A Thanksgiving invitation sent today to my nephew, who is studying in Washington DC away from his Seattle home, got me thinking of my own student days at Georgetown University in the mid 1970’s.  Some historical recollections and zig zags to the present ‘bi-partisan commission on fiscal responsibility.’

Early next year the Green-Rainbow Party will be notified that it is a party (in offialdom’s eyes).  This is due to Nat Fortune’s statewide tally in his recent State Auditor’s race.

I intend to celebrate this while at the GRP convention in Worcester on Sunday Nov 14.

The Vermont Progressive Party is also a party.  It is the most successful party in the US outside the Democratic and Republican parties, as measured by the number of candidates elected in partisan elections.  The Vermont Progressive Party is having its convention in Burlington on Saturday Nov 20.

I’ll be there to get ideas from them on how we can build the Green-Rainbow Party.

Join me at both conventions, and join me in joining the party.  How else do we grow?  Read on for more background, observations, and for the Vermont Progressive Party’s post election report.

The town of Lenox has quickly learned that the lodging tax that it imposed last year and the meals tax it is proposing to add next year are not enough.  My fellow residents are being asked to fill out a survey by December 6 to tell the Selectmen “which services are the highest priority.”  The town “faces the prospect of either needing to reduce services to keep in line with the financial resources available to us OR seeking voter approval for a Proposition 2-1/2 override in order to increase our property tax revenues to pay for the services you want.”

As I witnessed on the campaign trail, the long-term effects of regressive taxation are regressive service cuts.  Translation:  lower and middle income residents are asked to shoulder more of the tax burden, as a percentage of their income and assets, while the services they most depend upon are disproportionately cut.

The legislature does not provide towns with many tools to deal with the problem.  Local aid has been cut by over 45% in the last decade.  The lodging tax and meals tax are simply band-aids that don’t change the underlying trends.  Even regionalization of services, often described as ‘transformational’ is simply a more difficult band-aid to administer.  I’m not against regionalization where it makes sense, but it is not transformational.  There will be a one or two year blip to slow the trends somewhat, but the benefits will not be sustainable.  These band-aids have no effect on slowing down health care costs or of reversing the regressive burden of taxation.

Many towns in the area are further down the regressive tax and benefits spiral than Lenox is, but the legislature’s inaction is pulling many communities further down the drain every year, especially in the western part of the Commonwealth.

My answers to the three survey questions follow.

A local media personage recently slammed a newspaper that had endorsed my 2010 candidacy for State Representative in the 4th Berkshire District.  Election results were cited as explanation for why the endorsement was unwarranted.

Huh?  Endorsements are not validated or invalidated by election results.  They will be validated or invalidated by the actions of public figures like me and my opponent down the road.  In the case of my campaign we worked hard.  We answered all questionnaires that were sent to us and reported our answers on our web site.  We knocked on doors; we stood out; we attended public meetings.  I’m sure there were those who were dismissive of the campaign right up to election day, but as we made contact with people and with editorial boards and with other community groups, our support grew.  It’s a long road; it was never about one election cycle.  It is about being persistent, clear and positive, and setting an example that, in the future, voters will demand more of.  The work continues to demonstrate that the endorsements and praise which our campaign earned is deserving.

My opponent, in a recent radio debate, exclaimed “I’ve been a co-sponsor of this legislation for six years.  My opponent and I have the same position.”

My response caught him off guard.  

“In the six years that the incumbent has been co-sponsoring this legislation,” I challenged, “the number of his fellow co-sponsors has plummeted to less than half of the all-time high number of co-sponsors, which was tallied in the year 2000.  He has said nothing publicly in defense of medicare for all when his Democratic party leaders attempted to remove the issue from its platform.  It’s not a surprise that his party leaders want it removed; they are happy to accept donations from lobbyists and corporate officers who profit by keeping things just the way they are.  He has not come to the defense of the legislation when well-funded opponents have spread misinformation about it.  Nor has he done anything to educate his peers in the legislature to secure more co-sponsors and then actually pass the legislation.  I’ll provide a different kind of leadership.”

My incumbent opponent did not have a response to this attack of his lackluster advocacy.  His political playbook did not have a chapter for the scenario he found himself in.  Radio listeners found it refreshing.

The Massachusetts District Attorneys Association (MDAA) sent a letter to candidates on Oct 7 asking for support for legislation that would require budget parity between public prosecution and public defense offices.  They expressed concern at disparities that have grown in the last eight years.  The letter claims that 8 years ago District Attorneys offices received $78 million and the Committee for Public Counsel Services received $51.  For FY 2010 the District Attorney office appropriations were $92 million, while the CPCS appropriation was $168 million.

One item that struck me in particular was the amount of private outsourcing that was reported, which I shared with the Berkshire District Attorney when I met with him on October 18. He told me that presently 90% of the caseload that is handled by CPCS is given to private contractors, who are called ‘bar advocates.’ It made me think of Halliburton!

The MDAA requested that I e-mail my thoughts on their proposal to them, which I did today.  The text of the e-mail follows.

At the last moment, a two-way debate to which I was invited last month turned into a solo televised interview, when my opponent cited a misunderstanding between himself and the debate sponsors regarding the date.  The sponsors are attempting to re-schedule a real debate, which I have said I will attend.  The forum proceeded last night as a televised 30 minute interview.  The following section  is the prepared text of my opening statement.

You can view the full interview via a link from my web site.  You can also find it directly on PCTV where you can perform a search for ‘4th Berk. District’ and it should come up.

The moderator asked me questions about education, single payer health care, public transportation, and others.  I made sure to talk about tax fairness.  The SHOW ID is 13991.

The following is the text of a cover letter I wrote yesterday which is being sent to Common Cause with answers to its 2010 Candidate Questionnaire.  The letter is addressed to Pam Wilmot, Executive Director.

The following is the cover letter I wrote yesterday to accompany my answers to ten questions from the Massachusetts Citizens for Life.  YES answers on the questionnaire indicate agreement with MCFL‘s position.  MCFL describes itself as the “commonwealth’s largest pro-life organization.”

On Saturday, October 2, the Public Higher Education Network of Massachusetts (PHENOM) kicked off a cross-state walk/bike-a-thon which began at Berkshire Community College in Pittsfield.  Participants are traversing the commonwealth from the Berkshires to Boston.  I and some other candidates for office were invited to speak, as were some students, faculty, administrators, and a city councilor.  The event was designed to draw attention to the cuts in public spending on higher education that now mean that Massachusetts ranks 46th of all states in such spending.  The result is growing unaffordability.

It was encouraging to note that a number of student speakers were aware that other countries make more public investments into higher education than this country does, which substantially relieves cost and debt burdens that students would otherwise face. In this country, the high costs of higher education not only mean that fewer numbers of students are able to afford higher education, it also means that the debt loads that a student incurs will dictate the course of study for those who decide to take on the burden.  High costs and high levels of debt translate into a student body excessively pre-occupied with concerns of how to pay off their loans.

The walk and bicycling began after the speeches.  Later in the day I joined the group of about twenty students on the final portion of their walk from Pittsfield to Lenox.  It was a pleasure to meet the students, faculty leaders, PHENOM board members, and to introduce them to my community.  By the time we arrived at the library, the park benches offered a welcome respite.  The day was beautiful and the spirits were high, even if the bodies were fatigued.

The following are the prepared notes I made for the speech I delivered in the morning at Berkshire Community College.