Open Letter on the Filibuster

 Dear Senator,

I am writing you today to urge you in the strongest possible terms to work to eliminate the Senate procedure known as the filibuster. I feel it is an anti-democratic anachronism, and its continued existence imperils the future of American democracy itself.

As you most likely know, the filibuster originated as a gap in the rules in 1806, but has been elevated to a principle over the years. However, there is no mention in the 1787 Constitution or its amendments of any super-majority requirement for normal legislation. Treaties, conviction of impeached officials, and constitutional amendments are among several defined actions requiring a super-majority. On the other hand, the Constitution specifically states that “a majority of each [chamber] shall constitute a quorum to do business,” which means that common legislation was expected to be passed with a lower level of consensus. Unfortunately, recent Senate practice has been that a super-majority is required to pass any controversial legislation that cannot be squeezed into the reconciliation process. Continuing that practice will preclude the passage of any important bill in the 117^th Congress.

Removing the filibuster will require you to pressure other members of the Democratic Caucus, most notably Sen. Sinema of Arizona and Sen. Manchin of West Virginia, to join you in moving America forward. Both have expressed the mistaken notion that the filibuster is a core element of American democracy, despite its absence from the Constitution and the well-documented use of the procedure in opposing civil rights legislation. But, honestly, I have no idea whatsoever about how to make either of them understand that not eliminating the filibuster and not allowing votes for important bills like S.1 or JLVRA is critical to the future of American democracy. I can only communicate to you that you, their fellow Democratic Senator, must use all the tools available to you and the party in order to change their minds. Senators Sinema and Manchin have, in effect, decided that the fetish of bipartisanship is more important than the ability of American citizens to vote in free and fair elections. This is obviously insane, as a large majority of the Republican Party supports the January 6 insurrection, which had the goal of overturning a free and fair election through violence aimed at members of Congress. I see no reason to seek “comity” with people who excuse a mob that seemed eager to harm elected officials, and that at the state level are furiously passing bills aimed at restricting the right to vote.

Thank you for your time, and I wish you the best of luck at persuading Senators Sinema and Manchin to change their minds on the filibuster and the future of American democracy.

Open Letter: Vermont Legislature

Greetings Senators and Representatives,

I am writing you today in regard to a number of subjects. I apologize for the length of this letter, but I feel it is important to briefly explain why I stand where I do on the subjects below. If you aren't inclined to read the letter, please at least review the summary on the other side. Otherwise, read on.

I am disappointed in Governor Shumlin's sudden adoption of Republican language with regard to the budget now that he has been inaugurated. Concerns about "competitiveness" are usually a dishonest cover for more cuts aimed at the poor. There are states that are considered more "competitive" than Vermont that nonetheless have higher unemployment rates and/or lower median incomes than this state. And there is no evidence that business that are free to choose where operations are located do so on the basis of top marginal income tax rates. In addition, budget cuts are counterproductive when the economy is weak. In the United Kingdom, the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government is in the process of completing significant reductions in government spending, and as predicted, the changes have caused the previously weak economy to shrink at an annual rate of 2.4% during the 4th quarter of last year. Shumlin's proposed cuts are not as severe, but they will come on top of ones at the federal level. The effect of the two together will certainly reduce growth in this state, and thus employment. I feel that instead of cutting more, a temporary surtax should be implemented for high income residents. Revenues from other taxes has not recovered fully from the recession yet, but they should by early 2013. At that time the surtax should be removed.

I have heard several reports that the Legislature is considering some kind of tax on soda and other sugary drinks. Clearly, obesity is a major problem in this country. But an entirely new tax strikes me as overkill, because the drinks don't have the same direct deadliness as cigarettes or alcohol. I think that simply re-classifying soda and sugary drinks as not-food, and thus no longer exempt from state or local sales taxes, would be a better solution. That smaller step would do less to discourage people from buying soda, but it would be easier for retailers to implement. In addition, I think candy should also be classified as not-food. However, there may be so many borderline products that addressing that group of sugary items would result in endless battles with producers and retailers, and thus not be worthwhile.

I also heard a report that the "bottle bill" may either be expanded or removed soon. On occasion, I pick up trash from the street and from small bits of public land near my home. My admittedly anecdotal evidence is that I rarely find beer or soda cans and bottles. Instead, I find mostly small water bottles without a SKU (presumably from bulk packs), and sports drink bottles. Thus, in my neighborhood, at least, the bill certainly is working for what it covers. The program is probably inconvenient for companies that produce, distribute, or sell beverages (I have no idea where the burden falls on that side), but the deposit fee is good way to price in what is normally an externality for both the companies above, and for individuals - litter. In light of its apparent effectiveness, I think the bill should be renewed and expanded. (I also want it noted that bottle redemption has become a source of income for a number of socially marginal people, mostly middle-aged men with mental health or similar problems. Repeal of the bill should take into consideration the lost income, which may translate into higher government spending if those people seek services that they would not need with the bill in place.)

As you a probably aware, there are a number of efforts under way by newly elected Republican governors to strip public employees of their collective bargaining rights. For the record, I do not want the same to happen in Vermont, and I will be very disappointed if any such change is proposed. On the other hand, I will admit that I find reports of public employees abusing final salary retirement schemes to be somewhat infuriating. By abusing, I mean employees suddenly working large amounts of overtime in their last few years because the extra pay makes their retirement payments substantially higher. I am not aware of this being possible in the private sector for the few people who still have defined benefit programs to look forward to. Of course, those who only have 401K programs can do nothing of the sort, and a large portion of the population has no retirement plan available at all. If such a practice is possible in Vermont, I would like Vermont's public employees to agree to remove the clauses from future contracts. Doing so would slightly trim Vermont's long-term obligations, but mainly it would make it harder for dishonest politicians to demonize government employees, which has been done to an alarming extent in recent years.

I feel it is time to ban tasers in the State of Vermont. Contrary to common belief, crime is not getting worse all of the time, and in fact has gone down steadily since its peak in 1992 (+/- 1 year depending on the category). Crime rates have fallen by over a third in every major category. Since the decline started before tasers came into use, there is no reason to think that tasers have much of an effect on crime rates. So there is no obvious need for them. The absence of need is important because, despite what the manufacturers claim, tasers are lethal weapons. They just happen to be lethal weapons with low and unpredictable chances of success. In addition, there is also a growing body of video evidence that tasers are being used not just to control suspects who are attempting flight or bodily harm. Instead, they are being used by officers to essentially punish people for what officers feel is insufficient deference. This can be seen most clearly when officers taser suspects already on the ground and under control. Being a police officer is a tremendously stressful job, and I don't envy them one bit. But it should be acknowledged that it is stressful job, and that not every officer is an angel. I think having the ability to inflict pain without doing bodily harm (at least according to the manufacturer) becomes too much of a temptation for some officers who do not find other ways to vent their frustration. I realize that officers want to have the latest and greatest equipment. But without a need, and with the risk of abuse and potential fatalities, I see no reason for law enforcement officials to have tasers.

A summary of my concerns:

1. Don't cut spending more; raise income taxes instead.
2. Apply the sales tax to sugary drinks, not a new tax.
3. Keep and expand the bottle bill.
4. Keep collective bargaining rights in Vermont.
5. Ban tasers because they are lethal weapons.
6. Decriminalize minor marijuana possession (no room for details on this one!)

Thank you for your time.

Open Letter: Vermont Yankee

Greetings Senators and Representatives,

I am writing you today about the re-licensing of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant in Vernon, Vermont. As things currently stand, I am opposed to extending the plant's lifetime.

While I am not opposed to nuclear power in principle, I do not trust a private corporation to run a plant safely. Entergy has not been honest, and given that the current corporate culture in the U.S. values profit and nothing else, there is no reason to assume Entergy will be honest in the future. If the company wants to turn Vermont Yankee over to a publicly-controlled not-for-profit entity, then I would not be opposed to having the plant run for an extended period - if it can be determined that it is safe to operate. By safe, I do not mean satisfying every reasonable and unreasonable fear of an anti-nuke zealot. Instead, a team of skeptical engineers and scientists should be given full access to the plant, and the latest inspection equipment to use. If, after conducting an analysis that is independently reviewed for quality, the team finds the plant to be safe, it could continue operating. I doubt my conditions will be met, or even considered, so I think the plant should be shut down.

Thank you for your time.

Postscript: I started writing this letter before the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami struck Japan, and the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant. I think the events there are relevant to Vermont Yankee, but do not automatically justify condemnation of the plant. Here is what I think we can take away from the crisis in Japan so far:

1. Vermont Yankee is unlikely to experience an earthquake with as great a magnitude during the next 20 years (or 2000, or 200,000) because there are no active subduction zones within thousands of miles. But the intensity assumptions used in Vernon could be wrong, as they were for the area offshore of northern Japan. If the plant was not designed to withstand to meet a sufficiently high level of shaking, the plant should not be considered safe.
2. While Vermont Yankee has absolutely no chance of suffering from a tsunami, a more extreme flood on the Connecticut River should be postulated, and the plant re-evaluated using higher water levels. The scenario I'm thinking of is a spring melt causing a breech of the Comerford Dam near St. Johnsbury. If safety systems would not stay operational with water at higher levels, the plant should not be considered safe.
3. Spent fuel rods stored inside the reactor building should be moved to dry cask storage and away from the reactor as soon as possible. Existing casks may also need to be moved uphill away from new flood level expectations. Re-licensing should be made conditional upon moving fuel rods that are sufficiently cool - on top of everything else.

Open Letter: Congressional Pay

Dear Senators and Representatives,

I am writing today about the ever-contentious issue of Congressional pay. I am tired of hearing about the issue every year or so, and even more tired the political theatrics that accompany each vote. I have a very simple solution: tie the pay of various federal officials to the federal minimum wage.

Tying pay to the minimum wage would have benefits beyond getting rid of silly political posturing. First, it would help people remember exactly how much the current minimum wage is set at. Many federal elected officials (but not the Vermont delegation, of course) would benefit from being reminded on a regular basis. Second, it would help illustrate how excessive the pay packages of executives and financial types have been over the past decade. Even at a salary set at 40 times the minimum wage, the president would be vastly underpaid compared to executives at major corporations, who are often paid 500 or 1000 times the minimum wage – whether or not their companies are profitable.

Below is my proposed pay schedule. The new salaries would give considerable raises to many federal officials because I believe they are currently underpaid relative to the importance of their responsibilities. Higher pay would also reduce the need or incentive for senior officials to become lobbyists after leaving government. Slowing the speed of the revolving door would save taxpayers billions in the long run because former government officials are very good at lobbying for unnecessary spending items, as well as much more costly tax breaks.

• President – 40 times minimum wage of $7.25 per hour – $603,000
• Vice-President, Supreme Court Justices – 30 times – $452,500
• Senators, Cabinet Secretaries – 25 times – $377,000
• Representatives, Appeals judges – 20 times – $301,600
• Under-secretaries, District judges – 15 times – $226,200
• Etc.

Obviously, enacting these changes is low priority right now, but they would probably take a couple of cycles to pass even in good economic times. Nonetheless, I would like the Vermont delegation to begin drafting the legislation so it can be put forward sometime next year.

Thank you for your time.

Open Letter: The Public Option

Dear Senators and Representatives,

I am writing today about the very important issue of health care reform. It appears that something will be passed in Congress this year, but of course the details are critical. Specifically, a bill without a “public option” is unacceptable. Without that provision, the impact of any reform bill would be negligible. You must speak forcefully for the public option.

However, having a public option is just an interim step. The United States must ultimately move to a universal national health insurance system. That is why I am disappointed that you did not co-sponsor S.703 or it's House equivalent, H.676. Though each bill is flawed (S.703 has too many details about health care delivery, while H.676 is essentially a placeholder with not enough details) it is important that you endorse and advocate the ultimate goal of the bills. If you do not understand why you should, please review the following economic issues:

• A free market in health insurance is unworkable because only healthy people are profitable to insure. This fact is completely incompatible with the goal of universal coverage, or even broad coverage. By the time insurers are regulated so that coverage cannot be denied on the basis of race, age, gender, geography, existing conditions, and family history, there would be no purpose in having the insurance companies in the mix. They would merely be providing expensive claims processing.
• The very business model of health insurance creates huge, wasteful bureaucracies in doctors offices' and the insurance companies due to the endless fight over the payment of claims.
• Tying health insurance to employment adds a major overhead cost for employers, while disadvantaging small companies and entrepreneurs relative to large companies which can afford employees dedicated to negotiating lower rates.
• Healthy workers are more productive and take fewer days off (for real illnesses, at least).
• Private insurers have no incentive to invest in preventative care, and preventative care is much cheaper (in the aggregate) than curative care. Up-front investment in good maternity care also yields high returns.
• Emergency room care delivery (where the uninsured cannot be turned away) is substantially more expensive than care provided in a medical office or clinic.
• Government-run health insurance systems in other countries have proven records of costing less while covering more people and producing better results as compared to the U.S arrangement.

Many Senators and Representatives need to be reminded that the benefits of a national health insurance system for their constituents far outweigh any harm their campaign contributors in the insurance industry claim will happen. Please remind them often, and help the nation take the first step towards the ultimate goal by voting for a reform bill with a public option.

Thank you for your time.

Open Letter: Vacation and Overtime Laws

Dear Senators and Represenatives,

I am writing today about some important changes to the country's labor laws I think should made. Compared to other industrialized countries, American workers receive much less paid time off, and much less protection from excessive working hours. I would like to see the situation improved. Here are the issues:

1. Vacation accrual – America is the only industrialized country where workers are not guaranteed paid vacation time. The next lowest is Canada, which requires 10 days per year, and the highest are Finland and France, where 30 days are required. American employers should be required to give a minimum of 4 minutes of vacation per hour worked, phased in at a minute every 3 years. When fully implemented the rule would provide 15 days off for 1800 hours worked. Employers should not be able to force employees to use the vacation for holidays or furloughs, nor force employees to “use it or lose it.”
2. Require overtime pay on federal holidays – National holidays don't really exist for many workers in America, especially those employed in the retail sector. This disparity from the typical office worker is quite unfair. Requiring overtime on those days would close the gap.
3. Extend overtime protection – There are many non-supervisory employees who are overworked, especially in the software industry, because the minimum exempt pay level is far too low. It should be fixed at 6 times the minimum wage (currently equivalent to about $78,000 per year at 1800 hours of work)
4. Set higher overtime rates at extreme hours – All workers regardless of their exempt status should receive double overtime after 56 hours of work and triple overtime after 64 hours of work. The time should be calculated using a rolling 7 day window without regard to pay periods, so that employees are compensated for any block of extreme work. An exception should be made for workers addressing declared state or federal emergencies, where normal overtime rules would apply.
5. Crack down on contractor status abuse – Many companies have been successfully sued for classifying workers as independent contractors in order to evade various taxes and other obligations, but the practice continues. Federal regulation to curb this abuse was proposed in the last Congress, but did not go far. It should be revived and passed.

Obviously the current economic conditions will cause employers to oppose these changes even more vociferously than would be the case during an expansion. Nonetheless, I hope you make an effort to protect American workers from abuse and to give every worker time to rest and recuperate. They all deserve it, not just the people in charge.

Thank you for your time.

Open Letter: Banking and Regulatory Capture

Dear Senators and Representatives,

I am writing today to express my frustration about the ongoing disaster that is the U.S. banking system. As I said in my previous letter of Sept. 23, “The rush to get [the bailout bill] passed is a scare tactic aimed at bullying Congress into passing something that favors Wall Street.” It was passed nonetheless and, unsurprisingly, did little to “calm” the markets. The reason is that the bailout bill did not address the fundamental problem: many of the country's banks are insolvent. Sec. Paulson's changing approaches to implementing the bill – first asset purchases, then cash infusions based on legislative intent, then back to asset purchases, and finally to complete disinterest – were counterproductive as well.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration to-date has not unveiled a better plan to rehabilitate the banking industry. The recent rumors about offering loan guarantees to private sector entities that buy the “toxic assets,” coupled with previous rumors about a “bad bank,” indicate that ultimately another TARP-like giveaway will be offered. The Obama administration continues to show signs of regulatory capture – meaning its thinking is guided primarily by the interests and assumptions of the industry, not the country at large. This is not surprising given that the core people appointed to handle the issue – Geithner, Summers, and Shapiro – all helped create the problem to varying degrees.

So it is now up to Congress to push the appropriate solution. In my previous letter I indicated that a bank rescue plan based on the “Swedish model” was the best approach, and that remains true. The fundamental steps are to 1) guarantee all liabilities (deposits, bonds) of all banks, 2) require the banks to re-value their assets (loans, other investments) either to market or to a very, very small-c conservative model, and 3) “nationalize” the insolvent banks with the goal of either consolidating them into solvent banks, or doing an public offering on the whole entity at some point in the near future. Essentially, it would be the FDIC process writ large, but with preemptive action. The goal is to make sure the banking system is not full of “zombies” – banks that are allowed to live on with poor capitalization and thus limited ability to lend. Japan experienced the effects of a paralyzed banking system during the 1990s, and that period is now referred to as the “Lost Decade.”

A key feature of a good plan is to make the irresponsible parties in the banks – senior management and shareholders, take the losses that should accrue to them. The TARP and other actions taken so far have been giveaways and are completely unacceptable. Shareholders failed to supervise the banks and should be wiped out. Additionally, I do not care about limiting the pay of current bank executives; I want them fired.

The country needs you to take action on the banking issue soon. Thank you for your time.

Open Letter: Veto Overrides

Dear Representatives and Senators,

I am writing today to express my hope that you will vote to override Governor Douglas's vetoes of the Energy Bill (H.520) and the Campaign Finance Bill (S.164). Like nearly any bill of consequence, neither is perfect. However, they do move the state in the right direction, and the vetoes were unwarranted.

While the bills should become law on their merits, I also want you to vote to override the vetoes because I want progressives (Democrats, Progressives, and any who sides with them) to stand up to the Republicans, and this Republican in particular. Governor Douglas has far more control of the public debate in Vermont than he should, given his stance on the issues, and he has been able to frame the debate in his favor. I want progressives to show leadership by fighting hard for what we stand for, and passing these two bills is a perfect opportunity to do so. Progressives need to show we are organized and committed if we hope to win the 2008 gubernatorial race, something we desperately need to do in order to move Vermont forward.

Please travel to Montpelier on the 11th and vote to pass these bills. Doing so is the right thing for progressives, Vermont, and the whole world.

Thank you for your time.

Open Letter: Farm Bill

Dear Congressmen and Senators,

I am writing today to urge you to work to pass a fiscally and environmentally responsible farm bill that benefits both small family farms and Americans consumers. The farm bill is a complex piece of legislation that contains a lot of programs that may cost a relatively small amount individually, but in aggregate are expensive and very important to the health of American citizens. Since I am not familiar with the fine details of farm policy, let me list some of the basic questions I want you to ask when judging the bill.

• Does it support small family farms over agribusiness? Family-operated farms and farmer-owned cooperatives should receive the bulk of farm support, instead of large corporate farms and farm supply companies, which get the most today.
• Does it support environmentally responsible farming practices? The bill should help farmers preserve topsoil, prevent nutrient runoff, preserve wetlands, and otherwise act or not act in ways that are sustainable over many generations.
• Does it support safe and healthy food? The bill support the production of fresh food that is free of excessive levels of hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, and herbicides. In Vermont specifically, the farm bill should support a dairy industry that does not use rbST, or advanced antibiotics that should be reserved for severe infections in humans.
• Does it support increased food inspection, especially of imported food? Many recent deaths and the pet-food disaster point to an inspection system that is broken. The bill should increase funding for food inspectors and dramatically increase inspection of foods from countries which don't have good inspection systems, such as China.
• Does it end support for grain-based ethanol programs? There is no clear evidence that grain-based ethanol has a positive net energy return, meaning that the fossil fuel energy used to produce the ethanol might as well be burned directly. Grain-based ethanol is pork, and always has been. Subsidies for grain-based ethanol also raises the costs of feed for Vermont's dairy farms, which is yet another reason to oppose these programs.
• Does it end support for sugar subsidies? Not only does growing cane sugar in the Everglades hurt that wonderful habitat, the sugar subsidy (which is also a high-fructose corn syrup subsidy) makes many products in America cost more and taste much worse.

I am sure there are many issues related to the farm bill I have not touched on. If you and your staff are not familiar with them, I suggest you reach out to progressive farm and environment think tanks in Washington for more information. I am confident you will end up supporting a farm bill that is good for the environment, good for farmers, and good for consumers.

Thank you for your time.

Open Letter: CAFE Regulations

Dear Congressmen and Senators,

I am writing today to urge you to support the strongest possible CAFE requirement, one that makes no exceptions for so-called 'light-trucks' or for the use of alternative fuels. Various amendments have been offered in the Senate which would alter the deadline for meeting the rather modest standards that have been proposed in S.357. I urge you to reject those amendments and keep the bill clean from unrelated amendments.

Truth be told, CAFE is rather poor policy. It is complicated for manufacturers to calculate and meet. It allows for several exceptions, and it fails to regulate the fuel efficiency of larger vehicles. And it does nothing to alter the fundamental pattern of urban development in America that drives the nation's incredible appetite for oil.

A far better approach would be to replace CAFE with a constantly increasing federal motor fuels tax (aka a gas tax). A gas tax that increased by $0.03 per month (and more after several years) would give consumers a clear reason to reduce their fuel consumption. They would be able to do so in the way that suited them most, be it buying a fuel efficient car, moving closer to work, telecommuting, car-pooling, or many other means. Such a tax would be easy to collect – a federal gas tax already exists - and would eliminate the paperwork created by CAFE. A new gas tax would not cause significant financial hardship because it would give people plenty of time to adapt, as well as clear incentives to do so.

Many people claim to object to a gas tax because it would fall hardest on poorer Americans. However, a gas tax is hardly the only tax that poor people face. A gas tax could easily be offset by using the revenues from it to replace the FICA tax on the first few thousands of dollars of wage earnings. A gas tax plus such an exemption would give poor people a reason to reduce their use of fuel, along with more reasons to work, while still preserving their FICA contributions. A gas tax could also be used to fund improvements in mass transit.

But I am a realist, and recognize that increasing the federal gas tax would be very unpopular. Most Americans are totally uninformed and unrealistic about the viability of our current level of oil usage. Most Americans expect that their grandchildren will drive huge cars everywhere anytime, just like everyone does today. This expectation will certainly be proved terribly wrong. Until the time that Americans support an increasing gas tax, CAFE will be the best policy that can be implemented at the federal level. I look forward to seeing the small improvement that CAFE represents passed soon.

Thank you for your time.

Open Letter: Ending the War in Iraq

Dear Congressmen and Senators,

I am writing today to urge you to work even harder than you have so far to end the disastrous War in Iraq. The War in Iraq has killed thousands of Americans, wounded tens of thousands more, and killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. It has cost American taxpayers over $500 billion so far, and its ultimate costs will be well over $1 trillion. It was started under false pretenses for reasons that still remain unclear, and serves no discernible goal. The War in Iraq is wrong, pointless, bad for America, and must be ended as soon as possible.

I realize that any legislation which includes a clear withdrawal timeline will be vetoed by President Bush, and that at some point funding must be passed. Therefore I urge you to pass legislation which funds the War in Iraq for increments of not more than 3 months at a time. This will force the President to provide progress reports and justification for the war again and again. Hopefully after a time enough Republican legislators will defect and the war can be ended, or this process will continue until the 2008 election and the Republicans will be defeated.

If for some reason the President concedes defeat and agrees to end the troops, the withdrawal must be complete. All American troops should be removed from Iraq, including from Kurdistan, and construction on any long-term bases halted. There is no reason for an American presence in Iraq – the well has been too deeply poisoned, and as long as our troops are in the country the Iraqis will be distracted from rebuilding their country. Ideally, all troops would also be withdrawn from the larger Persian Gulf region, but that will take much more time and some significant political shifts here in America. Troops are also need for the War in Afghanistan – a war that was going well until the president foolishly diverted troops to Iraq.

I also urge you to properly fund the Veterans Administration. Our soldiers have served in Iraq honorably (with a very few exceptions) and deserve to receive proper medical treatment for injuries sustained during the war. The VA was doing quite well with the funding and patients it had until this war started, which broke a system not accustomed to treating new patients. I urge you to work hard to remedy yet another shameful failure of the Bush Administration.

But most of all I urge you to attempt to end the war in Iraq as soon as possible. Please do everything you can ,and make it your top priority. Lives are being wasted and families broken every day because of the War in Iraq, and it should not go on.

Thank you for your time.

Open Letter: Immigration Reform

Dear Congressmen and Senators,

I am writing today to urge your support of comprehensive reform of United States immigration policy. A number of proposals are floating around Washington, the most famous of which is the ridiculous “wall” supported by many Republicans. I must emphasize that you should support reform that addresses all aspects of the issue, and not catchy white elephants.

Of course, when immigration is discussed the focus is primarily on illegal Mexicans. Let me be clear in stating that I do not harbor ill will towards Mexicans, Latinos in general, or any other group, and that any bigotry encountered during this policy debate should be thoroughly denounced. The focus on Mexicans actually distracts from the fact that illegal immigrants come from many countries and arrive in a variety of ways, including overstaying legal visas. However, I must also point out that the relative ease that Mexicans have in emigrating to America reduces pressure on the Mexican government to enact meaningful reforms, and an unreformed, highly unequal, and thus unstable Mexico is not in America's best interest.

Foremost in any bill should be enough funds to staff Immigration and Naturalization Service workplace inspectors at much higher levels. Current levels of INS inspection staffing are not sufficient to create a credible enforcement threat. Crucial to any enforcement process is the belief by lawbreakers that they are likely to be inspected. INS should be able to regularly inspect industries where illegal immigrants are concentrated – food service, janitorial, and construction. The INS should also have sufficient resources to be able to track down those who overstay legal visas because history has shown this class of people can be dangerous to America.

Second in any bill should be much stronger penalties for companies that hire illegal immigrants. Current penalties are so low that a simple cost/benefit analysis makes hiring illegal immigrants a rational move for many companies. Penalties need to be raised to a much more punitive level, and any conspiracies to hire illegal immigrants should be subject to additional levels of punishment.

What should not be included in any immigration reform bill is an amnesty program for illegal immigrants already residing in America. America is a nation of laws and that should apply to everyone who wishes to live in America. Many thousands of people are waiting around the world for the chance to enter America legally, and to allow those who entered illegally to jump ahead of those who respect the legal process is unfair, inappropriate, and a bad moral lesson. However, I am not in favor of mass deportations or anything draconian. Once illegal immigrants realize that their prospects for employment are much poorer than for legal immigrants they will leave on their own, or they will be caught in normal INS sweeps.

In conclusion I hope you support a bill that addresses root causes via law enforcement, while ignoring calls to flag-wave at the border. I am confident you will support good policy.

Thank you for your time.

Open Letter: 2007 Vermont Legislative Session

Dear Representatives and Senators,

I am writing today to express my hope that you will strongly support efforts in the Vermont legislature to address the important and potentially catastrophic issues of Global Warming and Peak Oil. Though the two issues are different in focus, they both have to do with the over-use of fossil fuels by industrial nations such as the United States. While actions by Vermont alone will do very little in and of themselves to reduce global fossil fuel consumption and carbon emissions, strong leadership by our wonderful state could allow other states and countries to follow, and is the moral thing to do regardless of actions elsewhere.

Below is a non-comprehensive list of policies I hope you pursue in the legislature this year.

Electricity Generation and Transmission

• Encourage building of large-scale wind generation projects by reducing regulation
• Support the license renewal of Vermont Yankee as a state policy
• Support programs encouraging the development of a “smart” electrical grid which would allow for time-of-day pricing, and appliances that could communicate with this grid

Household Conservation

• Enact requirements that new homes meet the highest standard for energy efficiency
• Support programs for weatherization of older homes through loans and grants
• Support programs for re-purchasing old and inefficient refrigerators

Transportation Conservation

• Enact a graduated annual vehicle registration fee based on fuel consumption or engine displacement on both light and medium duty vehicles (up to 11,000 lbs)
• Relax pollution standards on automotive diesel engines under 2.0L in displacement from California to Federal standards
• Provide further support for the freight rail network through funding of capital projects which resolve speed, clearance, and weight issues, and which help develop more intermodal terminals

Land Use Planning

• Enact policies that further discourage the conversion of cropland to residential developments

Please contact me if you have any questions about the important issues of Global Warming or Peak Oil. I look forward to seeing concrete progress from Montpelier this year.

Thank you for your time.

Open Letter: Housing Bubble Bailout

Dear Congressmen and Senators,

I am writing today to express my concern over various proposals being floated that would bail out homeowners who have taken out risky or inappropriate loans in the past few years. I am strongly opposed to any kind of bailout. Bailing out people for reasons other than 'acts of God' is bad policy because doing so creates a 'moral hazard'. A moral hazard teaches people that poor decisions do not have negative consequences, which of course is completely wrong.

The modern practice of American homeownership has existed for several decades. Part of that practice has been the broadly-held knowledge that a household should not buy a home that costs more than 3.5 times the household's annual income. Unfortunately, due to the Federal Reserve holding interest rates too low for too long following the 2001 recession, and due to an under-regulated mortgage industry 'innovating' by creating a wide array of very risky new 'products', a great number of households have purchased homes that they would not be able to afford under normal and more rational circumstances. The two unique factors temporarily lowered the down-payment and initial cash flow required to purchase a home, and allowed some households to purchase homes far more expensive than the 3.5 multiplier rule would otherwise dictate. These lower requirements enabled housing prices to be bid up artificially, and created the current housing bubble. As the two special circumstances disappear, housing prices will come down.

I encourage you to use your office to investigate fraudulent and deceptive business practices in the mortgage industry, as well as the wider real estate industry. There are plenty of reports of appraisers inflating home values, real estate agents pressuring appraisers to do so, agents and mortgage brokers encouraging borrowers to lie on their loan applications, and so on. Proper investigation and oversight of the real estate and mortgage industries is needed, especially since the current administration has not done so. I encourage you to create ways for homeowners who have been victims of fraud and deception to seek appropriate compensation.

However, bailing out homeowners would set a bad precedent, as well as keeping housing prices artificially high. The majority of homeowners have made good financial decisions, and bailing out the minority who made bad decisions would be unfair and inappropriate. That means many homeowners who have made bad decisions will suffer, along with holders of risky mortgage bonds. Financial loss must be the price of making bad financial decisions, otherwise there would be no reason to make good financial decisions. Inaction during widespread financial losses is certainly not a vote-winner, but you were elected to provide quality leadership for this country. The appropriate leadership now would be to make sure the unique factors that enabled the housing bubble do not re-occur, and to investigate fraudulent and deceptive practices in the real estate industry. I am confident you will make the correct choice.

Thank you for your time.