Daniel Freilich's Blog
Here we go again. Every time the going gets tough in overseas military operations, Democratic leaders, including Senator Leahy, get nervous, cave to their political base, and publicly communicate doom and gloom conclusions that have risk of causing a self-fulfilling prophecy. Can you imagine the demoralizing effects on our troops and the invigorating effects on the enemy if every WWII setback was accompanied by such public doubt and consideration of giving up by Senate leaders.
According to the BFP (July 27, 2010), “Leahy…said… ‘I’m having more and more questions about our policy in Afghanistan’. … Asked whether or not the U.S. should withdraw its troops, Leahy said, ‘I don’t know…’.” It appears that just when President Obama’s surge policy requires steady hands in Congress (i.e., leaders), Leahy is considering pulling the rug. Constructive critique is good but it would be more helpful for the troops and the Commander-in Chief if Leahy spent more time and effort helping them accomplish their mission rather than predetermining failure.
There is a déjà vu. Remember Leahy’s doubts about the U.S. military’s ability to succeed during the similar Iraq surge? On April 7, 2008, Leahy said, “The reality in Iraq is that…the surge has failed to achieve its central goal…Every day more American servicemen and women are killed or grievously wounded, with no end in sight….” Leahy further urged “A deadline for…swift redeployment of American forces…” (http://www.welch.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=282).
The reality is that due to the fortitude of U.S. troops in the Iraq surge, Iraqi military and government capabilities evolved, some semblance of stability developed, and U.S. troop levels are drawing down to 50,000 by this fall with a partially good outcome from a bad situation (a semi-democratic government with improving self-sufficiency). Had the U.S. heeded Leahy’s conclusions, we would not have gained the military upper hand that led to the stabilization and dramatically reduced U.S. military casualties.
Senator Leahy is clearly bowing to his political base during a contentious primary election but his message is inappropriate and dangerous. We are in the midst of the surge in troop levels ordered by President Obama in Afghanistan. Closer to home, we are also in the midst of the largest deployment of Vermont National Guard troops since WWII. Senator Leahy should support the troops by showing leadership, resolve, and confidence they will accomplish their mission even during dark days.
Tags: Daniel Freilich, Senator Patrick Leahy, Vermont
Posted in Foreign policy, Leadership | No Comments »
It has been said that crises are too precious to waste. However, the federal government is squandering the Gulf oil spill crisis.
President Obama and entrenched Democratic Party leaders such as Senator Leahy appear willing to settle for ‘management’ of the crisis without firm ‘leadership’. I don’t know if the explanation is conflict of interest, ‘old school’ out-of-touch thinking, or lack of vision.
The acute needs are to stop gushing oil, capture spilled oil, clean-up and rehabilitate the Gulf ecosystem, compensate those adversely affected, complete a comprehensive investigation, inspect other rigs to prevent a repeat performance, review and optimize regulations, and hold those responsible accountable (legally and other).
The subacute needs are for the Administration and Congressional Majority to reverse its premature support for expansion of offshore drilling (and nuclear power). At the very least, an indefinite hold should be placed. Judge Brown’s injunction should be appealed.
It is the chronic more fundamental issues that need leadership to rectify. The fact is that our (nonexistent) energy/environment system is not working for us. The overwhelming majority of reputable scientists agree that greenhouse gases, due to man’s carbon emitting activities and deforestation, are the cause of global climate disruption. For doubters, even a 1% chance that the ‘global warming’ story is true should cause alarm.
Security hawks should be alarmed by our foreign dependence and consequent energy insecurity; and by our funding of both sides of the war because oil revenue funds the enemy. Fiscal conservatives should be bothered by the hundreds of billions of dollars we hand over to foreign and often unfriendly regimes; and effects on our balance of trade, national debt, and domestic infrastructure and employment. And for ‘quality of life’ junkies, traffic, noise, sprawl, disappearing open space, air pollution, and high cost should cause alarm.
I wish our leaders would lead and squarely and comprehensively confront this existential, security, economic, and quality-of-life threat to the United States. Lincoln did not shy away from fighting to preserve the Union. FDR did not shy away from confronting the Fascism. Kennedy did not shy away from the moon. The top priority on our leaders’ to-do list should be transformational legislation to convert our economy to one based on clean, renewable, reliable, and abundant non-carbon based energy…not to walk in that direction but to sprint with all our abilities. It is us or them. As a patriot, I prefer we lead the world rather than follow or sit on the sideline watching. The world is waiting for us to lead. Kyoto and Copenhagen x 1,000. And as a patriot who wants to maximally support the troops, I want to cripple the enemy’s economic base.
Republicans must be co-opted to the cause: quite simply, transformational environment/energy reform will not be accomplished until Republicans are on-board and cease rebuffing every step. They must be reminded about energy insecurity and that being environmental is ‘red, white, and blue’ (patriotic), not just ‘green’ (Thomas Friedman).
So, what needs to be done? First, establish a legal time limit for importation of oil (e.g., 15 years). Second establish a legal time limit for use of fossil fuels more generally (e.g., 20 years). Third, cancel subsidies for carbon-based fossil fuels. Fourth, incentivize conversion with a fair carbon tax. Fifth, enact strict mandates, subsidies, and penalties for fuel efficiency and alternative energy use for automobile (e.g., CAFE and low carbon fuel standards) and appliance manufacturers, oil companies, and utilities—partially funded via revenue from the carbon tax. Sixth, enact tax deductions and penalties to incentivize smart building development and design. Seventh, invest massively in mass transit construction in every large metropolis and in inter-city rail between all our cities. Eighth, analogous to the ‘Buy American’ campaign, initiate and implement a ‘Support the Troops, Cut Oil Use’ campaign.
Imagine such a rejuvenation of America…the millions of new jobs in manufacturing, building, installation, plumbers, electricians, engineers, educators, and scientists…the sense of purpose, leadership, and moral certitude…the entrepreneurial, investment, and innovation opportunities…
Senator Leahy, I hope you are reading this.
Tags: Daniel Freilich, Energy insecurity, Environment, Global Warming, Green revolution, Senator Patrick Leahy
Posted in Environment/Energy, Leadership | No Comments »
The impetus behind the 20th century ‘Civil Rights I’ movement was the inequity of some Americans being ‘more equal than others’ based on race and gender. A 21st century version, ‘Civil Rights II’, must be reinvigorated to fight the inequity of some Americans being ‘more equal than others’ based on political power and access (oligarchy). Of course, we must continue to combat racial and gender inequity despite having made significant progress.
During Civil Rights I, some in Congress showed leadership and personal responsibility, changing behavior way before the law caught up and required it. In President Lincoln’s words, they had “firmness in the right as god (gave them) to see the right”. They fought racism often losing elections or being threatened physically due to their courageous and precocious stance. They simply had moral fortitude to know that the fact that a behavior was legal did not make it right. They recalled the infamous Supreme Court Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896) decision that constitutionally legalized ‘separate but equal’ segregation until being reversed decades later by Brown vs. Board of Education (1954).
Similarly, our current leaders should lead in Civil Rights II, work to rectify the imbalance of power and access in our political system, combat apathy and cynicism, and promote sustainable representative democracy. The acceptance of Special Interests money is the basic building block of the inequity of political power and access in our political system, analogous to racist behavior in Civil Rights I. Hence, we need our leaders to step up to the plate and stop partaking in the unethical system despite its legality. Citizens United vs. FEC be damned. Irrelevant and wrong. Simply say “no”.
Vermont has a history of reasonableness and promotion of sustainable values, and America desperately needs its values leadership. Senator Leahy has an opportunity to be a leader in Civil Rights II—to be the first senior member of Congress to simply say “no” to Special Interests campaign funding despite its legality. He could set an example for young people showing one should do what’s right whether required by law or not. He should sign on to our Vermont Political Revolution movement (http://danielfreilich.com/political_revolution.php). He should announce he will no longer take Special Interests campaign funding and will return all of the $1.4 million in Special Interests PAC (Political Action Committee) money he has taken (www.opensecrets.org/politicians/pacs.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00009918&type=I).
It would be a great gesture of leadership and courage and guarantee his legacy in the history books. More importantly, maybe other incumbents and candidates would be shamed into doing the right thing too. Maybe it will begin to return honor to elected public service in America. Maybe it would even lead to a revitalization of sustainable representative democracy in America and help get our groove back as a nation.
Tags: campaign finance reform, conflict of interest, Corruption, Daniel Freilich, personal responsibility, Senator Patrick Leahy, Vermont Political Revolution
Posted in Leadership | No Comments »
As a U.S. Senate candidate in Vermont (D, I), I advocate for FRESH ideas (Fairness, Reasonableness, Equity, Sustainability, and Honorable public service) to ‘get our groove back’ as a nation. But to regain our energy, we need basic game rules that work for all rather than a small powerful elite (an oligarchy). We can’t continue with a system in which a powerful few are so much ‘more equal’ than the rest. It is freighening to recall how often I heard during this campaign the wording of Tracy Chapman’s classic song, ‘Revolution’.
How do we start?
The first step is to transform our representative democracy into one in which the people rather than Special Interests are represented. This is the best means of fighting civic apathy and cynicism and sustaining our democracy. That Americans don’t trust their politicians and assume they are bought out by Special Interests is a cancer in our society.
So, what needs to be done is easy: Vermont must take ownership of its Congressional delegation and only consider candidates who minimize conflict of interest by declining Special Interests money…I call this a Vermont Political Revolution.
What I struggle with is terminology. Words matter.
In many countries, public servants are routinely bribed directly by Special Interests with obvious quid-pro-quo agreements (I scratch your back, you scratch mine). These countries, with common illegal bribery, are considered to have corrupt governments. In the U.S., direct funding by Special Interests to public servants is illegal but indirect contribution to their campaign is legal. Quid-pro-quo agreements are implicit rather than obvious. Our government, with uncommon illegal bribery, is considered to have low corruption.
I consider the distinction to be more academic than real. Either way, public servants are provided goodies by Special Interests with something expected in return. The people suffer either way because the end result is clouded objectivity. Our Congressional representatives are usually more sophisticated than to respond overtly like a puppet after acceptance of Special Interest money. They respond more subtly, sometimes just turning their attention elsewhere. But make no mistake; legislation is influenced either way.
And Vermont?
Senator Leahy has taken more than $1.4 million from Special Interests PACs. He is not the worst but not the best. He and his Senate colleagues play a dangerous game, hiding behind a cloak of supporting campaign finance reform but rationalizing this activity by noting its legality. Vermont Party officials iterate, ‘that is what you have to do to win’.
Back to terminology…
I dislike ‘being negative’ but I abhor sweeping the truth under the rug. I know in my heart that taking Special Interests money is wrong, suggests lack of personal responsibility, poor leadership, and opportunism, and causes America harm. These are polite words.
The question remains: if it quacks and walks like a duck, is it a duck?! If yes, the right words, although harsher and less politically correct, are ‘corruption’, or at least ‘legal corruption’. Once we agree on the right terminology, we can better address the problem.
This conversation is important. What are your thoughts?
Tags: campaign finance reform, conflict of interest, Corruption, Daniel Freilich, personal responsibility, Senator Patrick Leahy, Vermont, Vermont Political Revolution
Posted in Leadership | No Comments »
After speaking at a S Burlington AFL-CIO meeting last week, I saw and heard Senator Leahy speak in person for the first time. My reaction, pity, surprised me, but reinforced the rationale for my challenging the 35-year incumbent.
I spoke about our economy, jobs, healthcare, and our energy/environment crisis, exemplified by the Gulf oil spill disaster. I talked about “fairness, reasonableness, equity, sustainability, and honorable service”. I elaborated about “needless pain” and necessity to work towards economic equity with progressive taxation and national health insurance.
I lamented about the existential, security, economic, and quality-of-life threats of our energy/environment policies. I expounded that the U.S. had ‘lost its groove’ (Thomas Friedman) and about need to commit to cessation of oil importation and transformation to a green non-carbon economy. I compared the national endeavor to the industrial and information revolutions, our equivalent of the Greatest Generation’s call.
I emphasized need to combat apathy and cynicism and revitalize our democracy by requiring better ethical standards for elected officials, whether required by law or not. The words “personal responsibility” were iterated, not insisting on lofty unrealistic tenets…just those already required of non-elected officials. Commitment to term limits, minimizing conflicts of interest by declining campaign funds from Special Interests, and putting Country ahead of Party by not ‘automatically caucasing’, was urged.
In contrast, the incumbent repeated stories about his personal history and successes. He discussed tactical issues related to current Congressional bills. He noted his first Special Interests campaign funding and the $1 billion in “stimulus” money he brought to Vermont. Jeff Potvin (AFL-CIO) subsequently clarified that most of the funds went to contractors, little to workers, continuing the time-honored process of the “rich getting richer”.
What made me feel pity for the Senator was absence of broad vision, neither acknowledgment of the dramatic strategic national and global problems we face, nor solutions. The Senator had ‘lost his groove’, as America has. Financial pain of many Americans, the Gulf, global warming, economic collapse, war…nothing really.
Mr. Leahy had clearly been living in the Senate microcosm for too long. I recalled similar conversations with friends/colleagues in which preoccupation with tactical minutia confirmed loss of big picture, ‘there too long’, and ‘time to move on’.
The experience confirmed the insight of the American people who simply want old guard management out and new leadership in ‘to get our groove back’ before it is too late.
Tags: conflict of interest, Daniel Freilich, equity, fairness, Green revolution, personal responsibility, Senator Patrick Leahy
Posted in Leadership | No Comments »
Vermont news outlets reported yesterday on funds raised to date by VT Senate candidates but they provided no information on the origins of the funds nor the political principles used to raise them.
According to OpenSecrets.Org, Senator Leahy has taken about $1.4 million in PAC funds during his career—64% from business, 17% from labor, and 19% from ideological/single issue PACs (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00009918&type=I).
Just in this 2010 election cycle, Senator Leahy has taken more than $600,000 in PAC funds, including about $27,000 from Pharmaceuticals/Health Products companies with the following names: Amylin Pharm, Biogen Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim Corp, Cephalon Inc, Generic Pharm Assn, GlaxoSmithKline, Life Techn Corp, Mylan Inc, Pharm Research and Manufacturers of America (PhaRMA), Teva Pharm USA, and Watson Pharm. The FEC website (http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_10+S4VT00017) has Senator Leahy’s 2010 PAC funds at about $579,000. In addition to contributions by the Pharm/Health products companies listed above, Pfizer Inc is also listed. Many of the health care-related contributions were likely received during the course of deliberations about health care reform, potentially affecting his ability to objectively represent Vermonters without conflict of interest.
I am uncertain if the summaries are up to date and include the last quarter’s filing but one gets the idea.
In a recent Vermont Public Radio interview, Mr. Leahy appropriately lamented about the adverse effects on our democracy of the Supreme Court’s recent Citizens United decision. The Court reversed years of precedent that disallowed companies and unions from funding advertisements in the last weeks prior to elections. The decision has opened flood gates for limitless corporate funding favoring or opposing any public policy during elections. However, Mr. Leahy’s stated vs. practiced campaign finance political principles are inconsistent. As he has been a player in the Washington game of corporate PAC financing of his campaigns for years, in principle, he clearly believes in corporate campaign financing. One cannot cherry pick political ethics; either one plays the game or one does not.
I advocate for a Vermont Political Revolution, whereby we Vermonters insist on optimal ethics from our elected officials (http://www.danielfreilich.com/political_revolution.php). What we really need is comprehensive campaign finance reform, but in the interim, we should insist on ‘personal responsibility’, whether required by law or not. If we want more personal responsibility in the general population, our leaders must set an example. Ethical standards for elected officials should be the same as those for non-elected officials.
As such, I believe in and will abide by the following political principles:
All significant potential conflicts of interest should be avoided. Vermont candidates and elected officials should NOT accept PAC and/or other Special Interest campaign funding. Where they have accepted such funding, they should recuse themselves from voting on relevant issues.
Congressional representatives should self-impose term limits to minimize patronage and potential for financial and other potential personal conflicts that go along with a life-long political career in Washington.
Finally, they should affirm to Vermonters that they will not automatically ‘caucus’ with their party and will always endeavor to understand what is best for America and Vermont and vote accordingly. They should not misplace their loyalty in favor of Party over Country and State.
Back to the point: I have not and will not accept any PAC or Special Interest funding; my campaign relies entirely on individual contributions.
I hope all VT candidates will commit to the same governance principles.
Posted in Announcements | 1 Comment »
Hi everybody from Franklin County,
Grassroots campaigning in Franklin and Orleans Counties today. Lots of anger on both sides of the political spectrum about the recently passed health care bill, ‘pay raises’ for Congress, and special exclusions in the health care bill. As an aside, during recent campaigning at the Vermont Law School in South Royalton, a number of people commented that the Democratic leadership’s maintenance of the middleman (insurance companies) in the health care bill but deletion of the middleman in the ‘associated’ student loan bill (banks) appears ‘inconsistent’ (at best).
Also, lots of anger about ‘politicians being politicians’. The concept of ‘personal responsibility’ invoked in our campaign’s Vermont Political Revolution resonates with people from both parties…
A positive anecdote in politics for a change: Paul Beaudry had me on True North radio yesterday (a conservative talk show). He is apparently considering running for Congress. He and I expressed our respect for each other and our sides of the story despite policy differences of opinion and signed each other’s petition to get on the ballot. A caller called in amazed at the professional, cordial, and positive interaction between a Democratic candidate for the US Senate and a prospective conservative Republican candidate for Congress. We REALLY could use more of that. Respectful and honest discussion breeds more of just that.
BTW, please consider voting on Kevin Molduene’s (campaign manager) logo competition (see campaign website homepage).
Thanks, Dan F
PS Will try to blog more regularly.
Posted in Announcements | No Comments »
Senator Leahy visited FAHC today to publicize a $1.7 million earmark he secured for a new Simulator Training Program. However, despite the merits of this program, it would be preferable for Vermont’s congressional delegation to remember the bigger picture. Addressing easy pet projects at the expense of proactive leadership on the difficult elephants in the room is not leadership; it is management… bad management…and a classic rookie mistake.
Small projects like this one are all very nice but 15% of the population remains uninsured, millions more are under-insured, are at risk of losing their health insurance, or remain in nonproductive and thankless jobs simply to maintain their employer-based health insurance. As well, we spend twice as much on health care as almost all industrialized nations on the globe, amounting to 16-20% of our GDP. This cost is unsustainable, is bankrupting America, is causing a significant competitive disadvantage for our businesses and entrepreneurs, and is part of the root cause of our economic mess, budget deficit, and unemployment situation.
Lawmakers who are in touch, open-minded, objective, not conflicted by Special Interests contributions, and committed to figuring out the best way to address America’s health care, economy, and jobs maladies, would recognize that a national health insurance program (Medicare for All) would be the best medicine. This is the only type of reform that can concomitantly make America a better place (universal coverage, improved provider choice) and transformationally improve our economic competitiveness, national debt, and jobs situation (by saving HUNDREDS of BILLION dollars annually). Experts predict savings of $400 billion on administrative costs, $100 billion on drugs costs, and $45 billion on ‘uninsured’ costs. Tort reform could save an additional $50 billion annually. At the very least, lawmakers with these credentials would have co-sponsored Senator Sanders’ Single Payer Amendment last December to at least DISCUSS this promising solution publicly.
Being holed up in Washington for thirty five years would cause anyone to become out of touch and lose ability to feel the condition of most Americans. That would explain Senator Leahy’s prioritization of ‘competition’ as an important health care reform goal. ‘Competition’ should be construed a means to an end (a potential tool for improving health care), not an end onto itself. Its benefits not withstanding in other industries, competition has failed to achieve reasonable access and cost effectiveness for the public good, health care, in America. Thus, Senator Leahy would be wise to look outside the box, abandon ‘old school’ concepts, and be more evidence-based and courageous in his decisions. Almost all Vermonters I speak to are tired of policy decision making based on short-sighted political expectation and conflicts of interest rather than ‘best practice’ for America. Senator Leahy’s over staying of his welcome in Washington, may have nullified his biggest asset, experience.
Posted in Announcements | No Comments »
The New York Times ran an article recently summarizing the following stats about upper uppper upper income individuals in the U.S.:
–400 tax payers had an average income of $345 million/year.
–Their average federal tax burden was 16.6%.
I did some simple back of the envelope type math.
The tax revenue from these tax payers then was $22,908,000,000.
But what if their income was taxed like most Americans with earned income without the usual breaks afforded high income earners (regressive payroll tax rates, low capital gains tax rates, etc.)? For the sake of simplicity, I’ll assume ALL of their income was taxed at 35% (the current highest marginal tax rate for income taxes)–admittedly, these tax payers would be taxed at lower rates for the first few tax brackets but this over simplification should not have a significant effect on the overall calculation and point. There are deductions that would also lower the actual tax burden too but for simplicity I didn’t calculate these right now. I also didn’t include theoretical effects of raising taxes on high income earners (while lowering taxes on middle income earners) on GDP and therefore on tax revenue (Laffer curve enthusiasts etc…).
At a 35% tax rate, more commensurate with tax rates earned income Americans are used to, these tax payers might have paid $48,300,000,000, providing potential for an additional $25,392,000,000 in revenue to the treasury. Thus, the regressive nature of our federal tax system resulted in loss of about $25 billion dollars in revenue from ONLY 400 tax payers. Can you imagine how much more revenue is lost from high income individuals in the U.S. who are taxed at a similarly unfairly low rate? No wonder property taxes are so high in Vermont. The State needs revenue from somewhere and high income earners are not paying their fair share to the federal government…resulting in low distributions to States.
Such observations demonstrate why we need tax reform in the U.S., returning fair and reasonable progressivity to federal taxation. It is simply unequitable for hard working Americans to be paying 28-35% federal income taxes, while extremely wealthy Americans end up paying little in federal taxes!
We should:
1. Increase progressivity to the federal income tax (increase the upper marginal tax rate from the current 35% to 50%).
2. Add progressivity to the long term capital gains tax so low and middle income earners might be able to garner some benefit from this capital investment incentive of the federal government.
3. Add progressivity to payroll (FICA) taxes–Medicare, Social Security. That responsibility for supporting Social Security ends at $106,800 is so cynical, it is almost laughable. Social Security withholdings should apply to income above this amount too so the burden of supporting Social Security is borne fairly by all. FICA taxes should be applied to all forms of income as well, not just income taxes.
4. Eliminate and/or reduce the tax exclusion for employer-based health insurance for high income earners.
5. Tax hedge fund income as ‘earned income’ (income tax rates).
6. Divide the increased revenue as follows: One third–allocate towards LOWERING income tax rates on middle income earners; one third–allocate towards debt reduction; and one third–allocate to other social services.
Tags: capital gains tax, fairness, income tax, payroll tax, Progressive taxation, revenue
Posted in Taxation | No Comments »
Yesterday’s bipartisan summit on health care reform was a breath of fresh air even if it didn’t accomplish much that is substantive. I didn’t see the whole meeting but I don’t think the Single-Payer option, the only form of reform likely to transformationally improve out health care system, received significant (or even any) discussion. Nevertheless, just the fact that Democrats and Republicans sat in a conference room and debated health care reform in a public and civil manner is a quite the accomplishment.
Talking about more substantive stuff, credit card reform went fully into effect this week too—a consequence of Congress having passed the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 — the Credit CARD Act.
The new act should provide some semblance of consumer protection:
The new law makes it more difficult for credit card companies to increase interest rates at will.
The new law makes credit card companies more clearly disclose real credit card costs.
The new law puts restrictions on credit card fees.
The new law requires grace periods so consumers can more easily pay their bills on time.
The new law requires cardholder permission for over-the-limit charging.
The new law requires a co-signer for those under 21 unless financially independent.
This is an accomplishment President Obama and Congressional leaders should be proud of!
Tags: Credit Card Act, Single payer health insurance, Single-payer health insurance system
Posted in Announcements, Health care reform | No Comments »
| 
