Daniel Freilich's Blog
Posts Tagged ‘Daniel Freilich’
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 »
Monday, August 9th, 2010
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 »
Wednesday, July 28th, 2010
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 »
Sunday, June 27th, 2010
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 »
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 »
Saturday, June 12th, 2010
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 »
Tuesday, February 16th, 2010
I will get right to the point.
I believe the public discussion about the merits of civilian trials vs. military tribunals is misplaced—depending on the case, both can meet tests for fairness and reasonableness.
Terrorists apprehended overseas in military operations are clearly ‘enemy combatants’. They should be afforded all the rights, and lack thereof, provided in the Geneva Convention. As such, they do not have a right to a trial and can be held until military hostilities have ended. That they belong to a non-government entity is a technicality that does not preclude treating them as per the Geneva Convention (Article 5).
On the other hand, terrorists apprehended during the course of terrorism events against civilians on American soil, as well as accused American citizens, might reasonably be regarded as ‘enemy combatants’ or criminals. As ‘enemy combatants’, I don’t believe they have a right to a trial according to the Geneva Convention. But in part because of the murkiness of their legal classification, the Supreme Court has afforded some a right to a trial. Thus, many will have to be tried. No worries. It may be to the American government’s advantage to try many of them because life and other severe punishments may ensue.
So, the question of the day is where to try them.
I believe that entities within both sides of the political spectrum have elevated this issue to a political level that can only be rationalized by acknowledging that their motive is service to their special interest rather than the country. The Left (e.g., ACLU) has advocated for personal rights for these terrorists commensurate with those afforded to everyday Americans who may have gone astray briefly in a singular criminal event. Their argument is almost without regard to national security concerns. The Right has argued that national security interests require that the trials be held by military commissions, almost without regard to objective data about the efficacy of the two legal systems for terrorist cases.
Thus, neither of these arguments is reasonable. Terrorists are not common criminals and their trials must be handled differently (e.g., Classified Information Procedures Act of 1980). And civilian courts can successfully try and convict terrorists, supporting national security interests. In fact, of the 200 or so terrorists brought to trial in civilian federal courts, over 90% have been convicted. In contrast, of the three military tribunals, only one has resulted in a conviction—likely to due to lack of clarity about the terrorists’ legal status and consequent trial procedures.
The Left and Right should at least agree that from a moral point of view, both civilian trials and military commissions may be reasonable. There is just so much political oxygen available and both sides are using it up at the expense of addressing other more important issues affecting Americans (e.g., health care reform, comprehensive energy legislation).
There are practicalities that must be considered. A practical advantage of having civilian trials is that the international community will regard these as more legitimate (whether this conclusion is evidence-based or not). Another potential advantage is that predicted conviction rates may actually be higher in the civilian legal system. However, the economic and other disruptive consequences of civilian trials must be taken into account. The currently planned trials have been purported to cost $200 million to $1 billion, depending on where they are held.
A moral imperative argued on behalf of holding the trials in civilian courts must be compared with other moral imperatives, such as fighting poverty, providing health care, and addressing environmental threats. For example, such expenditures could otherwise be used to provide health insurance for one year to 14,286 to 71,429 uninsured American families (assuming an average annual family premium of $14,000). These numbers are staggering and should not be ignored in deciding on where to hold the trials.
So, let us transfer the decision about how and where to hold the trials to professionals (the Attorney General, Mr. Holder) who can weigh case-by-case objective factors, including likelihood of a successful prosecution, cost, and security and other disruptive effects. For example, an extraordinarily expensive and disruptive trial held in Manhattan seems unreasonable. On the other hand, if the Attorney General determines that secure and reasonably cost-effective civilian trials can be held for some of the terrorists at the Stewart Air National Guard Base (Newburgh, NY) in NY’s Southern District (which has successfully prosecuted terrorist cases), this is reasonable. If this cannot be accomplished for some of the terrorists, holding military commissions for these is also reasonable.
Tags: Daniel Freilich, military commissions., terrorism, terrorism trials, U.S. Senate
Posted in Announcements | 2 Comments »
Friday, February 5th, 2010
I was invited by the Bennington County Campaign for Liberty for an open community meeting to discuss our campaign’s platform. The meeting occurred on January 21, 2010, at the Bennington Free Library. Although gross over simplifications, the Campaign for Liberty can be thought of as being for smaller government; in contrast, our populist platform might be considered to accept larger government. Thus, not surprisingly, there was initial suspicion on both sides, but the discussion rapidly evolved into a respectful two-way discussion. Surely we did not agree on many policy issues, but there was agreement about many policy goals and need for better governance.
We thought it would be useful to share our answers to the very apt questions posed by the meeting hosts in preparation for the discussion:
1. Patrick Leahy is an entrenched incumbent – why are you taking him on?
I am challenging Senator Leahy for a number of reasons but the two overriding themes are that I believe we have lost a sense of fairness and reasonableness in American public policy and governance. Life has become unreasonably and needlessly difficult for most Americans due to inequities in our economic system. As well, the manner in which elected officials gain office and serve casts doubt on their ability to objectively represent the people. I believe the power within the Democratic Party, including Senator Leahy, has allowed this loss of fair play to happen and/or is pursuing incremental changes which are unlikely to significantly improve on the status quo. I further believe we need new congressional representation which will prioritize effort to try to restore fair play to American public policy and governance.
2. What are the most significant differences between you and Senator Leahy?
There are significant policy and governance differences:
Regarding economic policy, I support a return to progressive taxation (income, capital gains, and payroll taxes) and a single-payer (Medicare for All) primary health insurance system. I believe Vermont should lead in advocacy for restoration of an equitable economic system. In contrast, Senator Leahy has not prioritized tax reform, did not co-sponsor Senator Sanders’ single-payer Amendment (objective data show this is the only means to reasonably achieve universal coverage and cost-effectiveness). Senator Leahy has simply supported whatever incremental health care reform legislation is proposed by the Democratic Party.
Regarding environmental and energy policy, I support transformational federal legislation aimed at achieving a ‘green revolution’ in the American economy, akin to the industrial revolution of the 19th Century and the information revolution of the 20th Century. I believe this is important because energy insecurity is a potential existential threat to the U.S. and certainly represents economic, security, and life-style threats. I advocate for comprehensive multi-faceted reform that will lead to cessation of oil importation within approximately 20 years. Federal tax policy (incentives and penalties) and standards should be used to encourage smart development, building design, appliances, cars, and fuel. I advocate a progressive carbon tax in lieu of a ‘cap and trade’ system as the latter is too complex and therefore inherently non-transparent and ripe for abuse. I believe that with Vermont’s values, it should lead in promoting federal legislation and work on establishing a ‘Silicon Valley” like center of excellence in Vermont, creating lots of high-paying and rewarding jobs. In contrast, Senator Leahy has not led in this area and can be expected to support whatever incremental legislation is proposed by the Democratic Party.
Regarding foreign policy, I believe we need to pursue an ‘enlightened security’ by optimizing the way in which we treat our own people (restore economic fairness) and overseas (increase effort to address developing world poverty) and the environment. However, we need to concomitantly fully support our troops in their duties in the Global War on Terrorism. In contrast, Senator Leahy is likely to continue the U.S.’s incremental contributions to addressing poverty in the developing world and to half-heartily support our efforts in the War in Afghanistan.
Regarding governance, I believe we need significant campaign finance reform, but I also believe that in the interim, Vermont should insist on optimal ethics from its federal elected officials, whether required by law or not. I believe ethical standards of elected officials should be the same as those for non-elected officials. All significant potential conflicts of interest should be avoided. As a consequence, I believe Vermont representatives should NOT accept PAC funds, and where they have, they should recuse themselves from voting on the manner. Additionally, I believe in term limits for congressional representatives to minimize patronage that goes along with a life-long political career in Washington. Thus, I will not accept PAC contributions. In contrast, Senator Leahy has received significant PAC contributions and has not recused himself from health care reform voting (for example) despite accepting significant PAC funds from the health care industry.
3. What unique qualities and perspectives do you bring to this campaign?
After 13 years of public service as a naval officer, physician, professor, and father, I believe I can provide Vermonters with representation in Washington with fresh, creative, and unbiased ideas. Moreover, I believe in public service simply for ’service’-sake and hope to restore a sense of fair play, decency, and honor to the process of seeking federal political office. If elected, I would try my best to address our economic inequities, aim for a green revolution in our economy, and work towards an enlightened security for the United States.
Tags: Bennington, campaign finance reform, Daniel Freilich, Enlightened security, equity, Green revolution, Progressive taxation, Single payer health insurance, U.S. Senate, Universal health care insurance, Vermont
Posted in Announcements | 1 Comment »
|
|
