MassAlliance Debate

Dan attended the debate in Lawrence last night on my behalf, and briefed me on the questions asked and answers given. This is one of the benefits to someone walking around with a mug like mine. Afterwards, he stated the notes could well have been from another debate, “but what’s the difference?” I will try to show a few of the differences that I would have raised last night:

On the question of repealing Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and what would be done further: I would repeal them and cut subsidies to the oil industry, but also to the large agribusiness, timber and mining industries which profit from the exploitation of our natural resources. The share big corporations have paid in taxes has consistently dwindled (because they can afford and regularly buy “political speech”) at the same time that they have shunned social responsibilities. I would institute a pollution tax on carbon and other emissions; reduce the current payroll tax but lift the cap and keep constant the rate above the cap; begin closing the $700 billion loophole in “tax credits” which in fact act more like expenditures and are very regressive because the return to taxpayers mirrors the marginal income tax rates; address the loophole of passively “earned” wealth, and institute an electronic budget system which is transparent, easily searchable and encourages balancing the budget so that we may reduce the national debt–a tax, essentially, on future generations.

On the issue of Iraq: We must begin the process of withdrawal now, and bring in peacekeeping forces from the UN and NATO simultaneously to provide security at the borders and for key infrastructure. Efforts to rebuild should involve many more Iraqis, as the more violent regions not surprisingly have the highest rates of unemployment–upwards of 50%. I am the only candidate to have proposed a legislative solution–the Shared Sacrifice Act–to how we may responsibly withdraw, and the only one to suggest how we avoid similar mistakes like the Iraq War and restore constitutional congressional authority in the future. We have to recognize that what happens in Iraq is largely in Iraqi hands, and that a political situation cannot be imposed (those who suggest this misunderstand peace and democracy). I will post more about this later. The key point here is that the military’s continued presence is weakening our ability to face our gravest threats throughout the world, and that we must bring troops home as soon as possible.

On the issue of health care: Like Jamie Eldridge, I support an improvement and expansion of Medicare for all as the most efficient way to both raise the level of and extend care for everyone. However, rather than raising the payroll tax which taxes work, I would raise revenue for the system through the above sources I spoke of and through a shift of the tax burden to bad consumption habits which tax the health care system itself. The Massachusetts plan, which is being proposed not only by some of these candidates but also by many presidential contenders, should be examined much more thoroughly. Beyond many of the problems I will talk about tomorrow, this idea of publicly mandating that citizens purchase a private service seems unconstitutional.

On the issue of trade: As a precocious eleven-year-old, I would not have voted for NAFTA. I would not vote for fast-track authority to be given to the president either. International cooperation is a worthy goal, but the result of NAFTA and other trade agreements have, because of competition, resulted in loss of jobs, depressed wages, and a lack of any environmental standards. The economic theory which holds that free trade results in the most efficient allocation of goods places first of all, products over people, and ignores the reality that lower prices result not from the costly and inefficient use of energy to ship goods halfway around the world, but from multinational corporations running roughshod over labor and environmental protections.

On the issue of global warming: Democrats were in power throughout the 1980s and are in power now. Yet Rep. Markey’s proposal for fuel efficiency standards was recently shelved in the “interest of consensus.” Every time this issue is reported, automakers are also mentioned as if they legitimately have a say in this debate and are a group with whom we must negotiate. This is a clear example of how money influences policy–where a clean environment has been compromised by an unclean, partisan political system. In the long run, the policy would save consumers money, so the case must be made directly to them. Again Eldridge seems to have the most comprehensive vision of environmental issues, and this distinction among Democrats should be noted. Dan noted that conservation of and lowering demand for energy was emphasized a bit more by a couple of candidates. This is very important and should be encouraged and supported legislatively with a system of incentives/disincentives.

On the question of yes/no questions: These types of questions do not further political debate at all, and time should not be wasted on them unless explanations are allowed. The two questions on how candidates would have voted on the immigration bill or the war ignores the role of the congressman or -woman to be a part of those negotiations and to affect what provisions or amendments are added to the final bill. The premise suggests that as one of 435 representatives I can only vote on what others have proposed, but leadership as I perceive it would be to exercise my power to actually propose solutions and then build consensus around them. As for the “ethics” bill, the names of campaign finance reform legislation are akin to those that Bush gives to his initiatives like “Clear Skies” and “Healthy Forests.” An “Office of Public Integrity” was proposed as if adding more bureaucratic positions would undo undue influence, or solve the more substantive lack of private integrity. Nothing proposed from within Congress will ever change the system of corruption; change must come from without, from challenges like mine and from greater participation of citizens in politics and political discourse. When we challenge and change the system in this way, we will find that the adoption of many ideas raised here becomes probable.

This entry was posted on August 2, 2007 at 3:13 pm and is filed under Race for Congress. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.

| Print