For eleven years, Howard Dean has been governor of Vermont. For eleven years, he balanced budgets, created 20% more jobs, raised the minimum wage and provided health care for nearly every child in the state. Now, he wants to show George Bush how it's done. Excerpts from an interview to the IACPA:
Q: Both the United States and India have been the victims of international terrorism. Both have established working groups and conducted joint anti-terrorism exercises to address this issue. As president, what will you do to support and enhance this relationship?
HD: I will strengthen America's security and economic relationship with India, based on the strong democratic ideals shared by the two countries and in order to build regional security throughout Asia. The US and India have a mutual interest in cooperating in the war on terror by sharing intelligence and coordinating law enforcement efforts. Additionally, I will actively seek to prevent conflict between India and Pakistan by promoting understanding and fostering joint efforts towards cooperation between the neighbors. I will work with Pakistan to clamp down on militant infiltration into Kashmir and will seek to move President Musharraf toward domestic and civil reform in Pakistan as an integral component of long-term stability in the region.
Q: What are your views on India's bid to gain a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council?
HD: I believe that in keeping with India's importance in the world and its prominent role in the United Nations, and in preserving international peace and security, India should have a leadership role in the United Nations. But this question raises larger issues about overall inclusion, participation, and representation in the United Nations Security Council. These issues must be dealt with in a comprehensive manner, taking into consideration the unique roles that nations play in the international community. This is not a matter to be decided by the US alone, and as president, I look forward to engaging in this dialogue with the other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and India.
Q: The US and India have recently conducted a series of joint military exercises. How would you approach the burgeoning defense relationship between the two countries? Would you support greater US defense sales to India?
HD: I support the enhanced defense cooperation and engagement that has developed between India and the US in recent years. We are natural allies because of our shared democratic values and our belief in a civilian-led military. I will continue to support ongoing efforts designed to normalize US-India defense relations against the backdrop of our broad and mutual security goals.
Q: Would you support establishing a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with India?
HD: India is growing in importance as a trading partner for the US and has exhibited impressive economic dynamism in recent years. It has emerged as a leader in addressing trade policy and public health and is a leader of countries seeking to reform the WTO. It makes sense for the US to deepen and broaden its economic relations with the world's most populous democracy, and a strong trade agreement with India could serve as a model for other trade agreements. I support strong, enforceable trade agreements with all our trading partners, including India, and will negotiate trade agreements that lead to a trade system bound by clear, continually improving rules. This means including common sense labor and environmental standards, which I believe are necessary for a sustainable, mutually beneficial trade relationship that avoids both protectionism and destructive trade disputes. Trade should lead to improved standards of living for all Americans and also for our trading partners - helping to create strong, middle-class democracies that will become stable long-term allies and markets for US goods and services.
Q: Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Indian Americans, specifically Sikh Americans, have been the victims of serious hate crimes. Do you support stronger hate crimes legislation? What would you do to curb the occurrence of hate crimes?
HD: Crimes motivated by the victim's race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, and so on, are an affront to the core America values of tolerance and inclusion. As president, I will direct my Attorney General to vigorously prosecute federal hate crimes. In addition, I support enactment of the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act to help states investigate and prosecute bias crimes. More generally, my administration will promote respect and understanding of different cultures and religions in American society, which is the best way to prevent hate crimes from occurring.
Q: How do you respond to fears that law enforcement's increased use, or proposed use, of invasive technology is a violation of basic privacy rights?
HD: I will devote myself to protecting Americans from terrorism. However, as we fight the war on terror, we must be vigilant in protecting civil rights and freedoms. The rule of law and due process must continue to be the hallmarks of our judicial system. There is no contradiction between protecting the country from terrorism and ensuring the protection of our basic freedoms every step of the way.
This Bush Administration has unnecessarily compromised our freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism. While its overzealousness diminishes the rights of all Americans, it has taken its greatest toll on communities whose cooperation we need in the fight against terror. Policies that single out immigrants for special registration procedures and coercive interviews amount to ethnic and religious profiling. These tactics antagonize minority communities without enhancing security. The detention of thousands in secretive federal custody for weeks and months, sometimes without formal charges, is also unacceptable.
Other anti-terror tactics are similarly offensive. There is no justification for the Bureau of Prisons to monitor communications between prisoners and their lawyers without a court order. The a policy undermines the attorney-client privilege. The FBI should not be authorized to spy on religious and political organizations and individuals without evidence of wrongdoing. Military tribunals that fail to protect the basic rights of the accused lessen our moral credibility in the eyes of the world. And labeling non-American citizens as enemy combatants to hold them indefinitely in military custody without access to counsel and the courts offends everything our nation stands for.
I am also deeply troubled by some provisions in the USA Patriot Act, which was enacted in the wake of 9/11 without meaningful debate. The Act gives overly broad investigative and surveillance powers to the government and strips federal courts of their traditional authority to curb abuses of power by the executive branch. Now the Attorney General is seeking to supplement the Patriot Act with Patriot Act II, included in the Administration's so-called "Victory Act" proposal. Rather than expanding the Patriot Act, we should reconsider the wisdom of the original bill.
Q: Do you support the Department of Homeland Security's plans to replace the current visa control system (NSEERS)?
HD:
Under NSEERS, "non-immigrant aliens who are nationals or citizens of a country designated by the Attorney General" must comply with certain "Special Registration" requirements or face harsh consequences, including deportation. The NSEERS program amounts to little more than religious or racial profiling. The program has been plagued by inconsistent implementation, lacked outreach or educational initiatives to impacted communities and led to the detention of people who were lawfully present in the US and the denial of counsel to individuals attempting to register. Special registration was a false solution to a real problem and it has had real consequences - it has diverted already limited funding from entry-exit and other critical initiatives and it has led to the alienation of immigrant communities, whose assistance is critical in fighting terrorism.
I am also concerned about the US-VISIT program, which is supposed to track the arrival and departure of every foreigner at the US border and will require the collection and use of biometric data. The timeframe Congress has set for the establishment of US VISIT is too ambitious and is likely to result in a flawed system that will lead to errors, and potential security breaches. According to a recent General Accounting Office report, the program faces a "significant management challenge" and is "very risky endeavor." It is understaffed, extraordinarily expensive, and of questionable effectiveness because it will not track the millions of citizens from countries who enter the US every year under the visa-waiver program, and because it will rely on immigration data that is commonly known to be rife with errors.
Q: Some estimates place the number of Indian American physicians at over 35,000. Given this fact, what are your views on addressing the severe medical malpractice insurance problem facing the industry?
HD: As a physician, I understand the concerns doctors have with medical malpractice system. Faced with rapidly increasing insurance premiums, doctors are avoiding certain specialties, and many are leaving the medical profession altogether. This isn't good for patients or for the American health care system generally. But access to the courts is a fundamental civil right for all Americans, and many patients receive compensation for their injuries through the justice system.
We need a medical malpractice system that works for both doctors and patients. Patients and their families should have recourse to legal remedies if they suffer injuries and are wronged. Doctors shouldn't be run out of business by soaring premiums or spend countless hours defending frivolous lawsuits. Fixing the problems with the system requires compromise and thoughtful reform. But perhaps most importantly, what it requires is recognition by doctors and by their patients that we need to fix the system in a way that preserves both the medical profession and the rights of patients to seek compensation and justice.
I support state efforts to discourage frivolous lawsuits while still holding the health care system accountable for its mistakes. For example, I believe that many malpractice actions can be resolved through mediation or pre-trial expert panels. Maine has enacted a sensible reform under which malpractice litigants must submit to a non-binding pre-litigation review. The review weeds out frivolous lawsuits without depriving real malpractice victims of the right to be compensated. Other states should weigh such reforms.
During my tenure as governor, Vermont moved in this direction. I pushed for a law requiring submission of malpractice claims to an arbitration panel before trial. In 2002, I also signed a bill that strengthens the state's ability to monitor health care delivery. Vermont now has one of the lowest medical malpractice rates in the country. We protect the rights of patients, but our doctors do not face the crisis of rising insurance costs that confront doctors elsewhere.
The federal government has an important role to play. First, the Senate should enact a bill sponsored by Senator Jeffords and others to provide legal protections for patient safety reporting systems. The Institute of Medicine found that thousands of patients die each year due to medical errors, many of which reflect system-wide problems instead of individual negligence. To reduce errors, we need to move from a culture of blame to a culture of safety in which the health care system learns from its mistakes. Reporting systems have had great success in the aviation industry. They can improve health care outcomes as well. The House passed such a bill 418 to 6, and the Senate Health Committee recently approved the Jeffords bill. The full Senate should act promptly.
Second, I support federal demonstration programs to identify promising models for improving state medical malpractice systems. For example, the federal government might support experimentation with alternative compensation systems, enterprise liability systems or pre-trial expert panel review systems such as the one enacted in Maine.
Any reforms in this area should meet two tests. They should screen out frivolous lawsuits, and they should protect access to the courts for valid claims so that victims of medical negligence receive fair compensation. I oppose the Republican medical malpractice bill now before the US Senate. It represents unwarranted and probably unconstitutional federal interference with state tort laws. It is essentially being used for political purposes and it will never be enacted. I favor real solutions at the state level and federal support and guidance for states to implement those solutions.
Q: What are your views on the efficacy of affirmative action as it has been implemented?
HD: We have a president who falsely characterized the University of Michigan admission system as a quota system. The word 'quota' appeals to people's fears that they're going to lose their jobs or their position at the university to a member of a minority group. In its University of Michigan decision, the Supreme Court affirmed what you and I know -- by being inclusive, we not only create opportunity, we create excellence. But we also know that affirmative action, as important as it is, is no panacea, no silver bullet for the barriers of discrimination or the challenges of guaranteeing genuine opportunity. Some day, we won't need affirmative action. But it must not be because America got tired or impatient or resentful. It will be because we did the right thing in all of our communities and for all of our children.
Courtesy:
The Indian American Center for Political Awareness
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036
43 West 24th Street, New York, NY 10010
202.955.8338 - 202.327.5483 (f) - www.iacfpa.org