Left In Lowell

I didn’t have time last week to talk about Niki Tsongas’ response to the questions raised from her comments at Greater Lowell Area Dems (boy, is that a convoluted sentence or what? to say nothing of the links therein). But if I had, it probably would have been a lot like Charley’s response:

As to the substance of her post … well, there really wasn’t much. She correctly identifies the problem (47 million uninsured, more underinsured, high cost of coverage). But her proposed solution is not that of a leader who understands the issues at hand, but of a blind follower: Just do what Massachusetts did — after all, it’s good enough for Deval Patrick, Obama, and Edwards, and they’re all good people.

Besides the fact that the jury is still definitely out regarding the Mass “universal” (and I put that in quotes because it’s not entirely true) care plan, there were serious red flags even as the thing got out the starting gate. For instance, is the most efficient way to deliver health care to go through the private industry? Isn’t that just one more middle man getting his cut before the care is delivered? Not a good use of taxpayer money, in my opinion, just a revenue-stream giveaway to big business that addresses none of the real issues, like cost of care (and big pharma), and doesn’t seem to address quality problems either. So what will we be getting? Well, basically, an individual mandate forcing people who cannot afford it to buy health insurance from the very same people who suck at delivering it in the first place. And Tsongas expresses confidence in this plan?

Maybe this is the emerging “issue” in this race - certainly, I bet we can distill differences on each candidate’s position on how to end the war, or on trade and foreign policy - and perhaps health care doesn’t deserve to be the all-consuming pivot point. However, I do know how important this issue is to me personally, after six years of being one slip-n-fall shy of medical cost hell as an uninsured self-employed worker, and I know it’s real key to the wages and budgets of workers, businesses, and governments alike.

Dick has more on the Sun article which came out today looking at each candidate’s position. I note that Eileen Donoghue has rather echoed Tsongas. Sure, she and all the others support “universal health care” in principle, but that devil is in the details. How is this not going to be a giveaway to big business? How do you address the inherant conflict of interest between the core right to quality health care versus some HMO’s bottom line? That conflict plays itself out in cutting out the riskiest members (or making them pay through the nose), in denying care outright, or in tying a patient up in red tape so deep Jacque Cousteau couldn’t dive it.

Is it any more “impossible” to get the private health care industry reformed (read: regulate them properly so they can’t screw people in this most important of services) than to get single-payer health care? Not until the candidates that pander to the health care industry lose enough elections. Because those corporations have lots of money to fight to keep the status quo, which suits them - and their ever-increasing profits - just fine.

I know it would be a tough slog to totally remake our health care system now that the big corporations are entrenched. I know reform should go slow, if only because reducing private insurance means thousands of layoffs of health insurance workers (that 20%+ administrative overhead employs a lot of people). But if we give in before we even begin, then we start from a position of total weakness and once again, nothing will ever change except the exact details of what bandaid to use the next time. The Mass health care plan is the biggest bandaid yet. And inevitably, we’ll be back in another decade or two, with this same lament about how little quality even insured citizens get for their hard-earned dollar, never mind the thousands of uninsured, and how much it’s costing our economy. Do we ever learn from our mistakes?

[Update: Regarding this phrase from Tsongas - “…Massachusetts Universal Health Care Plan, which was supported by Deval Patrick when he was a candidate for Governor and that he continues to strongly support today” - Patrick always spoke of it with serious caveats. He supported the plan as a first step. He also talked about its major flaws and gaps, too. I wouldn’t quite say that’s a ringing endorsement of the MA plan.]

Although we’ve got plenty on our political plate in Lowell, with the 5th CD and the city council race, when something really telling happens in the very early ‘08 Presidential race, it should be noted. And these quotes from Richardson are highly disappointing, given his very credible foreign policy resume, and the admiration from the blogosphere, many of whom believe he’s a credible candidate:

Two recent stories illustrate the bumbling reality of Richardson’s campaign, and how it contrasts with his glowing résumé. The first concerns the Guv’s dumbass decision during last week’s debate to name Byron “Whizzer” White — one of the two dissenters in Roe v. Wade, and a dissenter from the majority in Miranda — as his model Supreme Court justice. Yet that’s not the worst part. When pressed to square his professed admiration for White with his alleged support for reproductive freedom and civil rights, Richardson made two more boners. Which one bothers you more?

A) He cited the fact that White “was an All-American football player besides being a legal scholar” as a justification for describing the often retrograde White as his model High Court member;

B) He apparently doesn’t really know or care about Roe, given that he excused his White pick by saying, “White was in the 60s. Wasn’t Roe v. Wade in the 80s?”

I can’t find another source other than the samefacts.com one for the second quote, though Mark Kleiman appears to have been liveblogging the CA Dem convention, but if true, it’s got to be numbered among the most stupid statements from a presidential candidate on our side. Richardson seriously doesn’t know when Roe was decided? And lists one of the dissenters as his model Justice but doesn’t know White’s judicial history because he thinks Roe is less than three decades old? Do I want a woman’s right to choose in the hands of someone who doesn’t even know its most basic history?

Saturday’s Lowell Sun had an article by Michael LaFleur on the “tennis controversy.” In case you missed it, the City is renting out to a private group, 3 of the 8 tennis courts at Shedd Park for part of the day and evening throughout the summer. The City web site has the details.

LaFleur writes, “Robert Hatem, a tennis enthusiast and frequent local radio commentator who also was an applicant for the Lowell city manager’s job that Lynch won last summer, said the deal amounts to ‘using public facilities for private profit’.”

On Friday, Mr. Hatem called in the WCAP morning radio show to question Mayor Bill Martin, who was making his monthly Friday appearance, about the decision. During the conversation, Mr. Hatem encouraged all tennis players to attend Tuesday’s City Council meeting. At that moment, I pictured the City Council chambers filled with constituents dressed in their tennis whites, waving their rackets.

In exchange for renting out the 3 courts for part of the day, the City will get financial compensation and more importantly, Lowell kids will have an opportunity to take lessons for free.

The majority of the City parks have tennis courts with Shedd Park having the largest number, I think. Some of the City courts are in better condition than others; and some are used more frequently than others. For example, the three tennis courts on Gorham Street at O’Donnell Park are empty most of the time. Those courts are in good condition with excellent night lights and plenty of parking. So I do not think the problem is a lack of tennis courts.

During last week’s meeting, in answer to a question from the City Council, City Manager Bernie Lynch explained what the program was about. Tomorrow night the City Council will take up the issue again; there is a motion on the agenda from City Councilor Bud Caufield, that requests the “Manager [to] provide complete explanation re: Lease of Tennis Courts at Shedd Park.”

I must be missing something because I do not understand what the controversy is about. I do not see it as disruptive to the life of the City; on the contrary I see it as adding to it. I am not a tennis player but if I were, I would make that small sacrifice and let 3 of the 8 Shedd Park courts be used part of the day for the good of the City. I hope the model works and next year we can expand the program to include other sports. If we do not want our taxes to go up or our services to be cut back, we need to come up with new revenue streams, and this is one of them.

Well, we have our first major refusal by a high-level Bushie to a Congressional subpoena (Condi). As many have noted, the recourse via the courts to force testimony under that subpoena goes to the US District Attorney for D.C. Those same US Attorneys which, if you’ve been following national news, appear to have their independence compromised.

Dkos’ Kagro X notes that there is another, non-executive-branch option (quote via the Congressional Research Service’s “Congressional Oversight Manual” (PDF):

Under the inherent contempt power, the individual is brought before the House or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned. The purpose of the imprisonment or other sanction may be either punitive or coercive. Thus, the witness can be imprisoned for a specified period of time as punishment, or for an indefinite period (but not, at least in the case of the House, beyond the adjournment of a session of the Congress) until he agrees to comply. The inherent contempt power has been recognized by the Supreme Court as inextricably related to Congress’s constitutionally-based power to investigate.

But in a new post, Kagro also says it’s up to us to educate our US Rep and Senators, because they don’t appear to have known about this statute:

Does your delegation know what inherent contempt is?
by Kagro X
Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 09:56:53 AM PDT

That’s a serious question. And it’s not meant to impugn anyone’s intelligence or integrity. The plain fact is that sometimes, you’d be surprised what you know about that your Represenative or your Senators don’t. To be sure, they’ll sometimes amaze you with their knowledge of legislative arcana. But the truth is that the schedule of a legislator is tight, and casual perusal of the blogs just isn’t something they often have time for. Which means that if you’ve been reading (here or elsewhere) about the looming crisis in enforcement of the Congressional subpoena power, and have thereby gained an understanding of the “inherent contempt” process, you may actually know considerably more about it than your representatives in Congress.
[…]
There have got to be more Members who know about the process that we just haven’t heard from yet. But so far, the only Member of Congress I know who’s been thinking anything other than “we’ll take ‘em to court” when the Bush “administration” defies Congressional subpoenas is Rep. Brad Miller of North Carolina. As chairman of the Investigations and Oversight subcommittee of the Science and Technology panel, he’s run into “administration” intransigence that’s just as brazen and stunning as any of the high-profile situations we’re witnessing at Judiciary and Government Oversight, but without the “sexiness” of involving the “A-list” cabinet members. He’s been working quietly, behind the scenes to make his colleagues aware of his read on the situation, but it’s an uphill battle. Everyone’s busy, and everyone’s freaking out. But not everyone is convinced, as both of us are, that the courts are not likely to clarify the situation for us, at least not in time to actually do anything about it.
[…]
So, what to do? I’m inclined to go with the old stand-by: write your Members of Congress. Study up a bit on what happens when the subpoenas are defied. Learn about inherent contempt. Then drop a friendly line to your Members of Congress, expressing your support for the investigations the Congress is conducting, and urging them to think ahead and game out the “administration’s” refusal to acknowledge the legislature’s power as a co-equal branch. Let them know that when push comes to shove, you’d support enforcing that power through the inherent contempt procedure, and ask them if they’re aware of it.

Meehan is on a couple of the oversight committees Kagro lists. Let’s be sure that before he goes, he understands (and informs the other members) about inherent contempt and that if it comes to it, we need them to use the means at their disposal to get the testimony of those members of the Bush administration that have refused subpoenas.

This from the O’Brien camp:

STATEMENT FROM DAVID O’BRIEN REGARDING THE UPCOMING SPECIAL ELECION IN THE 5TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
The past month has been one of the most exciting times of my life. I have enjoyed touring every town in the district, meeting and talking with voters, and learning their concerns.

Everywhere I went people responded enthusiastically to my message of bringing real change to Washington. Unfortunately, the dynamics of this special election race made it very difficult for a non-elected first-time congressional candidate without personal financial resources to compete. Therefore, after much thought and discussion with my family and campaign team, I have come to the decision that I will not be a candidate for Congress in this special election.

I appreciate the support I have received from countless friends and citizens. I look forward to continuing my life’s dedication to serving my community and country. I have been fortunate and proud to have worked alongside such great public servants as Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, and Ted Kennedy. I plan to continue my activism on behalf of the Democratic Party both as a member of the Democratic National and State Committees.

So, now there’s only five people in the race - Donoghue, Eldridge, Feingold, Miceli, and Tsongas

Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray is back in Lowell tomorrow. We should rent him out a condo, he spends so much time here.

First at 9:30 he will attend a Reception with Mayor Bill Martin at Lowell City Hall.

Then off to the Rogers School to read to the students at 11:00 a.m.

After that he wil moderate a panel discussion with CEOs of Massachusetts public colleges on achieving success in economic development partnerships at U. Mass/Lowell.

Those of us who supported Murray’s candidacy early on knew that his background as Mayor of Worcester would give him a better understanding of the issues that concern Lowellians. Here is again, the third time in 2 weeks.

Yesterday morning when I surfed the Lowell Sun web site I noticed an article regarding the Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus (MWPC) endorsement of the candidacy of Niki Tsongas for the 5th District Congressional Seat.

Of couse, as an Eileen Donoghue supporter, I was curious.

I was a bit familiar with the work of the MWPC because in early March, Lynne had interviewed their Executive Director, Jesse Mermell on her Friday-morning WUML radio show. The organization was founded “for the purpose of increasing the number of women elected and appointed to public office and public policy positions.”

By the way, why does the mainstream media insist on passing on press releases as news stories. Check out what the Sun printed, what the Eagle-Tribune printed and what the press release stated. I challenge you to tell me what journalistic effort was put into those two articles. But I digress.

I placed a phone call to the MWPC. I told the person who answered that I wanted to speak to someone regarding the Tsongas endorsement. She replied that she could help me. I asked what criteria was used to make the selection. She explained that they sent out a survey and then do a 1 hour interview. Then she proudly told me that Tsongas stood “heads and shoulders” above the rest. Then she volunteered that they only endorse woman candidates so the only other person they considered was the other female in the race, my candidate, Eileen Donoghue. (more…)

We’re putting on a “blue” art show, opening Saturday, May 5, from 11:30 to 5pm:

4Ever Blue

An Art Show of Blue Artwork
by the Artists on the 4th Floor of Western Ave Studios

Leslie MacPhail

The artists of the fourth floor would like to invite you to their inaugural show:

4Ever Blue

The "blue" works featured in the show include sculpture, paintings, photography, and more, and will be displayed in our newly minted gallery space on the fourth floor of Western Avenue Studios. Join us for our opening reception!

May 5, 2007
11:30am to 5pm

Western Avenue Studios
122 Western Ave
Lowell, MA 01851

4Ever Blue coincides with this month’s Western Ave Studio’s open studios event, First Saturdays. You will find many artists on three floors who open their doors for this monthly experience (first Saturday of every month, noon to 5pm)! Please come and support the artists at Western Ave!

Deb Dixon

The exhibiting artists:
Laurataylor Alexander
Thom Beales
Bill Berry
Andrea Bobroff
Eileen Byrne
Linda Demers
Pat Demers
Deb Dixon
Wilda Gerideau-Squires
Brendan Hoover
Cindie Kazmer

Frank Tadley

Lynne Lupien
Leslie MacPhail
Danielle McCarthy
Thaddeus Miles
Setheyny Pen
Paula Richards
Jean Swanay
Frank Tadley
Heather Wang

For more information and directions, visit our website at www.westernavenuestudios.com.

 

Tonight’s regular City Council meeting began with ceremonies but ended with history being made. (see previous post)..

William J. Desrosiers, the retiring Chief of the Lowell Fire Department gave a very nice farewell speech. He has served the City for 30 years; the last 6 years as Fire Chief. He mentioned that his successor was a highly qualified individual. Apparently, he knows who is succeeding him but it has not yet been announced.

We may not fix the ice at the Tsongas Arena after all this year. First the cost has increased from $1 million to about $1.6 million; second we really do not know what the future holds for the Devils and the U. Mass Lowell hockey team. CM Lynch is keeping all of our options open. Within a week or a bit more, we should know what the plans will be. If there is no hockey team calling Tsongas its home arena, do we try to find a tenant or do we get rid of the ice? (more…)

By a vote of 6-3, the Lowell City Council voted to adopt a non-sectarian prayer. Thus ends a 40-year tradition of the public recitation of the Lord’s Prayer prior to the Lowell City Council meetings. Two of the dissenting Councilors, CC R. Elliott and G. Ramirez, wanted to end the practice and CC A. Mercier wanted to continue reciting the Lord’s Prayer.

Many months ago, the Greater Lowell Interfaith Alliance approached the City Council to ask them to change the opening prayer which is a Christian prayer and is certainly not representative of the new Lowellians.

All of the Councilors spoke at great length. Seven of them felt compelled to tell us that they were Catholics and prayed. But the great majority understood that Lowell is changing and in that spirit, the City Council must change its tradition. The CCs, without exception, recognized the amount of time and effort of the Sub-Committee and expressed their appreciation.

Members of the Interfaith Alliance were present to hear the discussion. A spokesperson for the group briefly addressed the CC and reiterated the group’s initial desire that prayer not be eliminated but be made inclusive to represent Lowell’s rich and growing religious diversity.

CC Jim Milinazzo, chairman of the Rules Sub-committee presented the report and their recommendation by a 2-1 that the full Council adopt this new policy. CM Rita Mercier, a member of the Sub-Committee, used the correct word in explaining why she is recommending this change: “fairness.” (more…)