Author: Senator John Marty

In challenging times like ours, it is important to step back and look at the big picture. In the Senate we wrestle with painful choices to balance the state budget. Some factors affecting the budget are outside of our control, some we can control, and others fall somewhere in-between. While most legislative work addresses things we have direct control over, we should at least understand other factors influencing the resources available.

The cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars is the budgetary “elephant in the room.” It’s enormous and it’s right in front of us, yet we don’t talk about it as we face our economic woes. We don’t need to get into arguments about the wars to consider the burden war places on our economy.

President Dwight Eisenhower, one of our nation’s greatest military leaders, late in life, expressed deep concern about what he called “the military industrial complex.” Eisenhower stated, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”

During World War II, people were told that the war would require blood, toil, tears, and sweat — real sacrifice, not just for soldiers overseas, but also for the people back home.

In contrast, for the current Iraq and Afghan wars, people were told they wouldn’t have to sacrifice at all; taxes would be cut, not raised. President Bush told people after 9/11 that the patriotic thing to do was to “go shopping.” Perhaps that was due to delusional ideology, or perhaps it was a trigger-happy leader who recognized that if people understood the true cost, the war would be unjustifiable.

What this means for Minnesota’s economy is clear. In addition to the incredible sacrifices made by so many military families, Minnesota’s share of the cost of the wars now exceeds $5 billion for every two-year state budget cycle. Think of the investments that could be made in our communities if the federal government invested that money in the states instead of in the war. We could have avoided the layoffs of teachers and police and firefighters and health care workers. Think of the investments in living wage jobs, the investments in nursing homes for seniors, the investments in early childhood and helping at-risk kids succeed, the investments in public infrastructure.

Minnesotans working to build a better future face growing setbacks: Young people on the “six year plan” to get a two year college degree because they work two jobs to pay tuition. Parents struggle to find a safe place for their young kids during the workday because of cuts in sliding-fee child care. Employers unable to hire older workers because their pre-existing conditions would send the employer’s insurance premiums through the roof. People with disabilities face shrinking state programs that once covered them.

Those setbacks occur because states are unable to help people get a fair shake due to budget problems. It is time to press Washington to change its priorities away from war and into facing human needs in our communities.

The military budgets of all other nations of the world combined, barely exceeds the $693 billion the U.S. will spend on the military this year. And the $693 billion doesn’t include the $42 billion for Homeland Security, nor the undisclosed budget for the National Intelligence Program.

Based on population, Minnesota’s share of total military spending, including the two wars, is almost $12 billion every year. That’s two-thirds as large as our entire state general fund budget of roughly $17 billion/year. Imagine what we could accomplish if we cut our military spending by half. The savings would balance the state budget and make huge investments in education and community development.

President Eisenhower said, “I hate war, as only a soldier who has lived it can, as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.” He was clear in his message: “This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hope of its children.”

Sixty years later, we can see that the endless war has a real cost here at home. For the first time in our history, we are losing ground: High school students today have a lower graduation rate than their parents’ generation. Fewer young adults have access to health care than their parents have. Today’s workers will be less likely to have a decent pension than their parents enjoy. Eisenhower warned us. In spending money on war, we are truly taking away the hope of our children.

If we care about our future, ignoring the economic cost of war is just as foolish as ignoring the human cost.

___

I am seeking the governorship this year in my home state of Minnesota. Please visit my website @ http://www.johnmarty.org – Would love to hear your thoughts.

My campaign manager recently drafted a letter to discuss the electability of my candidacy. Recently, we had a strong showing at the gubernatorial caucuses, stunning the pundits who said we didn’t have a chance.

As the Chief Author of the Minnesota Health Plan, I’ve helped organize over 70 signers onto the bill, including several of my opponents in this primary race. If I have the opportunity to serve as Minnesota’s next Governor, I will push for real changes. That is my promise to you. We will see real change!

I look forward to hearing any questions, comments or concerns relating to the electability of my candidacy and addressing them directly.

I hope you will join us.

Sincerely,

John

—

John Marty

DFL Candidate for Governor

http://www.johnmarty.org  

Traveling around the state, our campaign has heard from countless people who believe in John Marty’s vision, they respect his values, they trust his integrity — they say he could become a truly great governor. However, some say he can’t win.  Some say he’s too nice.

   John is actually more electable than other candidates this year, and here’s why:

   Many independent and Independence Party voters believe that both major parties are controlled by corporate interests and special interest money. John has consistently rejected lobbyist and PAC money, and he has been recognized, time and time again, for his courage and independence in standing up to powerful interests. John is the candidate with the credibility to win over those independents.

   At a time when voters are increasingly cynical about politicians, John has earned a reputation of being trust-worthy and honest. Research has shown that candidates do best, not by appealing to the center, but by holding firm convictions that, while they may be less popular, show evidence of commitment and integrity. John is the candidate who can overcome that cynicism, and win the respect of voters who know he will do what he says.

   Many Green Party members are former DFLers who left the party because it has too often surrendered to political expedience. John is the candidate who has demonstrated the courage of his convictions and speaks to the values of the Green Party.

   Tens of thousands of low-income people who were inspired and came out to vote in 2008 are once again feeling that the political system doesn’t care about them. John’s promise of affordable health care for all, through his single-payer, Minnesota Health Plan can give them renewed hope. His commitment to ending poverty — through his legislation for affordable childcare, living wages, and fair taxes legislation — gives them a chance to see a brighter future ahead. John is the candidate who can inspire and re-engage disenchanted voters.

   So why do some DFLers say that John Marty cannot win? Because John ran for Governor in 1994 and lost by a large margin.

   In that race, John was challenging a popular incumbent governor. And in 1994, the beginning of the Gingrich “revolution,” Republicans saw landslide victories across the country; not a single Republican incumbent in any gubernatorial race or U.S. House or Senate race lost that November. Even so, it wasn’t a perfect campaign. John has acknowledged his mistakes — and learned from them. He is sixteen years older and wiser and has the confidence and experience to match his vision and courage.

   Times change, and in 2010, John Marty is the right person at the right time.

   In recent years, John has repeatedly shown his ability to appeal to independents and Republicans. Although his suburban senate district had a four point Republican edge according to the court redistricting panel,  John has won by large margins — over 62% last time — which means he picks up both independent and Republican votes. John has shown an ability to win — not by avoiding tough issues but through his bold vision and ethical leadership.

   On caucus night, John exceeded expectations, outperforming seven other gubernatorial candidates in the straw poll, without being a wealthy, self-financed candidate, without accepting a penny of special interest money, and without compromising his values.

   We need John to be the DFL candidate for Governor, and delegates around the state are joining forces to see that John receives the party endorsement in April.  Please join us!

   Warm regards,

   Taina Maki

   Campaign Manager

   P.S. Please visit our new website at: JohnMarty.org.

please see my following response to President Barack Obama. I’d love to hear what you think.  Imagine having a governor who fights to put in single-payer healthcare! Imagine the example that Minnesota could provide for the other 49 states? In my 23 years in the state senate, I’ve fought for healthcare for all. As the prime sponsor of the Minnesota Health Plan, I’ve helped organize over 1/3rd of the legislature to co-sponsor the bill.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Thanks,

John

p.s. Please visit our brand new website at  http://www.johnmarty.org  

Single Payer Solution for Obama

by Senator John Marty

January 29, 2010



“If anyone…has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.”

— State of the Union

January 27, 2010

An open letter in response to President Obama’s State of the Union request for a better approach to health care reform:

Dear President Obama,

During your State of the Union address, you explained why you are fighting for health care reform, expressed frustration at the lack of success, and invited others to suggest a better approach.

I’m taking you up on that invitation and offer a bold suggestion:

Take a look at our Minnesota Health Plan — a proposal that covers everyone, saves money, and creates a logical health care system to replace the dysfunctional non-system which currently exists. It is a proposal that would provide health care to everyone, not merely health insurance for many. Our MN Health Plan (mnhealthplan.org) could be readily adapted as a nation-wide plan. It would meet each of the five requirements you mentioned in your State of the Union request:

Bring Down Premiums. Most Americans would see a big reduction in premiums because the plan would be significantly cheaper than our current health care non-system. Because the premiums for the MHP would be based on ability to pay, everyone’s premiums would be affordable. Some would pay more, but overall, costs would go down. Most people would save money, while getting the care they need and deserve. The total costs for the plan would be less than we now are paying for premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and taxes for medical programs.

Bring Down the Deficit. By keeping people healthier and by delivering quality health care efficiently, it would save hundreds of billions of dollars for the federal government, and even more for states. For example, by covering chemical dependency treatment and providing comprehensive mental health services, it would cut crime and human service costs (such as out-of-home placement of children), some of the biggest and fastest growing expenses facing state and local governments.

Cover the Uninsured. It would cover the uninsured and the under-insured. In fact it would cover everyone — 100% of the public.

Strengthen Medicare for Seniors (and everyone else). It would cover prescription drugs — with no “doughnut hole.” It would cover long term care, in-home care, dental, eye care, physical therapy, and medical supplies — it would cover all medical needs. And, they would have their choice of doctor, hospital, clinic, dentist — complete freedom to choose their medical providers.

Stop Insurance Company Abuses. There would be no “pre-existing conditions” to worry about, no underwriting, no denials of coverage, no “out of network” problems. I like to use the analogy of police and fire protection. When you return home to find a burglary in process and call 911, the police dispatcher does not ask if you qualify. They do not ask if you have police insurance. They do not ask whether your policy covers home burglary. They don’t ask if you have pre-existing conditions that would disqualify you. They don’t waste time and money having you fill out forms so your insurance company can be billed. The police response does not depend on your insurance status. Everyone is treated equally. It’s the American way. It is time to treat health care the same way.

As a 23 year member of the Minnesota Senate, let me comment briefly on the politics of this proposal:

The MHP is a single payer proposal. You have acknowledged that single payer is the only way to cover everyone. Seven years ago you said that single payer health care is “what I’d like to see. But… we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.” Now that we have taken back the White House and the Congress, it is time to act.

I recognize, as you do, that you do not have the votes to pass truly universal health care at this time. The insurance and pharmaceutical industries contribute so much to members of Congress — they control the debate — so health care for everyone isn’t even on the table.

This, however, is your opportunity for leadership. If you propose and fight for health care for all, as FDR did with Social Security in 1935, the voters would respond. If you don’t win this year, ask the American people to elect candidates who will stand with you. Make it the issue of the campaign: Health Care for All vs. Health Insurance for Some. Instead of losing Democratic members of Congress this year — as Massachusetts illustrates — you would gain votes and could actually pass the bill next year.

Dr. Martin Luther King stated, “Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.”

Almost a half century later, we still have not addressed the injustice in health care that Dr. King described as the most inhumane. Ignoring this injustice is immoral and it is economically unsustainable. People are hurting, some are literally dying, businesses are folding, and it is crushing our national economy.

Please, restore the Hope that you raised in all of us, bring back the inspiration that made the American people so excited by your inauguration. I urge you to step back, reconsider, introduce a health care plan that is truly universal, and fight for it.

Justice requires no less.

Respectfully,

John Marty  

I wanted to share with you my latest column, cross-posted on other blogs.

Thanks,

John Marty

DFL Candidate for Governor in Minnesota

http://www.johnmarty.org  

An Election, not an Auction

by Senator John Marty

November 2, 2010 is supposed to be an election. Unfortunately, it is beginning to look like an auction, with government for sale to the highest bidders. Powerful interest groups buy favors with big campaign contributions.

Special interest money is a dominant force in determining who wins elections and even who runs for office. And it doesn’t simply affect who gets into office. Once elections are over, special interest money influences who chairs legislative committees, who has the ear of powerful lawmakers, which bills receive a hearing, and ultimately what laws are passed. One congressional staffer, after observing the clout of interest groups, said, “If this were NASCAR, members of Congress would have the corporate logos of their sponsors sewn to their jackets.”

It’s an insidious process, in which wealthy interests buy elections and gain access and goodwill through campaign contributions. Most public officials are honorable people who would never “sell their vote.” But this system has a very real, albeit subconscious, impact even on well-meaning public officials.

We can change this and we must change it. In the Minnesota Senate, I have been a leader, authoring campaign finance reform legislation to drive special interest money out. Politicians understandably want the money, because campaigns are expensive, and without the special interest money, they feel they cannot win. That’s why reforms that put in public financing and limit spending are essential. With reform, politicians can win elections without taking the special interest money.

Let me give three examples of the problem: special interest money is destroying our environment, crushing health care reform, and buying big taxpayer subsidies.

Special interest money is destroying our environment. It is the reason we cannot pass basic environmental protection legislation in Minnesota, even though DFLers have a two-to-one margin in the Senate, and almost that in the House. The powerful interests fighting environmental legislation make generous contributions to both Republican and DFL legislative caucuses. Consequently, it is no surprise that legislative leaders appoint committee chairs and structure committees in a manner that won’t upset those donors too much.

Likewise for health care reform. Even with all the talk about “universal” health care in Washington, there is not a single proposal to provide universal care under consideration. Even before the legislative compromising began, the Obama proposal with the public option was estimated to cover only 94% of the public, leaving 6% with no care, and many more whose insurance doesn’t cover the care they need. That’s not exactly universal.

So why isn’t universal health care on the table? Senator Max Baucus, the chair of the committee that wrote the Senate legislation, refused to consider it. Is it any surprise that Baucus wants to require people to buy insurance, instead of providing universal health care, when he has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the health insurance lobby? Not surprisingly, the insurance lobby’s money goes to all the key lawmakers involved in the health reform debate.

Special interests are brazenly buying taxpayer subsidies. Four years ago, Zygi Wilf and his family, the owners of the Minnesota Vikings, gave $20,000 to both the Minnesota Republican Party and the DFL Party. They gave $10,000 to the DFL legislative caucuses and $12,000 to the Republican ones. In fact, they gave $5000 to both Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty and to his DFL challenger.

Why would they give massive amounts to both parties? Because they want as much as $700 million in public money to subsidize a new stadium. They haven’t won yet, but their proposal is getting a lot of attention at the capitol this year despite the worst budget crisis in memory.

Political insiders are so accustomed to lobbyists and interest groups bearing contributions that many have been desensitized to this influence peddling. Picture what would happen if the Wilf family made similar contributions to NFL officials before the next Vikings game.

A referee taking the money wouldn’t be saluted as a successful participant by either the NFL or its fans. He would be thrown out of his job. The conflict of interest is obvious.

But in politics, unlike football, the special interests who give the most aren’t thrown out in disgrace. They are actually admired for their clout. Candidates accepting their contributions are seen as major players because of the amounts they can raise.

This isn’t acceptable. Isn’t fair treatment from our government as important as fair officiating in our football games?

Do we value our democracy so little that we are willing to turn it over to special interests?

It doesn’t have to be this way. Replacing special interest money with publicly funded campaigns would cost a fraction of what taxpayers pay in subsidies, tax loopholes and other give-aways that special interests buy. And the benefits of a clean environment and a health care system that works for everyone? That’s priceless.

___________



Want to join our database for updates on our campaign? Please e-mail campaign@johnmarty.org

Fellow progressives, my name is John Marty; I am entering my 24th year in the Minnesota Senate, where I have fought for social and economic justice since day one.

In the Senate, I’ve championed LGBT rights (I am chief author of marriage equality legislation), I’ve fought for government ethics reform, I’ve designed and authored single-payer healthcare (www.mnhealthplan.org), I’ve taken on powerful interest groups to protect our environment, and I’ve championed legislation to get living wage jobs and move our economy forward. We now have over 70 co-authors on my single payer legislation — over a third of the legislature!

I am a Democratic candidate for Governor in 2010 running on true progressive principles, like Senator Paul Wellstone, principles that I hold with deep conviction. In 1994, I was the DFL nominee for governor, but like many other progressives running that year, the Gingrich Revolution and his “Contract ON America.” made our attempts unsuccessful.”

Never wavering from my progressive principles, we’ve established viability with a team of supporters focused on reclaiming the governorship. With our election, we can have a national impact across this country.

Imagine a governor with the courage to break the insurance industry’s grip on our health care system, passing single payer. Imagine making healthcare a right, not a privilege.

Just imagine what the national implications would be! Imagine the precedent we would set for Democratic Party candidates throughout this country to have a genuine, principled progressive as governor of a state.

Imagine a governor who puts LGBT marriage equality, ethics reform, living wages for workers, and environmental protection, front and center on the state’s agenda.

Over next several months, I will reach out here and on other blogs across the country to keep you updated about our campaign. Please take a minute to read this recent column I wrote about the need for political courage. Feel free to share it with friends.

Thank you and I look forward to reading your comments below.

Sincerely,

John

www.johnmarty.org

The Courage of our Convictions

By Sen. John Marty

   If 21st Century Progressives led the 19th Century Abolition Movement, we’d still have slavery, but we’d have limited it to 40 hour work weeks, and we’d be so proud of the progress we’d made.

   In earlier eras of U.S. history, progressives believed they could fight injustice and move society forward, and they did so. Today however, many progressives have lost faith in their ability to affect significant change. Many are content simply to tinker with problems, whether the issue is getting living wages for work, ending poverty, or removing toxins from our food supply.

   For example, consider universal health care. All progressives claim to support this, but many aren’t willing to fight for it — not because they believe it’s bad policy, but because they believe it is “politically unrealistic.” When our proposed Minnesota Health Plan is offered as a way to deliver universal health care, some dismiss it as legislation that can’t happen for decades. They talk about universal health care but offer and support proposals that are mere band-aids.

   It is instructive to look back to the past. Despite the reality that men were the only ones who held office and the only ones who could vote, suffragettes fought and won the seemingly impossible goal of gaining the right to vote. In the 1960’s civil rights activists believed they could get rid of segregation laws and get equal rights under the law. When told they were expecting change to occur too rapidly, Martin Luther King wrote a book explaining, “Why We Can’t Wait.”

   Today, however, regardless of the speed of other changes in society, many progressives have lost hope. For them, such a book would now be titled, “Why We Need to be Pragmatic and Accept Token Change.”

   This timidity can be explained by decades of defeat at the hands of right wing politicians like Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove, which caused many progressives to retreat from a “Politics of Principle” to a supposed “Politics of Pragmatism” that is not only lacking in courage, but also has been highly ineffective.

   Under the politics of principle, the progressive movement would fight for the goal, using pragmatic politics only to figure out how to promote the message.

   But with the current politics of misguided pragmatism, some progressives calculate what is politically acceptable, and then determine what they will stand for. For example, using this “pragmatism,” President Obama decided to push for health insurance for more instead of health care for all .

   One cannot totally fault the President for failing to push for comprehensive reform. He shied away from principle-based reform because he knows that members of Congress working on health reform take big campaign contributions from the health insurance lobby and other powerful interests. He knows that they are afraid of nasty campaign attacks and believe they need the big money to win reelection.

   “Pragmatically,” Democrats in Washington are pushing for “universal” health care that isn’t universal. They are pushing for reforms that cost more, not less, and policies that focus more on their sense of pragmatism than on real public health and prevention.

   It’s time for progressives to have the courage of our convictions. If we claim to believe in universal health care, we need to fight for it. The MN Health Plan — which covers everyone for all their medical needs, and costs less than we are spending now — is on the table. Those who are not willing to take on the powerful insurance lobby, ought to be honest and admit that reelection and other priorities matter more.

   Refusing to fight for it because it is “not politically realistic” becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Likewise, dismissing it as something that will take decades to pass means leaving the problem to the next generation.

   Whether the issue is living wages for workers, environmental protection, or LGBT equality, many progressives have lost courage. They fight to raise the minimum wage by fifty cents for every dollar that inflation takes away. Even in victory, we accomplish little.

   It is time to move beyond fear and stand up for the principles we say we believe in. Minnesotans deserve nothing less.