The Williston Observer staff is deeply saddened by Steve Mount’s sudden passing on July 2. Our heartfelt condolences go out to Steve’s family and friends. We encourage our readers to send contributions to the college education fund set up for his three children. Donations can be made to Mount Family Education Trust, 325 South Union St., Burlington, VT 05401.
In his nearly four years as the columnist for “Liberally Speaking,” Steve stayed true to himself and our readers about his beliefs and dedication to the U.S. Constitution. He wrote timely, well-researched columns that helped everyone, whatever their political persuasion, to think more deeply about the issues facing our country.
He was also proactive. In May, when terrorist leader Osama bin Laden was killed by U.S. Navy SEALs, Steve discarded a column he already wrote so he could provide thought-provoking commentary on the monumental incident.
Thank you for reading and Steve, thank you for writing.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Thursday, June 16, 2011
In defense of the closed session
In defense of the closed session
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on June 16, 2011.
Recent reporting in the Observer brought to light the policy of our Development Review Board to go into closed session when deliberating about its decisions.
The policy, done in accordance with Vermont open government laws, pre-dates all current DRB members. Quoting our reporting, the closed sessions were "justified by [board] members as necessary to an effective discussion and decision-making process."
Government, in the final analysis, is us. We, the people, select our representatives to various governmental bodies, either directly or indirectly. The members are responsible for the public trust and responsible to the public at large. In a perfect world, all hearings, deliberations, and votes would be public.
Because our institutions are human ones, they are subject to the ill effects of bias, prejudice, and favoritism. The more open government is, the lower effect these human frailties will have on the decisions come to by the bodies. If a board member is actively prejudiced against an applicant, a pattern will emerge that any one can see, because any one can watch. Mitigating the effects of such human failings is one of the best aspects of open government.
However, openness can also affect frankness. As Burlington DRB Chair Austin Hart was quoted in our article, "It's a lot harder to say 'no' when they are sitting right in front of you."
And there's the rub. If the DRB should say no to a project or request, but board members just cannot quite summon the courage to do what they think is right ... well, that is where the benefit of the closed session comes in. The members of the DRB have to make judgement calls based on the evidence and testimony given to them. The members must then talk amongst themselves to decide if the project before them meets the town's plan.
When I think of how this process works, I think immediately of a judge or jury in court. It would be unthinkable for a new deliberation process to emerge, where the judge goes to chambers to make a decision and each step of the way, the lawyers, defendant, plaintiff, and even the public could weigh in.
Similarly, if a jury room was populated not only by the members of the jury, but also the parties in the case, the public, the media - no one would think that this was a good idea. The things a jury hashes out in its deliberations, the statements made by jurors, the arguments... these are not for public consumption.
I'm a big advocate of open government. I want to be able to access journals and minutes of deliberations quickly, easily, and freely. I want to be able to watch congressional hearings live on television or on the Internet. I want to be able to sit in the back of the room during a school board meeting. I want to see the testimony before the DRB live or on public access cable.
But I don't think that every single step in the process has to be open to the public as it happens. There is a practicality to a closed meeting that just makes sense to me.
That having been said, I think that closed meetings should have inviolable rules - and I should note that some of these rules are currently in effect, according to town bylaws. Minutes should be taken - not a word-for-word journal, but minutes that can be referred to by the board and the public in the future. Decisions of the board should be explained in writing - in the bylaws, this is referred to as a "record of decision that conveys the DRB's findings of fact and conclusions of law." Members of the board should be required to back up their closed-session vote in public, just as a jury may be polled following the announcement of its verdict in a case.
Open government is a crucial and important part of our democracy. However, government must, at the same time, be effective. If to be effective it must be closed for certain steps in the process, so be it.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on June 16, 2011.
Recent reporting in the Observer brought to light the policy of our Development Review Board to go into closed session when deliberating about its decisions.
The policy, done in accordance with Vermont open government laws, pre-dates all current DRB members. Quoting our reporting, the closed sessions were "justified by [board] members as necessary to an effective discussion and decision-making process."
Government, in the final analysis, is us. We, the people, select our representatives to various governmental bodies, either directly or indirectly. The members are responsible for the public trust and responsible to the public at large. In a perfect world, all hearings, deliberations, and votes would be public.
Because our institutions are human ones, they are subject to the ill effects of bias, prejudice, and favoritism. The more open government is, the lower effect these human frailties will have on the decisions come to by the bodies. If a board member is actively prejudiced against an applicant, a pattern will emerge that any one can see, because any one can watch. Mitigating the effects of such human failings is one of the best aspects of open government.
However, openness can also affect frankness. As Burlington DRB Chair Austin Hart was quoted in our article, "It's a lot harder to say 'no' when they are sitting right in front of you."
And there's the rub. If the DRB should say no to a project or request, but board members just cannot quite summon the courage to do what they think is right ... well, that is where the benefit of the closed session comes in. The members of the DRB have to make judgement calls based on the evidence and testimony given to them. The members must then talk amongst themselves to decide if the project before them meets the town's plan.
When I think of how this process works, I think immediately of a judge or jury in court. It would be unthinkable for a new deliberation process to emerge, where the judge goes to chambers to make a decision and each step of the way, the lawyers, defendant, plaintiff, and even the public could weigh in.
Similarly, if a jury room was populated not only by the members of the jury, but also the parties in the case, the public, the media - no one would think that this was a good idea. The things a jury hashes out in its deliberations, the statements made by jurors, the arguments... these are not for public consumption.
I'm a big advocate of open government. I want to be able to access journals and minutes of deliberations quickly, easily, and freely. I want to be able to watch congressional hearings live on television or on the Internet. I want to be able to sit in the back of the room during a school board meeting. I want to see the testimony before the DRB live or on public access cable.
But I don't think that every single step in the process has to be open to the public as it happens. There is a practicality to a closed meeting that just makes sense to me.
That having been said, I think that closed meetings should have inviolable rules - and I should note that some of these rules are currently in effect, according to town bylaws. Minutes should be taken - not a word-for-word journal, but minutes that can be referred to by the board and the public in the future. Decisions of the board should be explained in writing - in the bylaws, this is referred to as a "record of decision that conveys the DRB's findings of fact and conclusions of law." Members of the board should be required to back up their closed-session vote in public, just as a jury may be polled following the announcement of its verdict in a case.
Open government is a crucial and important part of our democracy. However, government must, at the same time, be effective. If to be effective it must be closed for certain steps in the process, so be it.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Time to Reevaluate the Patriot Act?
Time to Reevaluate the Patriot Act?
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on June 2, 2011.
In 2001, in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, the Congress worked to put new provisions into place in U.S. law, designed to combat terrorism. The result, the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (or just "Patriot Act"), was passed in the House with a wide majority and by an overwhelming 98-1 vote in the Senate. President George Bush signed the bill into law on October 26, 2001.
The Act was seen as necessary by many, but was condemned by others for overstepping constitutional bounds. Constitutionality, however, is often in the eye of the beholder.
The Act has ten titles, changing U.S. law in several different areas: domestic security, surveillance, money laundering, border security, terrorism, and intelligence gathering. There was also a title providing relief to victims of terrorism and their families, and a final title for miscellaneous provisions.
Some of the provisions make basic common sense. For example, the Act required various government bureaus and agencies to share information about immigrants and foreign visitors; it required the government to invest in technologies to improve background checks on incoming visitors; and an increase in the number of border patrol agents.
Some provisions, however, were not so widely supported.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." This quote, often attributed to Benjamin Franklin (but with an uncertain provenance), was reproduced often as the Patriot Act was being voted on, and again as its provisions have been renewed.
Title II of the Act, in particular, ruffled the feathers of many civil libertarians. This title involved enhanced surveillance, authorizing and even requiring many new surveillance techniques, such as the loosening of requirements for wiretaps and broad requirements for Internet service providers to supply identifying data and logs to law enforcement officials. One provision, allowing a so-called "sneak and peek wiretap," was struck down as unconstitutional in 2007.
This topic is of interest now because last week, the Congress renewed, and President Barack Obama signed into law, some provisions of the Patriot Act that were scheduled to sunset. The three provisions of the Act were originally set to expire in 2010, but were temporarily renewed in February 2010.
The three provisions allowed: a roving wiretap that covered several phones with one warrant; seizure of records and property for terrorism-related cases; and surveillance provisions for "lone wolf" persons, non-U.S. citizens who might be involved in terrorism.
Without the renewal, the provisions would have expired, but most of Congress and the President agreed that that renewal should happen. The renewal, however, was not a rubber-stamp. One Senator, in particular, was not so keen on the renewal, and it is here that this Senator and I may have our only points of agreement.
Rand Paul, Republican Senator from Kentucky, used procedural tactics to force a delay in the Senate's vote on the renewal, a tactic I generally disagree with, but which in this case, forced the Senate to take a needed step back to think if these provisions were really necessary.
In a deal reached with Senate leaders, Paul did allow the vote to move forward. The deal wrote in some 2nd Amendment protections, and the three provisions listed above were renewed until 2015.
Now that we are nearly ten years out from the attacks, though, I think it is time that we take a close look at all of the provisions of the Patriot Act. The protection of 2nd Amendment rights is important, but more important to me are the protection of 1st and 4th Amendment rights.
Several provisions of the original Patriot Act have been struck down as being in violation of 4th Amendment rights. A full review of the Act should be undertaken, provisions that make sense should be renewed, and any that are on shaky constitutional grounds should be either modified or scrapped completely. It seems like a tall order, given the other priorities the Congress has, but the protection of civil liberties is, or should be, paramount.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on June 2, 2011.
In 2001, in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, the Congress worked to put new provisions into place in U.S. law, designed to combat terrorism. The result, the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (or just "Patriot Act"), was passed in the House with a wide majority and by an overwhelming 98-1 vote in the Senate. President George Bush signed the bill into law on October 26, 2001.
The Act was seen as necessary by many, but was condemned by others for overstepping constitutional bounds. Constitutionality, however, is often in the eye of the beholder.
The Act has ten titles, changing U.S. law in several different areas: domestic security, surveillance, money laundering, border security, terrorism, and intelligence gathering. There was also a title providing relief to victims of terrorism and their families, and a final title for miscellaneous provisions.
Some of the provisions make basic common sense. For example, the Act required various government bureaus and agencies to share information about immigrants and foreign visitors; it required the government to invest in technologies to improve background checks on incoming visitors; and an increase in the number of border patrol agents.
Some provisions, however, were not so widely supported.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." This quote, often attributed to Benjamin Franklin (but with an uncertain provenance), was reproduced often as the Patriot Act was being voted on, and again as its provisions have been renewed.
Title II of the Act, in particular, ruffled the feathers of many civil libertarians. This title involved enhanced surveillance, authorizing and even requiring many new surveillance techniques, such as the loosening of requirements for wiretaps and broad requirements for Internet service providers to supply identifying data and logs to law enforcement officials. One provision, allowing a so-called "sneak and peek wiretap," was struck down as unconstitutional in 2007.
This topic is of interest now because last week, the Congress renewed, and President Barack Obama signed into law, some provisions of the Patriot Act that were scheduled to sunset. The three provisions of the Act were originally set to expire in 2010, but were temporarily renewed in February 2010.
The three provisions allowed: a roving wiretap that covered several phones with one warrant; seizure of records and property for terrorism-related cases; and surveillance provisions for "lone wolf" persons, non-U.S. citizens who might be involved in terrorism.
Without the renewal, the provisions would have expired, but most of Congress and the President agreed that that renewal should happen. The renewal, however, was not a rubber-stamp. One Senator, in particular, was not so keen on the renewal, and it is here that this Senator and I may have our only points of agreement.
Rand Paul, Republican Senator from Kentucky, used procedural tactics to force a delay in the Senate's vote on the renewal, a tactic I generally disagree with, but which in this case, forced the Senate to take a needed step back to think if these provisions were really necessary.
In a deal reached with Senate leaders, Paul did allow the vote to move forward. The deal wrote in some 2nd Amendment protections, and the three provisions listed above were renewed until 2015.
Now that we are nearly ten years out from the attacks, though, I think it is time that we take a close look at all of the provisions of the Patriot Act. The protection of 2nd Amendment rights is important, but more important to me are the protection of 1st and 4th Amendment rights.
Several provisions of the original Patriot Act have been struck down as being in violation of 4th Amendment rights. A full review of the Act should be undertaken, provisions that make sense should be renewed, and any that are on shaky constitutional grounds should be either modified or scrapped completely. It seems like a tall order, given the other priorities the Congress has, but the protection of civil liberties is, or should be, paramount.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
One Step Closer to a National Popular Vote
One Step Closer to a National Popular Vote
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on May 19, 2011.
The Electoral College is a unique feature of our system of electing a national leader. After two centuries, though, is it time to do away with the College?
The Electoral College is the body that actually elects the President and Vice President. When we, the people, vote for a presidential candidate, we are not actually voting for a single person. We are, instead, voting for a slate of electors. The chosen electors meet on Elector Day, sometime in December following the general election, and cast their votes for the two offices.
Each state has a number of electors equal to its congressional representation. With one seat in the House and two seats in the Senate, Vermont has three electors. Electors are selected by each party fielding a presidential candidate. The electors are typically party loyalists, pledged to cast their vote for the party's choice for President and Vice President.
The Electoral College was designed, in 1787, for an entirely different America. Time, however, revealed some fatal flaws in the Electoral College system, and though the most egregious flaws were fixed long ago, it may be time to take another serious look.
Originally, each elector cast two votes for President. The person with the most votes became President, and the runner-up became Vice President. This system would have worked fine if people did not begin to divide themselves into parties - but they did, almost immediately.
In the election of 1800, the Democratic-Republican party ran Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr against Federalists John Adams and Thomas Pinckney. Each dutiful Democratic-Republican elector cast his votes, toeing the party line: one for Jefferson and one for Burr. In the end, both Jefferson and Burr got 73 votes, even though the plan had been to elect Jefferson. Someone forgot to tell at least one Democratic-Republican elector to vote for someone other than Burr. The resulting fray, where the election was decided in the House by a Federalist majority, lead to the 12th Amendment, that specified separate ballots for the two executive positions.
The 1876 election of Rutherford Hayes was a partisan mess. Hayes's opponent, Samuel Tilden, won a narrow majority of the popular vote, but when it came time to count the electoral votes, the results were not quite so clear. Hayes and Tilden were both close to the needed majority, but many electoral votes were challenged. It took a congressional commission, and the end of military occupation in the post-war South, to assign enough votes to Hayes.
Most of us remember the controversy between George Bush and Al Gore in 2000. Gore had a narrow lead over Bush in the popular vote, beating Bush by just over half a percentage point. After much controversy in several states, and Florida in particular, the electoral vote went to Bush, 271-266.
The National Popular Vote movement, which aims to make the winner of the popular vote the President without concern for these electoral college vagaries, got a boost this year when the Vermont legislature threw its support behind the plan. The NPV movement looks not to amend the Constitution, but to work within its confines.
It seeks to create a compact of sorts, accumulating support one state at a time, until at least enough states to make up the majority of 270 electoral votes sign on. In states where NPV is enacted, the state's law would change to direct its electors to cast their votes for whichever candidate won the national popular vote, without regard to the candidate's vote tally in that state.
Including Vermont's three, NPV now has 77 electoral votes from eight states to its name.
I'm a fan of working within the system, and would like to see the NPV plan come to fruition. I am dubious that electors could be punished for not voting with the national popular vote (the Constitution gives the electors wide latitude in their votes), but it would not be difficult to avoid faithless electors with proper vetting.
I do think that losing the Electoral College would be a sad thing. It is quirky, uniquely American, and an avenue into learning more about where we came from as a nation. But despite the value of these things, having a simple, straight-forward, and predictable system, based on the popular vote, seems like the best way forward for our democracy. Hopefully, Vermont's support for the compact will nudge other states to support NPV, too.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on May 19, 2011.
The Electoral College is a unique feature of our system of electing a national leader. After two centuries, though, is it time to do away with the College?
The Electoral College is the body that actually elects the President and Vice President. When we, the people, vote for a presidential candidate, we are not actually voting for a single person. We are, instead, voting for a slate of electors. The chosen electors meet on Elector Day, sometime in December following the general election, and cast their votes for the two offices.
Each state has a number of electors equal to its congressional representation. With one seat in the House and two seats in the Senate, Vermont has three electors. Electors are selected by each party fielding a presidential candidate. The electors are typically party loyalists, pledged to cast their vote for the party's choice for President and Vice President.
The Electoral College was designed, in 1787, for an entirely different America. Time, however, revealed some fatal flaws in the Electoral College system, and though the most egregious flaws were fixed long ago, it may be time to take another serious look.
Originally, each elector cast two votes for President. The person with the most votes became President, and the runner-up became Vice President. This system would have worked fine if people did not begin to divide themselves into parties - but they did, almost immediately.
In the election of 1800, the Democratic-Republican party ran Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr against Federalists John Adams and Thomas Pinckney. Each dutiful Democratic-Republican elector cast his votes, toeing the party line: one for Jefferson and one for Burr. In the end, both Jefferson and Burr got 73 votes, even though the plan had been to elect Jefferson. Someone forgot to tell at least one Democratic-Republican elector to vote for someone other than Burr. The resulting fray, where the election was decided in the House by a Federalist majority, lead to the 12th Amendment, that specified separate ballots for the two executive positions.
The 1876 election of Rutherford Hayes was a partisan mess. Hayes's opponent, Samuel Tilden, won a narrow majority of the popular vote, but when it came time to count the electoral votes, the results were not quite so clear. Hayes and Tilden were both close to the needed majority, but many electoral votes were challenged. It took a congressional commission, and the end of military occupation in the post-war South, to assign enough votes to Hayes.
Most of us remember the controversy between George Bush and Al Gore in 2000. Gore had a narrow lead over Bush in the popular vote, beating Bush by just over half a percentage point. After much controversy in several states, and Florida in particular, the electoral vote went to Bush, 271-266.
The National Popular Vote movement, which aims to make the winner of the popular vote the President without concern for these electoral college vagaries, got a boost this year when the Vermont legislature threw its support behind the plan. The NPV movement looks not to amend the Constitution, but to work within its confines.
It seeks to create a compact of sorts, accumulating support one state at a time, until at least enough states to make up the majority of 270 electoral votes sign on. In states where NPV is enacted, the state's law would change to direct its electors to cast their votes for whichever candidate won the national popular vote, without regard to the candidate's vote tally in that state.
Including Vermont's three, NPV now has 77 electoral votes from eight states to its name.
I'm a fan of working within the system, and would like to see the NPV plan come to fruition. I am dubious that electors could be punished for not voting with the national popular vote (the Constitution gives the electors wide latitude in their votes), but it would not be difficult to avoid faithless electors with proper vetting.
I do think that losing the Electoral College would be a sad thing. It is quirky, uniquely American, and an avenue into learning more about where we came from as a nation. But despite the value of these things, having a simple, straight-forward, and predictable system, based on the popular vote, seems like the best way forward for our democracy. Hopefully, Vermont's support for the compact will nudge other states to support NPV, too.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
With Somber Reflection
With Somber Reflection
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on May 5, 2011.
It was getting late on Sunday night when I heard a rumor that the President was going to make an announcement on TV within a few minutes. I quickly tuned to CNN to see if the report was true. It seemed to be - Wolf Blitzer was telling viewers that the President would be speaking to the nation from the East Room of the White House "any minute now."
CNN was very careful not to speculate what the announcement was about, so my mind started to race. Such an announcement is very unusual, and reserved for big (and usually bad) news. Did something happen to the President's family? Is the Vice President dead? Did terrorists strike somewhere? Was there a tragedy with our troops overseas?
Checking Internet news feeds, reports that Osama bin Laden was dead started to become more and more frequent. And finally CNN had enough strong sources that they could say that this was, indeed, the big news. When the President finally came on the screen, his announcement was almost anti-climactic, though the scant details he provided were interesting:
Bin Laden was expertly killed by U.S. forces operating in Pakistan. His body had been taken into custody by those forces. The identity of bin Laden was definite. No Americans lost their lives in the process.
CNN was also reporting that there were cheering crowds just outside the fence surrounding the White House. Just off-camera, I could hear emotionally raw and off-tune renditions of The Star-Spangled Banner being belted out. There was obvious joy in the news. Watching, I knew that this was good news, for America and the world.
Beyond that raw and emotionally-informed knowledge, though, I wasn't so sure how I felt. It was only after discussing it with some friends and hearing what they had to say that I could begin to sort it out.
It feels odd to celebrate the death of a person. In our culture, we are taught to value life so highly, above almost anything else. I know this is not a universal value (though it should be). Bin Laden himself could easily be described as someone who valued politics over human life. He could even be rightly described as a misanthrope. But even given that, should I feel joy in his death?
I recall feeling the same sort of confusion when Saddam Hussein was executed in Iraq in 2006. Here was this tyrant, this despicable human being, responsible for war and the deaths of thousands of innocents, reduced to a cowering shell, stripped of his power and influence ... and the best we can do is kill him?
I'm convinced there are people who are better off dead. But it is much easier to be sure of this in the abstract. I wonder how evolved we really are if destruction of life is our best answer to these people.
The details of the bin Laden killing place his death in a slightly different category - he died in a firefight, not in front of a firing squad. Part of me wanted to see him captured, tried, and imprisoned. But if he'd been captured, his detention and trial would have been epic in scope and undoubtedly circus-like in ways I can only imagine.
I must conclude, then, that we are better off with him shot dead and buried at sea.
I'm just not sure joyful celebration is the proper response.
Another friend called it a Pyrrhic victory. We have already lost so many lives to bin Laden and al Qaeda, both as a nation and a species. Will we lose even more now that he is gone? Hopefully we have cut off the head of the snake. But the snake could end up being like the mythological hydra, with two or three new heads growing back where one was before.
To ensure that terrorism dies, we must not just be rid of its sponsors. We must change the minds of those who follow. Perhaps a means to that end is not to celebrate bin Laden's death with cheers and song, but to reflect on it somberly.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on May 5, 2011.
It was getting late on Sunday night when I heard a rumor that the President was going to make an announcement on TV within a few minutes. I quickly tuned to CNN to see if the report was true. It seemed to be - Wolf Blitzer was telling viewers that the President would be speaking to the nation from the East Room of the White House "any minute now."
CNN was very careful not to speculate what the announcement was about, so my mind started to race. Such an announcement is very unusual, and reserved for big (and usually bad) news. Did something happen to the President's family? Is the Vice President dead? Did terrorists strike somewhere? Was there a tragedy with our troops overseas?
Checking Internet news feeds, reports that Osama bin Laden was dead started to become more and more frequent. And finally CNN had enough strong sources that they could say that this was, indeed, the big news. When the President finally came on the screen, his announcement was almost anti-climactic, though the scant details he provided were interesting:
Bin Laden was expertly killed by U.S. forces operating in Pakistan. His body had been taken into custody by those forces. The identity of bin Laden was definite. No Americans lost their lives in the process.
CNN was also reporting that there were cheering crowds just outside the fence surrounding the White House. Just off-camera, I could hear emotionally raw and off-tune renditions of The Star-Spangled Banner being belted out. There was obvious joy in the news. Watching, I knew that this was good news, for America and the world.
Beyond that raw and emotionally-informed knowledge, though, I wasn't so sure how I felt. It was only after discussing it with some friends and hearing what they had to say that I could begin to sort it out.
It feels odd to celebrate the death of a person. In our culture, we are taught to value life so highly, above almost anything else. I know this is not a universal value (though it should be). Bin Laden himself could easily be described as someone who valued politics over human life. He could even be rightly described as a misanthrope. But even given that, should I feel joy in his death?
I recall feeling the same sort of confusion when Saddam Hussein was executed in Iraq in 2006. Here was this tyrant, this despicable human being, responsible for war and the deaths of thousands of innocents, reduced to a cowering shell, stripped of his power and influence ... and the best we can do is kill him?
I'm convinced there are people who are better off dead. But it is much easier to be sure of this in the abstract. I wonder how evolved we really are if destruction of life is our best answer to these people.
The details of the bin Laden killing place his death in a slightly different category - he died in a firefight, not in front of a firing squad. Part of me wanted to see him captured, tried, and imprisoned. But if he'd been captured, his detention and trial would have been epic in scope and undoubtedly circus-like in ways I can only imagine.
I must conclude, then, that we are better off with him shot dead and buried at sea.
I'm just not sure joyful celebration is the proper response.
Another friend called it a Pyrrhic victory. We have already lost so many lives to bin Laden and al Qaeda, both as a nation and a species. Will we lose even more now that he is gone? Hopefully we have cut off the head of the snake. But the snake could end up being like the mythological hydra, with two or three new heads growing back where one was before.
To ensure that terrorism dies, we must not just be rid of its sponsors. We must change the minds of those who follow. Perhaps a means to that end is not to celebrate bin Laden's death with cheers and song, but to reflect on it somberly.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Connections: GE and the Royal Wedding
Connections: GE and the Royal Wedding
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on April 21, 2011.
As I was recently pondering two seemingly disparate and unrelated topics the other day, the television series Connections, and its sequels and imitators, came to mind.
In Connections, historian James Burke started with an historical event and connected that event to something new and current. One made-up example might explain how the threads of history weave and intersect so that without the development of the cotton gin, we would not today have Velcro.
My connection has to do with two items in the national (and even international) news the past few weeks: the tiresome wedding of Prince William to Kate Middleton and the irksome news that General Electric paid no corporate income tax in 2010.
First, to the wedding. My weekday morning schedule is such that just as I'm getting ready for work, the CBS morning news is starting its royal wedding coverage. I was tired of hearing about William and Kate after the very first report of their impending nuptials; I got more so when CBS began weekly reports; now I'm positively driven insane by the daily reports from London.
The reports are all about what dress the M.O.B. (mother of the bride) is wearing, how much the Middletons are contributing to the billionaire royal family for the ceremonies, the route the royal wedding carriage will take, the bloody nose the queen developed, and how the wedding will compare to that of Charles and Diana.
Frankly, I don't understand why any American wants to give the wedding any more than an iota of their brain power. We, my fellow Americans, fought several wars, on our own soil, to throw off the reins of royalty. And not any royalty - the English royalty.
And yet when I want to find out about tornadoes in North Carolina, I instead am subjected to the latest from Buckingham Palace; instead of learning about the latest movie Gwyneth Paltrow is making, I have to hear about how long Kate's bridal train will be.
If I were king for a day (irony noted), I would ban all present and future coverage of any royal goings-on.
The other topic concerns a New York Times report that GE paid no corporate income tax in 2010. Worldwide, GE made $14.2 billion, $5.1 billion of that from U.S. operations. And $0 in taxes paid to the United States Treasury. In fact, the Times article reports, GE took a $3.2 billion tax benefit.
Since I work for GE, it might seem odd that I call such news "irksome." But I do - in fact, I'm a bit ashamed of the tax news. I do, however, have to defend GE.
That GE paid no income tax to the U.S. is not GE's fault. In fact, if there were loopholes and exceptions in the tax code that GE knew about and did not take advantage of, its shareholders would be right to raise red flags.
As I drove by the small cadre of protesters standing on the corner of Shelburne Road and IDX Drive on Monday, I felt like stopping to tell them that where they should be camped out is not at my office, but at the offices of our members of Congress.
The tax code is a mess. It is incomprehensible, and it is that way virtually on purpose. The influence of lobbyists on the tax code is despicable. It should be scrapped and we should start over. Simpler is better, and our tax code is not simple.
My connection is this: we threw off the yoke of the monarchy over 200 years ago (even though a sizable portion of our population is still inexplicably fascinated by it); it is time for us to throw off the yoke of our tax code. I'm not a proponent of a flat tax (there is such a thing as "too simple"), but we should be able to explain our tax structure in 20 pages or less, rather than the almost 15,000 pages that it currently consists of.
Maybe if all these people paying so much attention to the future king of England paid half as much attention to Congress and the tax code, more people might actually make this same connection, and we would have the critical mass needed to do something about it.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on April 21, 2011.
As I was recently pondering two seemingly disparate and unrelated topics the other day, the television series Connections, and its sequels and imitators, came to mind.
In Connections, historian James Burke started with an historical event and connected that event to something new and current. One made-up example might explain how the threads of history weave and intersect so that without the development of the cotton gin, we would not today have Velcro.
My connection has to do with two items in the national (and even international) news the past few weeks: the tiresome wedding of Prince William to Kate Middleton and the irksome news that General Electric paid no corporate income tax in 2010.
First, to the wedding. My weekday morning schedule is such that just as I'm getting ready for work, the CBS morning news is starting its royal wedding coverage. I was tired of hearing about William and Kate after the very first report of their impending nuptials; I got more so when CBS began weekly reports; now I'm positively driven insane by the daily reports from London.
The reports are all about what dress the M.O.B. (mother of the bride) is wearing, how much the Middletons are contributing to the billionaire royal family for the ceremonies, the route the royal wedding carriage will take, the bloody nose the queen developed, and how the wedding will compare to that of Charles and Diana.
Frankly, I don't understand why any American wants to give the wedding any more than an iota of their brain power. We, my fellow Americans, fought several wars, on our own soil, to throw off the reins of royalty. And not any royalty - the English royalty.
And yet when I want to find out about tornadoes in North Carolina, I instead am subjected to the latest from Buckingham Palace; instead of learning about the latest movie Gwyneth Paltrow is making, I have to hear about how long Kate's bridal train will be.
If I were king for a day (irony noted), I would ban all present and future coverage of any royal goings-on.
The other topic concerns a New York Times report that GE paid no corporate income tax in 2010. Worldwide, GE made $14.2 billion, $5.1 billion of that from U.S. operations. And $0 in taxes paid to the United States Treasury. In fact, the Times article reports, GE took a $3.2 billion tax benefit.
Since I work for GE, it might seem odd that I call such news "irksome." But I do - in fact, I'm a bit ashamed of the tax news. I do, however, have to defend GE.
That GE paid no income tax to the U.S. is not GE's fault. In fact, if there were loopholes and exceptions in the tax code that GE knew about and did not take advantage of, its shareholders would be right to raise red flags.
As I drove by the small cadre of protesters standing on the corner of Shelburne Road and IDX Drive on Monday, I felt like stopping to tell them that where they should be camped out is not at my office, but at the offices of our members of Congress.
The tax code is a mess. It is incomprehensible, and it is that way virtually on purpose. The influence of lobbyists on the tax code is despicable. It should be scrapped and we should start over. Simpler is better, and our tax code is not simple.
My connection is this: we threw off the yoke of the monarchy over 200 years ago (even though a sizable portion of our population is still inexplicably fascinated by it); it is time for us to throw off the yoke of our tax code. I'm not a proponent of a flat tax (there is such a thing as "too simple"), but we should be able to explain our tax structure in 20 pages or less, rather than the almost 15,000 pages that it currently consists of.
Maybe if all these people paying so much attention to the future king of England paid half as much attention to Congress and the tax code, more people might actually make this same connection, and we would have the critical mass needed to do something about it.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Discovering the Obama Doctrine
Discovering the Obama Doctrine
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on April 7, 2011.
President Barack Obama spoke to the nation last week to explain why the United States committed troops and material to aid the rebels in Libya. Though to many the reasons seem obvious - to avoid a humanitarian disaster of the types we regretted allowing to happen in Africa; because on March 17, the United Nations voted to impose a no-fly zone in the skies over Libya; and because though other nations' air forces are closer, there is no doubt that ours is the most capable and powerful - the President was right to explain himself to the American people.
In his speech on the 28th of March, Obama articulated a reason for the Libyan conflict that could be a policy, a Doctrine, he will apply in future conflicts:
"Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act."
Not only when our interests are at stake, but also, perhaps more importantly, when our values are at stake.
Our values - the principles that we extol as examples for other nations, the principles that make us proud to be Americans, the principles that make us Americans - are what set us apart from modern barbarians like Muammar Gaddafi, North Korea's Kim Jong-il, al-Qaeda, and the Iranian state. We cannot sit back and watch, helplessly and impotently, as dictators slaughter their own people.
More importantly, these values are not uniquely American. They are universal - or should be. There is nothing uniquely American about love of freedom, of desire for a government run on democratic principles, of the desire to protect innocents from the vagaries of the powerful. These are human values.
Whether the forcible imposition of these values becomes a true "doctrine," a policy for use in future, unknown and unknowable situations, remains to be seen. But this is certain: it is honorable and even necessary. Even with our military stretched with a war in Afghanistan, extensive residual deployments in Iraq, and doing humanitarian work in Japan, we are capable of a mission such as that in Libya. As long as we are capable, and there is a need, we should act.
Ultimately, though, we cannot free the people of Libya. They must accomplish this goal themselves. They must convince Gaddafi's own military of the rightness of their struggle, convince Gaddafi's inner circle that they are sitting on the wrong side of the table, convince the people of Libya that the cause, that of freedom, is the right one.
Our own Revolutionary War history shows that winning the hearts and minds of the people is at least as important as military victory. It was an internal struggle that we had to fight and win ourselves. But at the same time, with the help of international friends, especially the French, our rebel forces were able to overcome an enemy that seemed superior in almost every way.
Like the French in 1781, the international community allying with the Libyan rebels against Gaddafi could be a turning point in their struggle. And, as in Libya, our help may be needed in other nations in the future.
The best way to bring change is at the ballot box. And change can be had. The people of Southern Sudan overwhelmingly voted for independence in January, and a peaceful separation of Sudan and Southern Sudan is planned for July.
When that sort of change is not possible, the popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia show that the voice of the people can still be heard. Even without a peaceful vote, change can be had with a minimum of bloodshed.
For the intransigent dictator, though, armed conflict may be the only option. The people of Libya thought so. And when the international community saw that the rebels in Libya were serious, the weight of a UN resolution was thrown their way. It is not inconceivable that another such situation could arise in any of a number of other nations.
The Obama Doctrine, if it can truly be called that, is in line with our values and as such should be supported by all Americans. We do not want to get involved in the internal politics of every nation. But when innocent life is at stake, especially when freedom is the ultimate goal, we must be prepared to act.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on April 7, 2011.
President Barack Obama spoke to the nation last week to explain why the United States committed troops and material to aid the rebels in Libya. Though to many the reasons seem obvious - to avoid a humanitarian disaster of the types we regretted allowing to happen in Africa; because on March 17, the United Nations voted to impose a no-fly zone in the skies over Libya; and because though other nations' air forces are closer, there is no doubt that ours is the most capable and powerful - the President was right to explain himself to the American people.
In his speech on the 28th of March, Obama articulated a reason for the Libyan conflict that could be a policy, a Doctrine, he will apply in future conflicts:
"Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act."
Not only when our interests are at stake, but also, perhaps more importantly, when our values are at stake.
Our values - the principles that we extol as examples for other nations, the principles that make us proud to be Americans, the principles that make us Americans - are what set us apart from modern barbarians like Muammar Gaddafi, North Korea's Kim Jong-il, al-Qaeda, and the Iranian state. We cannot sit back and watch, helplessly and impotently, as dictators slaughter their own people.
More importantly, these values are not uniquely American. They are universal - or should be. There is nothing uniquely American about love of freedom, of desire for a government run on democratic principles, of the desire to protect innocents from the vagaries of the powerful. These are human values.
Whether the forcible imposition of these values becomes a true "doctrine," a policy for use in future, unknown and unknowable situations, remains to be seen. But this is certain: it is honorable and even necessary. Even with our military stretched with a war in Afghanistan, extensive residual deployments in Iraq, and doing humanitarian work in Japan, we are capable of a mission such as that in Libya. As long as we are capable, and there is a need, we should act.
Ultimately, though, we cannot free the people of Libya. They must accomplish this goal themselves. They must convince Gaddafi's own military of the rightness of their struggle, convince Gaddafi's inner circle that they are sitting on the wrong side of the table, convince the people of Libya that the cause, that of freedom, is the right one.
Our own Revolutionary War history shows that winning the hearts and minds of the people is at least as important as military victory. It was an internal struggle that we had to fight and win ourselves. But at the same time, with the help of international friends, especially the French, our rebel forces were able to overcome an enemy that seemed superior in almost every way.
Like the French in 1781, the international community allying with the Libyan rebels against Gaddafi could be a turning point in their struggle. And, as in Libya, our help may be needed in other nations in the future.
The best way to bring change is at the ballot box. And change can be had. The people of Southern Sudan overwhelmingly voted for independence in January, and a peaceful separation of Sudan and Southern Sudan is planned for July.
When that sort of change is not possible, the popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia show that the voice of the people can still be heard. Even without a peaceful vote, change can be had with a minimum of bloodshed.
For the intransigent dictator, though, armed conflict may be the only option. The people of Libya thought so. And when the international community saw that the rebels in Libya were serious, the weight of a UN resolution was thrown their way. It is not inconceivable that another such situation could arise in any of a number of other nations.
The Obama Doctrine, if it can truly be called that, is in line with our values and as such should be supported by all Americans. We do not want to get involved in the internal politics of every nation. But when innocent life is at stake, especially when freedom is the ultimate goal, we must be prepared to act.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Nuclear power - a second look
Nuclear power - a second look
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on March 24, 2011.
Recent events in Japan have forced me to reevaluate a position that I have extolled in this space several times over the past years: my support for nuclear power.
The earthquake and resulting tsunami that hit Japan on March 11 left in their wake, as of this writing, over 10,000 casualties and almost 13,000 missing. The earthquake itself was the seventh largest in recorded history, but even that dubious honor may be too low considering that scientists are still poring over data.
The tsunami swept away cars, trains, entire villages. Its effects were felt as far away as California, where it was predicted that millions of dollars in damage was done.
And right in the middle of both natural disasters are the sites of 14 of Japan's 55 nuclear reactors. The reactors at the Tokai and Onagawa sites did have issues and there were shutdowns, but the damage was relatively minor.
Some of the ten reactors at the Fukushima sites, however, were heavily damaged and are causing concern not only in Japan, but across the world.
There is an international nuclear event scale, which tries to put nuclear accidents into some perspective, according to the effects of the incident both on- an off-site. The Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania in 1979 is noted as a level 5 accident. An incident in the Soviet Union in 1957 is the only recorded level 6 accident. And the Chernobyl accident, in 1986, is the only one rated at the highest level, level 7.
Where the Fukushima incident will land on this scale is as yet unknown. Certainly it will be a level 5 incident and may already be a level 6. Everyone is hoping, and some are certain, that it will not become a level 7.
With the on-going issues at Vermont Yankee, and the shock of a minor earthquake, centered near Montreal, coming so soon after the Japanese disaster, many are wondering if what happened there could happen here. And even if reasonable people think that it cannot, can we take the risk? Should Vermont Yankee be completely shut down?
Should any nuclear power plant built along a major fault line, like several have been in California, be allowed to operate further? Should nuclear power be allowed to continue at all?
At times like these, with disaster so fresh in the media and the consequences still rubbing raw in our minds, it is reasonable to ask these questions. But because everything is so fresh, we must not jump to hasty conclusions.
Nuclear power, until we have more viable options in terms of safety, sustainability, low-impact, and absolute power output, is the best way for us to produce the energy that we need. The safety record of U.S. nuclear power plants is very good - issues at Vermont Yankee and incidents like Three Mile Island notwithstanding. The footprint of nuclear power plants is small compared to that needed to have a reasonable wind farm. The nuclear power plant generates electricity 24 hour hours a day, regardless of wind, tides, or sunlight, and without any carbon emissions. We cannot sustain our economy as we do now without them.
This is not to say that I accept nuclear without reservation. The issue of waste is a real and pressing one. I think we could solve much of it with reasonable and common sense recycling of nuclear material, but even that will not solve the waste issue completely.
Reactors the age of those at Vermont Yankee can continue to run safely past their design parameters. But even given that, the issues Yankee has had with leaks show that even if the reactor can continue, the infrastructure supporting it may not be able to.
President Obama has announced his administration's intention to continue to fund and support nuclear power, incorporating all the latest advances into new plants that are safer and more efficient than ever. Scientists continue to look for ways to make fission reactors more and more safe, always with an eye to the holy grail, the fusion reactor.
We must take lessons away from the Japanese disaster, build these lessons into new designs and close or retrofit old plants where necessary. What we cannot afford to do is abandon nuclear power completely - not now, and not in the foreseeable future.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on March 24, 2011.
Recent events in Japan have forced me to reevaluate a position that I have extolled in this space several times over the past years: my support for nuclear power.
The earthquake and resulting tsunami that hit Japan on March 11 left in their wake, as of this writing, over 10,000 casualties and almost 13,000 missing. The earthquake itself was the seventh largest in recorded history, but even that dubious honor may be too low considering that scientists are still poring over data.
The tsunami swept away cars, trains, entire villages. Its effects were felt as far away as California, where it was predicted that millions of dollars in damage was done.
And right in the middle of both natural disasters are the sites of 14 of Japan's 55 nuclear reactors. The reactors at the Tokai and Onagawa sites did have issues and there were shutdowns, but the damage was relatively minor.
Some of the ten reactors at the Fukushima sites, however, were heavily damaged and are causing concern not only in Japan, but across the world.
There is an international nuclear event scale, which tries to put nuclear accidents into some perspective, according to the effects of the incident both on- an off-site. The Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania in 1979 is noted as a level 5 accident. An incident in the Soviet Union in 1957 is the only recorded level 6 accident. And the Chernobyl accident, in 1986, is the only one rated at the highest level, level 7.
Where the Fukushima incident will land on this scale is as yet unknown. Certainly it will be a level 5 incident and may already be a level 6. Everyone is hoping, and some are certain, that it will not become a level 7.
With the on-going issues at Vermont Yankee, and the shock of a minor earthquake, centered near Montreal, coming so soon after the Japanese disaster, many are wondering if what happened there could happen here. And even if reasonable people think that it cannot, can we take the risk? Should Vermont Yankee be completely shut down?
Should any nuclear power plant built along a major fault line, like several have been in California, be allowed to operate further? Should nuclear power be allowed to continue at all?
At times like these, with disaster so fresh in the media and the consequences still rubbing raw in our minds, it is reasonable to ask these questions. But because everything is so fresh, we must not jump to hasty conclusions.
Nuclear power, until we have more viable options in terms of safety, sustainability, low-impact, and absolute power output, is the best way for us to produce the energy that we need. The safety record of U.S. nuclear power plants is very good - issues at Vermont Yankee and incidents like Three Mile Island notwithstanding. The footprint of nuclear power plants is small compared to that needed to have a reasonable wind farm. The nuclear power plant generates electricity 24 hour hours a day, regardless of wind, tides, or sunlight, and without any carbon emissions. We cannot sustain our economy as we do now without them.
This is not to say that I accept nuclear without reservation. The issue of waste is a real and pressing one. I think we could solve much of it with reasonable and common sense recycling of nuclear material, but even that will not solve the waste issue completely.
Reactors the age of those at Vermont Yankee can continue to run safely past their design parameters. But even given that, the issues Yankee has had with leaks show that even if the reactor can continue, the infrastructure supporting it may not be able to.
President Obama has announced his administration's intention to continue to fund and support nuclear power, incorporating all the latest advances into new plants that are safer and more efficient than ever. Scientists continue to look for ways to make fission reactors more and more safe, always with an eye to the holy grail, the fusion reactor.
We must take lessons away from the Japanese disaster, build these lessons into new designs and close or retrofit old plants where necessary. What we cannot afford to do is abandon nuclear power completely - not now, and not in the foreseeable future.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Explaining Government Shutdowns
Explaining Government Shutdowns
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on March 10, 2011.
The federal government operates on a fiscal year of October 1 to September 30. What this means is that spending for 2011 started back in October. Or, rather, it should have.
Prior to 1976, the fiscal year began in July, which means that a new Congress had just over six months to negotiate and pass a new budget. In 1976, the fiscal year start was shifted to October, to give the Congress an extra three months to figure out the budget.
This brief lesson in the government's fiscal year is intended to help explain how the government came to the brink of shutdown last week, and why it is again at the brink next week.
The last Congress was unable to come to an agreement on the 2011 fiscal year (FY11) budget. Instead, from October through December, 2010, it passed continuing resolutions to duplicate the FY10 budget; in December the Congress did the same, pushing the funding out to March 4, 2011.
Since budget negotiations were at an impasse, and already at least three months late, Democrats were happy to have it done. Republicans, fully aware that they would be taking the reins of power in the House in January, 2011, were happy to know that in just a few months, the budget would be in their hands (the House, by way of explanation, is where all spending bills must originate, so the House has the first crack at them).
But March 4 loomed, and even with Republicans in control of the House (or perhaps especially because they were in control of the House), the two houses of Congress were unable to come to an agreement on a budget. Without one in place, a government shutdown was the only alternative.
There have only been a few government shutdowns in our history, all since 1981. Most were short. In 1981, a budget impasse between President Reagan and Congress lasted just a few hours - federal workers were sent home at lunchtime and came back to work the next morning.
The most severe shutdowns happened in 1995 and 1996. The shutdowns were the result of another impasse between branches of government, with the Republican-controlled Congress on one side and Democratic President Bill Clinton on the other. The shutdowns kept non-essential government workers at home; estimates released by the White House said that in real dollars, the 1995 shutdown cost $800 million - half because government employees, though home, were still paid; and the other half in taxes that went uncollected because IRS agents and investigators were unable to force collection.
Perhaps the bigger cost came in the form of inconvenience to Americans - federal parks were closed; hot-lines at the CDCP went unanswered; new Medicare and Social Security applications went unprocessed; toxic waste cleanup was halted; passport and visa applications were delayed; government-backed loans were delayed; and veterans' health care and services were delayed. Many pundits see the 1995 and 1996 shutdowns as one of the reasons that Clinton won reelection in the 1996 election.
Shutting down the government today would have the same sorts of effects on Americans. The most essential services, including the military, the TSA, those who process and issue Social Security checks, law enforcement personnel, health care personnel, and prison staff, would continue to work.
The rest? Furlough. As in 1995 and 1996, employees are not laid off, not fired, and don't go unpaid. They just don't go to work. In fact, there is a federal law that can be used to prosecute any furloughed employee for doing their job anyway, with up to $5000 in fines and two years' imprisonment.
The newest extension of the budget is good for only two weeks, meaning that as March 18 approaches, we again have a shutdown looming. Democrats are ready to deal, but Republicans, and especially the Tea Party wing, are looking to make waves.
If you're suddenly worried about FY12, you're right to worry. Every day that Congress wastes on the current fiscal year is one less to negotiate for the coming fiscal year. Though it may not be ideal, the Congress should extend the FY10 budget through the rest of FY11, and start work as soon as possible on the next fiscal year, which begins in less than seven months.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on March 10, 2011.
The federal government operates on a fiscal year of October 1 to September 30. What this means is that spending for 2011 started back in October. Or, rather, it should have.
Prior to 1976, the fiscal year began in July, which means that a new Congress had just over six months to negotiate and pass a new budget. In 1976, the fiscal year start was shifted to October, to give the Congress an extra three months to figure out the budget.
This brief lesson in the government's fiscal year is intended to help explain how the government came to the brink of shutdown last week, and why it is again at the brink next week.
The last Congress was unable to come to an agreement on the 2011 fiscal year (FY11) budget. Instead, from October through December, 2010, it passed continuing resolutions to duplicate the FY10 budget; in December the Congress did the same, pushing the funding out to March 4, 2011.
Since budget negotiations were at an impasse, and already at least three months late, Democrats were happy to have it done. Republicans, fully aware that they would be taking the reins of power in the House in January, 2011, were happy to know that in just a few months, the budget would be in their hands (the House, by way of explanation, is where all spending bills must originate, so the House has the first crack at them).
But March 4 loomed, and even with Republicans in control of the House (or perhaps especially because they were in control of the House), the two houses of Congress were unable to come to an agreement on a budget. Without one in place, a government shutdown was the only alternative.
There have only been a few government shutdowns in our history, all since 1981. Most were short. In 1981, a budget impasse between President Reagan and Congress lasted just a few hours - federal workers were sent home at lunchtime and came back to work the next morning.
The most severe shutdowns happened in 1995 and 1996. The shutdowns were the result of another impasse between branches of government, with the Republican-controlled Congress on one side and Democratic President Bill Clinton on the other. The shutdowns kept non-essential government workers at home; estimates released by the White House said that in real dollars, the 1995 shutdown cost $800 million - half because government employees, though home, were still paid; and the other half in taxes that went uncollected because IRS agents and investigators were unable to force collection.
Perhaps the bigger cost came in the form of inconvenience to Americans - federal parks were closed; hot-lines at the CDCP went unanswered; new Medicare and Social Security applications went unprocessed; toxic waste cleanup was halted; passport and visa applications were delayed; government-backed loans were delayed; and veterans' health care and services were delayed. Many pundits see the 1995 and 1996 shutdowns as one of the reasons that Clinton won reelection in the 1996 election.
Shutting down the government today would have the same sorts of effects on Americans. The most essential services, including the military, the TSA, those who process and issue Social Security checks, law enforcement personnel, health care personnel, and prison staff, would continue to work.
The rest? Furlough. As in 1995 and 1996, employees are not laid off, not fired, and don't go unpaid. They just don't go to work. In fact, there is a federal law that can be used to prosecute any furloughed employee for doing their job anyway, with up to $5000 in fines and two years' imprisonment.
The newest extension of the budget is good for only two weeks, meaning that as March 18 approaches, we again have a shutdown looming. Democrats are ready to deal, but Republicans, and especially the Tea Party wing, are looking to make waves.
If you're suddenly worried about FY12, you're right to worry. Every day that Congress wastes on the current fiscal year is one less to negotiate for the coming fiscal year. Though it may not be ideal, the Congress should extend the FY10 budget through the rest of FY11, and start work as soon as possible on the next fiscal year, which begins in less than seven months.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
The Basics of American Libertarianism
The Basics of American Libertarianism
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on February 24, 2011.
For the second year in a row, Ron Paul, a Republican Representative from Texas, won the straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). The straw poll is seen as an indication of the most conservative voters' choice for a presidential candidate in the next big election.
Ron Paul has long been a darling of the extreme right. But I'm not here to write about CPAC, the straw poll, the 2012 presidential election, nor even Ron Paul specifically. Instead, my topic this week is libertarianism.
Paul is widely seen as one of the most striking examples of a libertarian, and his rise to the top in the CPAC straw poll may signal a resurgence of libertarian sentiment in the far right wing of the conservative mindset.
The United States is host to the Libertarian Party, self-described as our third largest party, in terms of registered members. The Libertarian Party describes itself thusly:
"Our vision is for a world in which all individuals can freely exercise the natural right of sole dominion over their own lives, liberty and property by building a political party that elects Libertarians to public office, and moving public policy in a libertarian direction."
Taken at face value, this statement sounds appealing. Boiled down to its basics, the statement expands on libertarianism's two basic principles: freedom of thought and freedom of action.
The first of these is easy - I absolutely agree with the principle of freedom of thought. In fact, I think most Americans are on board with this basic principle.
It is in the second basic principle, freedom of action, that libertarians and I diverge. That being said, I agree with the broad idea that people should be allowed to do what they want, when they want, as long as no one else is harmed by it. The principle, though, taken to its logical extremes, quickly becomes troublesome.
The individual is important. But society matters, too. It has an interest in ensuring that its members are not only happy but healthy, too.
For example, under a libertarian state, the unregulated use of any substance would be perfectly fine, and government attempts to regulate those substances would not be allowed. Over time, science has made it clear that use of tobacco products is detrimental to any person's health. There is not a single seriously-reported positive benefit of tobacco consumption.
Recognizing this, we tax tobacco products to the point where they are unaffordable by many; and the revenue is used, in part, to discourage further tobacco use. Such taxes and programs are completely contrary to libertarian principles. Anyone should be allowed to smoke or chew, period.
Similarly, libertarians do not see a place for government in social services. They would much rather see the poor, sick, and elderly taken care of by private charities, with funds willingly donated by individuals. Again, I agree with this in principle, but when reality raises its ugly head, it is clear that relying on private entities is insufficient.
A government such as ours should offer a minimum safety net. It cannot and should not be the only safety net, but in a society where we value human life and dignity above all other things, leaving this role to private charities is wrong-headed.
We often say that we live in a democracy. But this is not true. In a pure democracy, majority always rules. The rights of the minority are not relevant - in fact, "the rights of the minority" is a concept that a pure democracy does not hold. Instead, we live in a society that adheres to democratic principles, taking the best parts of democracy, like "one person, one vote", and integrating them into our own system.
Likewise, libertarianism has a lot of great ideas. Its basic principles of freedom of thought and freedom of action are important to each of us. We accept these libertarian principles in general, and have integrated them into our system, applying modifications for the betterment of all members of our society.
Those who call themselves libertarians must continue to adhere to their principles - it is their right and their duty. If they have ideas that are good for our country as a whole, it is only through their continued advocacy that those ideas will move from the fringes to the mainstream. With Republican Ron Paul as a de facto head of the movement, these principles will get a fair airing, and exposure to ideas is a benefit to us all.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on February 24, 2011.
For the second year in a row, Ron Paul, a Republican Representative from Texas, won the straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). The straw poll is seen as an indication of the most conservative voters' choice for a presidential candidate in the next big election.
Ron Paul has long been a darling of the extreme right. But I'm not here to write about CPAC, the straw poll, the 2012 presidential election, nor even Ron Paul specifically. Instead, my topic this week is libertarianism.
Paul is widely seen as one of the most striking examples of a libertarian, and his rise to the top in the CPAC straw poll may signal a resurgence of libertarian sentiment in the far right wing of the conservative mindset.
The United States is host to the Libertarian Party, self-described as our third largest party, in terms of registered members. The Libertarian Party describes itself thusly:
"Our vision is for a world in which all individuals can freely exercise the natural right of sole dominion over their own lives, liberty and property by building a political party that elects Libertarians to public office, and moving public policy in a libertarian direction."
Taken at face value, this statement sounds appealing. Boiled down to its basics, the statement expands on libertarianism's two basic principles: freedom of thought and freedom of action.
The first of these is easy - I absolutely agree with the principle of freedom of thought. In fact, I think most Americans are on board with this basic principle.
It is in the second basic principle, freedom of action, that libertarians and I diverge. That being said, I agree with the broad idea that people should be allowed to do what they want, when they want, as long as no one else is harmed by it. The principle, though, taken to its logical extremes, quickly becomes troublesome.
The individual is important. But society matters, too. It has an interest in ensuring that its members are not only happy but healthy, too.
For example, under a libertarian state, the unregulated use of any substance would be perfectly fine, and government attempts to regulate those substances would not be allowed. Over time, science has made it clear that use of tobacco products is detrimental to any person's health. There is not a single seriously-reported positive benefit of tobacco consumption.
Recognizing this, we tax tobacco products to the point where they are unaffordable by many; and the revenue is used, in part, to discourage further tobacco use. Such taxes and programs are completely contrary to libertarian principles. Anyone should be allowed to smoke or chew, period.
Similarly, libertarians do not see a place for government in social services. They would much rather see the poor, sick, and elderly taken care of by private charities, with funds willingly donated by individuals. Again, I agree with this in principle, but when reality raises its ugly head, it is clear that relying on private entities is insufficient.
A government such as ours should offer a minimum safety net. It cannot and should not be the only safety net, but in a society where we value human life and dignity above all other things, leaving this role to private charities is wrong-headed.
We often say that we live in a democracy. But this is not true. In a pure democracy, majority always rules. The rights of the minority are not relevant - in fact, "the rights of the minority" is a concept that a pure democracy does not hold. Instead, we live in a society that adheres to democratic principles, taking the best parts of democracy, like "one person, one vote", and integrating them into our own system.
Likewise, libertarianism has a lot of great ideas. Its basic principles of freedom of thought and freedom of action are important to each of us. We accept these libertarian principles in general, and have integrated them into our system, applying modifications for the betterment of all members of our society.
Those who call themselves libertarians must continue to adhere to their principles - it is their right and their duty. If they have ideas that are good for our country as a whole, it is only through their continued advocacy that those ideas will move from the fringes to the mainstream. With Republican Ron Paul as a de facto head of the movement, these principles will get a fair airing, and exposure to ideas is a benefit to us all.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
The Internet: Democracy's Infection Vector?
The Internet: Democracy's Infection Vector?
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on February 10, 2011.
Abby, a good friend of mine, sent me a photo this past weekend, a photo that sparked a wide-ranging geopolitical discussion between us. It also illustrated something perhaps best described as the inevitability of change in our fast-evolving digital age.
The photo was from Egypt, and at first glance showed nothing particularly unusual: a large group of Muslims in their iconic prostrate kneeling as they attended to one of the basic tenets of their belief system. Salah, or ritual prayer, is to be performed five times a day - even in the midst of political protest.
What was amazing about the photo, however, was what, or rather who, was in the foreground of the photo: Egyptian Christians surrounding their Muslim countrymen, protecting them from pro-Mubarak forces while vulnerable.
The image reminded me of similar scenes and stories from the United States, of neighbors coming to the aid of Muslims who endured attacks from the small-minded in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks. This sort of solidarity is a sign of a culture that values our common humanity enough to overcome the all-too-human distrust of those who are different from us.
Abby said that this photo gave her hope for humanity - not just for the future of Egypt in their time of political turmoil, but for us as a species. That in extreme situations, we can and will come together for the common good.
I share her optimism.
The recent and on-going changes in Tunisia, Egypt, and even Jordan, are all part of a wave of feeling in the Near and Middle East. The feeling that autocracy is not the best way. That despite its flaws, a government founded on true democratic principles is the best way.
Frustratingly, waves of change rush to shore and often quickly retreat. Our own history shows that change can come, but in fits and starts. The equal rights movement had many milestones and setbacks - there were as many Birminghams as there were Rosa Parks. But eventually, over the course of a decade, change did come.
Protesters around the world would do well to follow the example set by Martin Luther King and his fellow warriors for equality. The most important tenet of their movement was peaceful, non-violent protest.
By eschewing violence, they were able to show white America that they were not interested in revenge for the past injustices foisted upon them. They simply wanted to be treated like regular human beings. Though it can mean bloodshed, as seen here and in Egypt as the agents of the status quo fight back, in the long run, non-violence is the best tactic.
The Tiananmen Square protests in China in 1989 seemed to be a turning point for that country, but they turned out not to be - the Communist Party has as firm a grasp as ever in China, though the grasp does seem to have loosened since 1989. This loosening is in large part because of another driving force that Abby and I discussed and which I've already alluded to: The Internet.
That photo of Christians guarding Muslims in prayer? It was sent from an Egyptian's camera phone to Twitter and retweeted across the Internet. It ended up on Flickr, Facebook, Tumblr, and eventually in Abby's mailbox and then mine.
Images are powerful - remember the man who stopped the column of tanks in China. Remember the angry police dogs lurching at marchers in Alabama. And now, praying Muslims in Egypt. Images have always been powerful. But now they have the ability to spread from person to person, country to country, in a matter of seconds.
Imagine a closet Christian in Iran who wants to worship his God in the open, or a Burmese fed up with military patrols on her street, or even a North Korean in line for a rare bag of rice. Imagine what they think when they happen upon such an image. It is not so big a leap to think that these people, who though oppressed have desire for freedom as strong as any of ours, could be the seed that starts a movement in those countries.
The ideal of democracy has been with humanity for millennia. Over time, it has been fragile, sometimes fleeting, susceptible to cults of personality that leverage its draw to entrap people (the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"?). But with the dawning of the digital age, democracy may finally have found its best vector.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on February 10, 2011.
Abby, a good friend of mine, sent me a photo this past weekend, a photo that sparked a wide-ranging geopolitical discussion between us. It also illustrated something perhaps best described as the inevitability of change in our fast-evolving digital age.
The photo was from Egypt, and at first glance showed nothing particularly unusual: a large group of Muslims in their iconic prostrate kneeling as they attended to one of the basic tenets of their belief system. Salah, or ritual prayer, is to be performed five times a day - even in the midst of political protest.
What was amazing about the photo, however, was what, or rather who, was in the foreground of the photo: Egyptian Christians surrounding their Muslim countrymen, protecting them from pro-Mubarak forces while vulnerable.
The image reminded me of similar scenes and stories from the United States, of neighbors coming to the aid of Muslims who endured attacks from the small-minded in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks. This sort of solidarity is a sign of a culture that values our common humanity enough to overcome the all-too-human distrust of those who are different from us.
Abby said that this photo gave her hope for humanity - not just for the future of Egypt in their time of political turmoil, but for us as a species. That in extreme situations, we can and will come together for the common good.
I share her optimism.
The recent and on-going changes in Tunisia, Egypt, and even Jordan, are all part of a wave of feeling in the Near and Middle East. The feeling that autocracy is not the best way. That despite its flaws, a government founded on true democratic principles is the best way.
Frustratingly, waves of change rush to shore and often quickly retreat. Our own history shows that change can come, but in fits and starts. The equal rights movement had many milestones and setbacks - there were as many Birminghams as there were Rosa Parks. But eventually, over the course of a decade, change did come.
Protesters around the world would do well to follow the example set by Martin Luther King and his fellow warriors for equality. The most important tenet of their movement was peaceful, non-violent protest.
By eschewing violence, they were able to show white America that they were not interested in revenge for the past injustices foisted upon them. They simply wanted to be treated like regular human beings. Though it can mean bloodshed, as seen here and in Egypt as the agents of the status quo fight back, in the long run, non-violence is the best tactic.
The Tiananmen Square protests in China in 1989 seemed to be a turning point for that country, but they turned out not to be - the Communist Party has as firm a grasp as ever in China, though the grasp does seem to have loosened since 1989. This loosening is in large part because of another driving force that Abby and I discussed and which I've already alluded to: The Internet.
That photo of Christians guarding Muslims in prayer? It was sent from an Egyptian's camera phone to Twitter and retweeted across the Internet. It ended up on Flickr, Facebook, Tumblr, and eventually in Abby's mailbox and then mine.
Images are powerful - remember the man who stopped the column of tanks in China. Remember the angry police dogs lurching at marchers in Alabama. And now, praying Muslims in Egypt. Images have always been powerful. But now they have the ability to spread from person to person, country to country, in a matter of seconds.
Imagine a closet Christian in Iran who wants to worship his God in the open, or a Burmese fed up with military patrols on her street, or even a North Korean in line for a rare bag of rice. Imagine what they think when they happen upon such an image. It is not so big a leap to think that these people, who though oppressed have desire for freedom as strong as any of ours, could be the seed that starts a movement in those countries.
The ideal of democracy has been with humanity for millennia. Over time, it has been fragile, sometimes fleeting, susceptible to cults of personality that leverage its draw to entrap people (the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"?). But with the dawning of the digital age, democracy may finally have found its best vector.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
The Consequences of Repealing the Health Care Law
The Consequences of Repealing the Health Care Law
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on January 27, 2011.
Last week, the United States House of Representatives voted to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known in some circles as "Obamacare." The repeal vote, which passed on a party line vote (except for three Democrats who broke ranks), has largely been reported as symbolic for two important reasons.
First, the Senate, which is still (though just barely) held by the Democrats, will likely never even take up the repeal bill, let alone pass it.
Second, should the impossible happen and the repeal bill pass the Senate, the President would undoubtedly veto it. Given that, it would take an even more impossible two-thirds vote of Congress to override the veto.
So why even bother? Republicans have said it is because they made a promise to do so in their 2010 congressional campaigns, and the people had given them a mandate: repeal the health care law.
While I agree that the Republican sweep of the House was a message from the people, I don't think it had a thing to do with the health care law. The law, in fact, contains many provisions that people are either very happy about or would be if they thought about the bill as more than "Obamacare." The repeal effort is little more than a Republican gift to its real base - and that base is certainly not the people of the United States.
There are several key provisions that have not even gone into effect yet, but with repeal, the following important, existing features would disappear:
- Beginning almost immediately after the law took effect, children of covered persons could remain on their parents' policy until age 26, unless covered by their own policy. Previous insurance company rules dropped children at the age of 19, or when they graduated from college. This requirement is now insuring an estimated 1.2 million people.
- Insurance companies can no longer deny coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions. Being a Type 1 diabetic, this is of particular interest to me, and to three million others like me. And that's just diabetes - there are scores of other conditions and diseases that can exclude a person from individual coverage. I'm fortunate to be covered by a corporate policy, but many others are not so lucky, and they are now protected.
- Lifetime limits are eliminated, meaning that if you have a chronic condition that requires on-going treatment, you need not worry about running your benefit out. Annual limits are still legal, but they are being phased out over the next three years.
- In the law, breastfeeding mothers must be given time to either breastfeed or pump breast milk during the workday. Loss of this provision would force some mothers to make a tough choice between working and staying home; between using breast milk and formula, a choice that can cost money not only immediately (in the form of savings on formula) but also in the long-run (in the form of health benefits to babies whose mothers are able to breastfeed).
- The law aims the soften the financial blow of the so-called Medicare Part D "Donut Hole." Prior to the new health care law, seniors paid a coinsurance for drugs up to $2840. After that, and up to $4550, prescriptions were completely uncovered. The new law provides for a 50% discount for drugs purchased while in the $2840 - $4550 range, which can add up to considerable savings for those on a fixed income.
Different polls show different levels of support for repeal - but numbers that mean a "mandate"? A recent AP-GfK poll puts support for repeal at just 41%, with opposition to repeal at 40%. This one percent edge is hardly a mandate.
The "mandate" disappears when the details are examined. In the same poll, for example, support for a ban on the pre-existing existing condition exclusion stands at 50%, with 34% opposing such a ban (though the 34% who oppose make me muse at the respondents' misanthropy).
Repealing the health care law, even if it could be done, would be a bad idea. What Democrats have done and need to continue to do is highlight how important this law is to so many people. As more and more of its provisions take effect, more and more people will be affected by it. By increasing coverage, we will increase the overall health of Americans, and in doing so, provide a stronger, healthier workforce to help America meet the challenges that face us in the evolving global economy.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on January 27, 2011.
Last week, the United States House of Representatives voted to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known in some circles as "Obamacare." The repeal vote, which passed on a party line vote (except for three Democrats who broke ranks), has largely been reported as symbolic for two important reasons.
First, the Senate, which is still (though just barely) held by the Democrats, will likely never even take up the repeal bill, let alone pass it.
Second, should the impossible happen and the repeal bill pass the Senate, the President would undoubtedly veto it. Given that, it would take an even more impossible two-thirds vote of Congress to override the veto.
So why even bother? Republicans have said it is because they made a promise to do so in their 2010 congressional campaigns, and the people had given them a mandate: repeal the health care law.
While I agree that the Republican sweep of the House was a message from the people, I don't think it had a thing to do with the health care law. The law, in fact, contains many provisions that people are either very happy about or would be if they thought about the bill as more than "Obamacare." The repeal effort is little more than a Republican gift to its real base - and that base is certainly not the people of the United States.
There are several key provisions that have not even gone into effect yet, but with repeal, the following important, existing features would disappear:
- Beginning almost immediately after the law took effect, children of covered persons could remain on their parents' policy until age 26, unless covered by their own policy. Previous insurance company rules dropped children at the age of 19, or when they graduated from college. This requirement is now insuring an estimated 1.2 million people.
- Insurance companies can no longer deny coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions. Being a Type 1 diabetic, this is of particular interest to me, and to three million others like me. And that's just diabetes - there are scores of other conditions and diseases that can exclude a person from individual coverage. I'm fortunate to be covered by a corporate policy, but many others are not so lucky, and they are now protected.
- Lifetime limits are eliminated, meaning that if you have a chronic condition that requires on-going treatment, you need not worry about running your benefit out. Annual limits are still legal, but they are being phased out over the next three years.
- In the law, breastfeeding mothers must be given time to either breastfeed or pump breast milk during the workday. Loss of this provision would force some mothers to make a tough choice between working and staying home; between using breast milk and formula, a choice that can cost money not only immediately (in the form of savings on formula) but also in the long-run (in the form of health benefits to babies whose mothers are able to breastfeed).
- The law aims the soften the financial blow of the so-called Medicare Part D "Donut Hole." Prior to the new health care law, seniors paid a coinsurance for drugs up to $2840. After that, and up to $4550, prescriptions were completely uncovered. The new law provides for a 50% discount for drugs purchased while in the $2840 - $4550 range, which can add up to considerable savings for those on a fixed income.
Different polls show different levels of support for repeal - but numbers that mean a "mandate"? A recent AP-GfK poll puts support for repeal at just 41%, with opposition to repeal at 40%. This one percent edge is hardly a mandate.
The "mandate" disappears when the details are examined. In the same poll, for example, support for a ban on the pre-existing existing condition exclusion stands at 50%, with 34% opposing such a ban (though the 34% who oppose make me muse at the respondents' misanthropy).
Repealing the health care law, even if it could be done, would be a bad idea. What Democrats have done and need to continue to do is highlight how important this law is to so many people. As more and more of its provisions take effect, more and more people will be affected by it. By increasing coverage, we will increase the overall health of Americans, and in doing so, provide a stronger, healthier workforce to help America meet the challenges that face us in the evolving global economy.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Shumlin's plans for success
Shumlin's plans for success
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on January 13, 2011.
Peter Shumlin is under no illusions about how tough he and even a friendly legislature are going to have it over the next two years. He said as much in his inaugural address almost two weeks ago, when he listed just a few of the fears of Vermonters, as he sees them:
"All across our state," Shumlin noted, "too many Vermonters are living in fear; fear that they might lose their jobs, face another pay cut, fail to keep their homes, send their children to college, afford health insurance or the secure retirement that they've always dreamed of."
The job of Vermont's government is to help relieve some of these fears while also doing its best to improve the lives of Vermonters in the long term. Toward this end, Shumlin wants to focus on improving the educational system and health care system in Vermont, as well as expanding broadband Internet coverage in the state.
These three issues, along with making Vermont's tax system more fair and supporting Vermont's agricultural industry, mark the five major points of focus that Shumlin said will be most important to his administration, and which he asked a joint session of the legislature to support.
Seeing the Vermont brand as a mark of quality that should be more heavily marketed in the major metropolitan areas that surround us - Montreal, Boston, and New York City - Shumlin has ambitions to grow jobs in the agricultural sector.
"The renaissance in Vermont agriculture is rooted in the growing concern by consumers across America about where and how their food is produced. Consumers are increasingly demanding locally grown, chemical free, high quality food," Shumlin said.
I know that I am spoiled, because when I go to my local grocery store, I think almost nothing of the cards that say this corn or that tomato was grown locally. It makes it easy for me to support local farms by buying food that I already know will be fresh, tasty, and of high quality. By leveraging the cachet of the "Made in Vermont" or "Grown in Vermont" label, we can make the list of staple Vermont products expand beyond ice cream, cheese, and maple syrup. The goal is to make even a lowly Vermont zucchini sought-after for a premium price.
I think that the answer to the nation's health care woes is a single-payer plan, or something approaching that sort of approach, and Shumlin wants Vermont to lead the way in showing the country that such a system is not only beneficial to the people, but to the state's treasury as well. By using technology, something I'm intimately familiar with in my work at GE Healthcare, Shumlin says that we can reduce costs and bring better outcomes. Combined with a state-sized pool of insured, rising costs can be reined in:
"That's why we must create a single-payer health care system that provides universal, affordable health insurance for all Vermonters that brings these skyrocketing costs under control. Let Vermont be the first state in the nation to treat health care as a right and not a privilege; removing the burden of coverage from our business community and using technology and outcomes-based medicine to contain costs."
As I noted, Shumlin is sure the issue is complex, but is equally sure that by bringing the right minds together, the challenge can be met: "I call upon single payer supporters to resist the temptation to oversimplify the challenge. I call upon skeptics to challenge us, but to join us at the table."
Shumlin addresses a concern that I have about any negotiation about a controversial subject - the tendency to under-emphasize unfortunate truths and over-emphasize minor features. We all do it, but when we're talking about the laws and policies of a state, or a nation, then these diminutions and exaltations become destructive to the process, and tend to push the sides further apart. I hope that Shumlin and his administration can bring the sides together and depolarize the debate, leading to productive discussion and compromise.
It is far too early to grade anything Shumlin has done, but his inaugural address reaffirms my belief that he is the right man for the job. I look forward to watching what he and the legislature bring to Vermont and Vermonters, and hope that in two years' time, they have helped pull Vermont out of our current economic doldrums and placed us on a path to success and national leadership.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on January 13, 2011.
Peter Shumlin is under no illusions about how tough he and even a friendly legislature are going to have it over the next two years. He said as much in his inaugural address almost two weeks ago, when he listed just a few of the fears of Vermonters, as he sees them:
"All across our state," Shumlin noted, "too many Vermonters are living in fear; fear that they might lose their jobs, face another pay cut, fail to keep their homes, send their children to college, afford health insurance or the secure retirement that they've always dreamed of."
The job of Vermont's government is to help relieve some of these fears while also doing its best to improve the lives of Vermonters in the long term. Toward this end, Shumlin wants to focus on improving the educational system and health care system in Vermont, as well as expanding broadband Internet coverage in the state.
These three issues, along with making Vermont's tax system more fair and supporting Vermont's agricultural industry, mark the five major points of focus that Shumlin said will be most important to his administration, and which he asked a joint session of the legislature to support.
Seeing the Vermont brand as a mark of quality that should be more heavily marketed in the major metropolitan areas that surround us - Montreal, Boston, and New York City - Shumlin has ambitions to grow jobs in the agricultural sector.
"The renaissance in Vermont agriculture is rooted in the growing concern by consumers across America about where and how their food is produced. Consumers are increasingly demanding locally grown, chemical free, high quality food," Shumlin said.
I know that I am spoiled, because when I go to my local grocery store, I think almost nothing of the cards that say this corn or that tomato was grown locally. It makes it easy for me to support local farms by buying food that I already know will be fresh, tasty, and of high quality. By leveraging the cachet of the "Made in Vermont" or "Grown in Vermont" label, we can make the list of staple Vermont products expand beyond ice cream, cheese, and maple syrup. The goal is to make even a lowly Vermont zucchini sought-after for a premium price.
I think that the answer to the nation's health care woes is a single-payer plan, or something approaching that sort of approach, and Shumlin wants Vermont to lead the way in showing the country that such a system is not only beneficial to the people, but to the state's treasury as well. By using technology, something I'm intimately familiar with in my work at GE Healthcare, Shumlin says that we can reduce costs and bring better outcomes. Combined with a state-sized pool of insured, rising costs can be reined in:
"That's why we must create a single-payer health care system that provides universal, affordable health insurance for all Vermonters that brings these skyrocketing costs under control. Let Vermont be the first state in the nation to treat health care as a right and not a privilege; removing the burden of coverage from our business community and using technology and outcomes-based medicine to contain costs."
As I noted, Shumlin is sure the issue is complex, but is equally sure that by bringing the right minds together, the challenge can be met: "I call upon single payer supporters to resist the temptation to oversimplify the challenge. I call upon skeptics to challenge us, but to join us at the table."
Shumlin addresses a concern that I have about any negotiation about a controversial subject - the tendency to under-emphasize unfortunate truths and over-emphasize minor features. We all do it, but when we're talking about the laws and policies of a state, or a nation, then these diminutions and exaltations become destructive to the process, and tend to push the sides further apart. I hope that Shumlin and his administration can bring the sides together and depolarize the debate, leading to productive discussion and compromise.
It is far too early to grade anything Shumlin has done, but his inaugural address reaffirms my belief that he is the right man for the job. I look forward to watching what he and the legislature bring to Vermont and Vermonters, and hope that in two years' time, they have helped pull Vermont out of our current economic doldrums and placed us on a path to success and national leadership.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Get a Lawyer!
Get a Lawyer!
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on December 22, 2010.
I, dear reader, watch an almost embarrassingly large amount of television. It is one of my vices. There are worse things.
One of the types of shows I enjoy the most involve the police in some way. If you've watched almost any television in the past twenty years, you know the type. There are classics like the Law & Order franchise, Homicide: Life on the Street, and Hill Street Blues; there are variations on the theme like the CSI franchise; and newer shows like Medium, The Mentalist, and Blue Bloods.
If you've watched almost any television in the past twenty years, you've also heard the Miranda warning. The warning, which the Supreme Court has ruled must be given to suspects of crimes before they are questioned, goes like this:
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense."
The verbal warning is kept relatively short, so that police can recite it quickly (which is good, for TV), but there is a much longer version, almost three times longer, that is more comprehensive and is usually given in written form.
The key components of the Miranda warning, spoken or written, are these: the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the fact that your own words can be used against you.
The point of all this is the dismay that I feel when watching some of these favorite police shows of mine. You might think, with my build-up above, that my problem is that police in these shows tend to forget the Miranda warning. Actually, to my memory, most television cops are very good about giving the Miranda warning, and many scenes end with a suspect being carted off in handcuffs for questioning as the arresting officer starts reciting, sometimes in a rote monotone, "You have the right to remain silent..."
No, it is not the TV cops' treatment of the Miranda warning that causes me dismay. It is that most suspects seem to forget all of their rights as soon as they step into a police station.
I certainly understand the need to move the story along, and watching a suspect sit and wait for a lawyer is hardly compelling TV. In fact, a lawyer-supervised interrogation is also hardly compelling - much more TV-friendly is the tearful or angry confession, caused by a detective asking just the right question or a suspect being caught in a lie. And I have to admit a certain degree of schadenfreude when a smug suspect, whom the audience is well-aware is guilty, slips up and realizes they've just confessed to the crime.
What I'm afraid of, what my dismay is all about, is that as people watch these shows, and see these suspects spill their guts with a lawyer no where in sight, they will begin to think nothing of it - that should they ever find themselves in that situation, the best or perhaps only option, the Miranda warning be damned, is to confess and take their punishment.
As a civil libertarian, I want everyone to know their rights and exercise them to their fullest extent. But don't get me wrong - in the end, with their rights intact, I want the guilty to be punished to the fullest extent. What I wish is that these shows could figure out a way for suspects to be represented by counsel and still get their just rewards.
Perhaps it is too much to ask - that a suspect exercising his right to counsel can still be compelling drama. But there has to be a way, and I issue a challenge to the writers of Hollywood to not only write such story lines, but to make them the majority rather than the minority. Unfortunately, I don't know any Hollywood writers.
What I have, dear reader, is you. God forbid you should ever find yourself as a suspect in a crime. But if you do, don't go down the route taken by too many TV characters. Exercise your rights and get yourself a lawyer; don't answer any questions without that lawyer present; and for goodness' sake, follow your lawyer's advice.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on December 22, 2010.
I, dear reader, watch an almost embarrassingly large amount of television. It is one of my vices. There are worse things.
One of the types of shows I enjoy the most involve the police in some way. If you've watched almost any television in the past twenty years, you know the type. There are classics like the Law & Order franchise, Homicide: Life on the Street, and Hill Street Blues; there are variations on the theme like the CSI franchise; and newer shows like Medium, The Mentalist, and Blue Bloods.
If you've watched almost any television in the past twenty years, you've also heard the Miranda warning. The warning, which the Supreme Court has ruled must be given to suspects of crimes before they are questioned, goes like this:
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense."
The verbal warning is kept relatively short, so that police can recite it quickly (which is good, for TV), but there is a much longer version, almost three times longer, that is more comprehensive and is usually given in written form.
The key components of the Miranda warning, spoken or written, are these: the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the fact that your own words can be used against you.
The point of all this is the dismay that I feel when watching some of these favorite police shows of mine. You might think, with my build-up above, that my problem is that police in these shows tend to forget the Miranda warning. Actually, to my memory, most television cops are very good about giving the Miranda warning, and many scenes end with a suspect being carted off in handcuffs for questioning as the arresting officer starts reciting, sometimes in a rote monotone, "You have the right to remain silent..."
No, it is not the TV cops' treatment of the Miranda warning that causes me dismay. It is that most suspects seem to forget all of their rights as soon as they step into a police station.
I certainly understand the need to move the story along, and watching a suspect sit and wait for a lawyer is hardly compelling TV. In fact, a lawyer-supervised interrogation is also hardly compelling - much more TV-friendly is the tearful or angry confession, caused by a detective asking just the right question or a suspect being caught in a lie. And I have to admit a certain degree of schadenfreude when a smug suspect, whom the audience is well-aware is guilty, slips up and realizes they've just confessed to the crime.
What I'm afraid of, what my dismay is all about, is that as people watch these shows, and see these suspects spill their guts with a lawyer no where in sight, they will begin to think nothing of it - that should they ever find themselves in that situation, the best or perhaps only option, the Miranda warning be damned, is to confess and take their punishment.
As a civil libertarian, I want everyone to know their rights and exercise them to their fullest extent. But don't get me wrong - in the end, with their rights intact, I want the guilty to be punished to the fullest extent. What I wish is that these shows could figure out a way for suspects to be represented by counsel and still get their just rewards.
Perhaps it is too much to ask - that a suspect exercising his right to counsel can still be compelling drama. But there has to be a way, and I issue a challenge to the writers of Hollywood to not only write such story lines, but to make them the majority rather than the minority. Unfortunately, I don't know any Hollywood writers.
What I have, dear reader, is you. God forbid you should ever find yourself as a suspect in a crime. But if you do, don't go down the route taken by too many TV characters. Exercise your rights and get yourself a lawyer; don't answer any questions without that lawyer present; and for goodness' sake, follow your lawyer's advice.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
The Wikileaks Cables: Worth the Ink?
The Wikileaks Cables: Worth the Ink?
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on December 8, 2010.
In many of the roles I've played in the course of my life, including college student, journalist, history buff, and constitutional scholar, one mantra is common to them all: information wants to be free.
In each of these roles, only by having access to accurate information could I write a valid conclusion for a term paper; write a story that told my readers something important; or allowed me and others to analyze events and personalities to reach conclusions about the people who made and shaped our history.
Much of the information journalists and historians (and ultimately the public) need was secret at one point in its lifetime. One of the most famous examples is the Pentagon Papers, published in 1971 by the New York Times. The Papers were a classified history of United States-Vietnam relations, and revealed previously unknown or unsubstantiated facts about the expansion of the Vietnam War into Cambodia and Laos.
The Times was prosecuted for publishing the Papers, in violation of the Espionage Act of 1917, a case which eventually found its way to the Supreme Court. The Court dismissed the case, but only by finding technical issues with the prosecution, and not with the Espionage Act itself.
It is under this Espionage Act that some pundits and politicians are contemplating prosecution of the Wikileaks site or its founder Julian Assange. Wikileaks has been in the news before. The site's raison d'etre is to be a safe place for whistle-blowers to release classified or secret information to the public.
The types of information released via Wikileaks includes documentation about government corruption in Kenya, assassination plans in Somalia, Scientology documents, and Sarah Palin's Yahoo email account contents. More recently Wikileaks is also responsible for the release of thousands of pages of secret diplomatic documents, known as cables.
The question that the U.S. government must now grapple with is if the publication of the so-called Wikileaks Cables constitute a violation of the law - and if so, what can be done about it?
To prevent itself from being the target of corporate and governmental retaliation for what it publishes, Wikileaks exists almost wholly as an Internet-only organization. This has its own problems - as of the writing of this column, for example, the main Wikileaks site cannot be accessed because of denial of service attacks and disputes with its hosting companies.
Though there may be no real "Wikileaks company" to go after, there is Assange, the organization's public face. During last Sunday's broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called for Assange to be prosecuted under U.S. law. With the release of the Cables, McConnell said, Assange has "done enormous damage to our country."
Though the Espionage Act can apply just as equally to those who publish classified information as to those who took it in the first place, those like McConnell who would prosecute Wikileaks or Assange could run into real trouble actually doing so.
Assange is neither a U.S. citizen nor a U.S. resident. Originally from Australia, Assange seems to constantly shift his location within Europe; reports have him currently living in England. If Assange cannot be brought to an American court, he cannot be tried - trial in absentia is illegal. He would, instead, have to be deported to the U.S. by a government that not only has him in their jurisdiction, but also has the same concerns about American diplomatic security as the U.S. might have.
It seems to me that prosecution of Assange is unlikely. That still leaves a key question, though. Given what I've already written, that information wants to be free, is the leaking of the Cables something I oppose?
The observations made in the Wikileaks Cables, frank statements of opinion by U.S. diplomatic staff and international leaders, are sometimes of no more value than any random story in the National Enquirer. It's not so much that I have a problem with the Cables being leaked as I have a problem that anyone cares about the contents of the Cables.
On the basis of the newly freed information that I've seen from the Cables, one thing is obvious: The Cables are no Pentagon Papers.
There is no revelation of corrupt ruling families or assassination plots. All we see is that diplomats are human and can speak with some crassness about each other. All we see is that governments don't trust each other.
In other words, we have been reminded of facts that we already knew.
Note: After press time, Assange turned himself in to English authorities because of an outstanding warrant from Sweden.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on December 8, 2010.
In many of the roles I've played in the course of my life, including college student, journalist, history buff, and constitutional scholar, one mantra is common to them all: information wants to be free.
In each of these roles, only by having access to accurate information could I write a valid conclusion for a term paper; write a story that told my readers something important; or allowed me and others to analyze events and personalities to reach conclusions about the people who made and shaped our history.
Much of the information journalists and historians (and ultimately the public) need was secret at one point in its lifetime. One of the most famous examples is the Pentagon Papers, published in 1971 by the New York Times. The Papers were a classified history of United States-Vietnam relations, and revealed previously unknown or unsubstantiated facts about the expansion of the Vietnam War into Cambodia and Laos.
The Times was prosecuted for publishing the Papers, in violation of the Espionage Act of 1917, a case which eventually found its way to the Supreme Court. The Court dismissed the case, but only by finding technical issues with the prosecution, and not with the Espionage Act itself.
It is under this Espionage Act that some pundits and politicians are contemplating prosecution of the Wikileaks site or its founder Julian Assange. Wikileaks has been in the news before. The site's raison d'etre is to be a safe place for whistle-blowers to release classified or secret information to the public.
The types of information released via Wikileaks includes documentation about government corruption in Kenya, assassination plans in Somalia, Scientology documents, and Sarah Palin's Yahoo email account contents. More recently Wikileaks is also responsible for the release of thousands of pages of secret diplomatic documents, known as cables.
The question that the U.S. government must now grapple with is if the publication of the so-called Wikileaks Cables constitute a violation of the law - and if so, what can be done about it?
To prevent itself from being the target of corporate and governmental retaliation for what it publishes, Wikileaks exists almost wholly as an Internet-only organization. This has its own problems - as of the writing of this column, for example, the main Wikileaks site cannot be accessed because of denial of service attacks and disputes with its hosting companies.
Though there may be no real "Wikileaks company" to go after, there is Assange, the organization's public face. During last Sunday's broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called for Assange to be prosecuted under U.S. law. With the release of the Cables, McConnell said, Assange has "done enormous damage to our country."
Though the Espionage Act can apply just as equally to those who publish classified information as to those who took it in the first place, those like McConnell who would prosecute Wikileaks or Assange could run into real trouble actually doing so.
Assange is neither a U.S. citizen nor a U.S. resident. Originally from Australia, Assange seems to constantly shift his location within Europe; reports have him currently living in England. If Assange cannot be brought to an American court, he cannot be tried - trial in absentia is illegal. He would, instead, have to be deported to the U.S. by a government that not only has him in their jurisdiction, but also has the same concerns about American diplomatic security as the U.S. might have.
It seems to me that prosecution of Assange is unlikely. That still leaves a key question, though. Given what I've already written, that information wants to be free, is the leaking of the Cables something I oppose?
The observations made in the Wikileaks Cables, frank statements of opinion by U.S. diplomatic staff and international leaders, are sometimes of no more value than any random story in the National Enquirer. It's not so much that I have a problem with the Cables being leaked as I have a problem that anyone cares about the contents of the Cables.
On the basis of the newly freed information that I've seen from the Cables, one thing is obvious: The Cables are no Pentagon Papers.
There is no revelation of corrupt ruling families or assassination plots. All we see is that diplomats are human and can speak with some crassness about each other. All we see is that governments don't trust each other.
In other words, we have been reminded of facts that we already knew.
Note: After press time, Assange turned himself in to English authorities because of an outstanding warrant from Sweden.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Campaign Spending 2010
Campaign Spending 2010
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on November 24, 2010.
In January, the Supreme Court, in its Citizens United ruling, forbade the government from restricting corporate spending on candidate elections. Some pundits mocked the ruling, as it continued the Court's practice of treating corporations as individuals, this time in terms of free political speech rights. Others worried that elections would now be flooded with money as corporate donors attempted to "buy votes."
Now that the election is over, a valid and important question is, did anyone try to buy votes? Or was this just a red herring? Before we can answer that question, we need to know how much money was spent in the 2010 election season. The number, actually, is astounding.
The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that almost $4 billion (with a "B") was spent on the various races in the 2010 election - the most ever.
In races for the House, $972 million was raised and $845 million was spent. Republicans out-raised Democrats $502 million to $465 million. The race that raised the most money was in Minnesota, where Republican incumbent, and eventual winner, Michele Bachmann raised over $11 million, more than doubling the $4.2 million raised by her Democratic challenger Tarryl Clark.
In races for the Senate, $668 million was raised and $609 million was spent. Republicans also out-raised Democrats, $356 million to $294 million. The top race was in Connecticut, where Democrat Richard Blumenthal raised $7.6 million to hold on to Democratic stalwart Chris Dodd's former seat. He was able to overcome Republican challenger Linda McMahon, who raised a whopping $47 million, almost all of it coming from her own personal accounts.
Does it really take over $15 million to run a race for a House seat and $55 million to run a race for a Senate seat? Fortunately not - at least not yet.
In Vermont, Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy raised $4.6 million, and spent just over $3 million, to defeat Republican Len Britton. Britton's numbers pale in comparison to Leahy's, with just under $200,000 raised and $144,000 spent.
Democratic Representative Peter Welch raised $974,000 and spent $573,000 to retain his seat; Republican challenger Paul Baudry raised just over $30,000 and spent $23,000 of that.
But what about all that unrestricted corporate spending? The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that this outside spending amounted to $282 million in the 2010 election - $90 million in support of liberal candidates and $184 million in support of conservative candidates.
It is hard to say, however, how much of an effect on elections this money had in 2010. It seems clear that impatience with the pace of economic improvement played a big part in Republican gains in 2010. Even if spending on conservative candidates had not almost doubled that on liberal candidates, it's unlikely that the outcome would have been much different.
So why all the hullabaloo about Citizens United and all the unrestricted and unreported corporate spending if it is likely that the result in 2010 would have been the same anyway? The problem is that the next election may not be so stilted to one side, and any small weight could tip the scales. Plus, with the presidency on the line, the temptation to spend even more money in 2012 will be hard to resist.
The regulation of political spending is a mine field of conflicting principles and interests. Most would agree that it is getting our of hand, if it has not already. The big question is, though, what can be done about it? I don't think the issue is a threat to our democracy just yet, but it can become one.
It should be a priority to work out the issues surrounding campaign financing. It must be possible to come to agreement on what can be accomplished relative to the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court (or to propose amendments to the Constitution if these limits are too restrictive). We must have and enforce reasonable reporting requirements. And we must expect the government and the press to make sure that the public knows all it has a right to, in a timely manner, so we can decide for ourselves if someone is trying to buy our vote.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on November 24, 2010.
In January, the Supreme Court, in its Citizens United ruling, forbade the government from restricting corporate spending on candidate elections. Some pundits mocked the ruling, as it continued the Court's practice of treating corporations as individuals, this time in terms of free political speech rights. Others worried that elections would now be flooded with money as corporate donors attempted to "buy votes."
Now that the election is over, a valid and important question is, did anyone try to buy votes? Or was this just a red herring? Before we can answer that question, we need to know how much money was spent in the 2010 election season. The number, actually, is astounding.
The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that almost $4 billion (with a "B") was spent on the various races in the 2010 election - the most ever.
In races for the House, $972 million was raised and $845 million was spent. Republicans out-raised Democrats $502 million to $465 million. The race that raised the most money was in Minnesota, where Republican incumbent, and eventual winner, Michele Bachmann raised over $11 million, more than doubling the $4.2 million raised by her Democratic challenger Tarryl Clark.
In races for the Senate, $668 million was raised and $609 million was spent. Republicans also out-raised Democrats, $356 million to $294 million. The top race was in Connecticut, where Democrat Richard Blumenthal raised $7.6 million to hold on to Democratic stalwart Chris Dodd's former seat. He was able to overcome Republican challenger Linda McMahon, who raised a whopping $47 million, almost all of it coming from her own personal accounts.
Does it really take over $15 million to run a race for a House seat and $55 million to run a race for a Senate seat? Fortunately not - at least not yet.
In Vermont, Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy raised $4.6 million, and spent just over $3 million, to defeat Republican Len Britton. Britton's numbers pale in comparison to Leahy's, with just under $200,000 raised and $144,000 spent.
Democratic Representative Peter Welch raised $974,000 and spent $573,000 to retain his seat; Republican challenger Paul Baudry raised just over $30,000 and spent $23,000 of that.
But what about all that unrestricted corporate spending? The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that this outside spending amounted to $282 million in the 2010 election - $90 million in support of liberal candidates and $184 million in support of conservative candidates.
It is hard to say, however, how much of an effect on elections this money had in 2010. It seems clear that impatience with the pace of economic improvement played a big part in Republican gains in 2010. Even if spending on conservative candidates had not almost doubled that on liberal candidates, it's unlikely that the outcome would have been much different.
So why all the hullabaloo about Citizens United and all the unrestricted and unreported corporate spending if it is likely that the result in 2010 would have been the same anyway? The problem is that the next election may not be so stilted to one side, and any small weight could tip the scales. Plus, with the presidency on the line, the temptation to spend even more money in 2012 will be hard to resist.
The regulation of political spending is a mine field of conflicting principles and interests. Most would agree that it is getting our of hand, if it has not already. The big question is, though, what can be done about it? I don't think the issue is a threat to our democracy just yet, but it can become one.
It should be a priority to work out the issues surrounding campaign financing. It must be possible to come to agreement on what can be accomplished relative to the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court (or to propose amendments to the Constitution if these limits are too restrictive). We must have and enforce reasonable reporting requirements. And we must expect the government and the press to make sure that the public knows all it has a right to, in a timely manner, so we can decide for ourselves if someone is trying to buy our vote.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Analyzing the 2010 Election
Analyzing the 2010 Election
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on November 11, 2010.
Interpreting election results can be as tricky as predicting them. Given that, I suggest you add my voice to all the others you've heard in the past week as you make up your own mind.
At the state level, I am proud of Vermonters as we did two things: we bucked the general trend toward the right, but at the same time, we were maverick-like in our choices at the state level.
With so many office-holders giving up their seats this year, many of the main offices were fresh for the taking: Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Secretary of State.
Williston itself showed a conservative streak in its vote for governor, with Republican Brian Dubie winning the vote 53 percent to Democrat Peter Shumlin's 46 percent. Statewide, though Shumlin pulled in just under 50 percent of the vote (to Dubie's 47 percent), Dubie conceeded the race. The selection of governor will, technically, be left to the legislature, but Dubie's concession virtually guarantees Shumlin's eventual win.
In the Lieutenant Governor's race, the Republican Phil Scott beat Democrat Steve Howard 48 percent to 41 percent; in Williston, Scott pulled in 54 percent of the vote to Howard's 39 percent.
And finally in the Secretary of State's race, Democrat Jim Condos beat out Republican Jason Gibbs 54 percent to 44 percent; in Williston, the numbers were similar, 54 percent to 46 percent.
Based on Williston's vote in the top two races on the ticket, I still have a lot of work to do here, trying to convince the majority of my neighbors that the best choice for Vermont is left-leaning. I hope the governor's actions help me out in that regard!
My impression is that Vermonters in general were not particularly impressed with the tone the political advertisements took in Vermont this campaign season, particularly in the governor's race. At the same time, I was impressed with much of Peter Shumlin's advertising, especially his "whiteboard" series, which condensed complex issues down to their bare bones, and may have made a real difference in the campaign.
Shumlin's unerring support for closing Vermont Yankee also resonated with many Vermonters (though not with your humble columnist), and ads touting his business experience also raised confidence in many Vermonters.
The wide margins won by our current members of Congress show yet again the power of incumbency, especially when there is a general air of satisfaction with the incumbent's work. The best advice I would have for any newly elected member of Congress from Vermont is to represent the state vigorously and to keep your nose clean. With those two things under your belt, a long-term job seems easy to keep.
Nationally, of course, this is no time for liberals to celebrate. Though the polls told us it was coming, hope sprung eternal that the losses would not be so bad. Democrats did retain control of the Senate, but likely because only a third of the body was up for election.
In the House, the swing from Democratic to Republican control is one of the biggest on record. However, since Democrats still hold the Presidency and the Senate, the next two years are going to be the Republicans' chance to show not that they can flex their muscle, but that they can compromise.
The 2010 election made one thing clear: the American public is impatient. Given what they got in 2008, President Obama and the 111th Congress accomplished a lot, but in the face of continued unemployment near double digits, it seems that we as a people think that the Republicans can do better. I'm not sure they can, but I'm not going to wish that they fail. I hope that Republicans and Democrats both can set aside their differences and work to finding solutions to our national problems.
We'll also see if the gleam of the Tea Party continues to shine, or if it will tarnish as its new leaders, including Senators-elect Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, try to influence legislation in the 112th Congress. Fortunately for their states, and us all, the worst of the Tea Party, Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell, went down to defeat. Even Alaska's Joe Miller seems, at this writing, to have lost to write-in incumbent Lisa Murkowski.
I'm confident that Democrats are willing to work with Republicans to get the tough work of governing the nation done. The next two years will show the American people if the Republicans are just as willing, or if the obstructionism they've been known for in the last two years will continue to be a feature of their governing strategy for the next two years.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on November 11, 2010.
Interpreting election results can be as tricky as predicting them. Given that, I suggest you add my voice to all the others you've heard in the past week as you make up your own mind.
At the state level, I am proud of Vermonters as we did two things: we bucked the general trend toward the right, but at the same time, we were maverick-like in our choices at the state level.
With so many office-holders giving up their seats this year, many of the main offices were fresh for the taking: Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Secretary of State.
Williston itself showed a conservative streak in its vote for governor, with Republican Brian Dubie winning the vote 53 percent to Democrat Peter Shumlin's 46 percent. Statewide, though Shumlin pulled in just under 50 percent of the vote (to Dubie's 47 percent), Dubie conceeded the race. The selection of governor will, technically, be left to the legislature, but Dubie's concession virtually guarantees Shumlin's eventual win.
In the Lieutenant Governor's race, the Republican Phil Scott beat Democrat Steve Howard 48 percent to 41 percent; in Williston, Scott pulled in 54 percent of the vote to Howard's 39 percent.
And finally in the Secretary of State's race, Democrat Jim Condos beat out Republican Jason Gibbs 54 percent to 44 percent; in Williston, the numbers were similar, 54 percent to 46 percent.
Based on Williston's vote in the top two races on the ticket, I still have a lot of work to do here, trying to convince the majority of my neighbors that the best choice for Vermont is left-leaning. I hope the governor's actions help me out in that regard!
My impression is that Vermonters in general were not particularly impressed with the tone the political advertisements took in Vermont this campaign season, particularly in the governor's race. At the same time, I was impressed with much of Peter Shumlin's advertising, especially his "whiteboard" series, which condensed complex issues down to their bare bones, and may have made a real difference in the campaign.
Shumlin's unerring support for closing Vermont Yankee also resonated with many Vermonters (though not with your humble columnist), and ads touting his business experience also raised confidence in many Vermonters.
The wide margins won by our current members of Congress show yet again the power of incumbency, especially when there is a general air of satisfaction with the incumbent's work. The best advice I would have for any newly elected member of Congress from Vermont is to represent the state vigorously and to keep your nose clean. With those two things under your belt, a long-term job seems easy to keep.
Nationally, of course, this is no time for liberals to celebrate. Though the polls told us it was coming, hope sprung eternal that the losses would not be so bad. Democrats did retain control of the Senate, but likely because only a third of the body was up for election.
In the House, the swing from Democratic to Republican control is one of the biggest on record. However, since Democrats still hold the Presidency and the Senate, the next two years are going to be the Republicans' chance to show not that they can flex their muscle, but that they can compromise.
The 2010 election made one thing clear: the American public is impatient. Given what they got in 2008, President Obama and the 111th Congress accomplished a lot, but in the face of continued unemployment near double digits, it seems that we as a people think that the Republicans can do better. I'm not sure they can, but I'm not going to wish that they fail. I hope that Republicans and Democrats both can set aside their differences and work to finding solutions to our national problems.
We'll also see if the gleam of the Tea Party continues to shine, or if it will tarnish as its new leaders, including Senators-elect Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, try to influence legislation in the 112th Congress. Fortunately for their states, and us all, the worst of the Tea Party, Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell, went down to defeat. Even Alaska's Joe Miller seems, at this writing, to have lost to write-in incumbent Lisa Murkowski.
I'm confident that Democrats are willing to work with Republicans to get the tough work of governing the nation done. The next two years will show the American people if the Republicans are just as willing, or if the obstructionism they've been known for in the last two years will continue to be a feature of their governing strategy for the next two years.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
On Amending the Constitution
On Amending the Constitution
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on October 28, 2010.
You'll notice an unusual item on your ballot on November 2 - a vote on an amendment to the Vermont Constitution. Its appearance gives me a chance to discuss the long road that an amendment to the Vermont Constitution has to travel, and how widely the procedure varies from amending the United States Constitution.
The process for amending any constitution should not be an easy one - a constitution is the basic law of a political unit, and provides a stable foundation that can be relied on for years, decades, even centuries.
The process of amending the U.S. Constitution has a few different paths, not all of which have been taken.
The most common path is for the Congress to vote, by two-thirds concurrence in both houses, to recommend an amendment. It has never been an easy thing to get a two-thirds vote in Congress, and this high bar reflects the framers' thoughts that changes should only come with broad consensus.
After those votes, however, there is a final stage that can be just as hard to overcome. The amendment is then sent to the states, where three-quarters of them must ratify the amendment.
The states can ratify in one of two ways - by majority votes of each state's legislature (which is most often another two-part hurdle) or, if directed by the amendment itself, by a special ratifying convention called in each state.
This second option may seem like a bit of an end-run around the legislatures, and to some degree it is. However, depending on state law, it is the executive or legislature that must convene the convention, and a determined governor or legislature could refuse to do so or at least drag its heels.
In the case of Vermont, heel-dragging is not an option. The responsibility to convene a convention is given to the governor, who has only 60 days following an amendment proposal to call the convention. The process then involves the voters, who choose 14 people from a list of 28 compiled by the governor, lieutenant governor, and speaker of the house.
The election must take place between three and 12 months after the governor's call, and the convention itself must take place 20 to 30 days after the election. The convention is free to conduct itself in any way it decides, and a majority vote on the proposed amendment, either way, decides the issue.
The convention route for a constitutional amendment has only been used once - to ratify the 21st Amendment, which repealed the 18th Amendment and made liquor again legal in the United States.
The second, unused method for proposing amendments is by a convention of all the states. Many fear what amendments could come out of such a convention, and that fear has, in my opinion, been the main reason that many resist any call for an amendment convention.
Amending the Vermont Constitution is a longer process, by design.
First, amendments may only be proposed every four years, beginning in 1975. The Senate must initiate the process, and must approve the amendment by two-thirds vote. The House must then approve the amendment by a majority vote. The last year an amendment could be proposed was 2007 and the next is 2011.
Once this first hurdle is crossed, the amendment must lay dormant until the next two-year legislative session. The amendment is then taken up again and must be approved by a majority of both houses of the legislature. If those votes are successful, the amendment has one final hurdle - the people.
That is the stage the voting age amendment has reached this year. If a majority of Vermonters approve the amendment, it will become a part of our Constitution; if not, it will have to wait until 2011 for another go.
Both methods have pros and cons. The method used by Vermont would probably be unworkable for an electorate on the scale of the United States, so even though there is value in getting the direct voice of the people, the methods already in place work well enough. The nation needs a way to rapidly change its constitution in a time of crisis, so the built-in speed bumps in the Vermont amendment process could actually be dangerous for the federal constitution.
When you go to the polls next week, be sure not to miss the question on the constitutional amendment presented to you. It is a rare opportunity for you to voice how our constitution should be constructed.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on October 28, 2010.
You'll notice an unusual item on your ballot on November 2 - a vote on an amendment to the Vermont Constitution. Its appearance gives me a chance to discuss the long road that an amendment to the Vermont Constitution has to travel, and how widely the procedure varies from amending the United States Constitution.
The process for amending any constitution should not be an easy one - a constitution is the basic law of a political unit, and provides a stable foundation that can be relied on for years, decades, even centuries.
The process of amending the U.S. Constitution has a few different paths, not all of which have been taken.
The most common path is for the Congress to vote, by two-thirds concurrence in both houses, to recommend an amendment. It has never been an easy thing to get a two-thirds vote in Congress, and this high bar reflects the framers' thoughts that changes should only come with broad consensus.
After those votes, however, there is a final stage that can be just as hard to overcome. The amendment is then sent to the states, where three-quarters of them must ratify the amendment.
The states can ratify in one of two ways - by majority votes of each state's legislature (which is most often another two-part hurdle) or, if directed by the amendment itself, by a special ratifying convention called in each state.
This second option may seem like a bit of an end-run around the legislatures, and to some degree it is. However, depending on state law, it is the executive or legislature that must convene the convention, and a determined governor or legislature could refuse to do so or at least drag its heels.
In the case of Vermont, heel-dragging is not an option. The responsibility to convene a convention is given to the governor, who has only 60 days following an amendment proposal to call the convention. The process then involves the voters, who choose 14 people from a list of 28 compiled by the governor, lieutenant governor, and speaker of the house.
The election must take place between three and 12 months after the governor's call, and the convention itself must take place 20 to 30 days after the election. The convention is free to conduct itself in any way it decides, and a majority vote on the proposed amendment, either way, decides the issue.
The convention route for a constitutional amendment has only been used once - to ratify the 21st Amendment, which repealed the 18th Amendment and made liquor again legal in the United States.
The second, unused method for proposing amendments is by a convention of all the states. Many fear what amendments could come out of such a convention, and that fear has, in my opinion, been the main reason that many resist any call for an amendment convention.
Amending the Vermont Constitution is a longer process, by design.
First, amendments may only be proposed every four years, beginning in 1975. The Senate must initiate the process, and must approve the amendment by two-thirds vote. The House must then approve the amendment by a majority vote. The last year an amendment could be proposed was 2007 and the next is 2011.
Once this first hurdle is crossed, the amendment must lay dormant until the next two-year legislative session. The amendment is then taken up again and must be approved by a majority of both houses of the legislature. If those votes are successful, the amendment has one final hurdle - the people.
That is the stage the voting age amendment has reached this year. If a majority of Vermonters approve the amendment, it will become a part of our Constitution; if not, it will have to wait until 2011 for another go.
Both methods have pros and cons. The method used by Vermont would probably be unworkable for an electorate on the scale of the United States, so even though there is value in getting the direct voice of the people, the methods already in place work well enough. The nation needs a way to rapidly change its constitution in a time of crisis, so the built-in speed bumps in the Vermont amendment process could actually be dangerous for the federal constitution.
When you go to the polls next week, be sure not to miss the question on the constitutional amendment presented to you. It is a rare opportunity for you to voice how our constitution should be constructed.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Elect Peter Shumlin
Elect Peter Shumlin
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on October 14, 2010.
It should come as no surprise to any regular reader that I'm endorsing Democrat Peter Shumlin for governor, and urge everyone else to vote for him, too. Williston did not come out strongly for Shumlin in the Democratic Party primary - he was third behind Doug Racine and Deb Markowitz - but now it is time for Vermonters in general and Democrats in particular to rally behind Shumlin.
What might be a little surprising is that my decision to endorse Shumlin was not as automatic as one might infer from my partisan label.
I believe that the legislative and executive branches should not be in collusion - they should, in fact, be at odds at how things should get done. There might be agreement about final outcomes, but what I want to see is disagreement about how to get there. Because when there is disagreement, there is a place for compromise; and it is in compromise that we find the best laws and policies.
If there is one truism in Vermont politics over the last several decades, it is this: incumbent governors keep their job as long as they want it. The only change in the governor's office we've seen since the election of Madeleine Kunin in 1984 has been when a sitting governor decided not to seek reelection, or a sitting governor died in office.
The governor we elect in November, then, will likely be the governor of Vermont, for better or worse, for the next six or eight years. The decision is not to be made lightly. With this knowledge, I looked thoughtfully and seriously at Republican Brian Dubie.
Dubie is an honorable man who has served his state and country with distinction. Politically, we have some agreements - our positions on Vermont Yankee, for example, are pretty close. He has a good and valid point when he notes that Vermont's regulatory procedures should be reviewed and streamlined.
Most of his other positions, however, sound like more of the same Republican parroting that we hear over and over again at the national level. The solution to our woes is lower taxes and cuts in spending.
Neither of these platitudes is a solution in itself. There are places taxes can and should be cut - I certainly don't advocate that we willy-nilly raise taxes, nor does any Democrat. But the opposite - cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes! - seems to be the default Republican war cry, and Dubie is not deviating from that position.
Similarly, I do not think that every program is necessarily worthy of its current funding level, so funding levels should be examined closely, but Dubie criticizes, first and foremost, the generosity of Vermont's social programs, which protect our most vulnerable citizens - an expense well worth paying.
What Shumlin brings to the table is all the best of Dubie's plans - to grow the green economy, for example - but with the touch of a Democrat who wants to look out for the little guy rather than the big guy.
Shumlin also has the advantage of knowing the Vermont business environment from the business-owner side of the equation. He knows the challenges that an overly onerous regulatory process can impose, and can offer suggestions to the legislature to ease the burden without losing the benefits of good regulation.
He also knows that to have a better society, we have to not only cater to business but we also have to protect and improve the lives of the people.
Shumlin's platform not only focuses on growing the jobs market and the green economy, but also sustaining and improving education, health care, equal rights for all Vermonters, caring for our older population, and maintaining Vermont's farm economy.
In short, Shumlin has a better plan, a more humane plan, a more attractive plan.
Brian Dubie would not be a bad choice for Vermont. Peter Shumlin, however, is a much better choice. I hope that you agree with my assessment and vote for Peter Shumlin for governor on November 2.
----
This year will mark a first for me - since I'll be away on election day, I'll be voting early for the first time. If voting on election day is an issue for you, I encourage you to visit the Town Clerk's office at your earliest convenience and get an absentee ballot. There is no excuse for not having your voice heard.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on October 14, 2010.
It should come as no surprise to any regular reader that I'm endorsing Democrat Peter Shumlin for governor, and urge everyone else to vote for him, too. Williston did not come out strongly for Shumlin in the Democratic Party primary - he was third behind Doug Racine and Deb Markowitz - but now it is time for Vermonters in general and Democrats in particular to rally behind Shumlin.
What might be a little surprising is that my decision to endorse Shumlin was not as automatic as one might infer from my partisan label.
I believe that the legislative and executive branches should not be in collusion - they should, in fact, be at odds at how things should get done. There might be agreement about final outcomes, but what I want to see is disagreement about how to get there. Because when there is disagreement, there is a place for compromise; and it is in compromise that we find the best laws and policies.
If there is one truism in Vermont politics over the last several decades, it is this: incumbent governors keep their job as long as they want it. The only change in the governor's office we've seen since the election of Madeleine Kunin in 1984 has been when a sitting governor decided not to seek reelection, or a sitting governor died in office.
The governor we elect in November, then, will likely be the governor of Vermont, for better or worse, for the next six or eight years. The decision is not to be made lightly. With this knowledge, I looked thoughtfully and seriously at Republican Brian Dubie.
Dubie is an honorable man who has served his state and country with distinction. Politically, we have some agreements - our positions on Vermont Yankee, for example, are pretty close. He has a good and valid point when he notes that Vermont's regulatory procedures should be reviewed and streamlined.
Most of his other positions, however, sound like more of the same Republican parroting that we hear over and over again at the national level. The solution to our woes is lower taxes and cuts in spending.
Neither of these platitudes is a solution in itself. There are places taxes can and should be cut - I certainly don't advocate that we willy-nilly raise taxes, nor does any Democrat. But the opposite - cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes! - seems to be the default Republican war cry, and Dubie is not deviating from that position.
Similarly, I do not think that every program is necessarily worthy of its current funding level, so funding levels should be examined closely, but Dubie criticizes, first and foremost, the generosity of Vermont's social programs, which protect our most vulnerable citizens - an expense well worth paying.
What Shumlin brings to the table is all the best of Dubie's plans - to grow the green economy, for example - but with the touch of a Democrat who wants to look out for the little guy rather than the big guy.
Shumlin also has the advantage of knowing the Vermont business environment from the business-owner side of the equation. He knows the challenges that an overly onerous regulatory process can impose, and can offer suggestions to the legislature to ease the burden without losing the benefits of good regulation.
He also knows that to have a better society, we have to not only cater to business but we also have to protect and improve the lives of the people.
Shumlin's platform not only focuses on growing the jobs market and the green economy, but also sustaining and improving education, health care, equal rights for all Vermonters, caring for our older population, and maintaining Vermont's farm economy.
In short, Shumlin has a better plan, a more humane plan, a more attractive plan.
Brian Dubie would not be a bad choice for Vermont. Peter Shumlin, however, is a much better choice. I hope that you agree with my assessment and vote for Peter Shumlin for governor on November 2.
----
This year will mark a first for me - since I'll be away on election day, I'll be voting early for the first time. If voting on election day is an issue for you, I encourage you to visit the Town Clerk's office at your earliest convenience and get an absentee ballot. There is no excuse for not having your voice heard.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
GOP Pledge is Nothing New
GOP Pledge is Nothing New
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on September 30, 2010.
As Yogi Berra said, "It's deja vu all over again."
In 1994, with Bill Clinton two years into his first term as president, Republicans presented a Contract with America to the electorate. The Contract was a list of legislative priorities that the Republicans promised to turn into bills within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress. It was a ploy that played to the angers and frustrations of the American people at the time.
The ploy worked. The House of Representatives had a Republican majority for the first time in 40 years. Though many of the bills based on the Contract failed to become law either because of presidential veto or because the Senate failed to pass them, the Republican majority in the House lasted from the 104th Congress through to the 109th. The Democrats were not able to wrest control until the 110th Congress, almost four years ago, in January, 2007.
The legacy of that Republican control includes government shutdowns, tax cuts for the richest Americans, authorization of an unnecessary war, and the worst recession in decades.
More recently, Republicans have released their Pledge to America. The GOP is pledging to right all the wrongs that they see in American government and society, a good and noble sentiment, but forgetting that it was they who were the root cause of many of these woes.
President Obama came to office promising change, change that many of us, Democrats, Republicans, and independents, were eager for. It is change that we have not seen in many cases, change that we still wait for. But even as we await more of the president's promises to come to fruition, we cannot allow ourselves to be blinded to the fact that change has, indeed, already happened.
To me, the Pledge to America is more about undoing the good that has already been done and thwarting any possibility for more good to be done in the next two years.
Just last week, some of the most important provisions of the health care bill came into effect:
These features and protections are all important and have real impact on people's lives today. And if Republicans had had their way six months ago, none of these provisions would have taken effect. Because of the staggered implementation of the health care bill, even more changes will be taking effect over the next few years.
Another major accomplishment of the President and his congressional allies is the end of combat operations in Iraq. This war, the wrong war to have spent blood and treasure on, was authorized by a Republican Congress. Ending it was one of Obama's top priorities, and though it took two years, he was able to accomplish the goal without putting undue risk on our troops or the Iraqi people.
Though Republicans use it as a selling point for their own agenda, calling it a "government take-over", the government's support for General Motors and Chrysler saved an American industry and all the jobs that go with it.
According to Recovery.gov, the Recovery Act, put in place by the Democratic Congress, has brought over $250 million to Vermont through June 30, and another $500 million has been awarded to Vermont. This money represents real jobs, held by your neighbors.
The Republican leadership would have you forget about all of these accomplishments. Is there more to be done? Of course there is, but the way to get things done is not to take a step backwards, back to Republican majorities in the House and Senate.
As he introduced the latest Republican ploy, the Pledge to America, House Minority Leader John Boehner said that if they are placed in the majority, the American people can expect Republicans to "not be any different than we have been". I don't think that America can afford, nor stomach, "not different" from the Republicans, because they have been combative, obstructive, and contrary ever since the new Congress was sworn in.
What we need is a new Republican party that is willing to work with Democrats to come up with solutions, not create more problems. In lieu of that seeming pipe dream, our best bet is to maintain the Democratic majorities in Congress, and for all Democrats to work diligently toward that goal.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on September 30, 2010.
As Yogi Berra said, "It's deja vu all over again."
In 1994, with Bill Clinton two years into his first term as president, Republicans presented a Contract with America to the electorate. The Contract was a list of legislative priorities that the Republicans promised to turn into bills within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress. It was a ploy that played to the angers and frustrations of the American people at the time.
The ploy worked. The House of Representatives had a Republican majority for the first time in 40 years. Though many of the bills based on the Contract failed to become law either because of presidential veto or because the Senate failed to pass them, the Republican majority in the House lasted from the 104th Congress through to the 109th. The Democrats were not able to wrest control until the 110th Congress, almost four years ago, in January, 2007.
The legacy of that Republican control includes government shutdowns, tax cuts for the richest Americans, authorization of an unnecessary war, and the worst recession in decades.
More recently, Republicans have released their Pledge to America. The GOP is pledging to right all the wrongs that they see in American government and society, a good and noble sentiment, but forgetting that it was they who were the root cause of many of these woes.
President Obama came to office promising change, change that many of us, Democrats, Republicans, and independents, were eager for. It is change that we have not seen in many cases, change that we still wait for. But even as we await more of the president's promises to come to fruition, we cannot allow ourselves to be blinded to the fact that change has, indeed, already happened.
To me, the Pledge to America is more about undoing the good that has already been done and thwarting any possibility for more good to be done in the next two years.
Just last week, some of the most important provisions of the health care bill came into effect:
- Children can no longer be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition
- Health care policies must cover children up to age 26
- Health care policies may no longer include lifetime limits on coverage
These features and protections are all important and have real impact on people's lives today. And if Republicans had had their way six months ago, none of these provisions would have taken effect. Because of the staggered implementation of the health care bill, even more changes will be taking effect over the next few years.
Another major accomplishment of the President and his congressional allies is the end of combat operations in Iraq. This war, the wrong war to have spent blood and treasure on, was authorized by a Republican Congress. Ending it was one of Obama's top priorities, and though it took two years, he was able to accomplish the goal without putting undue risk on our troops or the Iraqi people.
Though Republicans use it as a selling point for their own agenda, calling it a "government take-over", the government's support for General Motors and Chrysler saved an American industry and all the jobs that go with it.
According to Recovery.gov, the Recovery Act, put in place by the Democratic Congress, has brought over $250 million to Vermont through June 30, and another $500 million has been awarded to Vermont. This money represents real jobs, held by your neighbors.
The Republican leadership would have you forget about all of these accomplishments. Is there more to be done? Of course there is, but the way to get things done is not to take a step backwards, back to Republican majorities in the House and Senate.
As he introduced the latest Republican ploy, the Pledge to America, House Minority Leader John Boehner said that if they are placed in the majority, the American people can expect Republicans to "not be any different than we have been". I don't think that America can afford, nor stomach, "not different" from the Republicans, because they have been combative, obstructive, and contrary ever since the new Congress was sworn in.
What we need is a new Republican party that is willing to work with Democrats to come up with solutions, not create more problems. In lieu of that seeming pipe dream, our best bet is to maintain the Democratic majorities in Congress, and for all Democrats to work diligently toward that goal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)