This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on December 23, 2009.
Despite its flaws, pass the bill
Democrats are in a fine mess now. The public is watching closely to see what kind of health care reform the Democrats can actually pass. Even with sizable majorities in both houses of Congress, the sixty vote majority needed to stop debate in the Senate has been hard to find.
Part of the problem is one of the Democratic Party's strengths — the fact that it is a large tent, happy to encompass a wide diversity of opinion and position. This does, however, make the Party vulnerable to dissenters.
A major problem recently has been Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, who threatened to hold up the health care bill unless he managed to have anti-abortion language added. Despite the opposition of many Democrats, Nelson had his way.
Independent Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman is another problem. He was, of course, a long-time Democrat, but defected from the party to run as an independent when primary voters managed to knock him out of the running for his seat as a Democrat in 2006. He has since been something of a curmudgeon, becoming a unknown quantity. Will he stick with his previous statements or will he allow his position to shift with the political winds?
The job of a Senator is to take how he feels about the issue at hand, and to combine that with how his constituents feel and his party platform. These three interests are often competing, and for both Senators Lieberman and Nelson, along with some others who have been on the fence, such as Maine's Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, the pull of one interest can sway their statements, their negotiations, their votes.
The problem, from my perspective, is when things are this close (close, of course, being a relative term, since there are more than enough votes for the full-on health care reform bill, complete with consumer protections and a public option — the closeness is in that insane cloture vote), the vote of one Senator can trump what's right, what's best for the country.
I understand Governor Howard Dean's frustration, and his call for the health care bill, in its current stripped-down form, be defeated by those who support true reform. I listened to his arguments with a wide-open mind. His suggestion is to kill the bill and use the reconciliation process, a special process for budget bills, which many have argued the health care bill can reasonably be considered, to pass something closer to what the House passed in November.
The biggest problem Dean has with the current bill is that it does nothing to combat the monopoly that the insurance industry has over the health care industry. In fact, it plays into the insurance industry's hands by requiring the uninsured to buy insurance, or face fines. The uninsured cannot choose a government-run plan, because there isn't one. The insurance industry loves this bill. The people want real choices, Dean says, and with this bill, there are no choices.
He feels the real reforms in the bill, such as the elimination of pre-existing conditions, funding for wellness and prevention programs, and support for community health care centers, should be pulled out, placed in a separate bill, and passed on their own.
He also must feel, considering his former job as chair of the Democratic National Committee, that the current bill be be a blow to Democrats in the 2010 elections — given the majorities Democrats have, we should be able to accomplish more. Will the voters give the Democrats another chance to get the work of government done?
Despite my deep respect for Governor Dean, and the appeal of his suggestion, I don't think that Democrats should take the advice. The current bill is sorely lacking in many areas, but one thing is agreed by all left-wing commentators: this bill, as it is now, will save lives. Yes, it will add undeserved profit to the insurance industry; but in the end, people who otherwise would have died will live.
We can blame many, perhaps even most, of the problems with the bill on the necessity to accommodate the single, contrarian Senator. But despite that, we do have a bill that does something substantive, something real and good. It gives the Democrats something to hang their hats on in 2010, even if it is not what all of us would have liked to see.
The bill should be supported, it should be passed, it should become law.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Finishing the job in Afghanistan
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on December 10, 2009.
Finishing the job in Afghanistan
After the United States joined World War 2, the Allies had victory over the Axis war machine in less than four years. In doing so, the United States lost over 400,000 soldiers. Few, then or now, doubted that the war was necessary.
Our war in Afghanistan, by contrast, is very different. The first boots hit the ground in 2001, making this war eight years old, with the end only just a nebulous plan.
This war is not a war against a nation or alliance of nations. Our enemy has no capital to capture, no president to arrest. We all want victory, but few can express exactly what victory in the larger war means.
One reason that we are still in Afghanistan now, and will be for years to come, is that we were distracted from this fight by the war in Iraq. While our efforts in Iraq wane, and with the touch of a new commander in chief, we have been reminded of our unfinished business in Afghanistan.
The other reason I've already alluded to — our enemy is not a people, a country, or even a government. It is a loose alliance of organizations, with decentralized command, constantly moving troops, and with often-reluctant support from the people. Worse, they know no borders, and all that does is complicate matters even further.
The president's new plan for Afghanistan is relatively simple: to provide 30,000 additional troops to the war and to be in a position to begin pulling out again in 18 months.
To some, those on the left especially, any extension of the war is a broken promise. By the time the expansion is complete, the United States will have 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. This is a far cry from Obama's campaign promise to end the wars and bring all the troops home.
Obama, however, has called the Afghanistan conflict the "right war", contrasting it with the Iraq conflict, the "wrong war." It is not surprising, then, that Obama would want to finish what the United States started in Afghanistan. We have fulfilled only part of what we set out to do. We have removed the Taliban from power, and a new government has been put into place.
These successes are not without issue.
The Taliban is no longer in power, but it is still a threat. Afghanistan security forces must be in a position to oppose and suppress uprisings after we leave, and we must get Pakistan to join the effort in earnest.
The Afghan government is seriously flawed, with corruption and graft the seeming norm, and the results of the last election are a nagging question. In an area with a history like Afghanistan, however, it is a wonder they are as far along as they are.
On the right, the president's plan to begin pull-outs in 18 months is seen as a sign of weakness, a signal to the enemy that all they need to do is wait us out and they can have free reign again. These criticisms ignore too much, though. The president never said we would pull out in 18 months, only that pull-outs could begin then. This past weekend, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was clear that if the situation does not warrant a withdrawal, one will not happen.
As if to make the point even clearer, United States forces began offensives into Taliban-held towns in Afghanistan almost as soon as the president's announcement was made.
I don't want us to be in Afghanistan a moment longer than we have to be, and as 1500 Vermont Guard forces prepare to deploy there, I don't want any more of our soldiers to have to die over there. But at the same time, we made a commitment to bring peace and stability to the region. We took our eyes off that ball for a long time, and it is time we refocus there, do what we said we would do, and then get out.
The Afghan War may never have the equivalent of a VJ Day, with soldiers and civilians celebrating victory in Times Square. I would give up a thousand VJ Day celebrations to know that the people of Afghanistan have peace, stability, jobs, and prosperity, and no need for the Taliban. When that happens, when hope returns to the Afghan people, then we will have won, and we can bring all of our troops home with the knowledge that we kept our promises.
Finishing the job in Afghanistan
After the United States joined World War 2, the Allies had victory over the Axis war machine in less than four years. In doing so, the United States lost over 400,000 soldiers. Few, then or now, doubted that the war was necessary.
Our war in Afghanistan, by contrast, is very different. The first boots hit the ground in 2001, making this war eight years old, with the end only just a nebulous plan.
This war is not a war against a nation or alliance of nations. Our enemy has no capital to capture, no president to arrest. We all want victory, but few can express exactly what victory in the larger war means.
One reason that we are still in Afghanistan now, and will be for years to come, is that we were distracted from this fight by the war in Iraq. While our efforts in Iraq wane, and with the touch of a new commander in chief, we have been reminded of our unfinished business in Afghanistan.
The other reason I've already alluded to — our enemy is not a people, a country, or even a government. It is a loose alliance of organizations, with decentralized command, constantly moving troops, and with often-reluctant support from the people. Worse, they know no borders, and all that does is complicate matters even further.
The president's new plan for Afghanistan is relatively simple: to provide 30,000 additional troops to the war and to be in a position to begin pulling out again in 18 months.
To some, those on the left especially, any extension of the war is a broken promise. By the time the expansion is complete, the United States will have 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. This is a far cry from Obama's campaign promise to end the wars and bring all the troops home.
Obama, however, has called the Afghanistan conflict the "right war", contrasting it with the Iraq conflict, the "wrong war." It is not surprising, then, that Obama would want to finish what the United States started in Afghanistan. We have fulfilled only part of what we set out to do. We have removed the Taliban from power, and a new government has been put into place.
These successes are not without issue.
The Taliban is no longer in power, but it is still a threat. Afghanistan security forces must be in a position to oppose and suppress uprisings after we leave, and we must get Pakistan to join the effort in earnest.
The Afghan government is seriously flawed, with corruption and graft the seeming norm, and the results of the last election are a nagging question. In an area with a history like Afghanistan, however, it is a wonder they are as far along as they are.
On the right, the president's plan to begin pull-outs in 18 months is seen as a sign of weakness, a signal to the enemy that all they need to do is wait us out and they can have free reign again. These criticisms ignore too much, though. The president never said we would pull out in 18 months, only that pull-outs could begin then. This past weekend, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was clear that if the situation does not warrant a withdrawal, one will not happen.
As if to make the point even clearer, United States forces began offensives into Taliban-held towns in Afghanistan almost as soon as the president's announcement was made.
I don't want us to be in Afghanistan a moment longer than we have to be, and as 1500 Vermont Guard forces prepare to deploy there, I don't want any more of our soldiers to have to die over there. But at the same time, we made a commitment to bring peace and stability to the region. We took our eyes off that ball for a long time, and it is time we refocus there, do what we said we would do, and then get out.
The Afghan War may never have the equivalent of a VJ Day, with soldiers and civilians celebrating victory in Times Square. I would give up a thousand VJ Day celebrations to know that the people of Afghanistan have peace, stability, jobs, and prosperity, and no need for the Taliban. When that happens, when hope returns to the Afghan people, then we will have won, and we can bring all of our troops home with the knowledge that we kept our promises.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
It's Time to Kill the Filibuster
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on November 25, 2009.
It's Time to Kill the Filibuster
A few weeks ago in these pages, I took issue with those who insist we live in a democracy, explaining that a democracy is not an ideal system for a population of any significant size. Our system of representative democracy, where we hire, or elect, people to represent us, is a much better way of running a government.
Along with this indirect form of representation, we have protections in our system to ensure that the majority does not act as a tyrant. Our constitutions, for example, protect the freedoms of all, especially those of the minority.
Given all this, I feel the time is right to rail against one of my least favorite "features" of our legislative process — the filibuster.
The word derives from a Dutch term for a type of pirate. The term was first applied to American adventurers who sought to overthrow Central American governments in the 19th century, and was transferred to Senators who attempt to do the same to legislation.
The filibuster has a long history. At their inception, both houses of Congress allowed for unlimited debate — which is a fancy way of saying that a member of Congress could talk for as long as they wished, on any subject. While the member spoke, no other business could be conducted. If you could get two-like minded members to team up, that house of Congress would grind to a halt.
This is the exact opposite of a democratic principle, a tyranny of one.
The House long ago did away with this practice, as the number of Representatives rose. The Senate, however, retains the practice. For over 100 years, there was no way to stop debate. In 1917, the Senate created the cloture rule. Under the cloture rule, if enough Senators vote to stop debate, it stops. Originally, the number needed to invoke cloture was two-thirds, or 67 Senators in today's Senate. In 1975, the number needed to invoke cloture was reduced to three-fifths, or 60 Senators.
There have been several famous filibusters through history. Some are the stuff of legend — Huey Long, Democrat of Louisiana, filibustered the Senate multiple times in the 1930s, as he railed against legislation he felt gave too much to America's upper class. He entertained the nation by reading the phone book, Shakespeare, and the Bible into the public record.
Some filibusters had nothing short of evil intent. Strom Thurmond, Democrat (and Republican) of South Carolina, filibustered for over 24 hours to stop civil rights legislation in 1957. Other anti-civil rights filibusters were the norm until 1964, when the Senate was finally able to move the issue forward.
We have made some progress from the tyranny of one, to the tyranny of the third, to the tyranny of the two-fifths. I am a proponent for the protection of the minority, but the main protection for the minority is the Constitution, not an arcane Senate rule. It is time, has been time for a long time, to remove this technical procedure altogether.
Lest you think that this is just some sour grapes, the result of the recent close vote on cloture to allow the Senate's version of the health care bill to come to the floor, I admit that's part of it. It isn't like I sit around mulling over the filibuster and cloture every day.
But the recent vote only brought the issue to the foreground. I've disliked the filibuster and cloture for as long as I can remember. I would support doing away with it when the Senate is controlled by Republicans, too.
Not only is the filibuster anti-democratic, it is also ripe for abuse. Recent reports that Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu's vote for cloture was bought with a $100 million gift to Louisiana is just another side of the problem — to get to cloture, the majority party might be willing to buy votes.
Whether that happened here or not is not relevant — what is relevant is that it can happen, that it has happened before, that it will happen again.
I'm thankful that the Senate voted to allow the health care bill to come to the floor for debate. It is a good step in the right direction. Once we have this important piece of legislation properly vetted, debated, amended, and passed, hopefully the Senate will take a close look at its rules, and decide that the time of the filibuster has long since gone.
Note: The orginally published text said "tyrrany of the quarter" — this text corrects that to "tyranny of the third."
It's Time to Kill the Filibuster
A few weeks ago in these pages, I took issue with those who insist we live in a democracy, explaining that a democracy is not an ideal system for a population of any significant size. Our system of representative democracy, where we hire, or elect, people to represent us, is a much better way of running a government.
Along with this indirect form of representation, we have protections in our system to ensure that the majority does not act as a tyrant. Our constitutions, for example, protect the freedoms of all, especially those of the minority.
Given all this, I feel the time is right to rail against one of my least favorite "features" of our legislative process — the filibuster.
The word derives from a Dutch term for a type of pirate. The term was first applied to American adventurers who sought to overthrow Central American governments in the 19th century, and was transferred to Senators who attempt to do the same to legislation.
The filibuster has a long history. At their inception, both houses of Congress allowed for unlimited debate — which is a fancy way of saying that a member of Congress could talk for as long as they wished, on any subject. While the member spoke, no other business could be conducted. If you could get two-like minded members to team up, that house of Congress would grind to a halt.
This is the exact opposite of a democratic principle, a tyranny of one.
The House long ago did away with this practice, as the number of Representatives rose. The Senate, however, retains the practice. For over 100 years, there was no way to stop debate. In 1917, the Senate created the cloture rule. Under the cloture rule, if enough Senators vote to stop debate, it stops. Originally, the number needed to invoke cloture was two-thirds, or 67 Senators in today's Senate. In 1975, the number needed to invoke cloture was reduced to three-fifths, or 60 Senators.
There have been several famous filibusters through history. Some are the stuff of legend — Huey Long, Democrat of Louisiana, filibustered the Senate multiple times in the 1930s, as he railed against legislation he felt gave too much to America's upper class. He entertained the nation by reading the phone book, Shakespeare, and the Bible into the public record.
Some filibusters had nothing short of evil intent. Strom Thurmond, Democrat (and Republican) of South Carolina, filibustered for over 24 hours to stop civil rights legislation in 1957. Other anti-civil rights filibusters were the norm until 1964, when the Senate was finally able to move the issue forward.
We have made some progress from the tyranny of one, to the tyranny of the third, to the tyranny of the two-fifths. I am a proponent for the protection of the minority, but the main protection for the minority is the Constitution, not an arcane Senate rule. It is time, has been time for a long time, to remove this technical procedure altogether.
Lest you think that this is just some sour grapes, the result of the recent close vote on cloture to allow the Senate's version of the health care bill to come to the floor, I admit that's part of it. It isn't like I sit around mulling over the filibuster and cloture every day.
But the recent vote only brought the issue to the foreground. I've disliked the filibuster and cloture for as long as I can remember. I would support doing away with it when the Senate is controlled by Republicans, too.
Not only is the filibuster anti-democratic, it is also ripe for abuse. Recent reports that Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu's vote for cloture was bought with a $100 million gift to Louisiana is just another side of the problem — to get to cloture, the majority party might be willing to buy votes.
Whether that happened here or not is not relevant — what is relevant is that it can happen, that it has happened before, that it will happen again.
I'm thankful that the Senate voted to allow the health care bill to come to the floor for debate. It is a good step in the right direction. Once we have this important piece of legislation properly vetted, debated, amended, and passed, hopefully the Senate will take a close look at its rules, and decide that the time of the filibuster has long since gone.
Note: The orginally published text said "tyrrany of the quarter" — this text corrects that to "tyranny of the third."
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Remembering All of Our Honored Veterans
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on November 12, 2009.
Remembering All of Our Honored Veterans
I was having a relaxed lunch with my grandmother the other day, when the subject of Veterans Day came up. The day, set aside to honor all military veterans, is a state and national holiday, but not a day off for most businesses or schools. GE, where I work, does give all of its American employees Veterans Day off, which prompted the turn of conversation.
She spoke of my grandfather's time away during World War 2, but more specifically of what she was doing during those times. While he was off serving in Italy, she was trying to make ends meet back in Massachusetts, with a new-born daughter to take care of.
She told of finding a place to live and work, taking care of the children of a school headmaster; of the friendships my mother, as a toddler, made with his children; of the family dinners they were welcomed at and the dinners where she was expected to help serve the guests.
She told of my grandfather's homecoming, and how he was expected home in the afternoon, but surprised them by arriving in the morning instead. She told of his meeting his daughter for the first time.
As I listened to these stories of "home," a specific feeling began to tug at me — I'll get to that feeling in a moment.
Technically, I am one of the veterans whom we honored yesterday. I served in the National Guard for five years in the early nineties. I feel embarrassed to be included in the category, though. I never saw any combat, never even left the country. I and my comrades watched the invasion of Iraq in Desert Storm from the comfort of our living rooms in Vermont, from the comfort of our armory in Swanton.
I feel like I sacrificed nothing more than a few summers in Kentucky, one weekend a month in exotic locales like Jericho, or a few weeks away at far-off Fort Drum. Compared to those veterans who spent years away from home, with those who endured gunfire and artillery, my service was a walk in the park.
My children ask me, from time to time, about what I did in the Army. I have fond memories of my Southern drill sergeants, of the young men from Vermont and New Hampshire that I trained with, of driving tanks through the backwoods of Camp Johnson, of firing shells at plywood cutouts in the hills of the Ethan Allen Firing Range, of waving to the cheering crowds from a perch atop my tank as we drove down the street during a Fourth of July parade.
I tell them that I served in the Guard because I felt it was the least I could do. That I hoped because of what I did and what countless others before me and since had done, that they might never have to put on a uniform. But if they did, that they would join a proud American tradition of military service.
Which brings me back to that feeling — the feeling that while we honor our veterans, we should also honor those they left behind. The spouses who raised the children while the soldier was away. The parents who wished for some news, but not the wrong kind of news. The civilians who endured the shortages and rationing. These people are also veterans of a different sort, and as we honor those who served, I feel that we should also honor those who supported those who served.
In June of this year, according to the Department of Defense, U.S. military personnel were serving in 150 countries across the world, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, from the single soldier in Guyana to 171,000 personnel in Iraq. Significant numbers are also serving in Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, Djibouti, Belgium, Turkey, and Bahrain.
These men and women currently serving join an estimated 43 million other veterans who have served the United States since the Revolutionary War. Hopefully you were able to take a few moments yesterday to remember all of these people, and to remember those who supported them back at home.
For it is because of "home" that they serve at all.
Remembering All of Our Honored Veterans
I was having a relaxed lunch with my grandmother the other day, when the subject of Veterans Day came up. The day, set aside to honor all military veterans, is a state and national holiday, but not a day off for most businesses or schools. GE, where I work, does give all of its American employees Veterans Day off, which prompted the turn of conversation.
She spoke of my grandfather's time away during World War 2, but more specifically of what she was doing during those times. While he was off serving in Italy, she was trying to make ends meet back in Massachusetts, with a new-born daughter to take care of.
She told of finding a place to live and work, taking care of the children of a school headmaster; of the friendships my mother, as a toddler, made with his children; of the family dinners they were welcomed at and the dinners where she was expected to help serve the guests.
She told of my grandfather's homecoming, and how he was expected home in the afternoon, but surprised them by arriving in the morning instead. She told of his meeting his daughter for the first time.
As I listened to these stories of "home," a specific feeling began to tug at me — I'll get to that feeling in a moment.
Technically, I am one of the veterans whom we honored yesterday. I served in the National Guard for five years in the early nineties. I feel embarrassed to be included in the category, though. I never saw any combat, never even left the country. I and my comrades watched the invasion of Iraq in Desert Storm from the comfort of our living rooms in Vermont, from the comfort of our armory in Swanton.
I feel like I sacrificed nothing more than a few summers in Kentucky, one weekend a month in exotic locales like Jericho, or a few weeks away at far-off Fort Drum. Compared to those veterans who spent years away from home, with those who endured gunfire and artillery, my service was a walk in the park.
My children ask me, from time to time, about what I did in the Army. I have fond memories of my Southern drill sergeants, of the young men from Vermont and New Hampshire that I trained with, of driving tanks through the backwoods of Camp Johnson, of firing shells at plywood cutouts in the hills of the Ethan Allen Firing Range, of waving to the cheering crowds from a perch atop my tank as we drove down the street during a Fourth of July parade.
I tell them that I served in the Guard because I felt it was the least I could do. That I hoped because of what I did and what countless others before me and since had done, that they might never have to put on a uniform. But if they did, that they would join a proud American tradition of military service.
Which brings me back to that feeling — the feeling that while we honor our veterans, we should also honor those they left behind. The spouses who raised the children while the soldier was away. The parents who wished for some news, but not the wrong kind of news. The civilians who endured the shortages and rationing. These people are also veterans of a different sort, and as we honor those who served, I feel that we should also honor those who supported those who served.
In June of this year, according to the Department of Defense, U.S. military personnel were serving in 150 countries across the world, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, from the single soldier in Guyana to 171,000 personnel in Iraq. Significant numbers are also serving in Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, Djibouti, Belgium, Turkey, and Bahrain.
These men and women currently serving join an estimated 43 million other veterans who have served the United States since the Revolutionary War. Hopefully you were able to take a few moments yesterday to remember all of these people, and to remember those who supported them back at home.
For it is because of "home" that they serve at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)