|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Our members' writings
As a new feature of the GDCC web site, we will showcase from time to time the writings of our members. Any writings by a member that appear in a publication of general circulation (whether electronic or printed) is eligible to be considered.
Here are some samples of our recent offerings.
Arthur Thomas in the Gloucester Daily Times, March 25, 2011:
http://www.gloucestertimes.com/opinion/x106228555/Letter-What-we-really-get-for-our-tax-dollars
Arthur Thomas in the Gloucester Daily Times, Feb. 16, 2011
To the editor:
The commonwealth decided to send Scott Brown to Washington after he proclaimed himself an independent voice to represent all of us.
When someone tells me that she or he will be independent, I expect to see some evidence.
Looking at the 2011 voting record of someone now established in Washington, I discovered that, of the 15 votes taken so far this year, Mr. Brown has sided with the majority 14 times.
The one time he went against the majority was on a vote concerning an amendment presented by Mr. McConnell of Kentucky.
He voted for it, which seems safe given that it was defeated with 47 "ayes," 51 "nays," and two who refused to vote. A three-fifth majority was required to pass the amendment. Opposing one's party leader is an easy thing to do when the vote has no impact.
Mr. Brown is now looking into our fishing industry and gathering information to look at the arguments presented by the NOAA fishing regulators. How long had Mr. Brown served in the state Senate before seeking the U.S. Senate? Why did he not realize then that some companies and businesses in Massachusetts as well as many people derive their livelihoods from fishing?
Even George (Perfect Storm) Clooney had that one figured out. Did Mr. Brown really need to drive his truck to D.C. to see that what happens in D.C. affects us?
If we have a senator who votes for the majority 93 1/3 percent of the time (14/15), why don't we just hire a programmer to create a simulation that models Brown's voting pattern and let it represent us?
We could save thousands that could be invested in education, healthcare, police and emergency services, and answer e-mails.
I expect partisan politicians to vote for her or his party most of the time, which rather suggests opposing the majority more than seven times out of a hundred.
I expect a self-declared independent to not side with the majority 93 1/3 % of the time.
It must be asked, from what is he independent? He surely is not independent of the bandwagon.
Arthur Thomas
Art Thomas, Gloucester Daily Times, Aug. 22, 2010
Letter to the editor: Revisiting our spending priorities
To the editor:
There are few topics of agreement in Letters to the Editor and the online postings. One such is a desire for lower taxes and various areas are offered for sacrifice.
Some advocate reducing spending on Social Security, Medicare, infrastructure, education, assisting other countries, emergency relief efforts, and so forth. The loudest of those who cry for smaller government and reduced expenditures fail to mention the huge size of the military budget.
Instead, they fiercely cite issues of National Defense, our personal security, and porous borders as justification.
Some claim that underfunding the governments will force better planning. Has anyone ever seen this happen? Anywhere?
Considering what we spend in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan we might be able to gain the peace we all seek by doing something radical. Spend a quarter of our "war" budget to create, develop or support new jobs in this country; spend one-eighth of our "war" budget in building schools, hospitals, infrastructure, and agriculture in those three countries as well as in Mexico, Central America, Haiti, and the countries in the Caribbean.
What could we expect to find in a few years?
Terrorist organizations would find fewer recruits. Fewer people would see the U.S. as a job magnet. Drug cartels wouldn't have as many willing smugglers. We would have better employment, a more relaxed and optimistic outlook about the future, and opportunities to discuss ways to find common ground in resolving differences.
ARTHUR THOMAS
Seaview Road, Gloucester
Catherine Bayliss in the Cape Ann Beacon
It’s interesting – and revealing – that many of the Republicans yelling loudest now about our country’s budget deficit were silent on the issue for eight years during which President George Bush took President Clinton’s Democratic-sponsored surplus and ran up the country’s debt.
They presumably believed it was worth spending wildly on two of their favorite initiatives: the war in Iraq and tax cuts for the rich.
Yes, our national debt is a major problem if uncorrected over the coming years.
But the recession we’re trying to climb out of is also very dangerous. It will be disastrous for millions of suffering people, as well as for the country’s future prosperity, if the economy stays in the doldrums.
How can we significantly reduce the budget deficit unless many more people can find adequate work?
Once people are getting paid, and not living in constant fear of losing their jobs or their houses, they’ll be spending more money, and when individuals and companies are earning more, government revenues will increase, thereby reducing the deficit.
The escalating cost of health care to our overall economy will still be a challenge, but thanks to healthcare reform brought about by President Obama and the Democratic Congress, access to decent health care should gradually improve for most Americans, and the staggering burden of insurance premiums on employers should gradually be reduced.
That is, the healthcare cost problem is manageable given the political will to solve it in a way that is good for Americans’ physical and fiscal health.
It’s amazing that some of the fiercest critics of the deficit seem uninterested in avoiding waste in healthcare spending. They haven’t minded healthcare costs as long as private-sector insurers, pharmaceuticals, and other companies are making big profits, often at the expense of our well-being. (Witness the Republican-engineered Medicare Part D, with its prohibition against Medicare’s bargaining for prescription drugs, and the infamous doughnut hole. Fortunately the healthcare reform legislation of 2010 will improve Medicare.)
State budgets across the country are undergoing severe cuts as a result of tax revenues lost because workers and employers aren’t making enough money. (By law, most states are forced to balance their budgets.)
When enough revenue isn’t coming in, states must make painful cuts. Cuts that affect each of us in some way, whether it’s larger class sizes for our kids; slower response by EMTs, fire, and police; deteriorating public buildings and parks; unrepaired roads; weakened public health initiatives; excessive college fees; lack of investment in projects that would improve quality of life; more people suffering from insufficient food, shelter, and other basic necessities.
The budget reductions in many states (and note that the fiscal woes of big states, like California, have economic impacts on the rest of us) will add to the number of Americans who are unemployed. That will further depress economic activity.
The constant drumbeat — led by Republicans in Congress, followed by some Democrats in Republican-leaning states — at this moment about the country’s deficit (admittedly a serious problem) is weakening the political will to extend unemployment benefits and to continue stimulating job growth.
Somehow the foolish idea of “cutting off your nose to spite your face” has taken hold with some citizens frustrated by current economic conditions.
Especially in times like this, we need government policies that protect people from disaster and that invest in America’s future prosperity.
We won’t climb out of the hole if we adopt the Republican philosophy of tax cuts for the rich (it’s the rich who mostly benefit from tax cutting), trickle-down on everyone else.
As President Obama said recently, “After they drove the car into the ditch, made it as difficult as possible for us to pull it back, now they want the keys back. No! You can’t drive. We don’t want to have to go back into the ditch. We just got the car out.”
All Americans have reasons to be grateful for Democratic initiatives that to date have prevented this economic collapse from becoming another Great Depression.
If you don’t know what misery the Great Depression brought about, ask your grandparents or watch a movie about the 1930s.
In those years, they didn’t have unemployment insurance, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, FDIC insurance to protect people from bank failures.
Thanks to FDR and other Democratic presidents, Democratic congresses, Democratic governors, and Democratic state legislatures, these and other programs for the common good have prevented much of the desperate hunger and widespread homelessness of the 1930s from recurring today.
Don’t hand the keys over in November.
Ward 1 Member Arthur Thomas in the Gloucester Daily Times:
To The Editor:
In Mr. Burgess’ letter “Big Government vs. the little people” there seems to be a problem determining towards whom my previous letter “The hypocrisy of calls to 'downsize' government” was directed. What I said is this, “Are any Tea Partiers/Libertarians still employed by a government? Why would any who favor a smaller government continue to feast from the public trough?” And, “It is not amusing to listen to Bobby Jindal, Louisianan Grand Poobah, decry the excesses of the federal government in 2002 and then hear his plaintive cries at the Coastline: "Why aren't they here to protect us," in 2010.”
The straw man quandary of “Big” versus “Little” government is a great issue, one that arouses passions and vigorous debates. Unfortunately, it has no validity. As an exemplar of big government working well despite inadequate funding and support, the CDC does a great job and it is a job that no one state would finance. The likelihood of all 50 states cooperating with each other is at best questionable and that assumes that all 50 states would invest in their citizens’ current and future health. The mission statement can be found at http://www.cdc.gov/about/organization/mission.htm. It is not chartered to develop new drugs although their research might lead to discovery or development of new drugs by private or academic institutions.
The value of small governments can be challenged as well. Since 1962, there has been a public blight on Rogers Street. I did not live here at the time so I cannot attest that the City had mayors and city counselors prior to our arrival here. Up through the terms of Mayor J. Bell the blight persisted. Finally, we have a “Do something, especially when it is right” Mayor. The same cast of prior leaders also did nothing about making sure that the infrastructure was being maintained properly, such as water treatment facilities and the water and sewer overflow capacity. At a time when it would have been less expensive to maintain facilities, repair, or replace pipes, the leaders procrastinated. Had the money been invested in the infrastructure we would not now be under a “consent order” to fix all the problems that had been ignored. The money we do not have is used to correct the gifts from the past. Money that could have been used to fully staff all Fire Stations, provide better police equipment and facility, continue adequate funding for schools, and so forth. None of this can now happen until the debts are paid off. That is not the fault of “Big” government.
If any are tempted to replace government workers with private sector employees, first check out http://www.slge.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={22748FDE-C3B8-4E10-83D0-959386E5C1A4}&DE={BD1EB9E6-79DA-42C7-A47E-5D4FA1280C0B}. They are underpaid and underappreciated. They deserve better recognition and compensation.
Perhaps a day will come when we can establish common frames of reference to discuss issues qua issues. Tossing labels and accusations about seems unhelpful.
Respectfully,
Arthur Thomas
Art Thomas again in The Gloucester Daily Times
To the editor:
Around 10 a.m. Tuesday, Aug. 3, two women were outside the Dale Street post office with petitions. I was curious as to why. This is the conversation:
Q. What are the petitions for?
A. We want to impeach Obama.
Q. Why do you want to impeach Obama?
A. He's a fascist.
Q. Do you know what a "fascist" is?
Silence
Q. Can you define what a fascist is? Can you name a country that has been controlled by fascists?
Silence
Q. Do you know what "impeach" means?
A. Kick him out of office.
Q. Do you know what each house of Congress is responsible for when they issue an impeachment?
Silence
Q. If you don't know what a fascist is and don't understand what impeachment means or entails, why are you out here?
A. "Well, some people are disappointed with him."
This is a troubling sign of the inroads being made by anti-democratic mass media — held unaccountable for their blatant daily misrepresentations and mischaracterizations. While they have a right to make most of their utterances without harm, there is a responsibility to be accurate and honest. All such statements need to be validated and challenged if we are to keep our rights intact. Some might say it's our patriotic duty.
Arthur Thomas
|
|