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.

You and your parents must also now be experts in the staggering cost of tuition, books, and living expenses.

It used to be that going to a state school was inexpensive, and if you lived at home and/or had a part-time job you could emerge from college without much debt. That must seem amazing to current students.

Something isn’t right when students who can perform at a college level, have an interest in learning more, and need a college degree to obtain a decent job face so many obstacles.

It’s not good for our whole society, since an educated work force is key to our future prosperity.

I’ve heard some older people complaining that today’s young people have it too easy. They question how teenagers can afford expensive coffee lattes, cell phones, MP3 players, laptop computers, and their own cars.

But every youthful generation has its own pleasures and legitimate needs. Many of us older folks spent plenty of our teenage allowances or summer wages at the record store for Elvis or Beatles songs or at the soda fountain counter for raspberry cokes that gave us a mouthful of cavities.

But we didn’t have to mortgage our future in order to attend college. It was expensive, but nothing like what it is today.

A couple of weeks ago, as part of the new health care and education reform legislation, President Obama signed into law major improvements in financial aid for college students.

Here’s how the President described it:

“You see, for almost two decades, we’ve been trying to fix a sweetheart deal in federal law that essentially gave billions of dollars to banks to act as unnecessary middlemen in administering student loans. So those are billions of dollars that could have been spent helping more of our students attend and complete college; that could have been spent advancing the dreams of our children; that could have been spent easing the burden of tuition on middle-class families. Instead, that money was spent padding student lenders’ profits.

“… I didn’t stand with the banks and the financial industries in this fight. That’s not why I came to Washington. And neither did any of the members of Congress who are here today. We stood with you. We stood with America’s students…

“In the 21st century, when the success of every American hinges more than ever on the quality of their education, and when America’s success as a nation rests more than ever on an educated workforce that is second to none, we can’t afford to waste billions of dollars on giveaways to banks.

“We need to invest that money in our students. We need to invest in our community colleges. We need to invest in the future of this country. We need to meet the goal I set last year and graduate more of our students than any other nation by the year 2020…

“By cutting out the middleman, we’ll save American taxpayers $68 billion in the coming years — $68 billion. That’s real money – real savings that we’ll reinvest to help improve the quality of higher education and make it more affordable.”

The new financial aid legislation isn’t as big an improvement as many of us would like, but it’s a major step in the right direction.

All Senate Republicans, including Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, voted against this legislation.

Luckily for the future of our country, there were enough brave Democrats in the House and Senate to lead the country forward on health care and financial aid.

Most of us have forgotten – if we ever knew – the big fights that had to be waged for almost every major program that benefits Americans who aren’t rich. Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare, are all examples of improvements in Americans’ lives that our country was able to bring about when a Democrat was President and Democrats were in the majority in the House and Senate.

Democrats have a record of helping young people afford college in ways that our whole society benefited from. If you doubt that, check out the history of financial aid in this country.

As Democratic President Lyndon Johnson said, “We believe, that is, you and I, that education is not an expense. We believe it is an investment.”

Or, as John Kenneth Galbraith said, “Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.”

We can probably agree that politics is not the art of perfection.  It’s not for purists.

But it’s the only way that citizens of a democracy can bring about a better future.

The untiring efforts – over decades of service — of people of good will are occasionally rewarded by an inching forward of progressive legislation.  It has been painful to follow the developments, but the health care legislation passed first in the House of Representatives, and then in the Senate on Christmas Eve, may become law early this year, if difficult compromises can be made between the House and Senate versions.

If it is does become law, once all the provisions are implemented (which will occur over several years) it will provide a significant relief for millions of Americans who now can barely pay their health insurance premiums, or can’t afford any insurance, or are denied insurance because of ill health, or who must stay in a terrible job just to maintain insurance for their families.  It will also mean that the rest of us don’t fall into those categories in the future. Many lives will be happier, healthier, and longer.

The disastrous choice is what we have today for a health insurance “system” for those not old enough for Medicare. Without the new legislation, in the coming years our health and our country’s economic well-being would be further threatened.

In future it may be possible to pass laws that do more to improve access to appropriate health care. (Other advanced countries have done it, with far less political turmoil.) Historians point out that when Social Security was first enacted, many Americans were not entitled to its benefits. In later years, as the public became more conscious of its positive effects, Social Security was expanded.

One of the clear lessons of the present health care debate is that political parties do matter. 

Republicans in Congress are doing everything they can to block progress on health care. This isn’t new. Republicans have traditionally voted in large numbers against legislation that would improve the lives of millions–such as Unemployment Insurance, Social Security, and Medicare–when it was first introduced.  After programs become popular with voters, Republican opposition is less vocal, but it’s always lurking (remember that our last Republican President tried to “privatize” Social Security).

Another lesson is how hard it is to get progressive legislation through the Senate even after it has passed in the House.

It takes 60 votes in the Senate to prevent a Republican filibuster. Currently the Senate has 58 Democrats and 2 independents. One independent is Sanders of Vermont, always a progressive voice; the other is Lieberman of Connecticut, who left the Democratic Party during the last election but whose vote was desperately sought in order to prevent Senate Republicans from blocking the legislation.

Another staggering fact about the Senate is that every single state has two senators and therefore gets two of the hundred possible votes.

Rural states get two votes. Industrial states get two votes. Heavily populated states get two votes (for example California, with almost 37 million residents). States with almost no one living there get two votes (for example Wyoming, with half a million people). Southern states get two votes. Northern states get two votes. States with more Republicans get two votes. States with more Democrats get two votes.  And so on.

Massachusetts has two precious votes. We must keep our two Senators in the Democratic column, working and voting – like Kennedy and Kerry –for the common good, for improving the lives of people, for a more just and compassionate society.

Don’t forget to go to your polling location on January 19 to vote for Martha Coakley, Democratic candidate for Senate in the special election to fill the seat formerly held by Kennedy. Polls are open from 7am to 8pm.

If you know that you won’t be able to get there on January 19, call or visit your town /city hall today to make arrangements for an absentee ballot:

Gloucester City Clerk, Dale Avenue, 978-281-9720

Manchester Town Clerk, 10 Central Street, 978-526-2040

Rockport Town Clerk, 34 Broadway, 978-546-6894

Your vote affects what gets done – or not done – in Washington. Many close elections have been lost because a few supporters stayed home.  Circle Tuesday, January 19, on your new calendar now!

The Reclessi family pays for all its purchases in cash and refuses on principle to enter into debt. Two older children are working full-time rather than attending college, because the family doesn’t have enough savings to help with tuition. The youngest child doesn’t have a regular pediatrician because of the cost. The Reclessis’ twenty-year-old roof has been leaking, and after they reviewed contractors’ estimates they decided to go with a patch rather than a replacement.

The Decentos have reluctantly borrowed money, with a plan to pay off the loans over the next decade. Their eleven-year-old has buck teeth, and the parents have decided to get her braces even though they’ll have to charge the orthodontist’s bills to their credit card. They already have a second mortgage because they’re helping pay for two children in college. They took out a loan to replace the leaking nineteen-year-old roof.

Which family is fiscally responsible?

How do the parents’ decisions reflect their moral values?

Which family is likely to be better off financially in twenty years?

The Decento parents enter into debt in order to make investments in their children’s futures as well as house repairs that will likely save money in the long run. As a result they’re making personal sacrifices—they’ll probably need to work past “retirement age” to pay off their loans—but they’re concerned about the long-term well-being of the family as a whole.

The Reclessi parents are proud of their “fiscal responsibility,” but it’s misguided. Their children’s futures are likely to be less financially secure without additional schooling. The youngest child’s health may be adversely affected by spotty medical care. If the Reclessis keep paying contractors to patch the roof instead of replacing it, they’ll probably end up spending more money. It’s possible that the parents will be able to retire at sixty-five, but their children may not prosper. If the parents run into financial problems later on, the children — in jobs that don’t require college educations —may not be able to assist them.

The people we elected to represent us are faced right now with similar decisions.

In January, our new Democratic President and Congress inherited an enormous deficit as a result of the previous administration’s reckless war, reckless tax cuts for the rich, and reckless laissez-faire approach to big business.

Now the economy has unraveled, with huge job losses, home foreclosures, falling tax revenues, etc. — we’re in the deepest recession since the Great Depression.

We’re in a mess, and there are no perfect choices.

Most Democrats are closer in philosophy to the Decentos than to the Reclessis. We hate seeing the deficit getting bigger (we’re proud that President Clinton transformed another Republican’s budget deficit into a surplus), but we’re willing to enter into loans now for worthwhile long-term investments, such as health care for all, college affordability, and public infrastructure. We’re concerned about the well-being of the whole American family and believe that investing now is the best way to strengthen the economy over time.

Most Republicans — and a handful of Democrats from Republican-leaning states —prefer the Reclessis’ approach: They refuse to invest in health care, education, and infrastructure if it means borrowing, even if the lack of investment is penny-wise, pound-foolish. They pride themselves on being “fiscal conservatives” with “moral values” but there’s more than a whiff of selfishness in their attitude. (Republicans never seem to mind borrowing when it permits tax cuts for the rich!)

Republicans fought Social Security and Medicare when they were introduced under Democratic administrations many years ago. Today they are fighting tooth and nail against a national “public option” for health insurance— even though it will reduce administrative waste and save the whole country money— perhaps because they worry about the profits of insurance companies. (Are you familiar with the Medicare prescription program, enacted by Republicans under President Bush? It forbids the government from negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry to lower drug costs…How “fiscally conservative” is that?)

If you believe that the Decento philosophy is a decent choice, please register as a Democrat and vote for Democratic candidates. (Don’t forget to vote in primaries, so that you help the best candidates become Democratic leaders.) Try to persuade friends who live in “fiscally conservative” states to do the same.

We the People have the power to elect representatives who will work for the common good—for the long-term well-being of the whole American family.

 We saw the Bush tax cuts give back thousands and thousands of dollars to the rich and a pittance to most Americans.

 Our country piled up debt while the rich piled up more wealth.

 Executives who didn’t believe in public service were put in charge at the highest levels of government. 

 Volunteer soldiers were sent to fight a reckless war with inadequate plans and armor, while private-sector military contractors were paid enormous sums without proper accounting controls. 

 Good-paying jobs became scarcer.  Public education suffered.  Many Americans lost the ability to get decent medical care. Government scientists were overruled whenever private profits were threatened.  The twin dangers of dependence on foreign oil and climate change were ignored. 

 It’s not just that forward progress was blocked. We fell backward.

 Readers of this column can easily list more examples of how our good country grew weaker during that Republican-led period.

 A few days from now, President Obama will have been in office for three short months. While hiring his top managers, he is dealing with unprecedented national and global problems—a legacy of the previous Republican administration.

 Obama has appointed well-qualified people to lead the myriad functions of government, most of which languished from lack of leadership and resources during the Bush administration.  You won’t find anyone leading FEMA whose previous job was Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association (remember “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job” of Hurricane Katrina?).

 Our President is taking action (including international diplomacy) to try to prevent the global economy from spiraling further down into a nightmare depression. 

 Last week, the House and Senate approved budgets incorporating many of Obama’s priorities for next fiscal year.  Not a single Republican voted in favor.  Although individual appropriation bills to be enacted later will determine the details, the budget resolution provides guidance.

 As Obama stated, “This budget resolution embraces our most fundamental priorities: an energy plan that will end our dependence on foreign oil and spur a new clean energy economy; an education system that will ensure our children will be able to compete in the economy of the 21st century; and health care reform that finally confronts the back-breaking costs plaguing families, businesses and government alike. And by making hard choices and challenging the old ways of doing business, we will cut in half the budget deficit we inherited within four years. … Like the families we serve, we must cut the things we don’t need to invest in those we do.”

 It’s interesting that once again Republicans’ proposals to fix the economic crisis are to shrink domestic spending and … you guessed it, cut taxes (on the rich). It’s amusing to hear Republicans like Senator Pence of Indiana now say “Let’s not borrow from the next generation of Americans”—since he was part of the Republican Congress that supported Bush’s irresponsible tax cuts and mismanagement of resources.

 Thanks to Democrats gaining seats in Congress in 2008, Republicans aren’t able to block every initiative of Obama’s, but they still hold a powerful negotiating tool—the Senate filibuster—since Democrats don’t hold 60 seats in the Senate.

During the Depression of the 1930s, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt faced relentless hostility from the Republican Party when he used government investment to improve the lives of Americans who were suffering from lack of jobs and food and housing.  Republicans called him a “traitor to his class.” Yet virtually every American living today has benefited, in one way or another, from that “traitor” who reduced poverty and broadened the middle class.

We can expect intense Republican resistance to the change that Obama is working on—change that we who voted for him asked him to bring about.

Be sure to listen to Obama’s own explanations of his policies and programs rather than hear about them through Republican talk shows.  Take a few minutes out of your week to watch his press conferences on TV (a big change from the Bush years!) or get them via podcast or transcript. You’ll find very interesting material at www.whitehouse.gov, including Obama’s weekly Saturday address.

The more you learn, the more you’ll see how President Obama is working for the common good.

He was the governor who seemed to have done good things in Texas and claimed a “bipartisan” approach to governing. He looked genial and good-humored—the folksy candidate most voters preferred to have a beer with.

Now that we have experienced the Bush Presidency, it’s interesting to reexamine what the Republican candidate said during an October 2000 debate with Democrat Al Gore:

“Spending money is one thing, but spending money without a strategic plan can often times be wasted…”

“I want to rebuild the military to keep the peace. I want to make sure the public school system in America fulfills its promise so that no child, not one child, is left behind. And after setting priorities, I want to give some of the — some of your money back. See, I don’t think the surplus is the government’s money. I think it’s the people’s money. I don’t think the surplus exists because of the ingenuity and hard work of the federal government. I think it exists because of the ingenuity and hard work of the American people, and you ought to have some of the surplus so you can save and dream and build.”

The contrast between Bush’s words and his actual “leadership” is painful—

Lives lost and many irreversibly damaged as a result of a reckless “war on terror.” Extreme mismanagement of the Defense Department. Soldiers sent off without adequate equipment while military contractors making millions were inadequately supervised. The budget surplus left behind by Democrat Bill Clinton squandered, leaving our next President with a deficit as far as the eye can see. Enormous tax cuts for the richest. Millions of children left behind. Many more Americans without adequate health care. Transportation systems crumbling. Tainted food supplies. “Home ownership” replaced with home foreclosure.

An even more colossal deficit than was anticipated just a month ago.

Now we see the results of out-of-control deregulation and the consequences of fixating on private-sector solutions to public services, as well as the Republican Party’s perennial hostility to the United Nations.

But make no mistake. The conditions our country is suffering from now are not the result of one misguided, reckless, and incompetent leader.

For most of Bush’s Presidency, Republicans held all the reins of power, since they also had a majority in both houses of Congress. They appointed thousands of people sharing their ideology, including judges who will rule on the bench for years to come.

It has taken time for the gross mismanagement, suppression of scientific knowledge, and myriad falsehoods to come to light.

It was only when Democrats gained a slim majority in Congress that many basic questions could be raised there. At best the questions are now being partially answered (Republicans can still filibuster in the Senate).

This fall, as in every election, the essential choice is not between the candidates’ personalities or styles. It’s a choice between the Republican and Democratic political philosophy.

A President and his party may occasionally be at odds, but that is the exception to the rule.

Republicans stick together. Remember—after McCain lost the Republican primary in 2000, he campaigned for the Republican nominee, saying Bush was ”fully prepared to restore integrity and respect to the White House.”

But when Bush entered the White House, he brought back to Washington shiploads of former Republican officials, including Dick Cheney, and newcomers like the Republican lawyer for the International Arabian Horse Association who did a “heck of a job” in New Orleans.

If McCain should win the Presidency, expect more of the same.

Consider a candidate who would select as the person next-in-line to lead our country someone as inexperienced as Palin.

What does that show about the kind of appointments McCain would make to the Supreme Court, Environmental Protection Agency, FEMA, heads of Social Security and Medicare, IRS, Food and Drug Administration, Secretaries of State and Defense, Ambassador to the United Nations…the list goes on.

The Republican philosophy in a nutshell is “You’re on your own” — unless you’re rich and powerful and suddenly feel a need for government’s helping hand.

The Democratic philosophy is to work for the common good, and Democrats have a record of concrete steps toward economic fairness and prosperity for all.

Be sure to review the actual accomplishments of each party before you vote on November 4.

Kennedy was defending traditional Medicare, not the type called “Medicare Advantage,” which is offered by private insurers, usually for-profit corporations.

Medicare Advantage is the result of the “Medicare Modernization Act of 2003,” enacted by President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress of Bush’s first term.

This is the legislation that led to the Medicare prescription drug program with its infamous “doughnut hole.”

You may recall that the 2003 law prohibits the government from negotiating drug prices. (Why would Republicans, who rail about the cost of government programs, want to avoid the best deal for taxpayers?)

The 2003 law also increased the privatization of Medicare by paying insurers to offer health plans.

Medicare Advantage has been an extremely expensive program, costing far more than the Bush administration had forecast to Congress. (The administration threatened an official with termination if he revealed the true estimate before Congress voted. A month later, the cost estimate was revealed to be $100 billion more than the administration had told Congress.)

Medicare Advantage offers managed-care plans in which Medicare pays private insurance companies to provide care rather than paying doctors and hospitals directly.

The private-sector plans cost the government an average of 12 percent more than traditional Medicare for the same services, and they have been taking up a larger and larger slice of Medicare funding.

Senator Obama has expressed concern about “the exploitation of senior citizens by private insurers participating in the Medicare Advantage program. According to an analysis by the New York Times, tens of thousands of Medicare recipients have been the victims of deceptive sales practices by these private insurance companies, had claims improperly denied or denied without explanation, and received poor customer service in trying to get their questions answered. In some cases, the practices of these companies were found to have affected the health of patients by delaying access to urgently needed health care services and medications.”

(Obama has said that as president, “I will reduce costs in the Medicare program by enacting reforms to lower the price of prescription drugs, ending the subsidies for private insurers in the Medicare Advantage program and focusing resources on prevention and effective chronic disease management.”)

One of the biggest companies in the business is UnitedHealth, whose shares are traded on Wall Street. The firm’s president had total compensation in 2007 of $5 million and was recently charged in court as having had a role in the backdating of stock options. (His predecessor “stepped down” as a result of that scandal.)

One of UnitedHealth’s divisions offers the Evercare Special Needs Plan for People with Limited Income. The Boston Globe recently reported that Massachusetts officials have received numerous complaints about the plan’s marketing techniques.

The Globe quoted an attorney for Greater Boston Legal Services: “We’ve heard of cases where brokers have signed up people who don’t speak English … They didn’t tell seniors that there are networks, and they may not be able to see their own doctors. They promise that taxi rides to doctors’ offices and bingo games are part of the program. Some said they were from Medicare itself and that it was going under and they needed to sign up.”

As a result of the state’s review, UnitedHealth has decided to temporarily stop sales of the plan in Massachusetts. Will they now train brokers not to use misleading sales tactics?

The reason that Kennedy went to Washington while undergoing brain-cancer treatment was to prevent the private-sector plans from taking funding away from traditional Medicare.

When Medicare spending exceeds certain limits, automatic cuts are triggered. This year, the cuts could have meant a steep drop in payments to physicians.

The Democratic leadership proposed instead to reduce the excessive subsidies to private insurance companies. President Bush and Congressional Republicans wanted to protect the insurance companies.

At first Democrats couldn’t prevent a Republican filibuster because they needed one more vote — hence Kennedy’s selfless return to the Senate.

With our courageous lion in action, a few Republicans were persuaded to switch their position and voted with Democrats, ensuring passage of the bill.

This vote illustrates fundamental philosophical differences between the parties. Democratic plans usually emphasize the common good. Republican plans usually favor private profit, often at enormous cost to taxpayers.

• The cost of food, transportation, and heat has risen dramatically. Most Americans are struggling to balance their budgets. Many are in debt. Those on fixed incomes are hit especially hard.
• Wages have not kept pace with the cost of living. More workers have low-paid jobs without benefits. Many workers with good jobs are receiving reduced benefits.
• The middle-aged are finding it harder to save for retirement while conserving money for their children’s continuing education.
• Rents and mortgages are high. Homelessness has continued to rise. Shelters don’t have enough room for all the families in need. The subprime mortgage disaster is compounding the problem.
• Food banks report increased numbers of applicants. Charities can meet only a fraction of truly desperate calls for help. Programs like federal home fuel assistance have been cut to the bone.
• Many are suffering needlessly from illness because they couldn’t obtain timely preventive health and dental care.
• In many schools, there are too few teachers for optimal learning. Schools (except in wealthy communities) have been forced to cut academic, athletic, and cultural programs, impose new fees, or both. Many are crumbling from age or postponed maintenance.
• Higher education has become too expensive. Student grants have declined.
• Graduate programs – especially in science and math – have fewer and fewer American students. Many medical students graduate with such debt they can’t practice in poor communities. There’s a shortage of primary care physicians because too many doctors need the higher incomes of specialists.
• Public health and safety programs have been reduced or eliminated.
• Food and drug safety has deteriorated because of a political ideology that opposes almost all regulation.
• The richest Americans are even richer. Their taxes have been reduced beyond all reason.
• Many municipalities have been forced to cut basic services. Bridges, highways, and public buildings are in disrepair.
• The national credit card is dependent on foreign investors. We’re transferring the burden of repaying the debt onto young Americans.
• The purchasing power of the dollar has declined abroad.
• Federal agencies charged with protecting the public are increasingly administered by people with much more concern for short-term corporate profits than for what our Constitution calls the “general Welfare.”
• Rapid climate change has begun, and our national government takes no serious action.
• An avoidable and badly planned war continues to take a tragic toll on American and foreign families. Returning soldiers suffer from inadequate government support.
• America’s reputation around the world for fairness and moral leadership has been reversed.

Some voters who agree with Democrats on domestic issues such as health care and education have traditionally given Republicans the benefit of the doubt on economics, managerial competence, and national security. But after unfettered Republican government for almost seven years, how can anyone credit its claim to superiority in any of these public functions?

Don’t make the mistake of believing that our unfortunate situation is just the result of one bad President. Remember that he had enthusiastic support from Republican Senators, Representatives, and Governors until recently, when a very few – especially those facing reelection – have distanced themselves because of his personal unpopularity. If you vote
for any of them you are empowering all of them.

The hardships faced by many Americans today are not caused by an unavoidable act of nature like an earthquake. The paltry investment in public education, infrastructure, and sustainable energy is not forced upon us by outsiders or just bad luck.

We the People, through our voices and votes, can change our future by changing the country’s priorities. Let’s move away from the Republican philosophy: “You’re on your own.”

If you look at our country’s progress during recent Democratic Presidencies (Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, Roosevelt), you’ll see an entirely different philosophy at work: “We’re all in this together.”

Given the enormous debt run up by Republican leaders (remember that Democrats’ precarious majority in Congress didn’t begin until this year), it will take time to get our country moving forward on all fronts even if Democrats win the Presidency and pick up seats in Congress.

But if we elect a Democratic President and more Democratic Senators and
Representatives, we’ll start to reverse the damage. Even if Democrats don’t always agree on relative priorities and tactics, you can be sure that a Democratic administration will work for the common good.

From day one of a Democratic Presidency, America will begin rebuilding its reputation for fairness, tolerance, and liberty.

A few years later, our most important document emphasizes the “blessings of liberty”: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

What do “liberty” and “freedom” mean? 

Should we be free to dispose of contaminants where we like, or should we be free from pollution-related sickness? 

Should freedom to choose a good school for our children be based on our family’s money, or should all children be free from poor learning environments? 

Should freedom to obtain medical care be based on ability to pay? Or should we be free from treatable illness no matter what our financial status? 

Should we be free to decline paying for public libraries, or should we all be free from lack of access to newspapers and books? 

Should we be free to discriminate against people of different race, religion, national origin, or gender in work and public settings, or should we be free to earn a living and pursue happiness regardless of those aspects of our background?

Clearly the words “freedom” and “liberty” can be used to promote very different values.

One of the most precious freedoms of our democracy is the freedom to choose leaders through voting—freedom from despotism.

The outcome of the free vote has profound consequences for how our society interprets, protects, and works to improve liberty.

For a famous example of a Democrat’s perspective, consider President Franklin Roosevelt’s address to Congress in 1941, months before we entered World War II, when he described his vision of the future: “We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms”:

“The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world.
“The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world.
“The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants—everywhere in the world.
“The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world.”

Another crucial liberty is the freedom to learn about our government’s decisions and actions—a freedom from unjustifiable secrecy—made more feasible with the 1966 passage of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The intense efforts of a Democratic congressman from California were largely responsible for getting FOIA enacted, and later FOIA was strengthened through amendments passed by a Democratic Congress over Republican President Gerald Ford’s veto. 

(Can you guess who persuaded Ford it was bad legislation?  Déjà vu: His chief of staff Donald Rumsfeld, deputy Dick Cheney, and Antonin Scalia, now one of the backward-looking justices on the Supreme Court, then a lawyer in the Republican Justice Department.)

Democratic President Bill Clinton and his attorney general used an executive order to increase federal compliance with FOIA, directing agencies to assume a “presumption of disclosure” rather than permit legal ambiguities to prevent release of information.

Sadly, our freedom to learn what our government is doing has been challenged by the unprecedented degree of secrecy in the administration of George Bush.  The extensive use of non-government emails is just one example.

Congressional hearings (made possible this year with Democratic control of committees) are beginning to uncover facts that have been hidden from public view, even though Administration delays and missing emails make more difficult our freedom to know.

Given the Bush administration’s irresponsible foreign policy, it is painful to remember that when Bill Clinton left office, among his last official words were these:.

“People all around the world look to America to be a force for peace and prosperity, freedom and security.”

Let’s all exercise our freedom to vote. With the next election we can bring about a government that constantly strives to secure the blessings of liberty for all.

We can’t vote for President this fall – that election is two years away – but across our great democracy, 33 Senate seats, all 438 House seats, 36 state governorships, and thousands of other offices will be determined by voters.

The people competing for office will each have a unique background, personality, and emphasis on issues. Advertisements will be confusing, with conflicting statements about facts.

In the end, the fate of our country (and perhaps the world) will be determined mainly by which political party dominates in Washington, Boston, and the other capitals of government.

Currently the Republican Party has almost total power – it controls the entire Executive Branch (including the military), Congress, Supreme Court, and more than half the state governorships.

Notable “accomplishments” of this Republican era have been massive tax cuts for the super-rich, an inefficient and unfair “system” for providing prescription drugs, an expanding budget deficit, distortions of science and fact, a disastrous war.

Most of us are dismayed by what Republican government has done – and not done.

But we are still fortunate to live in a democracy where We the People get to decide the future, by voting for the kind of society we want.

We tend to take for granted the measures our country has adopted to make life fairer and more secure for its citizens. Almost all were begun and improved by Democratic administrations.

Under Democratic leadership the US won World War II with our allies and gave returning soldiers the opportunity to attend college cheaply and get a low-interest mortgage (GI Bill). Democrats led the world to establish the United Nations, in order to minimize international conflicts.

Democrats enabled jobless workers to put food on their table and keep a roof overhead (Unemployment Insurance). They established a minimum wage, lessened the widespread poverty of old age (Social Security), and improved health care (Medicare).

Among many other examples: Democrats reduced air and water pollution, protected public forests and parks, advanced civil rights, made the workings of our elected government accessible to the public (Freedom of Information Act), and encouraged artists, historians, and scientists.

More recently, under Democratic President Clinton, Democrats wiped out a budget deficit and raised the standard of living through private-sector jobs. The US was admired and respected by almost the whole world as a powerful force for both its prosperity and its social justice.

Here in Massachusetts, for the past 16 years we have had a series of four Republican governors responsible for managing state government.

During this long period of Republican administration, state roads, bridges, and tunnels have been neglected. Local aid has been slashed, leaving many cities and towns no option other than to cut school budgets, close fire stations, raise property taxes and fees, and leave public works in disrepair.

Massachusetts has lost population and good jobs (despite Republican campaign promises to bring in new industry). Our public higher education is now ranked among the lowest in the country. Young people graduate from public colleges with debts that will follow them into middle age.

Some of the deterioration under Republican governors is apparent only to those inside state agencies. For example, the Public Health department, formerly a national leader, has suffered from management changes and budget cuts, as have the environmental offices. It may take more than the Big Dig for all the neglect and incompetence to become apparent.

Consider the record of Democratic and Republican administrations. Think about their priorities and their fundamental values.

On Tuesday, November 7, vote for the kind of society you want to live in. If you’re not yet a voter, you can register by Wednesday, October 18. On election day, vote anytime between 7 am and 8 pm.

If you believe our country and state are headed in the right direction, vote for Republican candidates. As Republican Governor Romney says, “Having more Republican governors means more Republican congressmen, senators and better support for the presidency.” 

That’s why Republican Vice President Cheney flew to Boston to raise funds for Republican candidate Healey. Attempting to downplay her party affiliation, she didn’t let photographers see them together. She must hope that her contributions to Bush for President have been forgotten.

If you prefer the leadership of Democrats, vote for Democratic candidates. When Democrats regain power, our once-proud Commonwealth and nation can begin to reverse the damage.

The Democratic Party works for the Common Good.