This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on September 17, 2009.
Sizing up the 2010 governor's race
Just a little under a year ago, in this space, I noted that Governor Jim Douglas was a virtual shoo-in for governor in the 2010 election, should he decide to run. As you've surely heard or read by now, Douglas has, indeed, announced his intention to not run in 2010.
True to his Vermont spirit, Douglas assured Vermonters that he would serve out his term, unlike some other notable Republican governors. When VPR's Bob Kinzel suggested that Douglas could give his Republican lieutenant governor Brian Dubie a leg up in the 2010 election by stepping down early, Douglas was unequivocal about his intention to go the distance.
With the curtain on the Incumbent Protection Plan drawn back, Douglas's decision opens up possibilities for a new face in the office, the same way Howard Dean's decision gave Douglas his chance, and Madeleine Kunin's decision allowed Richard Snelling to step back into the governor's office.
On the Republican side, there are several familiar names mentioned as contenders, though none have officially announced as yet. These include Lt. Governor Brian Dubie, former Vermont National Guard Commander Gen. Martha Rainville, recent Republican convert Tom Salmon, and Mark Snelling, son of the late aforementioned governor. The general consensus is that everyone else is awaiting Dubie's decision before moving ahead with their own plans.
On the Democratic side, there are several familiar names, many of whom are now serving the state with distinction. Unlike the Republicans, though, some are not waiting to make their intentions known.
Deborah Markowitz has been Vermont's Secretary of State since 1998, having been elected to the office six times. In 2008, she was reelected with 70.8% of the vote. In her role, she has been a champion of towns and cities and of open government. I've been impressed with her efforts promoting free and fair elections, and in her office's efforts to move the state to higher and higher voter turn-outs. Though she is the veteran of many statewide elections, I'm not sure of her experience as an executive.
Doug Racine is a former lieutenant governor and on-again-off-again member of the state Senate. Racine lost a bid for the governor's office in 2002, to Douglas. Racine has the benefit of statewide name recognition and executive experience, both in business and government. In Chittenden County, at least, he enjoys wide popularity, being re-elected to the Senate in 2008 by the highest vote count in history. Fair or not, though, I do feel like Racine had his chance in 2002.
Both Markowitz and Racine have officially announced their intention to run for governor in 2010.
Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin has been mentioned frequently as a possible contender, but has not made a formal announcement as yet. Shumlin has served in the House and the Senate since 1989. Shumlin ran for lieutenant governor in 2002, losing to Dubie. It would be interesting to see the two lock horns again for the big chair in 2010, but I have a feeling the experience may have left Shumlin gun shy. He may be more content to serve the state on the legislative side.
A possible dark-horse candidate could be Treasurer Jeb Spaulding. TV commercials produced for the Treasurer's office, offering Vermonters a chance to recover misplaced bank accounts, have graced the airwaves for years, boosting Spaulding's statewide name recognition. Spaulding also enjoyed a whopping 89.9% support rate in the last election, though he had no serious Republican opponent, a luxury he would not enjoy in 2010.
Finally, there are rumblings that our U.S. Representative Peter Welch might be interested in the governor's job, and also that recently selected Speaker of the Vermont House, Shap Smith, is contemplating a run. I'm dubious, however. Welch, like Racine, has made a trip to the trough, in 1990, losing to Richard Snelling; and Smith, with even less experience than 2008 Democratic loser Gaye Symington had in the same job, might not see statewide office as attainable just yet.
Lastly, this question: Kunin, after leaving office, joined the U.S. diplomatic corps, serving her adopted country as ambassador to her native Switzerland. Dean, as we can well-remember, ran for president in 2000, then became head of the Democratic National Committee. What, then, is in store for Douglas?
When he spoke with Kinzel at the end of August, he had no plans yet, but I'm sure offers will begin to flow soon, if they have not already. Whatever role he plays, I am certain of one thing. He will play it with distinction.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Quality health care is a right
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on September 3, 2009.
Quality health care is a right
If you've read more than one or two of these columns, you know that I'm a big fan of President Barack Obama. He represents the best that America has to offer, and I'm happy to see him occupying the big chair in the White House.
But I'm no sycophant. Obama and his crew are not above criticism. To paraphrase James Madison, if Obama was an angel, there would be no need for criticism. But he is not an angel, and as such, he is subject to error.
So it is with his handling of the health care debate of late.
Democrats had a long wait to get to where we are today. We hold the White House, we hold a strong majority in the House, and we even hold a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. In theory, we could do whatever we feel is best for the country.
The President, however, has waffled on too many points, allowing a strong stance to wither to a soft position on the issue. I agree with him that some reform of our current system is necessary. Using haberdashery as a metaphor, he said insurance reform is a belt and the public insurance option is a pair of suspenders — both will keep up your pants. Using his analogy, though, I say that if reform is the belt, the public option is the belt loops. If you don't have the latter, the former won't be effective.
The far-right lie machine is partially to blame for Obama's shift. The President has been working so hard to squashing the lies, there's little time left to talk about the basic issues. But the lies keep coming: death panels, pulling the plug on grandma, taxing the middle class, rationing health care, socialized medicine, and, most recently "The Death Book." If I didn't know better, I'd be scared.
But I'm more scared of what will happen without a strong public insurance option, and part of this fear is for myself. What if a I lose my insurance? I'm a Type 1 diabetic, completely reliant on insulin injected on a minute-by-minute basis to stay healthy and, indeed, alive. I am the definition of "pre-existing condition."
I've been fortunate that I love my job and the people I work with, that I've made good choices with my career path, and that I've had a bit of luck here and there. I hear horror stories about people like me who lose their jobs, or change a job willingly, or move to a new city, or even who graduate from college to the work force (and, thus, transition from their parents' insurance plan to their own), and have to wait for benefits to kick in.
It is a simple concept: No one should have to live with the fear of losing their insurance.
Recently-departed Senator Edward Kennedy was a champion of health care for all, and in the course of several television and radio obituraries last week, it was noted that one of his biggest frustrations over the past four decades was the lack of movement on universal health care coverage. Obama and the Democrats should honor Kennedy's memory by renewing their efforts to push for a better plan.
President Obama needs to use the power of the bully pulpit to bring Democratic leaders together and come up with a comprehensive plan for American's health care future. The public health insurance option must be a part of that plan, as a safety net and as an alternative for business.
We must reform how insurance works in this country so that insurance companies are more concerned with patient outcomes than with profits.
We must spend money to find the most beneficial and cost-effective treatments for common conditions. We must work to prevent disease that is the result of lifestyle choices like smoking, overeating, and inactivity. We must continue to develop new equipment, techniques, and treatments that will help us or our loved ones.
We must leverage technology to contain costs and ensure the best care is cost-effective care.
I've wrestled with the notion of health care being a right versus a privilege, but I've come to the conclusion that without good health, there is no point to having freedom of worship or speech or expression. Good health is a right — a basic human right — and our government should start acting like it is.
Quality health care is a right
If you've read more than one or two of these columns, you know that I'm a big fan of President Barack Obama. He represents the best that America has to offer, and I'm happy to see him occupying the big chair in the White House.
But I'm no sycophant. Obama and his crew are not above criticism. To paraphrase James Madison, if Obama was an angel, there would be no need for criticism. But he is not an angel, and as such, he is subject to error.
So it is with his handling of the health care debate of late.
Democrats had a long wait to get to where we are today. We hold the White House, we hold a strong majority in the House, and we even hold a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. In theory, we could do whatever we feel is best for the country.
The President, however, has waffled on too many points, allowing a strong stance to wither to a soft position on the issue. I agree with him that some reform of our current system is necessary. Using haberdashery as a metaphor, he said insurance reform is a belt and the public insurance option is a pair of suspenders — both will keep up your pants. Using his analogy, though, I say that if reform is the belt, the public option is the belt loops. If you don't have the latter, the former won't be effective.
The far-right lie machine is partially to blame for Obama's shift. The President has been working so hard to squashing the lies, there's little time left to talk about the basic issues. But the lies keep coming: death panels, pulling the plug on grandma, taxing the middle class, rationing health care, socialized medicine, and, most recently "The Death Book." If I didn't know better, I'd be scared.
But I'm more scared of what will happen without a strong public insurance option, and part of this fear is for myself. What if a I lose my insurance? I'm a Type 1 diabetic, completely reliant on insulin injected on a minute-by-minute basis to stay healthy and, indeed, alive. I am the definition of "pre-existing condition."
I've been fortunate that I love my job and the people I work with, that I've made good choices with my career path, and that I've had a bit of luck here and there. I hear horror stories about people like me who lose their jobs, or change a job willingly, or move to a new city, or even who graduate from college to the work force (and, thus, transition from their parents' insurance plan to their own), and have to wait for benefits to kick in.
It is a simple concept: No one should have to live with the fear of losing their insurance.
Recently-departed Senator Edward Kennedy was a champion of health care for all, and in the course of several television and radio obituraries last week, it was noted that one of his biggest frustrations over the past four decades was the lack of movement on universal health care coverage. Obama and the Democrats should honor Kennedy's memory by renewing their efforts to push for a better plan.
President Obama needs to use the power of the bully pulpit to bring Democratic leaders together and come up with a comprehensive plan for American's health care future. The public health insurance option must be a part of that plan, as a safety net and as an alternative for business.
We must reform how insurance works in this country so that insurance companies are more concerned with patient outcomes than with profits.
We must spend money to find the most beneficial and cost-effective treatments for common conditions. We must work to prevent disease that is the result of lifestyle choices like smoking, overeating, and inactivity. We must continue to develop new equipment, techniques, and treatments that will help us or our loved ones.
We must leverage technology to contain costs and ensure the best care is cost-effective care.
I've wrestled with the notion of health care being a right versus a privilege, but I've come to the conclusion that without good health, there is no point to having freedom of worship or speech or expression. Good health is a right — a basic human right — and our government should start acting like it is.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Milking the Market
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on August 20, 2009.
Milking the Market
Anyone who has ever prepared a family budget knows that there is one basic, overriding principle: don't spend more than you take in. If you earn $100, don't spend $110. If you do, you'll either dip into savings or start to accumulate debt. Vermont dairy farmers are keenly aware of this simple formula. They have one problem, though: It costs more to produce a gallon of milk than anyone is willing to pay for it.
The individual farmer can do nothing to change milk prices. The price is set in an international marketplace, and that price has been going down. The farmer could try to get into a niche market, like organic products, and some supplement their income by selling small amounts of raw milk to neighbors, but the real money is (or should be) in the general bulk market.
If a farmer cannot make money on his farm, there are only a few options. One is to change what he produces. This is a viable option for a grower, but not so much for a dairy farmer, who has a herd to take care of. Another is to get out of the business completely. The loss of a farm or two might not be any more than a local tragedy, but according to the Rutland Times-Argus, since January 1, Vermont has lost over thirty farms.
The federal government has resurrected the Milk Income Loss Compact (MILC) program through which farmers can receive payments from the government when milk prices fall below a certain level. The formula is a bit complicated, because it is adjusted monthly for feed costs, but it is roughly $17.50 per hundred pounds of milk.
The government is also helping by increasing the floor that it pays for milk for its own needs. Vermont's congressional delegation pushed hard for this increase, and spoke favorably of Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack's announcement.
Senator Bernie Sanders is attacking the problem from another angle, directing his office to investigate the pricing policies of monopolistic dairy companies, companies large enough to be able to influence prices in ways that individual producers can only dream of.
If this all sounds familiar, it's because dairy prices rise and fall in cycles. The problem is the low end of the cycle is often far too low. The last big dip was in 2006. Back then, Vermont Public Radio commentator John McClaughry touted programs that were trying to make dairy farmers more productive in their business. Watching the nightly news on WCAX, it seems that there are unending reports of dairy farmers who are making milking or feeding more efficient.
Our ultimate goal should be the elimination of all subsidies. Government subsidies and tariffs are generally not a good thing, and can have far-reaching economic implications.
The imposition of tariffs on imports can hurt domestic producers, to the point where the exporting country retaliates with tariffs of its own. This sort of tit-for-tat economics has the real possibility of cutting goods off from a nation in the best case, and becoming a diplomatic crisis even leading to war in the worst case.
Looking to avoid such games, the United States has sought and supported free trade agreements across the world, from our own continental neighborhood to the tiny nation of Singapore. Even so, most free trade agreements have exceptions, as with the prohibition of Mexican trucks on most U.S. roads and U.S. tariffs on Canadian softwoods.
The increase in the number of free trade agreements the U.S. has with other nations is a recognition of the general proposition that tariffs and subsidies are not of long-term benefit. Though dairy may be a special case, given the perishable nature of liquid milk, we should still try to avoid subsidies when we can.
Because dairy is in a precarious position right now, we should continue to pay out subsidies. At the same time, we should be increasing our technological aid to dairy farmers, to ensure that those who are capable can get their product out for the least cost possible. We should take a close look at each dairy operation and make hard but necessary choices about farms that are beyond saving. And we should ensure that no one company has too great an effect on pricing.
Taking coordinated steps such as these can provide us with an industry that is both local and sustainable, and which protects vital national interests.
Milking the Market
Anyone who has ever prepared a family budget knows that there is one basic, overriding principle: don't spend more than you take in. If you earn $100, don't spend $110. If you do, you'll either dip into savings or start to accumulate debt. Vermont dairy farmers are keenly aware of this simple formula. They have one problem, though: It costs more to produce a gallon of milk than anyone is willing to pay for it.
The individual farmer can do nothing to change milk prices. The price is set in an international marketplace, and that price has been going down. The farmer could try to get into a niche market, like organic products, and some supplement their income by selling small amounts of raw milk to neighbors, but the real money is (or should be) in the general bulk market.
If a farmer cannot make money on his farm, there are only a few options. One is to change what he produces. This is a viable option for a grower, but not so much for a dairy farmer, who has a herd to take care of. Another is to get out of the business completely. The loss of a farm or two might not be any more than a local tragedy, but according to the Rutland Times-Argus, since January 1, Vermont has lost over thirty farms.
The federal government has resurrected the Milk Income Loss Compact (MILC) program through which farmers can receive payments from the government when milk prices fall below a certain level. The formula is a bit complicated, because it is adjusted monthly for feed costs, but it is roughly $17.50 per hundred pounds of milk.
The government is also helping by increasing the floor that it pays for milk for its own needs. Vermont's congressional delegation pushed hard for this increase, and spoke favorably of Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack's announcement.
Senator Bernie Sanders is attacking the problem from another angle, directing his office to investigate the pricing policies of monopolistic dairy companies, companies large enough to be able to influence prices in ways that individual producers can only dream of.
If this all sounds familiar, it's because dairy prices rise and fall in cycles. The problem is the low end of the cycle is often far too low. The last big dip was in 2006. Back then, Vermont Public Radio commentator John McClaughry touted programs that were trying to make dairy farmers more productive in their business. Watching the nightly news on WCAX, it seems that there are unending reports of dairy farmers who are making milking or feeding more efficient.
Our ultimate goal should be the elimination of all subsidies. Government subsidies and tariffs are generally not a good thing, and can have far-reaching economic implications.
The imposition of tariffs on imports can hurt domestic producers, to the point where the exporting country retaliates with tariffs of its own. This sort of tit-for-tat economics has the real possibility of cutting goods off from a nation in the best case, and becoming a diplomatic crisis even leading to war in the worst case.
Looking to avoid such games, the United States has sought and supported free trade agreements across the world, from our own continental neighborhood to the tiny nation of Singapore. Even so, most free trade agreements have exceptions, as with the prohibition of Mexican trucks on most U.S. roads and U.S. tariffs on Canadian softwoods.
The increase in the number of free trade agreements the U.S. has with other nations is a recognition of the general proposition that tariffs and subsidies are not of long-term benefit. Though dairy may be a special case, given the perishable nature of liquid milk, we should still try to avoid subsidies when we can.
Because dairy is in a precarious position right now, we should continue to pay out subsidies. At the same time, we should be increasing our technological aid to dairy farmers, to ensure that those who are capable can get their product out for the least cost possible. We should take a close look at each dairy operation and make hard but necessary choices about farms that are beyond saving. And we should ensure that no one company has too great an effect on pricing.
Taking coordinated steps such as these can provide us with an industry that is both local and sustainable, and which protects vital national interests.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Coming clean on spreading misinformation
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on August 6, 2009.
Coming clean on spreading misinformation
Friends and neighbors, I have decided to come clean. There is some personal risk — I could lose my membership in the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy — but I find I cannot keep our secrets from you any longer.
The truth is that I have been working with VLWC for some time, doing my small part to coordinate and orchestrate some events that would be unbelievable in any novel.
To wit: at our behest, Texas Representative Louie Gohmert recently signed on as co-sponsor to the so-called "birther bill," which would require future presidential candidates to provide irrefutable proof of their eligibility to become president, such as an official state-issued birth certificate. His action brought renewed attention to the bill.
What does Gohmert have to do with the VLWC? While Gohmert purports to be a Republican, in truth, Gohmert has been working for us since his election in 2004. The role of our operatives is to spread misinformation that sounds scary but is easily disproven. The VLWC then sits back to watch the fireworks that ensue.
The VLWC wasn't sure we'd be able to get any traction from the Obama birth certificate controversy. We'd tried to get that ball rolling before the election, but then an Obama staffer, who had not been briefed about the VLWC's tactics, had the candidate's actual Hawaii-issued birth certificate released to the press. It is now easily viewable on the web.
However, after the truth settled in, we decided to resurrect the rumor. Soon, we were delighted to see Republican members of Congress blind-sided by birthers at town hall meetings, demanding that "Obama release his official birth certificate."
The VLWC also assigned Gohmert the task of helping spread the rumor that a current draft of the health care reform bill encourages and actually requires our elderly Medicare population to prepare themselves for euthanasia. As with the birther rumor, we have also assigned other undercover operatives, including Representative Virginia Foxx of North Carolina.
As is typical with our operations, you can quickly see the results of our tinkering on easily-duped websites like the Drudge Report and World Net Daily. Within a few days, and some times within a few hours, the snowball has begun to roll as we pick up the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and Sean Hannity. From there, the path to Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, and the Washington Post is a short one. With the right critical mass, soon the mainstream press is forced to cover the story, and the debunking process begins.
It is here that the rubber really hits the road. Neutral websites like FactCheck.org and Snopes.com weigh in and suddenly the big story is not the information we planted but the fact that the information is false. As time wears on, and the story continues to propagate, those who keep bringing it up move from the mainstream column to the wing-nut column.
Sometimes there are bonus off-shoots of craziness; the health care debate has a classic example. You may have recently seen a television advertisement produced by the Family Research Council that features a senior couple lamenting the fact that the new proposal will mean that while their health care wanes, government-financed abortions will be on the uptick. We didn't even think to plant the abortion canard — they made that one up all on their own.
The final stage is satire. When David Letterman, Conan O'Brien, the Colbert Report, or the Daily Show spoof the story, the VLWC lets out a collective yelp of pleasure, in celebration of a job well done...
I know, dear reader, that I have not fooled you. There is, of course, no VLWC to help make the wing-nuts of the conservative movement look bad. Unfortunately, they do this all on their own.
My sincere hope is that if you listen to the right wing media, you listen with a critical ear, and verify the "facts" that you hear for yourself. The Internet is a double-edged sword here: while it allows misinformation to spread faster and further than ever before, it also allows facts to be checked faster and by more authoritative experts than ever before.
To be fair, I fully acknowledge that the left wing is not immune from the spreading of misinformation. On balance, however, it seems that when there is misinformation to be spread, it starts much further up the right-wing totem pole, lending it gravitas that makes it particularly dangerous.
Coming clean on spreading misinformation
Friends and neighbors, I have decided to come clean. There is some personal risk — I could lose my membership in the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy — but I find I cannot keep our secrets from you any longer.
The truth is that I have been working with VLWC for some time, doing my small part to coordinate and orchestrate some events that would be unbelievable in any novel.
To wit: at our behest, Texas Representative Louie Gohmert recently signed on as co-sponsor to the so-called "birther bill," which would require future presidential candidates to provide irrefutable proof of their eligibility to become president, such as an official state-issued birth certificate. His action brought renewed attention to the bill.
What does Gohmert have to do with the VLWC? While Gohmert purports to be a Republican, in truth, Gohmert has been working for us since his election in 2004. The role of our operatives is to spread misinformation that sounds scary but is easily disproven. The VLWC then sits back to watch the fireworks that ensue.
The VLWC wasn't sure we'd be able to get any traction from the Obama birth certificate controversy. We'd tried to get that ball rolling before the election, but then an Obama staffer, who had not been briefed about the VLWC's tactics, had the candidate's actual Hawaii-issued birth certificate released to the press. It is now easily viewable on the web.
However, after the truth settled in, we decided to resurrect the rumor. Soon, we were delighted to see Republican members of Congress blind-sided by birthers at town hall meetings, demanding that "Obama release his official birth certificate."
The VLWC also assigned Gohmert the task of helping spread the rumor that a current draft of the health care reform bill encourages and actually requires our elderly Medicare population to prepare themselves for euthanasia. As with the birther rumor, we have also assigned other undercover operatives, including Representative Virginia Foxx of North Carolina.
As is typical with our operations, you can quickly see the results of our tinkering on easily-duped websites like the Drudge Report and World Net Daily. Within a few days, and some times within a few hours, the snowball has begun to roll as we pick up the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and Sean Hannity. From there, the path to Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, and the Washington Post is a short one. With the right critical mass, soon the mainstream press is forced to cover the story, and the debunking process begins.
It is here that the rubber really hits the road. Neutral websites like FactCheck.org and Snopes.com weigh in and suddenly the big story is not the information we planted but the fact that the information is false. As time wears on, and the story continues to propagate, those who keep bringing it up move from the mainstream column to the wing-nut column.
Sometimes there are bonus off-shoots of craziness; the health care debate has a classic example. You may have recently seen a television advertisement produced by the Family Research Council that features a senior couple lamenting the fact that the new proposal will mean that while their health care wanes, government-financed abortions will be on the uptick. We didn't even think to plant the abortion canard — they made that one up all on their own.
The final stage is satire. When David Letterman, Conan O'Brien, the Colbert Report, or the Daily Show spoof the story, the VLWC lets out a collective yelp of pleasure, in celebration of a job well done...
I know, dear reader, that I have not fooled you. There is, of course, no VLWC to help make the wing-nuts of the conservative movement look bad. Unfortunately, they do this all on their own.
My sincere hope is that if you listen to the right wing media, you listen with a critical ear, and verify the "facts" that you hear for yourself. The Internet is a double-edged sword here: while it allows misinformation to spread faster and further than ever before, it also allows facts to be checked faster and by more authoritative experts than ever before.
To be fair, I fully acknowledge that the left wing is not immune from the spreading of misinformation. On balance, however, it seems that when there is misinformation to be spread, it starts much further up the right-wing totem pole, lending it gravitas that makes it particularly dangerous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)