Failed Leadership

One of the most important traits of a leader is integrity. It is bedrock of what a leader should stand upon and it is something that he or she can never compromise. Integrity is the understanding that honesty, sense of duty, and morality come before anything else. A leader who doesn’t understand this will not only be an ineffective leader, but most importantly they will have failed those whom they were supposed to lead.

On Jan. 5, Anthony Galluccio officially resigned his position as a state senator, albeit a little late. Instead of bowing out of office gracefully upon the eve of his conviction, Galluccio remained in office deciding his status and position was more important than the interests of the voters he represented. Home confinement, sure, no big deal. However, only days after receiving his sentence Galluccio blamed his toothpaste on a failed an alcohol test. Come on, really? This time he wasn’t so lucky; this time it’s off to Billerica.

In a letter to Senate President Therese Murray, Galluccio maintained his innocence and begged his former colleagues to support his appeal. Instead of owning up to what he did, Galluccio spun a tale not even an eight-year-old would believe. It’s one thing to have a substance abuse problem, but it’s another thing to lie about it and ask your former colleagues to get your back. By lying to the court, to the state legislature, but more importantly, to the people of Massachusetts, Galluccio has failed as a leader. By compromising his integrity he has sealed his fate as ever being able to lead effectively again. After all, a leader without integrity is no longer a leader.

But this is not an isolated incident, no not by far. Just over a year ago, Dianne Wilkerson refused to resign amid another scandal, claiming that she would do what was in the “best interest of the residents” of her district. Which we all knew to mean she would be looking out for her own best interests. And let’s not forget James Marzilli, the former Arlington Democrat who also delayed his resignation after being charged with sexually assaulting four women. Three senators in a little over one year. So who is running this place anyway?

In a recent statement, Ms. Murray said that she hopes the public can trust their individual senators. For her sake, I hope she was kidding. Trust is not something you can demand from your constituents, Ms. Murray, it is something you earn. Just because you “hope” for it from the people of Massachusetts, it won’t make it so. She even went as far to ask the people for “compassion” for Galluccio, instead of having the moral fortitude to stand up for what is right and chastise Galluccio for his despicable actions. Loyalty is one thing, but asking people to have sympathy for a man whose reckless actions seriously injured a minor is a completely different story.


As Thomas J. Watson once said, “nothing so conclusively proves a man’s ability to lead others as what he does from day to day to lead himself.” But leadership doesn’t stop there. It is just as important to have the courage to stand up and take the blame for those under your charge. Whether it be a commander on the battlefield or a CEO in a press release, a true leader acknowledges their position and accepts responsibility for the failure of the group as a whole. If not the person in charge then who? Surely a General isn’t going to blame the nineteen-year-old radio operator for not relaying his orders fast enough. Nor would the CEO blame the junior accountant fresh out of college for the company’s misstated financial statements.


But for some reason these leadership qualities are not found among the elected majority on Beacon Hill. Where have our leaders gone? Who is going to stand up and say “enough is enough”? The people of Massachusetts deserve more from their electorate. Clearly there is a problem in the Senate, but to date nobody has come forward to address it. The people need a leader who is decisive, who makes decisions promptly and announces them in a clear, forceful manner. We should be able to depend on this leader, a leader who is unselfish and has the initiative to act. But most importantly we need a leader who will assume the responsibility for the position in which they were elected and take charge. By letting business as usual continue, the Massachusetts Senate has failed the people of the Commonwealth and has brought shame upon us all.

Veterans Not Welcome In Massachusetts?!

On Thursday I was surprised when I returned to my car and found someone had shot out my rear window with a pellet gun. Although the entire window was shattered what surprised me the most was target of this act, not the window itself, but a sticker.  The 3” by 3” sticker read: Iraq Campaign Veteran.

           

As a child raised in the 1990’s, I was too young to witness our troops return from the jungles of Vietnam.  My only knowledge of their experiences comes from reading books and watching movies, some based on fact, some fiction.  Those servicemen came home from war to face a nation in the midst of social and political change.  They were singled out and targeted by the anti-war protesters as supporters of the war solely because they had donned the uniform.  It didn’t matter if they were been drafted or they volunteered, what mattered to those who opposed the war was that these brave men carried out orders they believed were wrong.

When I joined the Marine Corps after graduating from college in 2000, I left Massachusetts behind with hopes of seeing the world while getting the opportunity to serve my country.  Only ten months later those dreams became reality when a few airplanes changed the course of history on 9/11.  I joined the Marines in peacetime, but now I was in the midst of a war.  Although none of us were ready for what was to come, it was our time to answer our nation’s call for help and we did so without hesitation.

For whatever reason, we went to war in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Some of us got to see both countries, but I only got to see Iraq, although several times.  We were given orders and we carried them out to the best of our abilities.  Not once did I ask why were there, nor did any of the Marines I serve with question our purpose.  These types of questions were not heard on the battlefield, they are questions best reserved for those in Washington and for debate in the pages of our nation’s newspapers.  Our purpose as combat troops was to fight and win when given the order, not to question those in Washington who make such decisions.

Upon return home, we became more attuned to the debate as to the legality of the war we left behind.  An anti-war movement had spread throughout the country which we were reminded of nightly by the cable news stations.  But unlike our brothers in arms returning a generation ago we did not face angry protesters throwing rotten vegetables at us outside the front gate of our bases.  Instead we were welcomed home by crowds of supporters and magnetic yellow ribbons stuck on the back of cars.  But this wasn’t true everywhere.

When I left the Commonwealth, I always knew I would return.  Due to circumstance beyond my control, this didn’t happen until this past summer.  Unlike the warm welcome I received in other states, Massachusetts has not been so friendly.  In one conversation I was asked, “how could you kill women and children” over there.  My wife, a local public school teacher, was told recently by a recent college graduate working as an aide in her classroom that he didn’t “support our military” because they kill innocent people.  This in addition to the last incident when someone decided to shoot a hole in the rear window of my vehicle because it displayed a sticker stating “Iraq Campaign Veteran.”

What has happened in the past nine years since I left this state?  Have we come so far that we cannot remember the mistakes of our past?  Do we not remember the pledge we made never to treat our veterans in the same manor as we did in the late 1960’s and into the early 1970’s no matter if we supported a war or not?  I’ve always thought of Massachusetts as a state tolerant of spirited intellectual debate and open to new ideas and viewpoints.  It didn’t matter if you were a refugee from a war-torn African nation or product of a middle-class neighborhood on the South Shore, everyone was equally entitled a chance to speak.  It appears I might have been mistaken.  I know this was the Massachusetts I left, but is it the Massachusetts in which I now live?

           

I am proud of my service to this country and if asked to do it again I would not hesitate.  I shouldn’t have to worry about the safety of my car just because I put a veteran sticker in the windshield, nor should any veteran.  Veterans are the backbone of this country who serve to protect our nation’s rights, liberties, and way of life.  Some of our veterans paid the ultimate price, sacrificing their lives for the greater good of the nation.  Others, like me, are disabled veterans who bear scars which remind us everyday of our personal sacrifices.

No veteran should hang his head when he or she walks down a sidewalk, nor should they made to feel they should.  It doesn't matter if you supported our elected officials' decision to send our troops into Iraq and Afghanistan or not, however you should support the troops.  Our veterans didn't make the decision to go to war, be we were there to answer this call to arms.  The Marine, Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen I served alongside were nothing less than patriots.  They defined the words honor, courage, and commitment.  They should com home as hero's, not made to feel like was criminals.  Maybe Massachusetts has changed drastically over the past few years, or maybe I never realized the Commonwealth for what it was.  But in any event, this is one veteran who will proudly hold his head high and continue to support our brave troops battling our enemies overseas.

Comming soon to a theater near you!

Go ahead Deval, make my day!

(It's not like I have anything better to do than pick up trash on the way to work)

Read My Lips....

Many of us remember George Bush's infamous speech where he promised the American public his administration would not raise taxes. Unfortunately, there were new taxes and thus the people decided on a new president after only one term in office.

During President Obama's campaign for the White House he also pledged not to increase any taxes on the middle class, reserving the tax increases for the rich (whatever he meant by that!). However, in an interview on ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos, the President stumbled when questioned about the new health care reform. As part the Senate bill (which President Obama has repeatedly supported) individuals would be required to purchase health insurance or face a penalty, as high as $3800 per year. Mr. Stephanopoulos asked the President how this proposal wasn't a tax, when you either are forced to buy something or penalized for now buying the insurance. Instead, the President stated:

...for us to say that you've got to take responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore. In other words, like parents talking to their children, this levy -- don't call it a tax -- is for your own good.

As Mr. Stephanopoulos pointed out for the president, the definition of tax is "a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes." Maybe it's me, but it sure sounds like a tax increase. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. The President confirmed his rejection of this idea of reform as taxation, stating "I absolutely reject that notion."

Well, Mr. President, you maybe not believe health-care reform is not a tax because you see it as a responsibility issue, however the American public might not agree with you. If middle class people are forced to buy insurance or else, it is undoubtedly a tax, no matter how you slice it. The people don't like being lied to, especially about their taxes. It didn't work out to well for the first President Bush, and when the American people catch on it might not work for you either!

Health Care Benefits Unions Not Citizens

Both current versions of proposed health-care reform bills are not clear as to who they really benefit and why the Democrats have been shoving it down the American peoples' throats. It has less to do with providing universal health-care and more to do with increasing the rosters of labor unions. President Obama went as far as courting union members at an AFL-CIO convention, stating:

“We’ve been hearing a lot of stuff from folks who aren’t that friendly to me, or the union movement...So let’s just take a stroll down memory lane. Let’s just remember where we were when I took the oath of office.”

Well, I'm waiting for you to tell me Mr. President, where were we then and where are we now? As most people can see things have not changed, other than the size of the federal deficit which, if I remember correctly, was a selling point on the campaign trail that the Bush administration put the American people in a hole. If your argument Mr. President is that your administration has made significant improvements on the quality of life for the American public it is one you've lost.

But the administration has to make a tough decision, either they press on with the health-care fight or they give some concessions and fight for greenhouse-gas emissions regulations, they can't have both. The same union members the President solicited for support of health-care reform are the people who stand to lose their jobs if tougher regulations on greenhouse-gases are passed. Places like Ohio and western Pennsylvania would be devastated from the emissions caps where many of the residents are employed in the steel and coal industries, places where union membership runs strong.

Also important to note is the Senate version of the bill which would allow for forced unionization schemes, such as those instituted former Governors Rod Blagojevich in Illinois and Gray Davis of California. In both states, unions received a windfall from this legislation by reclassifying in-home health-care contractors and child-care contractors as state employees, thus forcing them to pay union dues. The Senate bill follows this scheme by creating a "personal care attendants workforce advisory panel" which would likely impose union affiliation to qualify for reimbursement plans.

The House version goes even further. H.R. 3200 Section 225(A) grants the Secretary of Health and Human Services discretionary authority to regulate workers under the public health insurance option. If this doesn't scare you then you probably shouldn't be reading this article in the first place. Under this authority, the Secretary could, through her own discretion, require thousands of doctors and nurses throughout the country to pay union dues. These dues could be made mandatory in order to participate in the program, thus effectively blackballing those who choose not to affiliate from providing care under this program.

Additionally, Sen. Max Baucus has suggested the government could pay for health-care reform by taxing workers' existing health-care benefits, but would exempt union-negotiated health-care plans. This plan could impose costs of up to $20,000 per employee on non-union businesses. The President called out to union members saying:

"As long as you've got an ounce of fight in you, I've got a ton of fight in me...I've said it before: I'm skinny, but I'm tough. So give it to me guys."

I say the American people take the President up on his offer; let's give it to him. He said it, he's tough, he can take it. So when you write, email, or call your elected representative remember the President's challenge. This is not just another political debate, it is a fight for values, American values. If you want big government to take control of another portion of your life, then by all means stand behind the President, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Reid. But, if you have had enough of this debacle it's time to stop being spectators on the sidelines and answer this call to arms. It's your country and only you can protect it; every vote and every voice counts, don't waste yours!

A Lesson in Leadership

Good leaders lead from the front, they charge ahead and yell "follow me." Bad leaders, or at least failed leaders, sit back and tell others what to do and how to do it. Their followers might carry out those tasks, at least for a little while, but eventually they realize, "hey, if this guy's not going to do it, why should I?"  That's where the American people are today, they followed their leaders down this path, backing them up along the way, but now times have changed. They want to know why they are being forced to accept socialized health care, why their lives must "change" while these same "leaders" sit back and enjoy the same benefits they have always had. The American people aren't stupid, eventually they are going to stop and ask "hey wait a minute, we have to take this health care plan, but you don't because your an elected official?" If those officials don't change their tune quick, they will fail not only as leaders, but they will fail the people who put them in office in the first place.

Leadership is also about trust. People won't follow you as a leader if they don't have faith in your judgment to do the right thing. Trust is not a right that comes with your title or position, it is something you earn. Over the weekend, Peggy Noonan addressed this in her article:

The past 10 months, the president has lessened and not increased the trust of the big center. He did a number of things wrong, but one has not been noticed much, or noted. He moved too quickly, before he'd earned the right to change a big chunk of American life. You earn that right by establishing trust. Absent crisis, leaders have to show, over a certain amount of time and through a series of actions, that they're sober, sound, farsighted, looking out for the middle.

Ms. Noonan is right, it takes time to earn peoples trust, they have to feel comfortable with your actions and decisions before they are willing to trust you; it doesn't happen over night, nor should it.

In tonight's speech to congress, the President is expected to push for a government-run insurance option in the proposed overhaul of the health care system. This is not surprising to me, nor do I believe to many. However, I don't think many will be listening, which this early in his presidency is really quite surprising. The average American person worries more about their job, will it be there tomorrow, will I be able to pay the bills, than universal health care. They also worry more about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, whether their loved ones will come home alive, or will they have to deploy for another tour, more than health care.  If people weren't losing jobs left and right and we weren't fighting a war, then maybe people would be more receptive to the health care debate.

Now is not the time or place to have this debate, maybe our elected leaders should step back and take a moment to listen to the people, what they are concerned with and what they want done.  Anybody can make a speech, it's a skill that can be taught and learned and one that many leaders possess, however the ability to listen is what makes a leader great. Maybe the President, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Reid should step back and try it, at least once.

Take away my liberty and give me ObamaCare!

It has been a long time since one of the great orators of American history, Patrick Henry, uttered the words "Give me liberty, or give me death," but those words still ring true today. Henry gave this speech to the Virginia delegates, imploring them to put the Virginia militia on standby to defend their land against the tyranny of the British, expressing his desire to face death instead of living in a world without freedom. But in contrast today, the current administration supports the opposite result; government control of individual lives while restricting personal liberties.

The Boston Sunday Globe proposed two steps to change health care: drive down costs while taking steps to cover the uninsured. The first step requires large employers to provide coverage, while the second step requires anyone who can afford insurance to buy it. First, what happened to our economic liberties? Just because many large corporations already provide insurance it doesn't mean the federal government should require all corporations to follow suit. Not every business conducts their business the same way: some make computers, some sell insurance, some drill for oil. Each business has a different model and a different strategy to achieve their goals. Some have decided to provide insurance as part of their employee compensation package, some have decide to compensate their employees through other methods. Since when does a capitalist society dictate how employers can structure employee compensation? It doesn't and it shouldn't because then it's not a capitalist society anymore, but a quasi-socialist society.

The Globe rebuts the premise that such a requirement would hamper the competitiveness of American companies by arguing that many overseas competitors come from countries where health care is covered by high taxes. The flaw in this argument is that the United States already has one the highest corporate tax rates in the western industrialized world and many of the countries the Globe bases their argument upon are in the process of or have already cut their corporate tax rates while still providing insurance. This administration wants their cake and to eat it too; they want to raise the corporate rates and require corporations to provide insurance as well. The Globe and this administration need to think before they act. This will undoubtedly hurt our businesses and our economy, leaving us in a worse place than we already are.

Second, the Globe argues people who can afford insurance should be forced to buy it. Are you kidding me? How does this proposal fit into a free society? They state:

This would make sure subsidized care goes to those who really need it, cleansing the system of any freeloaders.

They argue this would expand the pool of the insured by forcing the young and healthy to buy insurance to subsidize the old or sick and make it more affordable for them. So what they are really saying to the young and healthy is buy something you don't want or need so others can get a better deal, or in other words, "spread the wealth around." Sound familiar?

As a college student and early in my professional career I took a risk and decided not to buy insurance, mostly because I couldn't afford it. If I got sick or hurt I paid out of my own pocket to see a doctor. That was my choice and the risk I took. I did get hurt and I did get sick, but it was a calculated risk I decided to take. Once you take the freedom of choice away, you have taken away a fundamental liberty from our citizens. The Bill of Rights guarantees individuals the right to personal autonomy, meaning that a person's decisions regarding his or her personal life are none of the government's business. By forcing people to purchase insurance, the administration would infringe upon this liberty, something our President, a former constitutional attorney, should recognize. No matter how you spin it, no matter what words you place on the proposed government plan, it doesn't work. Socialized health care is socialized health care.