegal immigrants from Brazil who are living in Massachusetts and are working off the books. This shift of economic activity is hidden from taxes.
No one wants to seem inhospitable to immigrant families seeking a better life, but preferential treatment of foreign nationals that break our immigration laws over fellow American citizens is problematic. The pressures of a troubled economy and the difficulties of our taxpaying families should be first to get our attention.

What a Weekend!

2010-07-05T19:26:00.000-07:00

Whew...this was one major weekend. 3 parades, 3 fireworks celebrations, and altogether 7 towns. Balloons, volunteers in attendance, great weather, and the 4th of July weekend was a great time to have fun and meet the voters. Thanks Bob for the T Bird, thanks to Carol, Mary, Rebecca, Mike, Dave, Matt, Johnny, Rick, Wendy, Tammy, Jeff, Jim, Don, Bill, Emily, Stuart, & Joe for coming along, all the help, and making the weekend so much fun. Mike, my college roommate, where did you ever come from and who would have ever expected you to be a Republican?

Dan, you really outdid yourself.

Memorial Day 2010

2010-05-30T09:01:00.001-07:00

Our eternal gratefulness to those who protected liberty for us throughout our history.

This includes my father. I grew up with the history of WWII all around me. My father was in the invasion of Okinawa, and on the boat for the invasion of Japan when Truman dropped the bombs. Without that decision, my father would likely not have survived, I and my children would never have existed. My father told funny stories about his time in Okinawa, but would avoid saying much about his combat experience. When he died at the age of eighty, a contingent from the army was there and presented the family with a flag, which I have and remains precious.
Contrary to others in my generation, I always felt that the Viet Nam War was a necessary battle, as in that time we were in a life and death struggle with Communism on the march, and for a while it looked like we were losing a large part of the world. Historians are now thinking that the Viet Nam War did stop the spread of Communism in Asia, and allowed countires like S. Korea, Japan, the Philiipines, and Thailand to develope into free, captialist states, and ultimately led to the exhaustion of the Communists during the cold war.

Thanks to the Vets from all of our wars, including WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

ON THE BALLOT !!

2010-05-24T19:17:00.000-07:00

There were times we never thought we would make it. We had two and one half months to get 2000 certified signatures. We started off immediately, thinking that we would get this behind us quickly. Wrong. After the first month, we had 400 certified, and were beginning to believe it was never going to happen. The volunteers then began to show up, and by the end we had over 100 people from across the entire district working on nomination papers. Through them, we filed 3871, weeks ahead of schedule. By the end of the day, well over 4000.

Thank you folks, thank you. Now on to doing our local part towards recovering Congress for the U.S.

Tax Day 2010

2010-04-17T19:42:00.000-07:00

Yes, I know that this is out of order..2,000 people were out on Tax Day in Worcester. Just like at the convention, folks know what's at stake coming up, and they are not going to let their fellow Americans forget what America is about. Here is my colleague Kate, at Tax Day with me, though Mary Lou, and Joe are not in the photo.

Convention 2010

2010-04-17T19:36:00.001-07:00

It's been a long time since I've blogged, I know and apologize. We have been flat out campaigning. I have to take a moment to talk about the amazing energy and good vibe of the convention. Folks are juiced, they know what's at stake coming in November, and they are ready to take the state and our nation back. Mary Lou and my fabulous volunteers Joe and Dave from Northampton were amazing. This is a pic of Tammy from Leicester, working the convention floor with me.

AMERICA, YOU OWE US (bigtime)

2010-01-22T20:48:00.000-08:00

The awful spectacle of our government running amok, with the worst of the big government impulses being unchecked, is over, or more accurately on pause. The Scott Brown election showed the stubborn independent streak that had Massachusetts give birth to the American Revolution is still alive. Massachusetts delivered again.

This doesn't change my approach to this campaign at all, as good and often simple approaches to American problems can be found with common sense, the judicious use of the precious dollars Americans give to the government in taxes, and a dedication to our basic freedoms. The government needs to step back and let the peoples ingenuity and hard work allow the economy to recover, and put our people back to work. Stop burying those who come next in a debt that will be a weight around their necks for decades.

Congratulations to Scott Brown, the people of Massachusetts, and our fellow Americans. BUT, this was only Chapter 1. Take a deep breath. The next chapter is to be written in November, 2010.

Back for More

2010-01-10T17:41:00.000-08:00

Sorry folks, but I have been so busy campaigning that it has been hard to blog. We have been in towns all over the district, at a large variety of events. Fundraising like crazy, and continuing to meet just great people. Folks are just not happy about the continuing craziness in Washington, and people keep coming up to me and telling me that they heard me speak or heard me on the radio, and that they agree with what I'm saying even though they are Democrats. I have never in my life seen the break from reality demonstrated by our current government, and it has to stop before too much economic, security, and social disruption occurs.

Scott Brown's election is one week away...Mary Lou and I have been working his phone bank in Holyoke. There is the hope that if he wins, his presence will slow them down in D.C. until reinforcements get there in November.

Down in D.C.

2009-11-29T15:15:00.000-08:00

Mary Lou and I consulted with the RNC in D.C. There was discussion about all aspects of campaign strategy, and we met some very smart and dedicated people, including Michael Steele, John Boehner, Mike Sessions, Dana Perino, and Eric Cantor. They are aghast at what damage the Democrats are doing to our economy, and are determined to win back the House in 2010.

Of the 40 candidates that were there, I was the only active candidate from New England. I believe that made me a novelty.

It was fascinating to sit in on a congressional morning briefing, while Mary Lou got to talk to a Congresswoman about the life style of a Congressional family....which is not easy.

Now, I'm stoked.

A Very Good Day

2009-10-24T20:35:00.000-07:00

Saturday October 17: Stumping through district 2 with Charlie Baker, Christy Mihos, and Scott Brown.

First, in Springfield. An excellent event put together by Paul Santaniello and Chanel Prunier for the benefit of the municipal candidates of Springfield. All of the candidates spoke to our core values of the advancement of individual liberty and fiscal responsibility. We all recognize the need to build up local candidates as the foundation of our future success in Massachusetts.

Mary Lou and I made a quick stop to talk to folks at the Harvest Festival on the commons of Sturbridge.

Lastly, a literal barnstormer in Sutton, put on by local committee members Ryan Fattman and Carl Copeland. A very large crowd was present. Besides the candidates for governor, Senate and U.S. Congress, again, a host of local candidates presented.

The Mass Pike got a workout by us that day.

On the Road

2009-10-11T20:37:00.000-07:00

We are barnstorming the district. We started with a meeting of the Wilbraham town committee. As usual, it was rewarding to meet with a great group of people, and the conversation ranged from the construction of a new high school in Wilbraham, to health care reform and government deficits. Thanks for the support, Wibraham.

A new 9/12 group invited Mary Lou and I to Chicopee, and I was the guest speaker at a health care town hall meeting. Richard Neal won't come out in public to talk to the voters, but I will. We spent an hour and a half talking about the health care reform bills in Congress, and the discussion was enthusiastic. People are quite involved.

Next was Sturbridge. Mary Lou and I met with members of the new town committee from Wales. State Reps. Jeff Perry and Paul Frost were there, as was the prior candidate for Lieut. Governor Reed Hillman. Again, the opportunity was there to meet good people, and a have discussions on important issues.

We then met in Longmeadow with the town committee chaired by Dean Rogeness. Present was his wife, prior State Rep Mary Rogeness. Two members were at the Tea party in Washington DC, and told of the huge number of people who actually attended, a fact not accurately reported in the press. I had the chance to answer questions on my positions on major issues. There were a number of familiar faces present.

Next up, Springfield, Sutton, and East Longmeadow.

Richard Neal, The Gift That Keeps Giving

2009-09-20T16:26:00.000-07:00

ACORN! Richard Neal was one of the small group of Congressmen that voted to continue federal funding of Acorn.

Richard, what is it going to take for you to stop giving taxpayer dollars to this organization? They have members being indicted for voter fraud, they have been caught on film helping to create a business plan for importing teen age prostitutes from Central America, and that's not enough for you. How about bank robbery? Piracy on the open seas? What?

Campaign Fund Raising

2009-09-19T19:36:00.000-07:00

Running a campaign of this dimension has given me a very different perspective on fund raising and politics. I'm sure I'm like everyone else; getting fund raising solicitations is a nuisance, and I'll usually contribute only when an election is getting close or a news event occurs which infuriates me and then I have to make some kind of statement.

There is a different quality to it on this side of the process. There is pressure early on to raise money . Resources are needed early to build an organization, and develop a workable structure (particularly professional fund raisers). The political world outside your campaign is looking to see if you can raise money as a marker of viability, so that you are worthy of the investment of further contributions and resources. In order to be able to raise money, you first have to raise money.

Later on in the campaign, if you don't have the money to hit the airwaves on television and radio, you are crippled.

I'm getting practice in fund raising, and I am getting much better at it. My experience has been that personal contact is important, and the contributor needs to know not just what you stand for, but also who you are.

I have been concentrating first on getting out through the district and meeting people. I'm very, very happy with how this is going. As people are getting to know me, the support has been growing. The public needs to know that all contributions, no matter how small, help push forward the effort. Large contributions are terrific, but many small contributions add up fast as well.

I can't speak for other candidates, but each time I get a contribution, it reminds me that I have to work as hard as I can and be as good at this as I can be in order to justify the faith that this person has shown in me and the political process. Receiving campaign contributions is encouraging, but it is also sobering.

Where's Richard????

2009-08-29T09:20:00.000-07:00

Congress is planning a massive overhaul of a key element of our society, all of us may be affected, our ability to decide on our personal health care may be abrogated by a government grab of centralized power, and it will cost the taxpayer One Trillion Dollars. Citizens want to communicate with their representatives.

WHERE'S RICHARD???? (Neal, that is) No town meetings, what's that about? Where are you hiding?

You have to love the 9/12 group. They are performing an vital civic duty for all of us. They won't let these politicians run and hide. I'm talking to members of the group during a demonstration about health care reform outside of Richard Neal's office in Springfield.

Jay and the Giant Peach

2009-08-29T09:06:00.000-07:00

This blog is mostly an excuse to post this photo. The Wilbraham Peach Festival, home of the excellent peach pancake and sausage breakfast. This is me with the chief economic strategist of the state Democratic Party (he's the one in the hat).

Mary Lou and I visited both days, and had the chance to talk politics with folks from Wilbraham, Springfield, and Ludlow. Health care reform is the topic, and just as it is everywhere else we've gone, people are not happy with the government's plan to take over 15% of the economy and really screw up our system. Fix what needs to be fixed, and then stay away: nobody wants the government involved in their decision making around our private health care choices.

It doesn't surprise me anymore how very well informed the voting public is.

Are They For Real

2009-08-11T09:24:00.000-07:00

Richard Neal and Rep. James McGovern were about to get on talk radio out of Worcester to sell this health care reform bill. I had to pull off the side of the road to listen, as I would soon lose the station. What remarkable spin, deception, and nonsense was coming out of them as they were trying to persuade the voters that the dismantling of the health care system in favor of a government run plan was good for them. I have to wonder if Neal and McGovern really believe what they're saying, or if it is all a cynical political sales pitch with these Dems hoping that the voters just won't notice. As I sat there for the full hour, I tried to call in to the show to counter some of this craziness, but I couldn't get past the busy signal.

You can keep your insurance if you don't want the public plan? Not if your employer drops his/her employees when the costs get too high after ERISA is abolished (large businesses) or when the taxes are raised (small businesses). All that's left...the government plan.

The public plan will compete with the insurance industry to keep it honest? Insurers are already in serious competition with each other. Can they compete with a government plan that doesn't have to make a profit, and doesn't have to worry about losing money because it's tax payer supported?

It's budget neutral? If you believe that 500 billion out of medicare that would have paid for hospital and physician services is budget neutral. What are we going to do in the future when more hospitals disappear and doctors are less accessible, particularly to the elderly?

No rationing? They have clearly indicated that this is the only cost control measure they have considered. Bureaucrats, not you and your doctor, will decide what you get.

People are angry. 85% of Americans like what they have in health care, and these politicians will tear it up because they want government control. You can fix what needs to be fixed a piece at a time, rather than screw up the whole thing for everybody.

Why can't Neal, McGovern, and their buddies get it? The voters do.

The Streets of Northampton

2009-07-27T19:30:00.000-07:00

The first foray into a public venue that is not already political, and the sidewalk sale in Northampton does just fine. A warm, sunny day, the sidewalks are full. It seemed like it would be a good idea to find out who is from my district, so I approached folks by asking if they were from Northampton or Hadley. It shouldn't have surprised my that 9 in 10 were not. There were a large percentage from Connecticut, and NY, with a smattering from Florida as well as a Hawaiian.

I expected to get assaulted by the locals, as Northampton is a very Democratic town, but only one of the natives absolutely refused to even look at a Republican. He needs a sense of humor.

People were very interested in hearing ideas about health care reform: the Congressional process appears very chaotic to them (which, of course, it actually is), and though they know that what we now have has got to change, they are very worried that something quite bad is going to come out of Washington (which is certainly possible). They were very willing to listen and mix it up about healthcare, and were quite pleasant to meet. Yes, it was an enjoyable afternoon.

Having one of their local physicians running for congress is clearly a curiosity.

California Dreaming

2009-07-15T17:58:00.000-07:00

We've just returned from a family event in LA. As with many families, we've been close for my entire life, and they are very curious about my running for Congress, yet it makes so much sense. My parents, the patriarch and matriarch of this clan are both gone, but were old time Roosevelt Democrats. Almost all of their offspring turned out to be small government Republicans. My nephew's wife at age 8 immigrated with her parents from the Soviet Union to escape the oppression of the Communists, and they are very attuned to government intrusion on liberties. They are aghast at what they see coming from Washington.

Our cab driver back to the airport immigrated from Ghana twenty years ago, and is proud of being a citizen. He has a B.A. in business, but is happy to be an American cabbie. He is very angry about illegal immigration, as he came legally. He can't understand how the U.S. tolerates immigrants who refuse to speak English, and is convinced that California's budget crisis is caused by taxpayer support of services to illegal immigrants.

I don't engage in an argument with him, but we can't forget that just over 100 years ago there was a wave of immigration into the US that brought odd looking people with their foreign languages and behaviors from countries like Italy, Ireland, Poland and Greece. In their neighborhoods, few of the signs were in English and neither were the spoken words. They weren't welcomed then, but their descendants are now our teachers, politicians, and scientists.

It is our nation's right and duty to secure our borders, but we must remember our history. We have no need to be afraid of immigrants. These newcomers are intensely dedicated to and very protective of their freedom and self determination. That's why so many came here.

From Out Of Nowhere

2009-07-04T19:47:00.000-07:00

July 4, 2009: Tea Party Demonstration in Boston.

I'm here to work the crowd. My task is to get known, get the word out that there is some one who will speak differently to the common assumptions of Massachusetts politics. This is a disorienting time, as so much has seemed to go wrong so quickly, and it appears so obvious that what is happening at the federal level is compounding the damage with a severity that is scary.

There are only a few familiar faces in the crowd, but I have to get by any hesitation and jump in as I'm here to do a job. I have a responsibility to my country to do what ever I can to stop the catastrophe unfolding in Washington.

The trick is to intrude on people without being obnoxious, but it is a political rally of people who are oriented in my direction, and so this proves to be easy. My wife Mary Lou is with me, equally as committed as I, and she is part of these conversations. One of the problems is identifying who is part of the rally, and who may be spectators or passersby, but the signs, flags, and buttons are reliable giveaways. Quickly, I settle on the technique of asking if the person or group is from Massachusetts, and if they are, telling them that I'm running for Congress and that I'm out to stop the craziness of what is now our government. These folks understand what I'm trying to do. They also are angry at the enormous power grab in Washington, the erosion of freedoms, the criminal negligence in the deficit. Most of those I meet are not from my congressional district, and often they try to return my card. I tell them to keep it: if their congressman does not have an opponent in 2010, then they can support me with contributions as at least one person trying to make a change in Congress.

Another problem is trying to remember who I have already accosted and who I haven't. Mary Lou is a little better than I am, but not by much. The people in the crowd keep moving around, which certainly doesn't help.

There are a lot of people here who have come down from New Hampshire: good for them, live free or die.

There is passion at this rally, but people have come with some very different nuances to their agendas. There is a contingency of Ayn Rand adherents, who seem mostly college age or recent graduates. It is a useful coincidence that I'm in the middle of reading Atlas Shrugged. There are Ron Paul supporters, pushing for his bill to audit the federal reserve. There are states rights advocates and those who are agitating to stop the onslaught of the federal government on business. Cap and trade is a major topic, as is fear of what terrible things the government may do if it comes to control our health care.

The single best moment Mary Lou and I have the entire day is when we approach two middle aged women, who soon inform us that they were immigrants from Peru, but are now Americans. They are at the rally because they are angry: they have come to this country to be free and to benefit from the fruits of their work, and now the government is taking their country away from them.

It is a beautiful, sunny, and cool day. Boston is beautiful. Both the Commons and Kennedy Park by the Long Wharf are full of people simply enjoying the weather. Are they worried about what is going on in Washington? I suspect many of them are, though most people keep it quiet, and few like political rallies. I'm counting on their paying attention.

I'm a doctor. I have been practising for 25 years in Northampton, MA and I love what I do. Today I'm working a crowd, meeting the voters, and hoping to pick up some contributions for an election almost a year and one half away.