“I wish I had
known more firsthand about the concerns and problems of American
businesspeople while I was a U.S. senator and later a
presidential nominee. That knowledge would have made me a better
legislator and a more worthy aspirant to the White House. ...
legislators and government regulators must more carefully
consider the economic and management burdens we have been
imposing on U.S. businesses. ... Many businesses, especially
small independents such as the Stratford Inn, simply can’t pass
such costs on to their customers and remain competitive or
profitable.
“I can recover
eventually from the loss of the Stratford Inn because I’m still
able to generate income from lectures and other services. But
what about the 60 people who worked for me in Stratford? While
running my struggling hotel, I never once missed a payroll. What
happens to the people who counted on that, and to their families
and community, when an owner goes under?”
— George McGovern,
after his Connecticut hotel/restaurant closed in 1991. Published
in the Nation’s Restaurant News.
When George McGovern
died last weekend, I remembered (though most obituary writers
didn’t) his amazing epiphany. I didn’t vote for him in 1972 because
of his liberal economic positions, but loved him for his opposition
to the Vietnam War. If only he had run a small business BEFORE he
became a politician, I might have avoided voting for Richard Nixon
that year.
Now, if only Barack
Obama and Elizabeth Warren had run a small business for a few years
before becoming politicians, they might not be so utterly
unqualified to deal with the present economy.
I’ve been decorating
for Halloween; my lucky black-cat flag flies above the Brown, Romney
and Tisei signs. Unfortunately, there’ll be no alternatives to my
state representative and state senator on the Marblehead ballot, but
along with the three binding ballot questions I’ve already written
about, there are three nonbinding issues that are interesting.
My fourth ballot
question asks if our congressman should propose an amendment to the
U.S. Constitution affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled
to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress
and the states may place limits on political contributions and
political spending.
This is a response to
the Supreme Court’s recent “Citizens United” decision. While the
First Amendment makes it clear that there can’t be limits on
political contributions from people, I don’t understand how either a
corporation or a union can be a person. Both groups have individual
(person) members who disagree with the candidate or issue on which
the corporation or union spends money.
If I ran the world,
only individuals who can directly vote for a candidate could
contribute money to that campaign, so our senators and congressmen
would work only for their own constituents. But that’s not the issue
here. I’ll vote No, until I see a resolution that treats
corporations and unions the same.
The fifth issue on my
ballot asks if our congressman should support a resolution
preventing cuts in all “entitlements” and “investing” in government
while providing new “revenues,” including higher taxes on incomes
over $250,000.
I like the part about
reducing the federal deficit by closing corporate tax loopholes and
am also ready to end the war in Afghanistan and “bring U.S. troops
home safely now.” But I think everything should be on the table for
discussion about downsizing or reform. Don’t forget the fat in
government is marbled throughout all the programs, no matter how
worthy the original concept. And of course I’m not directing my
congressman to “provide new revenues” until I see that fat melting
out. Voting No.
Sixth question directs
my congressman to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon
Congress to repeal the federal prohibition of marijuana, so that
states may regulate it as they choose.
A Yes vote on Question
3, which allows medical marijuana in Massachusetts, basically
requires a Yes on this resolution, too. I’m still conflicted, so I
called my family in Nevada, which allows medical marijuana. My son
voted for it, thinking of sick people who benefit; my
daughter-in-law voted “absolutely no.” In their family therapy
business, they see the many abuses, similar to those that are
causing second thoughts in California. It’s ridiculously easy to get
the medical diagnosis, keep it permanently, share or sell the pot;
driving under the influence is a big problem.
The Massachusetts
ballot question seeks to address some of these concerns. And if the
federal prohibition were removed, medical marijuana for genuinely
sick people could be prescribed through our pharmacies, not special
distribution centers. We could continue to argue against general
legalization, at least until we get judges to always deal strictly
with both drunken and stoned drivers. Until then, I’m still
undecided on Question 3, but voting Yes on 6; this shouldn’t be a
federal issue.
I’m grateful that
Marblehead isn’t asking for the Community Preservation Act; when
town leaders wanted to buy some open space along Salem Harbor, they
asked for a debt exclusion override. This way, we know exactly what
the extra taxes will buy.
Turns out Question 1
wasn’t decided by legislative agreement after all; the American
Automobile Association is urging a Yes vote.
