This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on September 17, 2009.
Sizing up the 2010 governor's race
Just a little under a year ago, in this space, I noted that Governor Jim Douglas was a virtual shoo-in for governor in the 2010 election, should he decide to run. As you've surely heard or read by now, Douglas has, indeed, announced his intention to not run in 2010.
True to his Vermont spirit, Douglas assured Vermonters that he would serve out his term, unlike some other notable Republican governors. When VPR's Bob Kinzel suggested that Douglas could give his Republican lieutenant governor Brian Dubie a leg up in the 2010 election by stepping down early, Douglas was unequivocal about his intention to go the distance.
With the curtain on the Incumbent Protection Plan drawn back, Douglas's decision opens up possibilities for a new face in the office, the same way Howard Dean's decision gave Douglas his chance, and Madeleine Kunin's decision allowed Richard Snelling to step back into the governor's office.
On the Republican side, there are several familiar names mentioned as contenders, though none have officially announced as yet. These include Lt. Governor Brian Dubie, former Vermont National Guard Commander Gen. Martha Rainville, recent Republican convert Tom Salmon, and Mark Snelling, son of the late aforementioned governor. The general consensus is that everyone else is awaiting Dubie's decision before moving ahead with their own plans.
On the Democratic side, there are several familiar names, many of whom are now serving the state with distinction. Unlike the Republicans, though, some are not waiting to make their intentions known.
Deborah Markowitz has been Vermont's Secretary of State since 1998, having been elected to the office six times. In 2008, she was reelected with 70.8% of the vote. In her role, she has been a champion of towns and cities and of open government. I've been impressed with her efforts promoting free and fair elections, and in her office's efforts to move the state to higher and higher voter turn-outs. Though she is the veteran of many statewide elections, I'm not sure of her experience as an executive.
Doug Racine is a former lieutenant governor and on-again-off-again member of the state Senate. Racine lost a bid for the governor's office in 2002, to Douglas. Racine has the benefit of statewide name recognition and executive experience, both in business and government. In Chittenden County, at least, he enjoys wide popularity, being re-elected to the Senate in 2008 by the highest vote count in history. Fair or not, though, I do feel like Racine had his chance in 2002.
Both Markowitz and Racine have officially announced their intention to run for governor in 2010.
Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin has been mentioned frequently as a possible contender, but has not made a formal announcement as yet. Shumlin has served in the House and the Senate since 1989. Shumlin ran for lieutenant governor in 2002, losing to Dubie. It would be interesting to see the two lock horns again for the big chair in 2010, but I have a feeling the experience may have left Shumlin gun shy. He may be more content to serve the state on the legislative side.
A possible dark-horse candidate could be Treasurer Jeb Spaulding. TV commercials produced for the Treasurer's office, offering Vermonters a chance to recover misplaced bank accounts, have graced the airwaves for years, boosting Spaulding's statewide name recognition. Spaulding also enjoyed a whopping 89.9% support rate in the last election, though he had no serious Republican opponent, a luxury he would not enjoy in 2010.
Finally, there are rumblings that our U.S. Representative Peter Welch might be interested in the governor's job, and also that recently selected Speaker of the Vermont House, Shap Smith, is contemplating a run. I'm dubious, however. Welch, like Racine, has made a trip to the trough, in 1990, losing to Richard Snelling; and Smith, with even less experience than 2008 Democratic loser Gaye Symington had in the same job, might not see statewide office as attainable just yet.
Lastly, this question: Kunin, after leaving office, joined the U.S. diplomatic corps, serving her adopted country as ambassador to her native Switzerland. Dean, as we can well-remember, ran for president in 2000, then became head of the Democratic National Committee. What, then, is in store for Douglas?
When he spoke with Kinzel at the end of August, he had no plans yet, but I'm sure offers will begin to flow soon, if they have not already. Whatever role he plays, I am certain of one thing. He will play it with distinction.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Quality health care is a right
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on September 3, 2009.
Quality health care is a right
If you've read more than one or two of these columns, you know that I'm a big fan of President Barack Obama. He represents the best that America has to offer, and I'm happy to see him occupying the big chair in the White House.
But I'm no sycophant. Obama and his crew are not above criticism. To paraphrase James Madison, if Obama was an angel, there would be no need for criticism. But he is not an angel, and as such, he is subject to error.
So it is with his handling of the health care debate of late.
Democrats had a long wait to get to where we are today. We hold the White House, we hold a strong majority in the House, and we even hold a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. In theory, we could do whatever we feel is best for the country.
The President, however, has waffled on too many points, allowing a strong stance to wither to a soft position on the issue. I agree with him that some reform of our current system is necessary. Using haberdashery as a metaphor, he said insurance reform is a belt and the public insurance option is a pair of suspenders — both will keep up your pants. Using his analogy, though, I say that if reform is the belt, the public option is the belt loops. If you don't have the latter, the former won't be effective.
The far-right lie machine is partially to blame for Obama's shift. The President has been working so hard to squashing the lies, there's little time left to talk about the basic issues. But the lies keep coming: death panels, pulling the plug on grandma, taxing the middle class, rationing health care, socialized medicine, and, most recently "The Death Book." If I didn't know better, I'd be scared.
But I'm more scared of what will happen without a strong public insurance option, and part of this fear is for myself. What if a I lose my insurance? I'm a Type 1 diabetic, completely reliant on insulin injected on a minute-by-minute basis to stay healthy and, indeed, alive. I am the definition of "pre-existing condition."
I've been fortunate that I love my job and the people I work with, that I've made good choices with my career path, and that I've had a bit of luck here and there. I hear horror stories about people like me who lose their jobs, or change a job willingly, or move to a new city, or even who graduate from college to the work force (and, thus, transition from their parents' insurance plan to their own), and have to wait for benefits to kick in.
It is a simple concept: No one should have to live with the fear of losing their insurance.
Recently-departed Senator Edward Kennedy was a champion of health care for all, and in the course of several television and radio obituraries last week, it was noted that one of his biggest frustrations over the past four decades was the lack of movement on universal health care coverage. Obama and the Democrats should honor Kennedy's memory by renewing their efforts to push for a better plan.
President Obama needs to use the power of the bully pulpit to bring Democratic leaders together and come up with a comprehensive plan for American's health care future. The public health insurance option must be a part of that plan, as a safety net and as an alternative for business.
We must reform how insurance works in this country so that insurance companies are more concerned with patient outcomes than with profits.
We must spend money to find the most beneficial and cost-effective treatments for common conditions. We must work to prevent disease that is the result of lifestyle choices like smoking, overeating, and inactivity. We must continue to develop new equipment, techniques, and treatments that will help us or our loved ones.
We must leverage technology to contain costs and ensure the best care is cost-effective care.
I've wrestled with the notion of health care being a right versus a privilege, but I've come to the conclusion that without good health, there is no point to having freedom of worship or speech or expression. Good health is a right — a basic human right — and our government should start acting like it is.
Quality health care is a right
If you've read more than one or two of these columns, you know that I'm a big fan of President Barack Obama. He represents the best that America has to offer, and I'm happy to see him occupying the big chair in the White House.
But I'm no sycophant. Obama and his crew are not above criticism. To paraphrase James Madison, if Obama was an angel, there would be no need for criticism. But he is not an angel, and as such, he is subject to error.
So it is with his handling of the health care debate of late.
Democrats had a long wait to get to where we are today. We hold the White House, we hold a strong majority in the House, and we even hold a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. In theory, we could do whatever we feel is best for the country.
The President, however, has waffled on too many points, allowing a strong stance to wither to a soft position on the issue. I agree with him that some reform of our current system is necessary. Using haberdashery as a metaphor, he said insurance reform is a belt and the public insurance option is a pair of suspenders — both will keep up your pants. Using his analogy, though, I say that if reform is the belt, the public option is the belt loops. If you don't have the latter, the former won't be effective.
The far-right lie machine is partially to blame for Obama's shift. The President has been working so hard to squashing the lies, there's little time left to talk about the basic issues. But the lies keep coming: death panels, pulling the plug on grandma, taxing the middle class, rationing health care, socialized medicine, and, most recently "The Death Book." If I didn't know better, I'd be scared.
But I'm more scared of what will happen without a strong public insurance option, and part of this fear is for myself. What if a I lose my insurance? I'm a Type 1 diabetic, completely reliant on insulin injected on a minute-by-minute basis to stay healthy and, indeed, alive. I am the definition of "pre-existing condition."
I've been fortunate that I love my job and the people I work with, that I've made good choices with my career path, and that I've had a bit of luck here and there. I hear horror stories about people like me who lose their jobs, or change a job willingly, or move to a new city, or even who graduate from college to the work force (and, thus, transition from their parents' insurance plan to their own), and have to wait for benefits to kick in.
It is a simple concept: No one should have to live with the fear of losing their insurance.
Recently-departed Senator Edward Kennedy was a champion of health care for all, and in the course of several television and radio obituraries last week, it was noted that one of his biggest frustrations over the past four decades was the lack of movement on universal health care coverage. Obama and the Democrats should honor Kennedy's memory by renewing their efforts to push for a better plan.
President Obama needs to use the power of the bully pulpit to bring Democratic leaders together and come up with a comprehensive plan for American's health care future. The public health insurance option must be a part of that plan, as a safety net and as an alternative for business.
We must reform how insurance works in this country so that insurance companies are more concerned with patient outcomes than with profits.
We must spend money to find the most beneficial and cost-effective treatments for common conditions. We must work to prevent disease that is the result of lifestyle choices like smoking, overeating, and inactivity. We must continue to develop new equipment, techniques, and treatments that will help us or our loved ones.
We must leverage technology to contain costs and ensure the best care is cost-effective care.
I've wrestled with the notion of health care being a right versus a privilege, but I've come to the conclusion that without good health, there is no point to having freedom of worship or speech or expression. Good health is a right — a basic human right — and our government should start acting like it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)