Daniel Freilich's Blog
Posts Tagged ‘Corruption’
Thursday, September 2nd, 2010
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 »
Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010
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 »
Monday, June 14th, 2010
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 »
| 
