Letters to Editors
and
Op-Ed Essays
Click
here to go to the Cheney
Sampler/Main Page.
Click
here to send email to Glenn
Cheney.
Op-Ed Essays
Development
Isn't Progress
In
Sprague, Adding Industry Would Lower Taxes - But At What Cost In The Long Run?
By
Glenn Alan Cheney
The
Hartford Courant, July 24, 2005
I
have the privilege of living in the town that sits comfortably on the lowest
rung of a certain magazine's ranking of small Connecticut municipalities.
By
the questionable criteria of that ranking, Sprague is the worst small town in
the state, 27th out of 27 towns with fewer than 3,500 inhabitants.
But
that magazine doesn't consider whether the postmaster puts homemade scones on
the counter every Saturday. When the magazine tallies up the town's leisure
activities, it doesn't count fishing for salmon across the street from town
hall, walking in the primordial solace of the Mukluk forest, watching the fire
department play softball in full gear, or discussing local politics down at the
dump.
Sprague
is actually a pretty nice place to live. But the town has reached a crucial
crossroad - one faced by towns large and small across the state.
The
issue is development, or, better defined, development versus progress.
There's
a difference. Development tends to mean more building and business. Progress, on the other hand, means improvement.
Development
rarely results in progress. Rare is the town that's glad it has more industry,
more traffic, more houses. Equally rare is the resident who says, "Life
was so much worse in the old days." No one yearns for asphalt over fields.
Sometimes
towns have no choice but to accept development. Landowners are allowed to sell
their land to developers, and rightfully so. Zoning regulations allow commerce
and industry. Few people are glad to see subdivisions and strip malls, but they
can't do much about it.
Sometimes,
however, towns have a choice. They can adjust zoning. They can buy undeveloped land
to preserve as open space. They can opt for a forest instead of a factory.
But
factories offer something forests don't: taxes. Development always dangles the
temptation of revenue.
But
forests offer something factories don't: property value. A factory may offset
taxes a bit, but it devastates the value of people's biggest investments: their
property.
The
tax savings of industrial development may measure a few hundred dollars per
year, but the loss in property values measures in the thousands. Typically it
takes decades of tax savings to make up for the loss in property value.
Why
the decline in property value? People looking for a place to live tend to
prefer a town with forests, fields, and farms. They'll pay for the privilege of
distance from industry, the warmth of a small-town population, the pleasure of
scones at the post office.
Sprague's
taxpayers also pay for a nice little no-frills elementary school. Nothing fancy
there, unless you consider a nice, safe, friendly, family atmosphere to be a
luxury. And when the kids graduate, they get their choice of several regional
high schools, including the famous Norwich Free Academy.
This
year, Sprague taxpayers agreed, by town meeting, to pay an average tax increase
of 18 percent to maintain the status quo. The cause: local industry's assets
had depreciated. Residential taxes had to make up for it. People grumbled about
the governmental incompetence, but everyone seemed to realize that the only
alternative to higher residential taxes was more industry.
And
they knew more industry wouldn't work. Its assets would depreciate, and again,
residential taxes would have to make up for it. It's a disastrous treadmill
that eats open space and chips away property values and the quality of life. It
happens every time, all the time, everywhere.
Sprague,
like many other towns in Connecticut, has reached a juncture where it needs to
decide about development. Its Economic Development Commission (EDC) is
proposing a "mixed use" development in the center of town, across the
river from town hall. They call it "Heritage Park." Typical of names
given development projects, it offers neither park nor heritage. It waves the
false promise of tax revenue but fails to mention the negative impact on
property value, the inevitable depreciation of industrial assets, the
consequent shift of the tax burden back to residences.
Sprague's
EDC should concern itself with the development of property value and progress
in the quality of life. It should be trying to keep industry out of town, not
drawing it in. A downtown industrial park would devastate Sprague for a
century. The town would really deserve to be called the worst in Connecticut.
Like
most small towns, Sprague could use a little development, but only if it
represents progress. It doesn't need industry for the sake of revenue. It needs
commerce that improves the quality of life - a pharmacy, a grocery, a clinic, a
restaurant, a movie theater, a hardware store, and other commerce that people
in town can actually use. That would be development that also represents
progress. But progress must also include preservation: the protection of the
forests, fields, farms, and scones that make Sprague one of the best little
towns in Connecticut.
Glenn
Cheney is a free-lance writer. He lives in the village of Hanover in Sprague.
* * *
This
is Not a Drill
by
Glenn Alan Cheney
The
Day, April
3, 2005
You
want to mock a terrorist attack? Mock this:
The
terrorists are already in the gates. Nobody knows who they are. They look like
elected officials, celebrities on TV, students in school, executives with brief
cases, dudes hanging out on street corners.
With
an ingenious distribution system, they scatter 192 million guns in American
homes. No one knows who has them. The plan works. Two hundred thousand people get
shot in a year. Thirty thousand die. Five thousand are children. In fact, some
of the gunmen are actually gunchildren, kids gone mad with a rage beyond our
understanding. The president, confused but resolved, does nothing.
A
band of terrorists breaks into the national treasury, empties the whole thing,
leaves a hole in the bottom so deep it will take two generations to plug it up.
They send the almighty dollar into a tailspin around the deep, dark drain of
depression. Nobody notices.
They
rob the poor and give to the rich. They pull a fast one on the elderly, trick
the unborn out of their pensions, saddle them with federal debt. They leave
children behind. They bait. They switch. They cover their tracks.
They
use lies and innuendo to draw our army to the other side of the world. They
make killing a Christian virtue. They beg for the apocalypse. The post ten
commandments and break them one by one. They hang with a bad crowd.
Look
out. Here they come. Code Orange! Code Orange! Please remove your shoes.
With
our soldiers tied down in a distant desert, dying like fish in a barrel,
terrorists continue their rampage in American streets, schools, homes, parks,
post offices, courthouses. Students shoot teachers. Criminals execute judges.
Parents beat their children. Children kill their parents. Neighbors rape
neighbors, leave their bodies in the woods.
The
terrorists slay national forests, dig pits in national parks, cast oil upon the
waters. They release gases to the sky, chemicals to the streams, toxins over
the crops. They poison wells. They push narcotics on the young. They withhold
medicine from the old. They make cancer happen.
While
televisions gush with glitz and idiocy, the terrorists throw journalists in
jail. They make a bad journalist a whore. They make a whore a bad journalist.
They let him into the White House. He asks stupid questions, gets stupid
answers. He does not remove his shoes.
They
slash the Constitution, seize without need, search without warrant, arrest
without cause, hold without charges, try without jury, and outsource cruel and
unusual punishment to places where tyranny rules.
They
rule. They corrupt. They buy legislators. They sell favors. They puff
themselves up on TV but fling so much mud that nobody can see what's happening.
They replace voting machines with black boxes. Nobody gets to look inside. They
fool enough of the people enough of the time.
The
president lifts his chin, wrinkles his brow, squints his eyes, raises his arm,
waves with courage, gets in his helicopter, leaves.
It's
all too horrible to think about, but that's the attack that's happening. We can
mock an assault on Fort Trumbull, rehearse it all we want, but it won't stop
what truly terrorizes, not one little bit.
* * *
Today's
Army: Above and Beyond the Call of Auditors
By
Glenn Cheney
The Hartford Courant, March 8, 2005
The
Barre Montpelier Times Argus, April 3, 2005
The
United States spends almost as much on military matters as the rest of the
world combined.
Theoretically, if every country in the world ganged up against us, our forces
should roughly equal theirs.
But
as we watch our ill-equipped armed forces stymied in an impoverished,
devastated desert nation with neither an army nor a leader, we have to wonder
what happened to the great heaps of money keep giving to the Department of
Defense.
According
to a report from U.S Comptroller General David M. Walker, nobody knows where
the money goes. The books at the Pentagon are so bad, the report says, that
they can't be audited. In fact, the U.S. government as a whole cannot produce
an auditable consolidated financial statement. Too many agencies can't prove
what they've done with the billions we've entrusted to them.
In
other words, America has flunked its audit. Its owners (we, the people) don't
know what its assets, liabilities, or costs are. We don't know whether our
assets are protected against theft, our financial system against fraud, our
computers against hackers. We don't know what the government is spending. We
don't know what it's buying.
But
we do have an idea of its debt. According to Walker's report, the nation's
gross debt in September 2004, was $7.4 trillion, or about $25,000 for every
man, woman, and child in the country. If you factor in the gap between promised
and funded entitlements, such as Social Security and Medicare, each American
owes $145,000.
That
was four months ago. Since then, we've been borrowing over a billion dollars a
day from foreign governments, most in Asia, to cover the interest on our debt.
Little by little, China owns us.
Who
would invest in a company that's swamped in debt, borrowing billions to stay
afloat, its assets and liabilities a mystery, its cost of operations unknown,
its computers more vulnerable than the World Trade Center, its accounting too
far out of whack to pass an audit?
Nobody.
Companies like that don't survive for long, not even if they print their own
money. The U.S. government makes Enron look like a good investment.
But
we, the people, own this company - lock, stock, barrel, hook, line, and sinker.
It's
enough to make future generations fill their diapers before they're even born.
The
Pentagon is not only the government's biggest spender but its biggest offender.
If you think Iraq's a mess, imagine the Pentagon's books. They don't include a
verifiable total for the department's property, equipment, installations, or
inventory. It can't estimate its environmental and disposal liabilities or what
it will owe its personnel in postretirement benefits. It doesn't know how much
it spends on healthcare. It doesn't know the value of its international
commitments under treaties. It's lost track of its disbursements. It doesn't
know its cost of operations. One wonders whether it knows the difference
between Iraq and a hole in the ground.
Asked
about this situation, former comptroller and under secretary of defense Dov S.
Zackheim noted the obvious: the DoD is very good at war but not so good at
office work.
Ironically,
the department's weakness in accounting may undo its victories in war. Every
empire in history, except one, has fallen. Not one was conquered during its
period of strength. Each was first brought to its knees by fiscal
irresponsibility.
Iraq
and Al Qaeda are unlikely to conquer history's one remaining empire. But if
their accountants are better than ours, they just might be around to watch us
fall.
Glenn
Cheney of Hanover is a correspondent for Accounting Today magazine and writes
regularly for Accounting & Business, in the United Kingdom, and Australian
CPA.
Click here to download the GAO report on which this op-ed piece was
based.
* * *
Peace
on Earth, Good-bye to Subs
by
Glenn Cheney
The [New London] Day, December 26, 2004
As
we enter the season of Jesus, we would do well to consider his likely opinion
of nuclear submarines. In that our region produces so many of these incredibly
deadly weapons, we owe it to Jesus to think about what we are doing.
As
our Representative Rob Simmons calls on the government to fund the building of
more submarines than the Navy feels it needs, we should reflect on the wisdom
and Christianity of such expenditures.
It
was Isaiah who suggested beating swords into ploughshares and spears into
pruning hooks, but it was Jesus, the Prince of Peace, who took the idea
farther. He advised us to love our enemies, turn the other cheek, and do unto
others as we'd have them do unto us. It's hard to figure how Groton's weapons
of mass destruction fit in with that philosophy.
Even
people hell-bent on war should realize the stupidity of dedicating huge amounts
of money to the building of nuclear submarines. We no longer have enemies that
can be held off with the threat of mass annihilation. The submarines we had on
September 11, 2001, failed to protect us. More submarines won't help at all.
In
fact it could be argued that the military approach to world peace isn't
working. Despite our gargantuan power and the global reach of our high-tech
swords, we get into war after war after war. The current wars, in fact, seem to
be caused by a reaction to our imposition of power where it isn't wanted.
The
power of our submarines isn't helping us wage war in Afghanistan or Iraq. Our
soldiers there aren't getting killed and mutilated for lack of submarines.
They're suffering for lack simple armor. Too many of them are hoping to get
Kevlar in their Christmas stockings.
And
too many other people are hoping to give them shrapnel.
Alas,
in a statement as anti-Christmas as "Bah, humbug," our secretary of
defense tells us we can't have the army we'd like to have. Even though we spend
almost as much on our military as the entire rest of the world, we can't afford
the basic equipment that saves lives. We can't even stand up against an
impoverished, leaderless, armyless country like Iraq.
It
makes you wonder where our tax dollars have gone.
One
place they've gone is into submarines.
When
Representative Simmons returns to Washington after Christmas, he will take with
him two conflicting interests. One is that thousands of his constituents are
employed in the building of submarines. The other is that tens of thousands of
his constituents have celebrated Christmas because they believe in the teachings
of Christ. They believe that love works, that we're better off investing in
ploughshares than in swords.
If
Mr. Simmons is the good leader he claims to be - presumably one who celebrated
Christmas - perhaps he can give some thought to resolving that conflict between
Christian values and employment in the weapons industry.
Maybe
Jesus and Isaiah have already offered him the solution. Why don't we employ
people in the building of ploughshares rather than submarines? Why don't we
build machines that produce energy rather than machines that produce, at best,
if we're lucky, nothing? Why don't we offer our enemies (and the rest of the
world) something nice rather than something deadly?
Christmas
would be a nice time to think about whether Jesus was right and to notice how
poorly submarines fit under a proper Christmas tree. Our swords have not
brought the world peace. We really should be thinking about building something
else.
* * *
Who's
the Spoiler of 2004?
by
Glenn Cheney
The Hartford Courant, February 27, 2004
The
Keene [N.H.] Sentinel, February 29, 2004
With
the independent candidacy of Ralph Nader, I worry that John Kerry may spoil the
election of 2004. Virtually all of the votes that Nader hopes to gain could be
Kerry's. If Kerry declines to earn them, George Bush's victory is John Kerry's
fault.
And
a disastrous victory it would be. A second term for President Bush would result
in environmental devastation. It would mean an even more bloated military
budget. It would mean more tax cuts for his wealthy supporters, continued
looting of whatever's left in the national treasury, deeper debt for
generations to come. It would give the nod of approval to the corporations that
run our government.
It
could well mean more war.
Those
votes that Kerry fears losing could be his. Everyone who's inclined to vote for
Nader is also terrified of four more years of war, debt, corporate welfare,
environmental slaughter, unconstitutional law, and working-class
impoverishment. They don't want to take a vote away from the opposition to
Bush.
But
they also don't want to vote for a candidate who's silent on the need for
universal healthcare. They don't see leadership in someone who offers no
solution to the sale of government to campaign contributors. They distrust
anyone who voted for war against a nation that never attacked us. They're still
waiting to see a plan for energy independence.
Kerry
can grab those votes from Nader in the time it takes to give one, good, honest,
courageous, hard-hitting speech.
And
then Ralph Nader, I'm sure, would be glad to give those votes up.
Nader
will not, however, give those votes to a Democrat without a Democratic
platform. Al Gore tried that. It didn't work. He never mentioned cutting the
military budget. He never explained why American can't have a medical system as
efficient and humane as those of other nations. He never told us what favors he
owed his big campaign contributors.
He
never even asked for a complete recount in Florida, never questioned the tens
of thousands of Democrats illegally removed from voter lists. I still wonder
whose side he was on.
It's
hard to see how the results of that election are Ralph Nader's fault. Gore
could have had them. All he had to do was disavow his allegiance to Republican
values. A return to Democratic principles would have swayed a great number of
Nader supporters.
Kerry
faces a similar decision.
He
can declare that the minimum wage is too little to sustain life.
He
can demand free television time for candidates, greatly reducing dependence on big
campaign contributions.
He
can advocate universal healthcare under a single, national, not-for-profit HMO
funded by a payroll tax.
He
can announce a major job-producing program to build a national renewable energy
resource infrastructure.
He
can get serious about defense by promising to slash the military budget and
shift the funds of education and law enforcement.
He
can ask the rich to pay their fair share of taxes.
He
can declare the USA Patriot Act unconstitutional.
He
can demand the impeachment of President Bush for the high crime of using lies
to start a war.
He
can insist on inviting Mr. Nader to the candidates debate so we can see why he
deserves Nader's votes.
One
of those votes is mine. It could go either way. Ousting the Bush gang is a very
high priority. Liberating our government from corporate control is a higher
priority. If Mr. Kerry doesn't want to spoil the election, all he has to do is
give us a platform worthy of the Democratic party. If he can't do that, he
should do the decent thing: drop out and let Mr. Nader run to win.
* * *
The
Hartford Courant,
November 4, 2002
Is
Anyone Taking Stock Of The Human Condition?
by
Glenn Cheney
I'm
getting tired of the numbers in the news - the ups and downs of the NASDAQ, the
nudges to the prime rate, how much we spent on Christmas last year, the
infinitesimal blips in the wholesale price index.
I
don't want numbers about numbers. I want numbers about people. I want to turn
on the TV news and hear about today's variation in the average number of
children in Connecticut classrooms. I want to know what percent of
sixth-graders can, today, find Iraq on a map. I want to know this week's high
school drop-out total. I'd like to see totals comparing East Hartford,
Westport, and Norwich.
I'm
not interested in the S&P 500. I'm interested in the change in Connecticut
infant mortality since the last election. I want to know how many people
suffered asthma attacks today. I want to see how many people came down with
cancer this week, and I wouldn't mind a color-coded map showing me where they
live.
I
don't want hourly reports on the Dow Jones Industrial Average. I want hourly
reports on air pollution levels along I-95, sulfur-dioxide emissions from each
Connecticut power plant, radiation readouts from outside Millstone Nuclear
Power Station.
I
don't care what the Fed said. I want a daily report on how many Nutmeggers have
been hit with bullets, year-to-date, with pie charts comparing family income,
skin color, Connecticut Mastery Test scores, and caliber. With each increase,
I'd like to see a map showing where the body fell and where the governor was
standing at the time.
I
want to hear at least five state legislators report on what they did today. I
want to know which voted for what. I want the governor to tell me why Enron
contributed almost $100,000 to the his campaign fund and where he was standing
at the time.
(I
know it doesn't matter where he was standing, but neither does yesterday's
NASDAQ average.)
I'd
like to see a line graph showing me how many people in Connecticut declared
bankruptcy today, this week, this month, this year, due to health problems. I'd
like to see these numbers graphed in comparison with the profits of HMOs and
insurance companies and the compensation of their CEOs.
I'd
like to accompany daily changes in Connecticut's average hourly wages. I'd like
a news anchor to report the day-by-day changes in the gap between the per
capita incomes of the residents of Greenwich and Willimantic. I'd really like
to know the average number of hours people spent on the job today versus a year
ago, ten years ago, and fifty years ago.
I'd
like to see charts and graphs depicting changes in library budgets, library
usage, average age of library users, and total funds dedicated to new libraries.
I'd like an update on today's sales of books, magazines, and newspapers. I'd
like to hear an expert explain the numbers.
I'd
like to follow changes in the number of people receiving public assistance. I'd
like to follow changes in the number of corporations receiving public
assistance.
I'd
like to see daily reports on the rates of divorce, adoption, foster care,
one-parent families, teen pregnancies, and abortion. I'd like to know today's
percentage of people who wished they lived in another neighborhood, city, or
state, percentage of families in poverty, percentage of families with more
money than anyone could morally spend on themselves.
No
one is recording, let alone reporting, these very human issues on a daily
basis. We get hourly reports on the state of the economy but rarely anything on
the state of humanity. I have yet to see a graph depicting a correlation
between the Dow and social conditions. Stock market reports are as irrelevant
as they are relentless while the human condition, present in our homes and
communities, is ignored or unknown. Our focus and priorities are clearly
misguided. Would anyone care to guess why?
* * *
Using
Terrorism as a Form of Persuasion
by
Glenn Cheney
The [New London, Conn.] Day, October 28, 2001
Terrorism
is different from military conquest. The terrorist coerces an enemy to change
its politics or ideology not by overwhelming its defenses but by inciting fear
among its people.
The
attacks of September 11 certainly qualified as terrorism, and they succeeded in
inciting fear. Whether the attacks will succeed in coercing Americans to change
their policies or ideology remains to be seen. Congress leaped at the chance to
butcher the Bill of Rights, but the real objective of the attacks, a change in
policy toward Israel and Israeli Palestinians, is hardly under discussion.
Those
same Palestinians have long resorted to terrorism to coerce their government to
change its policies. By detonating bombs in public places, Palestinians try to
coerce other Israelis into persuading their government to respect the human
rights of all Israelis.
The
Israeli government responds with retributive terrorism, killing Palestinian
civilians who had no personal involvement in the attacks. Government forces
bulldoze the homes of family members of alleged criminals. They fire rockets
into residential neighborhoods. They shoot children who may or may not have
thrown rocks at soldiers. The objective is not to conquer the Palestinians but
to intimidate them.
The
United States has used terrorism against its enemies. The bombing of North
Vietnam had no military purpose beyond demoralizing its people. The economic
sanctions against Iraq are aimed not at the Iraqi military but at the Iraqi
people in the hope that they will turn their suffering into anger against their
government and overthrow it.
More
often the United States applies indirect terrorism, helping others conduct
terrorist campaigns. The United States trained, supplied and financed the
military forces of El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua and turned a
blind eye to blatant cases of terrorism against their civilians. The U.S.
government supports Israel in its campaign to terrorize its Palestinian people,
politicking against U.N. condemnation, providing billions of dollars in aid and
weaponry, never protesting the daily attacks against civilians and the utter
disregard for human rights.
Without
hope of military conquest, Osama bin Laden is using terrorism against the
United States to fight Israeli terrorism that is fighting Palestinian
terrorism. By generating fear in the American people, he hopes to coerce them
into forcing their government to change its policies toward Israel.
Unable
to identify and target the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks, the United
States is now fighting bin Laden's anti-terrorism terrorism with terrorism
against Afghanistan. The bombing of abandoned terrorist camps has no real
military purpose, and the bombs are not likely to fall anywhere near a
terrorist. A week of bombing surely eliminated Afghanistan's pathetic military
targets. The bombing continues against non-military infrastructure. The
objective is not to defeat the Afghan military but to make the Afghan people
suffer so much that they overthrow their government. If the U.S. terrorist attack
works as planned, Afghans will install a new government that respects human
rights and turns over all Islamic terrorists to the American savior-terrorists.
Terrorism,
however, rarely works as planned. The bombing of North Vietnam destroyed much
but demoralized little. Death squads and massacres in Central America spread
fear but failed to quell civil unrest. Ten years of sanctions against Iraq has
caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians - mostly children - but
brought Saddam Hussein no closer to his downfall. Fifty years of terrorism
against the Palestinians has suppressed but not defeated them.
Terrorism
against Afghanistan is not likely to succeed either. Attempts to make Afghans
suffer will surely succeed, but the intended results will probably stop there.
Bin Laden is unlikely to be among the victims. The Taliban is unlikely to
surrender its power until defeated by an invading force. No force, however,
from NATO to the Northern Alliance, will be able to install a democracy, secure
the peace and oust all terrorists.
Terrorism
by governments and guerillas has never led to anything but fear, misry and a
sense of martyrdom. Anti-terrorism terrorism hasn't worked for bin Laden, and anti-terrorism
terrorism terrorism won't work for the United States. If we really want to
negate terrorism, we should try applying its opposite. Maybe compassion,
respect and generosity can persuade people to change their policies. Maybe
Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King were right and Osama bin Laden is wrong.
Maybe this is a good time to find out.
*
* *
Statewide
Health Insurance: It can be done
by
Glenn Cheney
The
Day,
February 11, 2001, and The Journal Inquirer, March 6, 2001
For
a brief and shining moment, Connecticut had a chance to opt for better health
care for everybody at lower overall cost. Unfortunately, state representative
Mary Eberle, co-chair of the state general assembly committee on public health,
didn't like the idea - she's closely linked to the insurance and health care
industry - so the proposed bill never made it to the committee agenda and was
never open to discussion or public hearings.
It's
really a shame that Eberle let her personal best interest come ahead of the
democratic process. Her own interest came ahead of the interest of hundreds of
thousands of people in Connecticut who have no health insurance or so little
coverage that any serious health problem would leave them bankrupt.
Health
care for everyone at a lower cost is a fine idea. By pulling together and
pooling our resources, we can reduce the cost of care while guaranteeing that
everyone in Connecticut - rich, poor, sick, healthy, employed or not - gets the
doctor they want, the medicines they need, and the treatments they, as humans,
deserve.
Or
we can let the HMOs and insurance companies continue business as usual, keeping
insurance expensive and out of reach for too many people.
But
Mary Eberle and corporate interests need not hold sway over our legislators and
our health, Connecticut is quite capable of offering all citizens lower health
insurance payments, a free choice of doctors, less expensive medicines, and the
right to medical treatments without pre-approval from a profit-motivated
corporation.
Too
good to be true? No.
Too
good for the people of Connecticut? No.
Necessary?
Yes - because among the 29 industrialized nations, the United States ranks 20th
and 21st in life expectancy among males and females respectively, 23rd in
infant mortality, and last with regard to most immunizations. And because over
12 percent of the people of this state have no medical insurance, and a good
number more have inadequate insurance.
That's
pretty pathetic. But people in Connecticut don't have to accept health care of
third-world quality. With the Health Care Security Act works, we can all live
healthier lives and pay less for the privilege.
Here's
how it works:
The
state of Connecticut can set up a not-for-profit health trust organization that
will be the health insurer of everyone who lives here. It will be accountable
to those whom it insures, not to those who own big chunks of corporate stock.
Instead of paying premiums to an insurance company, everyone will pay premiums,
as part of their income or payroll tax, to the health trust. Employers and
employees will contribute. The self-employed will contribute. The poor will
contribute at a rate adjusted to their income.
And
everyone gets covered. Everyone. No one gets left to suffer or to die because
they haven't got the money or got dropped by their insurer or can't get
pre-approval from their HMO. Nobody gets left behind, and Connecticut joins the
ranks of Sweden, Switzerland, Japan, France, Canada and Germany, where people
are entitled to health care because they are humans, not because they have
enough money.
Everyone
gets covered, and everyone, on average, pays less.
How?
Because the state health trust will be one big insurer - big enough to reduce
administrative costs.
Big
enough to buy medicines and medical equipment in bulk.
Big
enough to combine state and federal health programs into a comprehensive
coverage program.
Big
enough to provide coverage that prevents illness before it happens.
Will
it work? Yes - and certainly better than the current system, which keeps
getting more and more expensive and exceeding the reach of more and more
people.
Studies
conducted by the Connecticut Office of Health Care Access, and by other states
and the federal government all predict cost savings of up to 10 percent. Every
study in existence predicts lower costs. No study - not one, anywhere -
predicts increased costs.
Why
does it cost less? Because administration will be simpler and therefore less
expensive. Medications and equipment can be bought at volume discounts. The
health trust, controlling so much of the market, can demand lower prices for
medical procedures, and it can emphasize preventive and primary care.
Of
course these savings will be partially offset by more people having access to
health care, but what's wrong with that? They're humans.
The
Act mandates that any increases in budget must be less than the percent
increase for U.S. health care costs for the preceding year, thus controlling
increases in health care costs.
Who
pays? There will be an excise tax on activities detrimental to health, such as
cigarettes, sources of pollution, alcohol, maybe even unhealthy foods. Existing
state and federal programs would contribute to the system, and these
contributions would be higher than now because everyone who is eligible will be
enrolled.
Large
employers will pay at a rate equal to or less than current, average premiums.
Smaller employers will pay at a reduced rate. Employees will pay, on average,
less than today's average premiums. The self-employed will pay an amount equal
to or less than the average cost of comparable insurance today. People eligible
for MediCare will pay less than they'd pay for Medigap insurance. Families
earning less than 185 percent of the federal poverty line would be exempt from
payment.
Is
this socialized medicine? No. It's simply a more efficient way of paying for
health care.
Is
this state medicine? No. It's a state-regulated non-profit organization run by
a board of trustees that include doctors, state officials, citizen advocates,
businesses and health care organizations.
Is
this a big new bureaucracy? No. It's an end to the bureaucracy that doctors
wrestle with every day - a bureaucracy that patients end up paying for.
You
can imagine how much the insurance companies and HMOs like this idea. They
don't like it a bit. Neither does Mary Eberle, who has twice kept a universal
healthcare bill off the public health committee agenda. The most recent
opportunity, the Connecticut Healthcare Security Act, died on February 8.
Though many senators and representatives, perhaps as many as half, supported
the bill, they never even got a chance to discuss it.
A
health care security bill will be presented to the committee again in the
future. The health care corporations are sure to resist it with financial means
that are far beyond the reach of plain people. The only thing we have that they
don't is our votes. We need to remind our state senators and representatives
that we are here and we want a better system of health care and we are watching
how they vote. It isn't too soon to start.
* * *
Rowland's
Stadium End-Run by the Numbers
by
Glenn Cheney
The
Day, March
21, 1999
You've
probably heard the one about the prostitute who told a man she'd do anything he
wanted for $50. The man said, "All right: Paint my house."
As
the joke continues, the woman of the night refused the job. It was beneath her
professional standards. For $5,000, however, she might lower herself.
If
she'd been a CPA - a certified public accountant - the man might well have
asked her to produce an absurdly optimistic study of the economic impact of a
football stadium. And if he offered her $56,000 to do it, she'd probably be
glad to comply. After all, what are professional standards to a prostitute?
They're just a matter of price.
When
Governor John Rowland asked a subsidiary of KPMG Peat Marwick, one of the
world's largest accounting firms, to produce an absurdly optimistic study of
the economic impact of a football stadium, the firm was glad to comply. The
price was right, and professional standards could be lowered for the occasion.
The result was absurdly optimistic.
The
governor used the subsequent study to justify building a stadium for the New
England Patriots in Hartford. Our legislators looked at the study - not too
carefully, I suspect, for they had little time - and concluded that if a public
accounting firm said the stadium wouldn't lose money, then the deal was a safe
bet. After all, CPAs are renowned for being honest, accurate, unbiased, and
attentive to details.
Unfortunately,
KPMG was inaccurate, and biased in choosing which details to report, which to
ignore. It was dishonest in the purported purpose of the report, grossly
inaccurate in its estimates of projected revenues, and negligent in omitting
myriad details of economic significance.
KPMG's
report is an affront to Section 53, Article II of the American Institute of
CPAs ethical standard, which states: "[CPAs] should accept the obligation
to act in a way that will serve the public interest, honor the public trust,
and demonstrate commitment to professionalism." In producing this
misleading report, KPMG served the interests of our governor and the owner of
the Patriots, not the public.
While
by title KPMG's report calls itself an "Economic and Fiscal Impact
Analysis," Ronald D. Barton, national director of the firm's Convention,
Sports & Entertainment Consulting, says the report is actually a depiction
of a hypothetical scenario under which the stadium would break even. Nothing in
the report, however, indicates that purpose. Judging by the title, one would
assume the report is an analysis, not a fantasy.
The
report is inexcusably inaccurate in its estimate of the revenues that the
stadium would generate. In KPMG's fantasy, 90 percent of the funds spent at the
stadium would not have been spent on anything else taxable in Connecticut. The
firm had no factual basis for that number. In the creation of the hypothetical
scenario, 90 percent was simply the number that was necessary for the bottom
line to come out in the black.
KPMG's
sunny scenario depends on another crucial inaccuracy - that the stadium will be
filled to capacity for every game over the course of 30 years. No CPA could
honestly predict such a miracle.
Though
claiming to analyze fiscal impact, the report neglects to figure in a realistic
fiscal impact of removing the steam plant that sits on the site. The report
offers no mention of the cost of cleaning up the plant's toxic waste, a process
that will have a profound impact on the state economic standing.
KPMG's
report is detailed enough to note that the stadium will generate higher
cigarette tax revenues. When it comes to stadium-related costs, however, the
details disappear. All details on cost fit on just two of the report's 72
pages.
The
report is biased in favor of any fact that supports the stadium and suppressive
of any fact that detracts from an appearance of profitability. It is biased in
choosing not to mention the fiscal impact of bad weather or a poorly performing
team. It is biased in neglecting to mention that many of the predicted new jobs
will be there only during football season, some only for the ten game days. It
is biased in estimating that each fan will spend over $75 at each game but not
estimating that almost all that money goes to a single corporation, the owner
of the Patriots.
The
report neglects to report the loss in potential sales taxes resulting from the
stadium being owned by the state instead of a corporation. If the report mentions
the minuscule revenues that might result from increased smoking on game days,
why does it fail to estimate the amount of sales tax that will not be paid on
the materials used to build the stadium?
The
biggest omission in this "analysis" is that of risk - risk that the
estimated debt service might vary (which it will), that we might get a sleet
storm on a game day (which we will), that the steam plant will cost more to
move than estimated (which is certain), that the governor will offer even more benefits
to the Patriots' owner (which he already has), that the stadium might have a
negative impact on business in Hartford (as has happened in other cities with
new stadiums).
Though
purporting to analyze the fiscal impact of this project, the report makes no
mention of the impact of dedicating so much money to this project rather than
to something productive. An investment of $385 million that yields only $3
million after 30 years, as the report predicts, is a rotten deal, and a rotten
deal is certainly part of the fiscal impact. Unfortunately, it's one of the
parts that KPMG chose to ignore.
This
isn't the only absurdly optimistic stadium study that KPMG has produced, and
KPMG isn't the only major accounting firm to produce such studies. Likewise,
Governor Rowland isn't the first elected official to use such studies to
deceive legislators and the public.
It's
clear why KPMG lowered its the standards of its profession. They did it for the
money. I hope someday it's clear why the governor lowered the standards of
democracy. And just as KPMG has done a disservice to its profession, the
governor has done a disservice to his state. The only reason I don't ask them
to paint my house is that they might actually try to do it.
Letters to Editors
Note:
Printed versions may be slightly different from the originals posted here.
New York Times,
November 1, 2008
To the Editor:
The Candidates
Health Plans (editorial, Oct. 28) reveals the critical flaw in both
candidates proposals. Both merely redistribute the cost of health care;
neither actually lowers the cost. Their common flaw: continued dependence on
insurance companies.
Heres a better plan:
a single national nongovernment not-for-profit health insurance company
financed by a payroll tax. By eliminating the profit margin and cost of
marketing, we can reduce the cost of health insurance, and thus health care,
dramatically.
Glenn Alan
Cheney
Hanover, Conn.
USA
Today, September
11, 2008
To
the Editor:
I hope
your Misbegotten Fannie, Freddie now haunt taxpayers editorial (Monday) is
wrong in claiming that the companies were destined to fail. They were so
destined only if we presume leadership by incompetents or nothing-to-lose
risk-takers inadequately overseen.
But
let us note that once again capitalism has been rescued by socialism, that yet
another company has been critically corrupted by greed.
Glenn Alan Cheney
Hanover,
Conn.
The New York
Times, June 20, 2008
To
the Editor
Thank
you for bringing some sense to the oil issue in The Big Pander to Big Oil
(editorial, June 19).
If
President Bush cared about the future of his country, he would declare the
coastal and wilderness oil a strategic reserve and leave it securely
underground.
Well
need it more in the future than we need it now.
Glenn
Cheney
Hanover,
Conn., June 20, 2008
The New York
Times, February 19, 2008
To the Editor:
Robert
B. Reich is right about the imminent economic faltering of the lower and middle
classes, but he should also sympathize with the upper class, because pretty
soon there will be nothing left to trickle up.
Glenn
Alan Cheney
Hanover,
Conn., Feb. 19, 2008
The
[New London] Day,
March 28, 2007
To
the Editor of The Day:
I
would like to express my agreement with and thanks to Donald E. Williams for
his suggestion that Connecticut fix its sick health care system ("Real
universal health care for Connecticut," op-ed, March 18, 2007).
I
wish he had gone into more detail on the ways that a single, statewide,
not-for-profit insurance company will reduce costs and misery.
It
minimizes bankruptcy by not requiring the huge costs that hit even people with
health insurance under today's [non-]system.
It
reduces costs by eliminating the profit margin and cost of marketing that
for-profit insurance companies need to stay in business - about 25 percent of
the current cost of health insurance.
It
reduces the overall cost of medical care by paying for prevention and reducing
the need for last-minute emergency care.
It
requires everyone with a job to contribute to the health care system (while
today, only people paying insurance premiums are funding the system).
It
attracts business to Connecticut and retains existing business by lowering the
cost of providing insurance for employees.
It
reduces state and local taxes by reducing the cost of providing insurance for
government employees.
It
gives the state financial clout in negotiating the cost of common medications
and treatments.
It
alleviates the cost of paperwork for doctors and hospitals by using a single
set of forms for a single insurance company.
It
helps prevent corruption because state auditors will be able to investigate
where insurance company auditors can't.
And
it reduces human misery by giving everyone access to something that everyone
needs.
Health
insurance companies are bound to put up stiff resistance to any such fix to the
system that is benefiting them - and only them - so well. I hope voters can
make it clear that they will not reelect representatives who opt to serve those
companies rather than the people of Connecticut.
Glenn
Cheney
Hanover
The
New York Times,
March 27, 2006
To
the Editor:
The
call to Samaritan disobedience in "Called by God to Help" [(op-ed,
March 22)] may soon apply to more than Catholic workers. We are on the brink of
becoming a nation where torture is legal and helping the needy is not.
Disobeying the law may become a moral imperative for all of us.
Glenn
Cheney
Sprague,
Conn., March 22, 2006
The
New York Times,
January 7, 2006
To
the Editor:
Re:
Re "Lobbyist's Downfall Leads to Charities' Windfall: (front page, Jan.
6):
I
love that lawmakers are donating their ill-gotten gain to charities. Now how
can we get them to undo whatever it was they did to get the money in the first
place?
Glenn
Alan Cheney
Hanover,
Conn., Jan. 6, 2005
The
New York Times, August
24, 2005
To
the Editor:
Re
"Citing Sacrifice, President Vows to Keep Up Fight" (front page,
August 23):
With
his announcement that we will continue the war in Iraq to pay our debt to those
who have sacrificed their lives, President Bush has switched the mission again.
Now we're dying for the dead.
The
war thus becomes perpetual, our presence in Iraq permanent.
Glenn
Alan Cheney
Hanover,
Conn.
The
New York Times, June
15, 2005
To
the Editor:
I
find Paul Krugman's column disturbing. (June 13, 2005). If 72 percent of
Americans want a national health insurance program but insurance companies
override that majority, what does that say about the health of our democracy?
Where
can we get insurance for such an ailment?
Glenn
Alan Cheney
Hanover,
Conn.
The
New York Times,
March 30, 2005
To
the Editor:
Thomas
L. Friedman suggests that we need to start building nuclear power plants again.
But until we have a safe and economical way to store or destroy nuclear waste,
we should not worsen a dangerous situation.
Lacking
a means of disposal, we have nuclear waste stored precariously in cooling pools
at our nuclear plants. These pools are vulnerable to terrorist attack and other
disasters.
It
would be foolish to generate more waste before we find a safe way to deal with
it. Greener energy sources are a safer, smarter, better investment.
Glenn
Cheney
Hanover,
Conn.
The
New York Times,
Sunday Business Section, February 6, 2005
To
the Editor:
Re
"Lessons for the American Empire," (Economic view, Jan. 30), which
compared the current might of the United States to the past dominance of the
British Empire and the Soviet Union:
It
would seem that the Bush administration is using history as a cookbook for
ending American political, economic and cultural hegemony. No economic entity,
corporate or political, can remain strong if it takes on excessive debt for
anything other than productive capital assets. Our investments in the military
and war are increasingly out of proportion to our investments in productivity.
Our strength, in other words, will eventually bring us to our knees.
Glenn
Cheney
Hanover,
Conn. Jan. 30
New
York Times,
December 28, 2004
To
the Editor:
It
was the lingering spirit of Christmas that left me wondering whether the
earthquake and tsunami south of Asia could have been an opportunity to fight
terrorism in a different way.
If
we weren't so wrapped up in war and the military pursuit of peace, we could
afford an organized force that's prepared to "invade," on a moment's
notice, devastated areas to help with recovery.
If
we were as prepared to extend good will as we are to wage war, we'd have a lot
more friends in the world, and a lot fewer enemies - something our gargantuan
military power has failed to achieve.
Glenn
Cheney
Hanover,
Conn., Dec. 27, 2004
The
New York Times, August
9, 2004
Congress
and Accounting
To
the Editor:
Re
"Facing the Cost of Stock Options" (editorial, Aug. 3):
You
are quite right to warn of the danger of Congress's setting accounting
standards. Elected officials' meddling with something so complex, arcane and potentially
political can lead only to economic distress. Congress will inevitably bow to
the desires of its corporate sponsors.
The
short-term result: financial reports slanted to exaggerate corporate
profitability. The medium-term result: market volatility and loss of
investment. The long-term result: less invested in American financial markets.
And then: economic slump commensurate with the distortions produced by
politically motivated accounting standards.
Glenn
Cheney
Hanover,
Conn., Aug. 3, 2004
The
New York Times,
February 28, 2004
To the Editor:
For
months I've been hearing horrifying rumors that the Bush administration is
using tax cuts and war to strangle social programs. Alan Greenspan seems to be
confirming the rumors (front page, Feb. 26).
Why
doesn't he suggest reinstating taxes on the wealthy, cutting corporate welfare,
and trimming the unconscionably bloated military budget? Why such an urge to
make life more difficult?
Glenn
Cheney
The
Wall Street Journal - October 13, 2003
The
Uninvited
Regarding
the judicial decision that the First Amendment gives telemarketers the right to
use my telephone for their advertising, as reported in "Court Blocks 'Do
Not Call' Program" (Sept. 26), I wonder how long until advertisers claim
their constitutional right to walk into my house during dinner to tell me I
need more canned cheese in my life, drugs for diseases I don't have, and
something to squirt under my toilet seat. Maybe it would be better for Congress
to establish a principle of acceptable advertising. The ads I invite into my
home because they subsidize TV programs and periodicals should be legal. Ads
that use my telephone or computer without invitation and subsidy should not be
legal.
Glenn
Cheney
The
Sunday New York Times - May 4, 2003
To
the Editor:
Thomas
Friedman's mock memo from Saddam Hussein to President Bush ("Dear
President Bush," April 30) was amusing and poignant but should have
included a courteous closing along the lines of "P.S. Thanks for
everyone's help over all these years. I couldn't have done it without
you."
Glenn
Cheney
The
Hartford Courant -
April 11, 2003
To
the Editor:
Regarding
"Liberation and Chaos" (April 10), I hope we can remember that a country
isn't liberated until its invaders leave. And before we go, let's tell the
Iraqi people why we didn't liberate them 25 years ago rather than giving their
evil leader financial, military, political and moral support.
Glenn
Alan Cheney
The
Sunday New York Times - Arts & Leisure Section, April 6, 2003
To
the Editor:
Frank
Rich's "Iraq Around The Clock" [March 30] exposes the conflict that
the television networks face. Neither sitcoms nor reality shows can match the
drama of war, especially among viewers who know some of the actors. The
networks will vie to provide around-the-clock coverage, and we will soon
witness the inevitable: World War III brought to you by Burger King, Hasbro,
Exxon, and any other consumption propagandists insufficiently embarrassed by
the association.
Glenn
Cheney
The
[New London, Conn.] Day, March 4, 2003
To
the Editor:
Maura
Casey need not worry about being typecast as a liberal, a concern she expressed
in "This Liberal Knows When To Stand And Fight," (Perspectives, March
2). The opinions she has expressed over the years in The Day have always been
balanced and informed, liberal or conservative in accordance with her
understanding of a given situation. If she's to be typecast as anything, it
should be as conscientious newspaper editor.
Her
justification of war against Iraq, however, suffers a common but crucial flaw.
Like every pro-war apology I've seen, she focuses on the question of whether
Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and whether he intends to use
them against us.
The
more important and difficult questions are whether the danger is sufficiently
immediate to justify a massacre, and whether there might be an alternative
solution.
Tens
of thousands of children, perhaps hundreds of thousands, will be killed, crippled,
mutilated, starved or fatally infected in this war. They are as innocent of the
problem as our own children. I have yet to see a proponent of war explain how
the slaughter of children can be considered a moral pursuit.
Maybe,
just maybe, if the Iraqis were about to launch a massive weapon against our
children, we'd be justified in attacking theirs. But I just don't see any such
attack coming, not in the next few months. Nor do I see any serious search for
a solution other than war. If we had to sacrifice our own children to get at
Saddam Hussein, I'm sure we'd be searching for alternatives, and I do not see
how Iraq's children are any less deserving of alternatives than ours.
Glenn
Cheney
The
[New London, Conn.] Day, January 24, 2003
To
the Editor:
I
object to George F. Will's cheap shots against the anti-war demonstration in
Washington, D.C. ("Liberals carry on their fight against evil with '60s
blather," Jan. 23). Mr. Will usually presents arguments backed by logic
and historical reference. This time, however, in his apparent urge to war, his
argument is less valid than the messages he disparages as blather.
Mr.
Will is unfair to criticize the protestors because they quoted the Beatles on
their placards. Did he expect them to march down the street reading Noam
Chomsky and the New Testament? Despite the simplicity of the phrase, what's
wrong with giving peace a chance? What's wrong with suggesting that war is not
the answer?
Why
did Mr. Will not mention the bumper-sticker blather of Jesus Christ, Martin
Luther King, Mohandas Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, and Thomas Jefferson? The
protestors' signs quoted them far more than the Beatles.
As
for his gratuitous accusation that protestors went back to their hotels to
watch the Rolling Stones on TV, I'd like him to know that this protestor got on
a bus for a nine-hour ride back home. As for Mick Jagger's age, what, pray
tell, Mr. Will, does that have to do with anything? It has got to be the
weakest reason for war that anyone has ever come up with.
As
for Mr. Will's denial of any "rush to war," mounting our second war
in a year could constitute a rush. Or is it the same war? It's getting hard to
know where one war stops and the next begins.
I
wish Mr. Will would apply his spurious argument to the pro-war movement. Or is
he having trouble finding mobs of people waving signs that say Give war a
chance, War is the answer, Eye for an eye, and Thou shalt kill?
Glenn
Cheney
New
York Times, January 19, 2003
The
Right Goals For a Loan to Poland
To
the Editor:
Let
me add my voice to those opposed to the $3.8 billion American loan to Poland to
buy F-16 fighter jets ("Polish Pride, American Profits," Jan. 12).
If
the United States and its industrial sector really wanted to help Poland, they
would lend the country $3.8 billion for productive capital assets, not for
military equipment. It hurts even worse to think that American and Polish
taxpayers must pay this bill. In the long run, people and companies that push
high-tech weaponry on impoverished nations do no favors for free enterprise or
international security.
Glenn
Cheney
New
York Times, January 8, 2003
To
the Editor:
Here's
to Luiz Ignácio Lula da Silva, the new president of Brazil ("Picking
Butter Over Guns, Brazil Puts Off Buying Jets," news article, Jan. 4)!
By
choosing to buy food rather than weapons, he raises Brazil to the status of
developed nation, well ahead of underdeveloped nations like the United States.
I
speak in terms of moral development, of course, not economic.
Glenn
Cheney
Harper's
Magazine, September 2002
To
the Editor:
What
a relief to read Barry Lynn's "Unmade in America," a rare Harper's article that doesn't burden me
with yet another worry for the world. If corporations are dumb enough to doom
themselves with shaky supply lines, I couldn't care less. If they wage war with
each other through broken contracts and attrition, that's fine with me. If Dell
has to shift its parts production from Taiwan to Brazil, I'm happy for the
Brazilians. I thank Mr. Lynn for sparing me a more burdensome concern, that
governments might someday (and arguably already) wage war by traditional means
to settle grievances between their corporate masters.
Glenn
Cheney
New
York Times, August 6, 2002
To
the Editor:
Al
Gore ("Broken Promises and Political Deception," Op-Ed, August 4) is
courageous and correct in his identification of the power and the puppet
strings behind the Bush administration. I hope he can maintain that vision
until the next presidential election.
I
doubt he can. Such a stance will attract little financial support from
corporations and the wealthy. Without that support, he will not have the means
to convince American voters that their democracy has been bought from under
them.
Glenn
Cheney
The
[New London, Conn.] Day, March 10, 2002
To
the Editor:
I'm
sorry to see that Rep. Rob Simmons has visited and approved of the Yucca
Mountain nuclear waste storage site ("Good news for Connecticut about
Yucca Mountain," March 2). I hope he had the decency to leave behind a thank
you note to the next 10,000 generations of Americans who will have to maintain,
oversee and secure the deadly waste of the two current generations of
Americans.
I
hope he left behind a plan for how our descendents will ensure the geographic
stability of Nevada and the political stability of the United States until
250,002 A.D., when the last of the plutonium will have decayed.
I
hope he has figured out the cost of a quarter million years of maintenance so
that we can leave sufficient funds to cover the cost of covering our waste.
I
hope he carved his name in stone of Yucca Mountain so that uncountable hundreds
of millions of future Americans can remember whom to thank for leaving behind
the evil little gift that keeps on giving.
And
if he forgot to do that for the people he expects to clean up after us, maybe
he should consider giving Connecticut some better news: a plan to stop
producing the stuff.
Glenn
Cheney
The
New York Times,
March 7, 2002
To
the Editor:
Your
Quotation of the Day of March 5 - Ariel Sharon's promise to beat the
Palestinians until they negotiate reveals the full horror and
stupidity of Israeli policy. Decades of tit-for-tat revenge has only created
such despair among Palestinians that their youth are now willing to blow
themselves up out of sheer hatred. People in such seething despondency cannot
be forced to negotiate.
Glenn
Cheney
The
Hartford Courant,
June 22, 2001
To
the Editor:
I
am dismayed to read that Governor Rowland is rethinking his support of the
"Sooty Six" bill. It is unfair, if not downright cruel, to sacrifice
children to asthma so that the rest of us can waste electricity. If the
governor is truly a leader, as opposed to mere corporate marionette, he will
devise ways to avoid asthma while ensuring a sufficient supply of electrical
power.
Glenn
Cheney
The
Washington Post,
May 7, 2001
Many
logical arguments can be made against President Bush's decision to build a
missile defense system, but logic has nothing to do with it.
The
project is a blatant dividend to the high-tech companies that invested so
heavily in America's election campaigns. Logic offers no other reason to spend
so much money on such unconscionable idiocy.
Glenn
Cheney
The
New York Times,
March 15, 2001
To
the Editor:
In
response to Gail Collins' column ("The Comeback Goats," Op-Ed, March
13), let's not confuse goats and honeybees. While we can get by without the
goats, we'll go hungry without the bees. Who but bees can pollinate our fruits
and vegetables? Mites and diseases are killing off wild honeybees. Only the
exhausting and painful efforts of beekeepers are keeping the species alive.
Their subsidies should be the last to go.
Glenn
Cheney
The
Hartford Courant,
February 11, 2001
Ellen
Goodman's editorial, "Bush May Be Asking for Too Long a Leap of
Faith" (February 2) astutely points out the danger of the government
indirectly funding religious organizations. Unfortunately, she stopped short of
saying just how slippery is the slope on which our president has set our
constitution.
Will
government funding of a church's soup kitchen leave that church with more funds
for promoting its brand of salvation? Worse, will it leave the church more
funds for campaign contributions to candidates who promise further funding?
I
hate to think that the current Supreme Court is all that stands between here
and the bottom of this icy decline.
Glenn
Cheney
The
New York Times,
July 1, 2000
To
the Editor:
I
appreciate your editorial ("Mr. Nader's Misguided Crusade,"
Editorial, Friday) acknowledging the political power of Ralph Nader and the
Green Party. Before you call him a spoiler, however, consider that he has
already won a partial election victory.
This
week, when Al Gore proffered an energy plan with a light green tint, he no
doubt pulled a few votes from the Nader camp. If Gore can keep going and co-opt
the Green Party positions on campaign reform, labor issues and world trade, he
just might take enough votes from Nader to win the election. And I wouldn't be
surprised if Nader declared such an outcome a victory, exonerating himself from
charges of egoism.
Glenn
Cheney
USA
Today, June
30-July 2, 2000
No
Time for Politics
The
column on a shorter workweek raises some good points, but I'd like to add
another. We, the people, simply cannot participate in our democracy if we're
working 60 hours a week ("Why not shorten the workweek? The Forum,
Tuesday).
Tied
up at work all day, exhausted when we get home, we don't have time to watch over
our government, and we leave ourselves vulnerable to the tyranny of whomever
has time for politics.
Glenn
Cheney
Norwich
Bulletin,
October 13, 1999
Editor:
Regarding
"Wrist Slap," (Editorial, Oct. 10), I agree that Northeast Utilities
probably didn't learn anything from such flimsy punishment. The corporation
suffered little, and the real criminals, the individuals who dumped the poison
in Long Island Sound, put untrained operators in charge of a nuclear reactor
and lied to regulators, got away scot-free. Ironically, it may be other local
criminals who learned the lesson: If you want to commit a crime, first
incorporate.
Glenn
Cheney
The
[New London, Conn.] Day, April 8, 1999
To
the Editor:
Paulann
Sheets' terrifying editorial ("Rowland's End Run on Patriots' Stadium
Clips the Constitution," April 4) makes it clear what's really at stake in
the Patriots stadium deal. It isn't just a few hundred million dollars. It's an
attack on the core of our democracy.
Governor
Rowland has waived laws by declaring an emergency where there is none. He has
managed to override the constitution with his own will, succeeding where
foreign tyrants, from King George to Emperor Hirohito, have failed.
The
governor hasn't just robbed us. He has betrayed us. If we let him get away with
this, there's nothing to stop him and future governors from using spurious
emergencies to dispense with the inconvenience of democracy.
This
isn't a done deal any more than Pearl Harbor was. Governor Rowland has awakened
a giant, and we, the people, are it.
Glenn
Cheney
Harper's
Magazine,
July 1997
Censorship,
Part II
William's
Gass's exploration of modern American censorship ["Shears of the
Censor," April] reminded me of a time when our country's legal system
required me to suppress the truth as well. I was asked by my editor to delete
part of a nonfiction book manuscript. Although I had written the truth, the
truth might have led to a lawsuit. The cost of a legal battle would have
bankrupted both the publisher and me. I stood my ground at first but eventually
changed the wording, excising a very painful bit of reality. We had no faith
that the truth would prevail in our courts. Nowadays the mere possibility of
litigation often has the full force of legal, state-sanctioned censorship.
Glenn
Cheney
The
New York Times,
June 4, 1997
Why
We Go to College
To
the Editor:
Thomas
Geoghegan ("Ovbereducated and Underpaid," Op-Ed, June 3) seems to
miss the point of higher education. It isn't to make more money. It is, or
should be, to understand ourselves and our world better. Thus, educated people
make better citizens, better parents and better leaders. They make better
workers, too, and therefore tend to make more money. However, that money is a
result, not a purpose. I learned that in college. Wouldn't it be nice if
everybody did?
Glenn
Cheney
The
New York Times,
November 13, 1996
Affordable
Free Speech
To
the Editor:
In
"Congress Won't Act, Will You?" (Op-Ed, Nov. 11), Bill Bradley is
saying that free speech should be free - or at least affordable. The current
cost of campaign speech filters out any candidate too honest to accept
corporate "contributions." The inevitable result of speech beyond the
means of plain people is government of, by and for those who can afford it -
corporations.
Only
free time on the publicly owned airwaves will guarantee free speech and a
government of, by and for the people.
Glenn
Cheney
The
New York Times,
August 15, 1990
Turn
Back the Invasion of the Advertisers
To
the Editor:
As
long as Congress is considering restrictions on advertisements by telephone and
fax (news article, July 31), it should establish a broader principle.
Advertising is invation or a visit, depending on whether it's invited. When one
turns on the television or buys a magazine, one invites the ads as a trade-off
for the free or subsidized services it brings.
But
some advertising is not invited and brings no benefit. Telephone and fax
messages are just two examples. Billboards and skywriting are others. Without offering
any compensatory services or entertainment, they put messages where people have
the right to see sky, horizon, or even the blank side of a building. Sound
trucks, if they ever spread north of the Rio Grande, might invade the auditory
blank space in our environment.
Junk
mail, though easily tossed out, gets its foot in our doors and adds polluting
coated paper and colored ink to our garbage dumps. If it pays its own way
through the postal system, I doubt it subsidizes the system anywhere near the
extent that broadcast and print ads support their media.
Advertisers
are always looking for new media for their messages. But they have no right to
enter our homes and minds uninvited. It's time Congress drew the line between
ads that pay their way and those that get in the way.
Glenn
Alan Cheney
The
New York Times Magazine, July 1, 1990
What's
New at Frisbee U.
I
found much to admire in the philosophy of education at Hampshire College
("What's New at Frisbee U.," by Chip Brown, June 10). The Frisbee image
is one well abandoned, but the more rigid curriculum is a change to be
approached with caution. America's colleges and universities are doing a fine
job of shunting students into the myriad career tracks that have developed in
our fin de siècle economy. Our doctors, lawyers, bankers, politicians and other
professionals excel at operating within the strictures of tradition and
self-centered economics. All too often, however, they work unburdened by
concerns for the moral, social or historical repercussions. They don't waste
much energy taking chances on untried possibilities. The complexities of such
reflections can slow down a day's work, even throw a career off track.
Unfortunately,
at this end of the century we face unprecedented problems. We have diseases,
crime, addictions, weapons, social crises, political situations and economic
chasms we used to dream of only in very imaginative nightmares. I don't know
where the solutions are, but I know they aren't in the textbooks or the common
classrooms. The sociologist who finds a way to cure society's need for crack
and alcohol will likely be the one who took his final exam in a maple tree. If
there's an end to the arms race, a place of Ultimate Frisbee, not football, is
more likely to find it.
Glenn
Alan Cheney
Click
here to return to the Cheney
Sampler/Main Page.
Click here to send email to Glenn Cheney.