As the debate about healthcare is underway, we hear from the far left that a single-payer, government mandated program is the way to go. We hear from the far right that less government intervention and hands-off-my healthcare is the better approach. As both of the ideological arguments persist, the larger concern that is being heavily ignored is the lack of healthcare staff.

Even though Canada and England have fair criticism regarding their systems, the good and the bad, the fact of the matter is that the long waiting lines are not because of it being inefficient, it’s because they have a shortage of doctors and nurses. A friend of mine, a Canadian citizen, wanted to be a nurse there but she decided against it because the classes were in the same realm as that of a doctor. She said that half of the classes were irrelevant for nurses. “I might as well become a doctor,” she said out of frustration. Canada is not making it attractive enough for people to become nurses and the waiting lists for the nursing program are extremely long. In addition, in the United States, almost every school only has 20 seats every year for both dental hygiene and the nursing program. Another friend of mine waited two cycles before she was accepted into the nursing program and her GPA was 3.97.

Its economics 101: If the government, or any company for that matter, supplies something that is going to be in demand, then they also better staff up, too. It’s a mistake when any industry or company supplies a popular product, in this case, healthcare, but not provide the incentives or staff, e.g., healthcare staff to supply the demand. When supply doesn’t meet demand, then that’s how these long lines will persist and people will have a difficult time gaining access to healthcare, regardless if there was a public option, single-payer or non-government involvement.

There are long lines at the hospital ‘til this day. When I used to live in southeastern Massachusetts, the area in which I lived had one hospital for about four to five surrounding towns. One time I went in for a traditional doctor’s visit, and I waited three hours because I didn’t want to go to the clinic, which misdiagnosed what I had at the time. Why was the hospital having long waiting lines? Lack of staff, and that’s without having a single payer or a public option. The problem right now is lack of people to fill the multitude of healthcare positions. Every time I go online to review the job industry, medical positions are always constantly being posted. So, even without a government healthcare plan, we still have a problem of staffing up, and that isn’t being addressed by either party, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. I can’t say anything about England, but many of my friends from Canada have stated that their government hasn’t even begun to address the problem of understaffing in the healthcare industry. I hope that whatever the outcome is with this healthcare debate that the economists will need to address those concerns to our elected officials.

Originally published in The Cambridge Chronicle, February 18, 2010.

Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act signed into law by President Obama on Feb.17, 2009 textbook and other course material expenses incurred in 2009 and 2010 that are not covered by scholarship or grant aid may be counted toward the newly created tax credit called the American Opportunity Tax Credit on that year’s tax return.

So, save your course material receipts — you may be eligible for a tax credit up to $2,500.

Source:  http://www.textbookaid.org/Summary.aspx

Originally posted February 12, 2010 at Wicked Local Cambridge.

Originally published in HuffingtonPost. Click here for the article

Born and raised in MA, I’ve typically voted Democrat in every election except for city council because Cambridge has proportional representation and the municipal elections are not based on party. The Massachusetts Special Election was the first time I voted Republican for a state-wide campaign. I did it for two reasons: protest and to send a message to President Obama and his White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel.

We want a change, but we want the change that we voted for in 2008. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal on December 18, 2009, Emanuel told Jonathan Weisman that he was not worried about appeasing the base. My message to Mr. Emanuel is: don’t ignore your base or they will not turn out to vote — or, quite frankly, they will vote the other way out of protest.

Obama abandoned his efforts to go after Wall Street and, once elected, he moved from the left to the middle. Come to think of it, once he officially got the Democratic nomination, he moved from the left to the middle, and then once he was elected, he skewed more to the right. I realize that many progressives keep saying “Give him more time,” and many are writing articles that he’s doing too much at once — but that’s not the problem. It’s not about giving him more time; it’s that almost all of his decisions are in the opposite direction of his campaign promises. Obama has…

• Given a blank check of TARP funds to the Wall Street bankers and Big Banks, which started off with Henry Paulson under Bush. Maybe there’s nothing he could do about that from the past, but going forward he can set an executive order to reverse some of those decisions or urge his Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, to progressively bring back the regulations that were deregulated under Bill Clinton and weakened under George Bush
• Conceded to Big Pharma, and stopped his efforts behind closed doors to get into a real deal regarding affordable prescription drugs
• Told the Banks/Wall Street that they could have as much financial support that they needed, but when the auto industry came seeking help, fired the CEO of GM and told the Big Three car dealerships (Ford/Chrysler/GM) that they need to come with a concrete plan on how they will build efficient cars and then they would consider giving them money – that’s actually great! However, he should have also given the same instructions to the financial industry when they came crawling to Congress for money
• Abandoned the Public Option, and only gave minimal support for it – when he called for “healthcare reform as a necessity,” he didn’t push hard enough for the Public Option, which ended up dying once it reached the Senate. A president has the power of the veto – what he should have done was tell Congress that he will veto any bill that did not have a Public Option, and he should use reconciliation to pass it, whereas all he needs is 51 votes, and not 60
• Fired his White House Counsel for actually taking Obama’s written plan from the campaign to close Gitmo and executed what Obama campaigned on, but Obama decides to concede to Dick Cheney, and Gitmo wasn’t closed, instead Obama fires the person that he hired to execute his campaign promise – go figure, huh?
• Tim Geithner and Larry Summers have been bought out by Golden-Sachs, and what they’re doing right now is writing regulation that will favor Wall Street, not Main Street – now I ask you, how is that “change”? The populist message that Obama campaigned on was essentially supposed to be executed through Larry Summers, and he hasn’t done that at all. Instead, Summers has embraced former Secretary of State Henry Paulson’s idea that the economy is rough shape, and there’s only so little the Administration can do.
• People are still suffering from bad mortgages and that has yet to be addressed because both of Obama’s plans have failed on separate occasions. Early into his administration, Obama touted a mortgage plan that economists John D. Geanakoplos and Susan P. Koniak predicted would fail, explaining why it would fail in a March 4, 2009 article published in the New York Times, and in mid November, their predictions rang true.

When we vote our elected officials into office, we need to challenge them on the good and bad. When they move away, we pressure them to hold to their campaign promises and when they do the right thing, we say thank you.

My vote for Brown was not in support of Scott Brown, and although Coakley ran a weak campaign, I didn’t vote against her, but it was a vote against Emanuel and Obama for abandoning the progressive agenda that he campaigned on during the 2008 election. Do I think that Coakley would have served my state better if elected to the Senate? One has to wonder, however, she didn’t come across as if she wanted the job, and acted as if she had it in the bag. In addition, she flip flopped in the debates, lacked a lot of detail in her speeches, and she had 15 lobbyists from the healthcare industry heavily influencing her campaign. Currently, the Democrat’s are already conceding left and right on key issues, therefore another Democrat in the Senate would not suffice. Senator-elect Brown seemed to want the job more; he was out there campaigning every day, and within his platform I agreed with about 4 or 5 of his agenda (I’m center left, politically).

What frustrates me the post regarding elected officials is when they get into office, they ignore their base. One thing I will give credit to Republican’s, they don’t ignore their supporters, and Obama needs to stop appeasing Republican’s who want to block his key initiatives and pass healthcare through reconciliation, where all he needs is 51 votes and not 60. That’s how Bush got all of his stuff through – you didn’t hear Bush talking about needing 60 Republicans to pass his agenda while stalling everything. Obama got elected on anti-Bush, but once he got into office, he’s embraced many of Bush’s policies – if we wanted another Bush in office, we would have elected McCain.

The last straw for me was when Obama came down to my campus on Sunday, touting his support for Coakley, but forgetting that he still hasn’t shown tough leadership against the party that wants to see him fail. Leadership is not unilateral disarmament where you put down your weapons and walk toward the enemy stating that you just want to negotiate while they spout vile lies about you, i.e. fake birth certificate and other fake lies that have been saying since he got elected. Also, mentioning that Coakley is someone that goes against the status quo and would be tough against special interests. Really? As Arianna Huffington stated in Countdown, the night of the election, Mr. President, you are the status quo. Also, your administration is bursting with special interests. How can we take your word that Coakley isn’t going to get into office and fall within the same gamesmanship that you have?

Thank you, Celinda Lake, for your interview with Brave New Films, and your research that you released regarding what would happen if Brown won. Everything in your research reflects exactly what I’ve felt as a former Obama supporter, and that is the feeling that his administration has ignored and abandoned the middle class. I’ve unregistered as a Democrat, and although I’m center left politically, I re-registered as an Independent, and don’t align myself with any party except the mad-as-hell party. Obama talks about all the things that he’s going to do, and his entourage of aides can echo it, but if it’s not followed up with action, they are just words. And if you continue to shelter bankers and Insurance Corporations, your base will know and you won’t get reelected in 2012.

Transparency and the Brown Victory

By Will Brownsberger, January 23, 2010, 1:04 pm

This from a lifelong Democrat and continuing true believer in government spending: The heart of our problem is a sense of entitlement to spend the taxpayers’ money.

I recently endorsed a letter by several of my House colleagues that called for greater transparency in the House, including, most critically from my perspective, transparency in financial operations.

According to records that I obtained from the state controller in November, over the past five years, the House spent five million per year on non-personnel items — phones, computers, etc. (This includes spending through an account jointly managed with the Senate, but excludes spending managed exclusively by the Senate.)

Here is the problem, half of that $25 million went to five corporate entities and three of those five were, according to corporate records, run by the same individual. And, according to campaign finance records, that individual is a major donor to legislative leaders.

I have urged since early December that the speaker voluntarily and systematically disclose the records of how this vendor (and other house vendors) were selected and what the taxpayers got for their money. However, the legislature has exempted itself from the public records law and from the laws that govern purchasing of goods and services by state government, and the speaker has so far refused to make voluntary disclosures.

The December flap about the House legal bills is a related example. Even though the United States Attorney has said he has no objection to disclosure of the bills, the speaker continues to refuse to disclose them.

Similarly, house leadership has refused to allow a disclosure of staffing patterns. The majority of reps have a single hard-working aide. But there are many obvious pockets of overstaffing in the House and the speaker’s staff duplicates the expertise of committee staff.

Although a staff roster with assignments is unavailable even to the House membership, the total level of staffing is available from the controller’s office. Strikingly, although there have been some well publicized layoffs, the total head count in the House as of Saturday, January 16, 2010 was 665, only 4 below the level in mid-2008 before the recession began in earnest.

In the larger picture, these are small money items. Why make an issue out of them? To be fair, it is much harder for the speaker to do the right thing on intimate management issues like this than to do the right thing on larger issues that have more remote consequences. Perhaps, the problem is near-sighted affection more than arrogant entitlement.

Either way, people on the street have — based on story after unpleasant newspaper story — a sense that the Massachusetts Democratic establishment is unable or unwilling to discipline itself. These smaller indiscretions obscure real recent accomplishments like pension reform, ethics reform, transportation reform, and education reform, not to mention producing a timely budget in a deep recession.

That’s part of why Scott Brown, someone who holds many views that are not popular in Massachusetts, was able to take advantage of Martha Coakley’s anemic campaign and become our United States Senator. His victory here was not a reversal of Barack Obama’s election, but in many respects a repeat. Obama also ran as the people’s candidate (against an arrogant national Republican leadership).

I am privileged to represent a “safe” Democratic district, leadership has been good to me in my three years in the House and I plan seek reelection to the House next year. I don’t have a survival need or a vengeful or ambitious motive to speak up on these issues.

But I do believe that if we can’t do some public soul searching and admit some error, we Democrats are in for more blood-letting. I recently resigned from my House committee vice-chairmanship so that I could speak freely about these issues as a rank and file member.

Representative Brownsberger’s original piece was published on his website. Click here for access

This is in response to the Cambridge Chronicle’s piece, “Capuano reverses course, would vote against health bill with abortion ban,” Nov. 11.

First of all, to my liberal friends, I don’t think the government should be responsible for paying for the decision, or lack thereof, regarding a woman’s choice to abort her child. As long as there are abortion clinics, she is exercising that right. However, it takes two to tango and the responsibility should financially lie upon the mother and the father.

Secondly, the national debate coming from the Democrats is only being half-told. Abortion will be covered under the public option for a woman who is impregnated by incest, rape, or if the life of the mother is in danger. There are already private health insurers who don’t cover abortion, so why such the outrage?

I think I can live with a healthcare bill that doesn’t cover abortion. Let’s face it, some women use abortion as a birth control mechanism, emphasis on the word, “some.” Should the government be responsible for the woman not going on birth control or her partner not using protection? Let’s focus on more sex education in middle school or high school, protection from sexually transmitted diseases, and not so much focus on abortion.

Not that it really matters, but politically I’m center left. I think the government has a role regarding many of the things that private industry can’t make up, but it’s not the only entity. When there’s a political party that is middle-of-the-road with a platform to end poverty and homelessness, with ideas to combine both government and private industry, I will be signing up in a heartbeat.

On that note, I urge the Cambridge Chronicle to cover the other candidates, too — Democrats Steve Pagliuca and Alan Kharzei; Republican Scott Brown; and the independent candidates, although so far Joseph L. Kennedy, Libertarian candidate, is the only independent running who has set up a website: http://joekennedyforsenate.com. We can’t say that someonecoming from the left or the right represents the views of the entire state, therefore, it’s vital that we also hear from the candidates who are coming from the venter. Yes, this is a blue state, but it’s not that blue. After all, a Democratic governor hasn’t won office for 16 years until Gov. Deval Patrick came along in 2006. In short, it’s vital to hear all sides of the debate and listen to the ideas from all of the candidates before making an informed decision.

Originally published in the Cambridge Chronicle, Wicked Local Cambridge, November 19, 2009 @ 7:13 AM. To view it, click here

ABC’s Good Morning America features Kathy Spencer on October 29, 2009, a Massachusetts mother, family of six, on her quest to share tons of info regarding money-saving grocery tips.

Spencer: “When I go to the store, I only buy what works out free or close to free, and that’s how I do it for as little as I can.”

What stood out to me: When I frequent the deli, even with a coupon, I feel obligated sometimes to get 1 pound of the item that has $1 off. However, with Kathy’s idea, when she has $1 off coupon at the deli, she gets a ¹/₂₅ pound, and the item is either free or dirt cheap. On my next grocery shopping trip, I’m going to use some of these tips. 

We need City Councilors who aren’t afraid to stand up to the status quo. It seems that the current Council has let City Manager Bob Healy take their power away from them. This isn’t an accusation – go back to the first candidate forum where the majority of the incumbents defended his high salary and questionable tactics, including the discrimination case filed against him. Are they too afraid to challenge him or are they receiving favors of their own? If not, please explain to me why this occurs?

For the few councilors who do challenge Healy, where are the other councilor’s voices? This reminds me of the Patriot Act, which passed the Senate 99-1 back in 2001. Senator Russ Feingold was the opposing vote, even though at the time it was unpopular. Fast forward nine years, the Senate is now catching on to the fact that there have been abuses regarding the Patriot Act within the Dept. of Justice. Will city councilors recognize flaws in something and stand up for it, even among unpopularity?

In addition, for someone to think that one person is the only person fit for the job is mistaken. Take New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg – he feels he’s the only person knowledgeable and qualified to run the city of New York. That same argument is being said about Healy; however, it’s elitist for an individual or a group of individuals to argue this. If I was in a job position performing poorly, I doubt that upper management would make excuses for my behavior, therefore I don’t think that the City Councilors should feel weak when it comes to challenging him, and there should be more than one voice of reason. For example, City Councilor Craig Kelley shouldn’t have had 4 or 5 councilors cave on different measures that he was trying to implement regarding transparency.

I’m itching for a clean slate regarding the new incoming Council because Cambridge deserves better. Defending Healy’s actions doesn’t showcase strong leadership to push the city forward; it tells other people that his behavior is acceptable. I hope that the Council will begin to listen to the constituents and not wait to challenge mistakes or errors when it’s too late. Cambridge residents, please share your insight if any of the City Council incumbents have challenged political corruption in the past.

Originally published in the Cambridge Chronicle, Wicked Local Cambridge, Oct 30, 2009 @ 11:49 AM. To view it, click here

It took more than 72 years for women to gain the right to vote and be equal to men. When the civil rights movement began, hate filtered through the country. Brown vs. Board of Education overturned Plessy vs. Ferguson because schools refused to integrate; even after the vote was passed, it took police to force the doors open.

Back then, people were raising the same types of questions that are being raised about not putting same-gender marriage on the ballot. Decades ago, when women demanded the right to vote, men asked, “Why should you have the same rights as us? You’re only property, and property does not have rights.” In addition, women who were complacent criticized women who spoke out. It was considered unladylike to speak about rights for women, and back then, women were chastised, tortured and/or killed. Most times, it wasn’t that violent — the husband would disown the wife and keep the children. Most times it was easier to be complacent because it meant you had a roof over your head and access to your children.

As for blacks, same deal. Back then it was, “Blacks are subhuman; they don’t deserve the same rights as white folks.” Come to think of it, Jim Crow laws were the silent way of keeping slavery alive and let black people continually be subconsciously enslaved. Blacks weren’t allowed to marry outside their race, couldn’t live in the same town as whites, and most restaurants wouldn’t serve them inside. They had to order by a take-out window. “Hey, we want your money, but we just don’t want you inside.” Yes, back then the system was backward.

Women are still fighting for rights of equality. What a victory for Cynthia Haddad, the woman who won the $2 million lawsuit against Wal-Mart for wage discrimination. Blacks are still fighting for equality. Los Angeles Times columnist Molly Ivins said in her June 20 article about Texas justice, “In 1998, James Byrd Jr. was dragged to death behind a pickup truck for being black in Jasper. Two of the three men responsible got the death penalty. This was not the first time in Texas a white man was given the death penalty for killing a black man. It was the second.”

I think that 70 years from now, there will still be racists against gays, just as there are racists against blacks and racists against women. I deal with racism on a daily basis, and unfortunately, when you see it all the time, you get accustomed to it. You shrug your shoulders and walk away, silently saying, “It doesn’t matter what you think of me because it’s your problem — you’re the one with the problem.” If people have this pent-up anger about equality for others, they need therapy, but who knows if a psychiatrist can help them? Maybe, maybe not, but one thing is for sure: people need to grow with the times. And to think, decades ago women were shunned for wearing pants. Look how far the country has come. We should all be proud, even though we have a long way to go.

Originally posted in The Standard-Times newspaper,  SouthCoastToday.com – Posted June 13, 2007 12:00 AM

To view original article, click here

Thanks to a detailed explanation from Cambridge School Committee incumbent candidates Marc McGovern and Patty Nolan, the Cambridge Proportional Representation voting system is a bit clearer. PR is a different ballgame from classroom learning as a college student to hands-on-experience, that’s for sure.

Out of the nine candidates running for CSC, I’m giving my number one vote to McGovern. Earlier this year, I had a school registration hiccup with the Cambridge Public School Department. With no luck from the CPSD, I contacted the CSC and two members reached out to me for support — McGovern was one of them. The next day, he got on the phone with the CPSD, and even though the particular CPSD bureaucrat that he conversed with didn’t fix the problem, it was McGovern’s response that stood out to me.

In addition, what I noticed right away about McGovern is his platform of ideas and commitment to the job. Budget transparency — gently correcting inaccuracies about the duties of the CSC; he wants ineffective programs shut down and even said during one of the debates that “sometimes programs are easy to start up, but harder to shut down because people are afraid to say that the program just isn’t working;” fixing programs within the school system should be “educationally structured” and not political; and lastly, the top thing that weighs heavy on a lot of parents minds is improving CPSD’s controlled choice assignment process.

By the way, it was Sen. Tolman’s office and Deputy Superintendent Dr. Carolyn Turk who fixed the situation in the end. It’s excellent to have a responsive state senator and deputy superintendent who act with a sense of urgency. It’s my hope that these five candidates will join McGovern — Richard Harding, Fred Fantini, Alice Turkel, Patty Nolan and Nancy Tauber. These six candidates are passionate about the city of Cambridge, they have a level of enthusiasm for what they believe will help improve the public school system and, on top of that, a majority of these candidates have children in the school system. That’s not a determining factor, but it’s definitely very important because not only will they be fighting for Cambridge children, but also fighting for their own children. All the best to the other candidates running for School Committee.

Originally published in the Cambridge Chronicle, Wicked Local Cambridge, Oct 19, 2009 @ 02:53 PM. To view it, click here

This is in response to City Council candidate Tom Stohlman’s October 6 Opinion Letter, “Why the bad voter turnout?,” he asked: “Why do student residents, even the ones who are registered voters in Cambridge, pass on their chance to have a say in their local government?” I appreciate that Mr. Stohlman has asked this question and hopefully other students will weigh in as well. 

To put it plainly, if the candidate running isn’t energetic, reaching out to student needs, or providing opportunities for students to be engaged, they will stay home. We witnessed an unusual high voter turnout from young people during the 2008 Presidential election, and I think that local government can capture the same tools that were used. One of those tools used by almost all of the Presidential candidates was social networking. Twitter, Youtube, MySpace, Facebook, and blogging, to name a few. Additionally it comes down to the candidate, their platform and whether or not they can connect to voters. For example, Barack Obama and Sarah Palin captured a lot of young hearts. They were both energetic, upbeat and they continuously had a lot of enthusiasm while they campaigned, which is why they drew large crowds at many of their events.

Furthermore, young people probably don’t turn out because they probably feel that their local government is unreachable to them and that perhaps government or voting doesn’t affect them. As candidates campaign, learn from students why they don’t vote and pledge to help change that, even if your not elected to City Council. Another idea, Mr. Stohlman, is to conduct market research and ask students what they look for out of their local government and then work on implementing the popular ideas. Students won’t vote for a candidate that doesn’t reach out to their constituency the way that Obama and Palin’s outreach prevailed. What are the solutions? Campaign on campus; listen to their needs; alleviate the barriers that cause students not to be engaged; and be engaged as you talk about your ideas for helping students who are voicing concerns.

In addition to campaigning, City Council candidates Leland Cheung and Minka vanBeuzekom are also registering people to vote and both of them have been actively using social networking to campaign. My State Representative, William Brownsberger, is probably one of the first local politicians I’ve seen who has latched on to social networking and actively use it for his constituency. He also has a website where he sends out a monthly newsletter to his e-mail listserv regarding his legislation. Moreover, his website is structured like a blog so that constituents can weigh in their thoughts, and in the e-mail he always encourages us by saying: “I would appreciate your comments on this.” He also has Twitter, Facebook, and recently created a Youtube channel where he posts his meetings and interviews.

This is a different era now and it’s time to upgrade to the next level. Also, don’t just create a Twitter/Youtube/Facebook page and expect people to find it on their own, which they probably will, but talk about in your debates like Leland and Minka do or put the social media icons on your website. Leland recently posted a Youtube clip that addressed students and e-mailed/Twittered/Facebook’d it to everyone signed up with his networks. As he campaigns, he talks about staying in touch through social networking, which I’m sure that if he’s elected he will continue to use. I’ve visited all of the candidate’s websites and a lot of them are outdated, but the top websites that stood out were the user-friendly sites, like Silvia Glick, Leland Cheung, and Minka. I hope not to offend any of the other candidate’s websites, but the OpEd talked about engaging students, and one of those ways is to have a user-friendly website that’s actively updated on Cambridge-related issues. Will this turn into votes for Leland and Minka? We will find out after the election.

In 2006, I planned and marketed an event in my former town. I went door-to-door, approached people on the street and advertised on MySpace and in the local newspaper. Do you know what the majority of people that came to the event heard the information from? Yep, you guessed it, MySpace! In 2007 I was e-mailed on Facebook by the Obama campaign – they were sending e-mails asking people to check out his website and that’s how I got to know about his campaign early on. It was probably hard work for those early Obama supporters, but it paid off because look where he is now.

It would also be nice if the City Council can incorporate a blog onto the City Council website, have their weekly meetings uploaded on Youtube, Meeting Minutes on Facebook and use Twitter to connect each blog post, and inform the student constituency during every academic year, for example, have a little blurb in the newspaper at all of the college campuses in Cambridge. You want to engage students? Go where they are.

Shorter version of this was written for the Cambridge Chronicle, published on Wicked Local, Cambridge, Oct 13, 2009 @ 08:37 AM. To view it, click here