Daniel Freilich's Blog
Is ethical consistency too much to ask for from Vermont’s U.S. Senate candidates?
Senator Leahy is living two lives.
In one, he preaches campaign finance reform, laments the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. FEC, and critiques Afghan government corruption. Regarding Citizens United, he (correctly) stated, the decision “Creates new rights for Wall Street at the expense of Main Street” (01/28/10). Regarding Afghanistan, he (correctly) stated “The corruption level in Afghanistan is extraordinary” (8/24/10).
But in the other hand, he has accepted more than $1.5 million in campaign contributions from Political Action Committees (PACs), mostly from corporations? The full truth is that Citizens United, Afghan corruption, and acceptance of Special Interests money by American politicians (e.g., Leahy), all lead to impaired objectivity and conflicts of interest by elected representatives. As the Senator plays the game, who is he to criticize?
Senator Leahy should acknowledge he has joined the ‘dark side’ and stop complaining about corruption; after all, he has joined the American game of legal corruption. Or he should come back from the ‘dark side’ and stop taking Special Interests money whether required by law or not. He can’t have it both ways. It is called honor and personal responsibility. I implore the Senator to utilize his power and prestige to lead, combat apathy and cynicism, and strengthen American representative democracy.
I commend the initial efforts by the Republican candidate, Len Britton. He decried the taking of Special Interests money in the months prior to the Primary. But pressure to do everything he can to win apparently caught up with him. According to the Burlington Free Press (8/24/10), “He (Britton) said rejecting PAC donations was ‘a political outsider’s mistake’.” Len, please return from the ‘dark side’ before it is too late and you are tainted and become a political insider.
The hypocrisy and inconsistency of Vermont’s major Party U.S. Senate candidates are typical of politicians nowadays so I’m not surprised. They think they NEED Special Interests money to win but it’s a WANT not a NEED. We have to stop giving them a pass and take back Congress. America’s middle class, democracy, economy, and future can’t wait. Nor can the planet frankly.
I remain committed to ethical values of a Vermont Political Revolution: term limits, no Special Interests money, and always putting Country ahead of Party.
Posted in Announcements | No Comments »
So, Wall Street is again thriving. Stock prices are bullish. Finance managers are cashing in on great salaries. Executive bonuses are flourishing. Sushi, imported wines, designer fashion, and BMWs are being bought. All in all, things are looking good again for the elite in our society.
But most Americans are not thriving. They don’t have expendable income to have invested in stocks in the first place or they already sold whatever they had at a loss just to pay the bills. Many are unemployed with no realistic prospect of a real job. Many of them have no health insurance. Most are having wages eroded, with lower wages per se, fewer hours, and/or lesser benefits. Those who have health insurance are finding higher deductibles and copayments. Their employers claim to ‘provide coverage’, but less and less is covered, in effect, lowering their wages.
Monthly bills for basic services pile up on the kitchen table. Each month, families decide which one not to pay that month. Even if they pay their bills, they do not save, precluding meaningful prospect of improving their lot. College education expenses are soaring such that many young adults simply give up and use their high school diploma for unskilled service jobs.
Our leaders could solve structural issues to help middle class Americans ‘pick themselves up by the boot straps’. So their pain is needless.
But no. Our leaders are not in any hurry. Why should they be? They are paid off by corporations and part of the quid pro quo of the campaign contributions is an expectation that they will turn a blind eye.
Senator Leahy is the second most senior member of the U.S. Senate. He could use his power to fight for the middle class. But no. He is content to throw a few crumbs to appease the masses even without meaningful reform. Currently, he has an opportunity to fight for middle class tax cuts. But to do that, he would have to fight to pay for them by removing tax loopholes for the rich. That would require angering the rich and powerful who fund his campaigns. So no. Won’t happen.
He had an opportunity to fight for national health insurance last year and earlier this year, a reform that would have significantly improved the economic plight of the middle class and provided them the career flexibility enjoyed by the rich. The stimulus to the economy of a national health care system would have enabled millions of jobs by increasing our businesses’ competitiveness. It would have been the best ‘jobs bill’ possible. That would have required angering the health-related companies that fund his campaign. So no. Didn’t happen. Incremental reform over a decade will have to suffice.
Hey there establishment. We’re coming after you. We are not going to take it anymore.
Posted in Announcements | No Comments »
Wall Street is again thriving. Stocks are bullish. Finance managers are cashing in. Executive bonuses are flourishing. Sushi, wine, fashion, and BMWs are being bought. Things are looking good again for the elite.
But most Americans are not thriving. They don’t have expendable income to have invested in stocks or they already sold at a loss to pay bills. Many are unemployed with no prospect of a job. Many have no health insurance. Many are having wages eroded, with lower wages per se, fewer hours, and/or lesser benefits. Those with health insurance are finding higher deductibles and copayments. Employers claim to ‘provide coverage’, but less and less is covered, in effect, lowering wages.
Monthly bills for basic services pile up on kitchen tables. Families decide which one not to pay each month. Even if bills are paid, they do not save, precluding ‘moving up’. College education expenses are soaring so many give up and use high school diplomas for unskilled service jobs.
Our leaders could solve structural issues to help middle class Americans ‘pick themselves up by the boot straps’. So their pain is needless. But no. Our leaders are not in any hurry. Why should they be? They are paid off by corporations and part of the quid pro quo of the campaign contributions is an expectation they will turn a blind eye.
Senator Leahy is the second most senior member of the U.S. Senate. He could use his power to fight for the middle class. But no. He is content to throw a few crumbs to appease the masses without meaningful reform. He has an opportunity to fight for middle class tax cuts. But to do so, he would have to fight to pay for them by removing tax loopholes for the rich. That would anger the rich and powerful who fund his campaign. So no. Won’t happen.
He had an opportunity to fight for national health insurance last year, a reform that would improve the economic plight of the middle class and provide career flexibility. The stimulus to the economy would enable millions of jobs by increasing business competitiveness. It would be the best ‘jobs bill’ possible. But it would require angering the health-related companies that fund his campaign. So no. Didn’t happen. Incremental reform will have to suffice.
Hey there establishment. We’re coming after you. We are not going to take it anymore.
Tags: conflict of interest, Corruption, Daniel Freilich, equity, fairness, Healthcare is a human right, income tax, Medicare for All, Senator Patrick Leahy, Single-payer health insurance system, Vermont
Posted in Health care reform, Leadership, Taxation | No Comments »
Vermont had its so-called ‘debate’ between the two Democratic Primary candidates for the U.S. Senate. This is likely to be the only pre-primary ‘debate’ because the incumbent has refused to publicly debate. It was not a real ‘debate’ but it was a spirited ‘discussion’, highlighting key policy and political ethical principles differences between the incumbent and me. I was present in VPR’s Colchester studio; the Senator called in from Washington. In any case, VPR should be commended for its efforts.
What struck me most during the debate was how out of touch the Senator was. My criticisms of the Senator’s political ethics and voting record were not ‘negative’ as he stated but real. My critiques were substantive, not personal, and backed by the same passionate feeling the electorate feels – anger. The Senator probably doesn’t understand the depth of anger amongst Vermonters at the establishment, and its acceptance of hypocritical, conflicted, and incremental approaches to solving our problems. And Congress is in the crosshair. He said ‘that’s not how we do things in Vermont’ (paraphrased) but what he meant is ‘that’s not how establishment in Vermont likes to do things’… the elite doesn’t like challenge to the status quo or political power structure. But Vermonters know when the wool is being pulled over their eyes, recognize double speak, know when they are getting screwed, and clearly are fed up with the political establishment’s ‘sweeping under the rug’ of its legally corrupt ways of doing business.
I asked the Senator three issue-related questions but he evaded meaningful responses to any of them.
I asked why he won’t publicly debate before the primary. His response was that he will debate all of his challengers prior to the general election. But that was not the question although the tactic of diluting your primary challenger amongst a sea of challengers is obvious. The Primary election is just that, an election, not a reappointment. I understand that the election is a ‘pain in the neck’ for the Senator but he should suck it up, do the right thing, and support representative democracy whether he likes it or not. He clearly doesn’t like it and didn’t want to be there. It was a lost opportunity for him to lead by showing grandfatherly statesmanship for young voters.
I asked Senator Leahy why he didn’t support Senator Sanders’ single-payer amendment to the health care reform bill. He responded that Senator Sanders knows he supports him. But the reality is that Senator Leahy declined to co-sponsor Sanders’ bill. One can’t have it both ways. A forthright answer would have been that he doesn’t support single-payer reform, he believed it was unrealistic, or he was not willing to fight for it.
I asked Senator Leahy to explain why he thinks it is ok to accept special interests funding of his campaign and explain how he can objectively represent Vermonters when he partakes in that Washington game. He responded that such funding never affected his choices, and that contrary to the case for my campaign, he has lots of individual supporters in Vermont. Not to belabor the details but the Senator is smarter than that. As a lawyer, he knows that the true issue is deeper and more philosophical – whether elected officials should prioritize minimizing conflict of interest to the best of their ability or not. Period.
Tags: campaign finance reform, Daniel Freilich, Debate, Democratic Primary, Medicare for All, Senator Patrick Leahy, Single-payer health insurance system, Special Interests, Universal health care insurance, US Senate candidate Daniel Freilich, Vermont, Vermont Democratic Party, Vermont Political Revolution
Posted in Announcements | No Comments »
We had our one and only so-called debate with Senator Leahy on Vermont Public Radio (VPR) on August 04, 2010. I was at the VPR studio in Colchester, VT, and the Senator called in from Washington. There was a spirited discussion but the Senator dodged answering any of the questions posed by me about: (1) special interests funds; (2) lack of support for single-payer health insurance; and (3) and refusal to publicly debate.
Links are below:
VPR debate: http://vpr.net/episode/49171/.
Public Access TV journalists review of VPR debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOpZ1mOzhmc.
WPTZ (NBC) summary: http://www.wptz.com/politics/24517378/detail.html.
VPR summary: http://vpr.net/news_detail/88592/.
Thanks for all, Dan F
Posted in Announcements | No Comments »
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 »
| 
