Earlier this week, Our Westwood, MyDedham and 02186.MyTownMatters (Milton) submitted the following questions by email to the five candidates for Congress in the 9th District:
We informed the candidates we would publish their responses after 5pm on Friday. Here are the responses we have received. (So far, only D’Alessandro has responded.)
1. Representative Lynch voted against the Healthcare bill supported by most members of the Democratic party, including the President. In retrospect (for Representative Lynch), would you cast the same vote? How has the implementation of the Bill gone so far?
D’Alessandro’s Response:
In contrast to Congressman Lynch – who voted “no” on healthcare reform – I would have proudly supported that legislation.
Here’s why: as a result of this bill, 473,000 residents in the 9th district will see their health insurance coverage improve. No more annual or lifetime limits, no more canceling insurance for individuals who become ill, and no more calling pregnancy and domestic violence “pre-existing conditions.”
106,000 families in the district will be eligible to receive tax credits to reduce the cost of their insurance – the largest middle class tax cut for healthcare in history.
Up to 15,600 small businesses in the district could qualify for large tax credits as well – extra money that could be used to create more jobs right here in the district.
Over 7,000 seniors in the district will save hundreds of dollars a year because the bill closes the Medicare “Donut Hole,” and 3,000 residents of the district – including children – who have pre-existing conditions will be guaranteed coverage.
These are huge reforms, ones that will substantially improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of residents of our district, help grow jobs, all while reducing our federal deficit by billions of dollars over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
I’m proud to have worked to help pass it, and, should I be elected as your Congressman, look forward to improving upon the bill and protecting the reform from attempts to repeal it.
2. Health Care costs in the US continue to rise faster than income, and the recent health care bill did not directly require significant cost reductions. Congress did not have an up or down vote on a single payer system, which through lower administrative costs and negotiated lower rates has the potential to reduce health care costs significantly.
D’Alessandro’s Response:
Would you vote yes or no on a pure single payer health care plan for the US?
There are actually significant cost savings in the health care bill. In addition to extending care to 32 million Americans, closing the Medicare donut hole and eliminating lifetime caps on coverage, the independent Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the current bill would reduce the deficit by $138 billion in the first ten years and $1.2 trillion in the next 10 years. As we implement and improve the health care bill, I believe we will see additional savings.
That being said, I have always supported a single payer health care plan for the US and would vote yes on one were I in Congress. A single-payer system would result in substantial cost savings by eliminating layers of administrative bureaucracy, marketing costs, and excessive salaries and bonuses for HMO executives while ensuring universal coverage for all.
In the meantime, I would co-sponsor the current legislation to add a public option to the health care reform law in the process of being implemented.
3. Please tell the voters what was changed in the healthcare bill between the first version and the second that caused legislators to change their votes. Be specific.
D’Alessandro’s Response:
The most significant differences between the initial health care bill passed by the House and the final health care bill signed into law are:
- The elimination of the public option from the final bill
- The House bill eliminated the anti-trust exemption for insurance agencies; the final bill preserves the anti-trust exemption.
- The final bill taxes so-called “Cadillac” health care plans
I would have preferred a stronger final bill, one that included a public option, eliminated the anti-trust exemption, and didn’t include a tax on premium health care plans.
But at the end of the day, Congress had one choice before them: take a huge step forward to help our families, our seniors, our young adults and our small businesses, or do nothing.
It really was that simple. We had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to pass health care reform. If Congress had voted the bill down, it would have been dead – for the year, and likely for much longer.
To me, the right decision was obvious: pass a good bill that will help millions of people, and then continue to improve it. That’s how Social Security and Medicare – two of the most successful, most popular programs ever created by our government – were passed, and, I believe, there was too much at stake to do nothing.
My opponent, on the other hand, voted to let the bill die – and with it, the hopes of families and small businesses all across our district who were desperate for relief. I believe that was wrong.
4. What specific programs will you support and implement to improve the environment?
D’Alessandro’s Response:
Protecting our environment is a moral responsibility to future generations, a health and quality-of-life issue for us today as well as an enormous economic consideration. Climate change is real and the time for debate is over. Urgent action is required and while the federal government has, for many years, abandoned its responsibility to steward our environment, it is not too late to take decisive action.
Fortunately, the path to protecting our environment is perfectly in sync with our need to secure energy independence. We must shift our infrastructure from a carbon-based system heavily dependent on imports to one based on home-grown clean energy and new technologies like wind, solar and biofuels.
As your Congressman, I will work to:
- Make America a leader in global climate negotiations that produce a treaty that can be ratified and makes a substantive difference.
- Support the passage of proposed market-based emissions trading legislation.
- Maintain high clean air and water standards and rigorously prosecute polluters.
- Support significant and real investment in green technology and alternative fuels.
- Support the moratorium on offshore drilling until the BP explosion can be better understood and safeguards put in place.
- Increase fuel standards and provide incentives for creating and purchasing more fuel efficient cars and appliances.
- Increase our investments in public transportation infrastructure.
5. What is the single most important thing you would bring to this office?
D’Alessandro’s Response:
Leadership.
Our communities need a strong advocate, a Congressman who will dive into the fight and work throughout the process to make bills better – not just sit on the sidelines and say “no” to the final product.
I think the Boston Globe, whose endorsement I earned this week, said it best:
“While Lynch’s votes are individually defensible, collectively they provide a mirror into his politics. When others saw opportunity for historic reforms, he offered skepticism. When others stepped forward to shape legislation, he held back. D’Alessandro would be quite different: More cautious about military interventions, including Afghanistan; more willing to do the necessary work of reforming the economy, even when it involves unpopular fixes like bailing out the banking and housing industries; more eager to be a leader both in extending health coverage and in bringing research dollars to Massachusetts.”
6. What is the single most important thing our congressman must address? And what would you do about it?
D’Alessandro’s Response:
Nothing is more important than putting people back to work. This is the number one priority I have heard when talking to people at the doors, on the phone, in living rooms throughout the District.
First, let’s be clear – the CBO just reported that the first stimulus package worked – despite Republican claims to the contrary. But it wasn’t nearly enough. Virtually all reputable economists agree – we need to do more.
We need to do more in the public sector because the private sector is not yet increasing employment – as I believe they eventually will.
The stimulus I support keeps teachers in the classroom, police officers on the beat and firefighters at the ready. It also helps us to make much needed improvements to our nation’s infrastructure – intermodal transit, water delivery, telecommunications, energy delivery and conservation, etc. – which is critical to our future economic success.
By putting people to work like this – we put cash in their pockets – money they will spend on groceries and clothes and basic necessities. This, in turn, creates the demand we need to get the private sector going again.
But I would also take some additional steps:
Banks aren’t lending to small businesses like we hoped they would so the federal government should do more to make loans and extend credit through the SBA – more than 50% of our growth comes from small businesses.
We also need to invest in the Green Economy – provide incentives to businesses investing in alternative energy rather than incenting big oil, gas and coal companies that have wreaked havoc on our environment and our national security.
7. Will the voters get to hear a live debate? Why or why not? When?
D’Alessandro’s Response:
As I said to Congressman Lynch in a debate invitation letter hand delivered in early August, “In these challenging times, voters are certainly more engaged and more demanding of all candidates. I believe we owe it to the voters of the this district to give them an opportunity to hear, first hand, what’s at stake in this election and where each of us stand on the issues.”
I have repeatedly told the press that I’m ready to debate anytime, anywhere. Voters deserve the chance to hear each of us make our case, side by side, for why we should be the one to represent this district. And yet, Congressman Lynch has refused any invitation to a debate lasting longer than 15 minutes.
Voters might have come to expect this sort of arrogant behavior from Washington politicians, but it doesn’t make it right. Keep your word. Respect the voters. Engage in the democratic process. We should be able to expect these simple things from our elected officials – but sadly, by going back on his word to debate, Congressman Lynch has done none of these things.
8. Do you support H.R. 4722, the “Active Community Transportation Act of 2010” sponsored by Earl Blumenauer [D-OR3] and 65 others including Stephen Lynch and 6 other Massachusetts Representatives? Representative Lynch: What prompted you to sign on as a co-sponsor of this bill? Can other candidates talk about their ideas for how efforts to promote “active transportation” (walking, biking, mass transit) should be prioritized in relation to highway projects such as the I-93/95 interchange and the 128 Add-a-lane project?
D’Alessandro’s Response:
Yes, I would support and co-sponsor HR 4722 if elected to Congress.
In general, I am a strong supporter of investing in and strengthening our public transit systems. Promoting public transit helps reduce carbon emissions by cutting down on traffic AND encourages economic development.
I also believe we need to do more to encourage commuting via bicycles and walking by making it easier and safer, including building more biking and walking paths and bike lanes.
Those who use these services – bicyclists and walkers – should be consulted and actively involved in the planning and decision making processes, of course, to make sure we are prioritizing the things that would most improve there lives. I would make an effort to engage these communities and listen to their ideas and concerns so I can be the best possible advocate for “active transportation” projects.
9. Do you believe there is anything municipal unions should do to help towns cope with current fiscal challenges?
D’Alessandro’s Response:
I think municipal unions AND municipal leaders have to come to the table – if they haven’t already – and actively participate in negotiations in response to current fiscal conditions.
Many – though not all – of these unions have done this already, and in many cases made significant concessions by delaying wage increases or increasing their payments towards benefits.
But in cases where they haven’t, I would strongly urge them to come to the negotiating table with an open mind, and work with local officials to reach the best possible agreement for all parties.