August 11, 2007 by Dan.

After work yesterday, Patrick and I took my truck up Route 3 for the short drive to Nashua. Senator Dodd was meeting with New Hampshire voters at Martha’s Exchange, a local tavern and brewery. The Senator couldn’t have picked a better place; I was hungry and thirsty, having skipped lunch to finish the framing on a roof we’ve been building. I had the Brown ale, Patrick, the “steeplechase” porter, and good burgers. By the time we finished up, Dodd was just arriving with some of his staff. After shaking hands with some of the patrons of the place, Dodd then sat down at a table of voters and local media who had gathered to meet with him. He spoke on a number of issues, including the war in Iraq and his call for greater participation in public service. In his comments at the brewery, and in the previous Democratic presidential debates, we see in Senator Dodd someone who could potentially play an important part in championing Patrick’s “Shared Sacrifice” bill. The general overview of the bill can be found here: http://www.sendmurphytocongress.com/5th-district-massachusetts-end-war.html

On his way out the door, Patrick and I introduced ourselves to Dodd, whose mother was a Murphy, and whose daughter, he told us, he named Grace Mary Murphy. He seemed a genuine guy, a bright and compassionate person, and someone who adds something to that Democratic field of presidential candidates. Patrick passed along his proposal and our good wishes, and the Senator promised to take a look at it. He wished us luck as well and we thanked him. If nothing else, the brown ale and burger was well worth the trip.

Posted in Race for Congress | Print | 2 Comments »

August 7, 2007 by Dan.

Forget about health care and education for a moment; the race to replace Congressman Marty has taken on a new dimension–superiority in plastic athletics. Another campaign, to remain nameless, has challenged ours to a game of no-run wiffle ball, which is to say that no base-running will be involved. Though details have yet to be finalized and the format and rules have yet to be agreed upon, we can all embrace the idea that this contest could determine the 5th District’s next congressman.

While the remaining campaigns are still awaiting invitation, ours is eager to demonstrate our wiffling prowess. Despite the fear that our esteemed Constitution party colleague may deregulate our game–take out the balls, the strikes, the umpires, the bases, the costly outfield and the “big brother” bleachers–we have decided to invite everyone, but have not yet found directions for those candidates who live outside the 5th. Then again, who knows? Maybe my ball lands in Framingham or Brockton anyway. It all depends in which direction right-center is pointing.

Will post again when our date and location can be confirmed.

Posted in Race for Congress | Print | 3 Comments »

August 2, 2007 by Dan.

Yesterday, Congressman McGovern announced a plan for an “Iraq Tax” based on Patrick’s “Shared Sacrifice” Bill. We had several conversations with members of his staff, and sent several emails regarding the proposal. We are happy our persistence paid off and that in Jim McGovern we have found an ally and champion for this important cause. You can check Patrick’s Ideas section for the full text of the proposal.

WBUR also highlighted McGovern’s announcement during their news briefs yesterday afternoon, and attributed the idea to the MA-05 race and Patrick, the independent candidate.

WBUR will also discuss the proposal tomorrow morning sometime between 10:00 - 11:00 AM, when host Tom Ashbrook and guest host Jack Beatty, editor for the Atlantic Monthly, will feature it as one of the week’s top stories.

Posted in Race for Congress | Print | No Comments »

August 2, 2007 by patrick.

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.

Posted in Race for Congress | Print | No Comments »

August 1, 2007 by patrick.

On Monday, Dan and I attended the Democrat-sponsored debate on Energy and the Environment in Boxborough. Candidates discussed a number of issues ranging from global warming and alternative fuel sources to superfund sites and farm policies.

A few of my thoughts:

The very nature of environmental problems is that everything is interrelated. The question of what natural resource is most vulnerable completely misunderstands that a problem in one area has consequences throughout our ecosystem. No one mentioned human resources. There was hardly a mention either of the necessarily international dimension of these problems and what kind of cooperative efforts must be made to address them. So much conflict arises out of the exploitation of our natural resources which have been confused for and reduced to the level of man-made products. Yet something as simple as aiding people with public clean drinking water projects could see substantial returns in sustainable peace and development in the world. We must be concerned with improving our environment at all levels, from personal habits to international initiatives.

Mentioned briefly by some candidates, the idea of “offsets” and on a larger scale “cap-and-trade” emissions seems to fail to address the problem directly, allowing wealthier individuals and corporations to avoid making any effort to change their own behavior. It’s a bit like pissing on someone’s shoes but giving them twenty bucks for it afterwards. Sure, twenty’s better than nothing, but there’s still the problem of piss on my shoes. (so too with carbon emissions) As is the case with China under the Kyoto agreement, there is also the chance that corporations simply begin polluting more in order to receive greater compensation when they reduce their levels.

This, and policies like it, stem from the endless reliance on the market, the “invisible hand,” to magically solve our problems. However, “economy” is not simply about maximizing a desired output–say happiness–but maximizing it with the minimum input of resources. When judged by this standard, people in this part of the world are highly inefficient and uneconomic. After all, consumption is what drives our environmental problems. We hear “we must end our reliance upon foreign oil,” but never on current levels of energy or even oil itself. While one candidate continues to say that “we are 5% of the world’s population…,” our only hope is placed with technology, and uncertain technology at that. This ignores what we can do now: to begin to change our values and our lives to better reflect them, to give the environment—that which sustains all life—its proper place among our priorities.

Candidates were asked their opinion on the farm bill which has just passed in the House and despite minor changes, continues the industrialization trend in agriculture. The biggest share of federal subsidies goes to the largest farms in the country, driving smaller farms out of business. While some have been able to survive these anti-competitive policies (pursued when free marketeers see it in their self-interest) by creating a new market for organic farming, these farms are still struggling and worth saving. Agriculture is not the same as industry; it involves the relationship of humans to nature, to life itself. What Roosevelt envisioned with the original farm bill was the protection of farmers from the price drops of their crops, but also a preservation of their way of life. If we continue to sever our natural connection to the land by subsidizing the consolidation of agribusiness, we will reap what we sow: more degradation of our environment, more unhealthy food, more unemployed farmers. Instead, we should implement payment limits to what an individual farm may receive, give greater weight toward helping smaller farms, reward good stewardship of the land in conservation efforts and organic farming, strengthen our rural areas rather than impoverish them further, and encourage young people to begin working again in farming.

The last point I will make is on the one source of debate within the “debate.” Rep. Eldridge asked Finegold why he was now not in favor of ethanol or “clean” coal after making reference to support for them in his stump speeches. As I remember them—the repetition helps—Barry said in his speeches that he supports fuel cell technology because this district is best suited to produce it, just as he would probably support ethanol if he hailed from Iowa, or clean coal if were a Congressman from West Virginia—”this is good for the environment, good for our wallets…” So he did not say that he would, in fact, support those sources of energy. Yet through this logic, I suppose if he were from Alaska or Texas, he’d support more drilling for oil. The argument for an unproven and as he acknowledged, very expensive technology, is undermined when compared with the others as another triumph of self-interested provincialism over the common good which, particularly in environmental policy, requires a much more expansive and comprehensive view.

Posted in Race for Congress | Print | 1 Comment »