First, I want to wish you all a Happy 4th of July. I’ve been thinking about the meaning of Independence Day, a day on which we as a people publicly declared our desire to be masters of our own destiny, to chart our own course as a free and independent society no longer under the control of others. For 232 years we Americans have done just that. We have governed ourselves, and I’d say that our record is one in which we can justly take a great deal of pride.

On this 4th of July, I’ve also been thinking about another kind of independence, namely energy independence. We are a strong country with our best days yet ahead of us. Right now, however, we face tremendous problems because we are deeply dependent on foreign oil.  And we’re not just importing oil from friendly democracies like Canada, but from places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela, countries who have very different values and interests from our own.

We’ve seen the price of oil go through the roof since George Bush, supported by Chris Smith, invaded Iraq and destabilized the Gulf region. Energy independence is vital because too many families can’t afford to fill up their gas tanks or heat their homes, and also because too much of what we spend on energy ends up with regimes or terrorist groups that want to hurt us here at home and attack our brave servicemen and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the summer of 1776 our Founding Fathers literally put their lives on the line to declare our independence from King George III. We need to honor their bravery, and to defend our country’s independence for the sake of our children by taking serious measures starting this summer.

We must increase fuel economy standards for vehicles and invest in more renewable energy. We also need to increase the Hybrid-Vehicle tax credit so all working families can afford a new, fuel efficient vehicle for the cost of their current car payment. Greater fuel efficiency means we import less oil and help families pay the bills. Think about it. If your car got twice as many miles to the gallon, it would be like cutting the price of gas in half because each gallon would get you twice as far.

George Bush and Chris Smith’s answer to our energy problems is to ask the Saudi King to increase oil production, which will do nothing more than send more American dollars into Saudi coffers.

The time has come to decide whether we are going to elect leaders who fight for energy independence or whether we will continue to send politicians back to Washington, DC who won’t push for change because their party is in in the pocket of multinational oil companies. That’s why we need a change, why we need new leadership. That’s why I’m running for Congress.

It’s time to close the so-called “Enron Loophole.”

As we’ve all seen on the news recently, out of control energy speculation on stock markets is one reason that oil and gas prices are so high. The impact is crippling our entire economy and hurting middle-class families.

In 2000, the Enron Loophole became law when Enron lobbyists were able to get Phil Gramm, then-Senator from Texas and John McCain’s chief economic advisor, to slip it into a piece of legislation in the dead of night. The Enron loophole prevented the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) from overseeing certain kinds of energy futures trading, and many experts believe that the loophole helped create the energy crisis in California because it allowed companies like Enron to manipulate prices in trading markets that the CFTC could not regulate. My opponent, Chris Smith voted for this legislation.

The recent farm bill, which Chris Smith voted against, helped curb some of the problems created by the Enron loophole, but there is much more that needs to be done. In order to fully close the Enron loophole, we need to make sure that the trading of energy futures is governed by rules that have some teeth. We need strict criminal penalties for breaking the law and constant oversight to ensure rules are not being broken. We should also make sure than US energy futures cannot be traded in overseas markets where anti-speculation rules do not exist or are not enforced. I also support the thorough investigation of the oil markets by both the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice.

Speculation isn’t the only reason gas is $4 a gallon. We all know that. We need to use energy more efficiently and give our citizens real incentives to do so. We need to encourage private industry to develop alternative sources of energy, and give them incentives to do so. We also need to help people who are hurting right now because of the skyrocketing cost of gas and its effects on the cost of other basic necessities. But speculation is a piece of the puzzle, and it is one piece we can do something about right now.

With gas prices at $4/gallon, the last thing New Jersey drivers deserve is to get ripped off by gas station owners. I read recently about the inspections conducted by law enforcement of over 1000 gas stations in all 21 counties of our state. Any violations would be unacceptable, but over 350 station owners, more than one in three, were found in violation.

You know, this past weekend I walked through two precincts in Bordentown Township and attended the really amazing Florence Occasion in the Park. People told me they were fed up with the high cost of gas, and one specifically brought up how many gas stations were cited for cheating drivers at the pump.

Like most of you, I am outraged at these violations, which Attorney General Anne Milgram said are in all likelihood intentional attempts to deceive consumers. I’m glad that these inspections took place and that drivers can now be more confident that they are at least getting what they are paying four dollars a gallon for. I would suggest they mandate more frequent inspections.

It’s for reasons like this that I support strict criminal penalties for price gouging. The law has to protect drivers not only from gas station owners but also from the Big Oil companies who are making record profits and still receiving outrageous subsidies from our governments in Washington. We need measures that investigate price fixing by Oil Cartels like OPEC as well as unfair and ridiculous prices set by the biggest oil producers in the United States.

You can read more about where I stand on gas prices in my last post, available at: http://blog.joshzeitz.com/index.php/2008/6/18/Fifth-Graders:-Gas-Prices-Are-a-Crisis/

Today, I paid $3.88 per gallon to fill up my car. Accustomed as I am to living on a history teacher’s salary, I know how much these high gas prices hurt, and how they impact everything else we buy.

Recently, I had the privilege of speaking with 5th grade students at the Leadership Academy Charter School in Trenton about the issues they feel are important in this year’s election. Nearly every student talked about how hard it was for their parents to afford the rising cost of gas. They also knew that when the price of gas goes up, so does the cost of food, clothing, and other basic necessities. The problem is so obvious that even fifth graders realize we’re in a crisis, yet our leaders in Washington have let this problem fester so long that it’s squeezing New Jersey families to the breaking point.

Simply put, New Jersey families can no longer afford to get by in George Bush’s economy. The Republicans in Washington are under the influence of big oil, which is raking in huge profits thanks to those same high gas prices. Unfortunately, my opponent, Chris Smith, has been part of the problem. He has consistently voted for huge subsidies for energy corporations while also voting against tougher laws against price gouging at the pump. We need a change in Congress. We need to elect people who actually put the interests of Central Jersey’s families ahead of corporate profits.

Our government needs to help families deal with these high gas prices. We need to take direct action immediately.

We need to start by strengthening laws against price gouging. We should establish criminal penalties for CEOs who artificially inflate prices. Congress should also investigate price fixing by rich oil cartels like OPEC.

Second, we need to make new, fuel-efficient hybrid cars affordable for all American families. Currently, the tax credit for buying hybrids is too small, and there is a limit on the number of families who can receive it. We need to increase these tax breaks so that all families can afford a fuel-efficient vehicle for the cost of their current car payments. How do we pay for it? By eliminating the billions we give to oil companies that are already making record profits.

We simply can’t wait any longer. When the price of a gallon of gas goes up by a dollar, as it has in only the past year or so, it means that Americans are paying an extra $142 billion each year to fill up their tanks.

This is a serious problem that, as Trenton’s fifth graders rightly noted, hurts families - not only at the gas station, but at the supermarket and beyond. It’s also a national security problem. Americans have spent about $600 billion over the past twelve months on gasoline, and almost $400 billion of that has gone to foreign oil producers.

Sixteen gallons of gas at $4 per gallon. More than $60 to fill up a tank. By increasing the efficiency of our cars, we can help NJ families achieve the economic security they enjoyed before George Bush became president. In the long run, by developing new, innovative technologies we can create a green economy that provides high-paying jobs here in Central Jersey, while alleviating our pain at the pump. Together, we can create a more affordable and secure future.

 This morning, I had the privilege of attending an interfaith prayer meeting in Lakewood to celebrate the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  The turnout was excellent and drew from the ranks of the community’s Protestant, Catholic and Jewish communities.  Black and white, lay and clergy, all gathered to renew their commitment to the ideals that King championed over his too-short lifetime.

An accomplished religious scholar, King was one of the most thoughtful and important American political philosophers of the last century.  In “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” one of his most powerful works, dated April 16, 1963, Dr. King explained that those who fought for civil rights “were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo-Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.”

King made us realize that discrimination against one group of Americans was a violation of our country’s most sacred value: equality. He also understood that a nation cannot truly be free if some of its people live in a state of economic insecurity and impoverishment, while others enjoy great affluence and comfort.  This was a theme he visited in many of his later writing and speeches, and one that surely resonates today.

As one of the speakers at the Lakewood prayer meeting wisely advised, we need to celebrate Dr. King’s life every day - not just one day; and we need to find new ways to keep his legacy alive.

Last Friday marked the anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, a day that Franklin Delano Roosevelt told the American people would “live in infamy.”

Sixty-six years later, I’ve been thinking about American history, but also about another, more recent day when America was caught unaware, and about the lack of progress on national defense and homeland security since then.

Unfortunately, in the years immediately following 9/11, George Bush and Congress failed to take the necessary steps to make our country safer and our position in the world stronger. After Pearl Harbor, FDR went to war against Japan and its allies, while at the same time building military and political alliances with democratic governments around the world. By contrast, after 9/11 George Bush alienated our natural allies in the war on terror and pursued policies that isolated America on the global stage. Whereas FDR mobilized the country for a military campaign against the Axis Powers, George Bush and Congress committed strategic errors that set us back years, if not decades, in the fight against Al Qaeda. Even as Osama Bin Laden escaped from Tora Bora into the mountains along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, George Bush sent our fighting men and women into Iraq, a country whose leader, while an evil dictator, was not even remotely responsible for the attacks of 9/11. The Iraq war has made our country less safe. It’s time to bring it to an orderly end, and bring our troops home in a responsible, rapid fashion.

Here at home, George Bush recently announced that he wants to slash spending on first-responders and homeland security by more than 50 percent. As a historian, I believe we need to learn from our mistakes so that history does not repeat itself. We need leaders in Washington who understand that being smart and being strong are not mutually exclusive. One goes naturally with the other. The current leadership has let us down. It’s time to try something new.

 The New York Times recently published two troubling articles about hunger and poverty in America.  Both exposés place in sharp relief the problems many Americans are experiencing in these days of skyrocketing food, fuel, and health care inflation.

The first article concerns the plight of senior citizens from Maine who live below the poverty line.  Having spent their lives at hard and low-paying jobs - working in fish and blueberry processing plants, or as lumberjacks and fishermen - these folks should be enjoying their twilight years in comfort and security.  Instead, they are struggling to balance medical bills, home heating payments, and grocery bills.  One such woman is Viola Brooks, an 81-year-old Maine resident who gets by, just barely, on $700 in Social Security payments and food stamps each month.  Her one-shot fuel subsidy from the state amounts to $500, but with oil running upwards of $98 per barrel, the average cost of heating a home will rise from $1800 last winter to $3000 this winter. 

From the NYT:

Viola Brooks, 81, worked in fish and blueberry factories while her husband worked in textile and logging jobs. Now widowed, she gets $588 a month from Social Security, supplemented by $112 in food stamps and one-time fuel aid of more than $500 for the winter.

But this year, that fuel aid will not fill a single tank. The average house cost $1,800 to heat last year, and minimal comfort this winter may require closer to $3,000; trailers will require somewhat less. Electricity and rent already take up most of Ms. Brooks’s income.

“I’m broke every month, and the trailer needs storm windows,” she said. “I cook a lot of pea soup and baked beans and buy flour to make biscuits.”

“Some day I’d like to go to a hairdresser,” Ms. Brooks said of a dream deferred. Still she says she enjoys her lovebirds and cats, and points out that “some people have it worse.”

Another NYT article explains that “food banks around the country are reporting critical shortages that have forced them to ration supplies, distribute staples usually reserved for disaster relief and in some instances close.”

“It’s one of the most demanding years I’ve seen in my 30 years” in the field, said Catherine D’Amato, president and chief executive of the Greater Boston Food Bank, comparing the situation to the recession of the late 1970s…

…Lane Kenworthy, a professor of sociology and political science at the University of Arizona, agreed, saying: “The overall picture is that household incomes are kind of stuck. There’s very little way to increase income, and most people have a very heavy debt load. Any event that increases your costs is really, really troublesome, because you’re already stretched thin.”

I’m struck by something that Rudy Giuliani recently said. Referring to Hillary Clinton, the former New York mayor warned, “She wants to go back to the 1990s. … It would hurt our economy.”  If Giuliani weren’t a frontrunner for his party’s presidential nomination, his comment might be amusing.  To put a new twist on an old question: Are you better off today than you were eight years ago?  For many Americans, the answer is a resounding “no.”

Returning to the NYT article on the elderly poor in Maine:

Dolly Jordan of Milbridge has a history of two bad marriages, a bone-crushing auto accident and poor health, and looks and feels older than 61. With osteoporosis, arthritis, diabetes and obesity, she spends most of the day in a wheelchair and uses a combination of a gripper, a broom and a cane to make her bed or hang her laundry.

Come winter, she hangs a blanket over the front door of her little red wooden house, where she has lived alone the last 10 years and which sits on concrete blocks with no foundation. She turns the heat off at night to save fuel.

Her disability payment is $623 a month, plus she gets just $10 from the state and $74 in food stamps. After paying the housing tax and her utility bills, she said, she must watch every remaining penny. A daughter drives her to the distant town of Ellsworth for cheaper shopping.

Like many, she keeps a police scanner on as a diversion and, unable to afford cable, she watches the same videos over and over - her favorite is “On Golden Pond.”

“I wish for bedtime to come,” she said. “The days are so long.”

With the holiday season upon us, Americans will certainly show their generous spirit by making charitable contributions that help alleviate the suffering of those who are not currently strong enough to fend for themselves.  But as the article on food banks makes painfully clear, private charity has its limits, particularly in a weak economy.  There are some problems that government has a moral obligation to address. 

When our grandparents are shivering in the cold, something has gone terribly wrong. 

There’s very little that Americans can’t do if they put their minds to it.  Securing justice for our seniors has to be at the top of our priority list.

Earlier this week I wrote about a soldier from Pennsylvania who was wounded in Iraq, only then to be handed a bill by the Army demanding repayment of his signing bonus. (Though my original post bears today’s date, I drafted it last week, before this site was ready for broadcast). After KDKA in Pittsburg broke the story, the Army came under intense criticism for its callous action and announced that Jordan Fox, the serviceman in question, could keep the signing bonus that he very clearly earned.

But the story may not be over. As a KDKA follow-up story explains:

The Pentagon will not comment on allegations that thousands of other soldiers just sent home from Iraq and other invasions, including Afghanistan, will not receive these sorts of bills. They cannot comment on those cases.

KDKA has learned that our local congressional delegation, as well as both Pennsylvania senators, are demanding answers. We’re also being told they are pressuring the President to get involved.

The controversy over signing bonuses is just the tip of the iceberg. A recent Associated Press article explains that tens of thousands of Iraq War veterans - particularly those who were wounded in combat - are finding it difficult to make ends meet upon their return to the United States. Many are slipping through the cracks of a system that has clearly failed to meet the financial and medical needs of our servicemen and servicewomen.

As a history teacher, I’m struck by the terrible parallels between the treatment that Iraq War veterans are receiving, and the treatment that many Vietnam War veterans received in the early 1970s.

By 1973 one-third of veterans aged 25 and under were unemployed. While returning veterans of World War II received full college tuition and $75 per month in living expenses (equivalent in 1975 dollars to about $225), Vietnam vets were entitled to just $200 per month to cover both education and maintenance. For the 270,000 soldiers who were wounded in the war, and for the tens of thousands who experienced post-traumatic stress, the Veterans Administration hospital system had little to offer. “We came back really [troubled] in the head,” one Vietnam combat veteran remembered. “…I went to Walter Reed first. They put me in a situation with about 34 people in the room. How in the hell are you going to talk to me about my problems with 34 other problems in your face? I went to the VA hospital in Baltimore, and they gave me two aspirins and told me to go to bed and call in the morning.”

Our government let the Vietnam War veterans down. It’s imperative that we do right by Iraq War veterans. Four years into the current conflict, George Bush and Congress have failed in their duty to care for those who put their lives on the line.

With the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War fast approaching, it’s fair to say that America’s military families have been handed a raw deal by the Bush administration and Congress.

Facing low pay, long and multiple deployments, and inadequate veterans’ services, our fighting men and women have shouldered the burdens of the war without complaint. 

Now comes word that the military is asking wounded veterans of the Iraq War to return portions of their signing bonuses. 

From KDKA in Pittsburgh:

To get people to sign up, the military gives enlistment bonuses up to $30,000 in some cases.

Now men and women who have lost arms, legs, eyesight, hearing and can no longer serve are being ordered to pay some of that money back.

One of them is Jordan Fox, a young soldier from the South Hills.  He finds solace in the hundreds of boxes he loads onto a truck in Carnegie. In each box is a care package that will be sent to a man or woman serving in Iraq. It was in his name Operation Pittsburgh Pride was started.

Fox was seriously injured when a roadside bomb blew up his vehicle. He was knocked unconscious. His back was injured and lost all vision in his right eye.

A few months later Fox was sent home. His injuries prohibited him from fulfilling three months of his commitment. A few days ago, he received a letter from the military demanding nearly $3,000 of his signing bonus back.  “I tried to do my best and serve my country. I was unfortunately hurt in the process. Now they’re telling me they want their money back,” he explained.

It’s a slap for Fox’s mother, Susan Wardezak, who met with President Bush in Pittsburgh last May. He thanked her for starting Operation Pittsburgh Pride which has sent approximately 4,000 care packages.

When George Bush and Congress committed America’s all-volunteer military to war, they assumed a moral responsibility for the well-being of military families.  Sadly, the Bush administration and Congress have failed to keep this covenant. 

A 2004 Kaiser Foundation study of active-duty military families found that 21 percent were paid so little that they had to rely on WIC or food stamps just to put food on the table. Anecdotally, the impact of low military wages is shameful. In New Jersey, servicemen had to stage a pancake sale to fund emergency food pantries. 

These issues are all-too relevant here in New Jersey’s 4^th Congressional District.

• Though he voted to send hundreds of thousands of men and women to war, my opponent, Chris Smith, cast the deciding vote against $1500 pay bonuses for active-duty servicemen and servicewomen in Iraq. [HR 3289, #554, 10/17/03].

• Chris Smith voted against bankruptcy protection for the troops, even though many Reservists and Guardsmen took pay cuts to go to war. [S 1920, #9, 1/28/04]

• Chris Smith voted against tax cuts for 250,000 low-income military families. [HR 1308, #370, 7/16/03]

As a congressman, Chris Smith is paid $165,200 each year.  He has given himself a 10 percent salary increase since the Iraq War began. 

Apparently, what’s good for Chris Smith isn’t good for America’s military families.