Alexander J. Cotoia

Allowing the Affordable Care Act to stand is both legally sound and practically expedient. If conservatives truly were champions of judicial restraint, they would agree.

In a matter of days, the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in on the future of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), as it issues its much-anticipated decision governing the constitutionality of the law under the federal Constitution.

Exhaustively discussed in legal and political circles, the ACA contains a number of controversial provisions, including the hotly contested “individual mandate” or “minimum coverage provision” that conservatives view as anathema, an impermissible encroachment on an individual’s economic liberty.

If the court were to accept this argument and strike down the ACA or any portion of the act as constitutionally incompatible, it would be engaging in an egregious act of judicial activism, upending the principle of congressional deference and subverting the justification for “rational basis” review, which long recognized that Congress possesses plenary, or exclusive, power over the regulation of interstate commerce.

As Justice Breyer noted in dissent in the landmark case of U.S. v. Lopez — the seminal case in which the court departed from nearly a half century of settled jurisprudence — the court’s function is to assess “not whether the regulated activity sufficiently affected interstate commerce, but, rather, whether Congress could have had a rational basis for so concluding.”

That a rational basis exists for regulating the health insurance market is beyond legitimate contention. The unique nature of American health care, coupled with the inability of an individual to opt out (even those with the strongest immune systems are likely to fall ill at least once during their lifespan) left Congress little choice but to fashion legislation that included a minimum coverage provision to curb skyrocketing health care costs, and eradicate the “cost-shifting” that is largely responsible for escalating premiums. Far from being without precedent, this is exactly the kind of “broader regulatory scheme” that the Supreme Court has consistently deemed constitutionally permissible, even in cases where the regulated activity was of a “wholly intrastate [and] . . . non-economic” character.

(For a more detailed discussion about Commerce Clause jurisprudence, see opinion by a federal judge upholding the constitutionality of the ACA here.)

Not perfect, but politically realistic

I’m not saying the ACA is perfect — it isn’t. In a world in which the United States stands alone among our industrialized counterparts who provide health care as a matter of right to citizens, the better, but far more controversial option would have been to expand Medicare and eliminate the private insurance market altogether.

But this president recognizes political reality, and chose to pass legislation that dramatically expanded health care coverage to uninsured Americans, banned discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, and required insurance companies to cover a host of preventative care services without requiring a co-payment from the consumer. On balance, the ACA is a positive first step in recognizing that access to quality, affordable health care is an integral part of American competitiveness.

If Americans are to have an edge with our competitors the world over, it is imperative that we live both productive and healthy lives.

For this reason, the court would do well to reject the frenzied contentions of the reactionary right and give new meaning to the principle of stare decisis. Allowing the ACA to stand is both legally sound and practically expedient. If conservatives truly were champions of judicial restraint, they would agree.

Cotoia is a member of the Democratic Party State Central Committee and has written several guest columns for this site. He is employed as a paralegal with Holt Mynatt Martinez P.C. in Las Cruces and was a Democratic candidate for the District 2 seat on the Doña Ana County Board of Commissioners in this year’s primary.

Alexander J. Cotoia

The mess in Sunland Park underscores an unfortunate axiom of contemporary politics: Unscrupulous politicians can only prey on the public with our own complicity.

In 1961, shortly before assuming the duties of the Presidency, John F. Kennedy stood before the Massachusetts legislature and, in what became known as his “City Upon a Hill Speech,” famously intoned that there were four qualities that the public should look for and evaluate in their elected officials.

“History shall not judge our endeavors,” he said, “and a government cannot be selected, merely on the basis of color, or creed, or party affiliation. Neither will… loyalty and stature, while essential to the utmost, suffice in times such as these.”

Instead he said, “courage, judgment, integrity and dedication” were the four most indispensable traits of leaders who would be worthy of the public trust.

As a student of history, I have always revered John F. Kennedy — despite his personal shortcomings — for the ideal of selfless national service that he elevated during his time in public life. It was only in reading Chris Matthews’ recent biography of Kennedy that I was struck at how far from that ideal we have actually strayed.

The lack of statesmanship and the rise of partisan acrimony are but just two attributes of a system that seems, in the words of FDR, to be “frozen in the ice of its own indifference.” Apathy also pervades, owing to the lofty rhetoric and illusory promises of politicians more concerned with the next election than with being elected officials.

But that apathy comes at a price, as evidenced by the scandals emerging from the small community of Sunland Park, where elected officials are accused of serial deceit and exploitation. The mess there underscores an unfortunate axiom of contemporary politics: Unscrupulous politicians can only prey on the public with our own complicity. If ordinary citizens understood that their participation is the strongest safeguard against the corruption and abuse, then perhaps more people would be inclined to fulfill their civic obligation.

Too much at stake

I’m mindful that the problem of apathy won’t be solved in this election cycle or even in the distant future. But I am also unwilling to sit by idly while Rome burns, and allow the public’s already tenuous confidence in government to disintegrate.

It’s why, throughout my campaign for the county commission seat that includes the City of Sunland Park, I’m making it my mission to listen and serve: listen to the voices of those who are fed up with politics as usual, and serve those who have been alienated from the electoral process. Wherever I travel, I hear a common theme reverberating among ordinary people: We’re sick of scandal and we need honest leadership.

My No. 1 goal on the commission will be to remediate that crisis of confidence by serving as an effective advocate for the communities of the south valley, working to expand economic opportunity in the region, fighting gang violence through enforcement and prevention, and promoting accountability and transparency in county affairs.

It’s true that I’m not a native of New Mexico and I don’t have the extensive family ties of my opponents, but just as President Kennedy exhorted a previous generation to look beyond “color, creed or party affiliation” as a litmus test for candidates, so too I hope the voters will look beyond tribal loyalties and parochial divisions in casting their votes in this race. There’s simply too much at stake to do otherwise.

In the end, it’s up to us to uphold the final prong of Kennedy’s four-part test as a national ideal again. If we truly endeavor honest and faithful service from our politicians, “with an honor mortgaged to no single individual or group and compromised by no private obligation or aim, but devoted solely to serving the public good and the national interest,” it all begins at the ballot box.

Cotoia is a member of the Democratic Party State Central Committee and has written several guest columns for this site. He is employed as a paralegal with Holt Mynatt Martinez P.C. in Las Cruces and is a Democratic candidate for the District 2 seat on the Doña Ana County Board of Commissioners.

Alexander J. Cotoia

As a member of the Democratic Party State Central Committee, I’m often asked to defend the actions, or increasingly, inactions of my Democratic compatriots. My answer to critics is that I’m a progressive first and a Democrat second.

This distinction highlights an important problem with the current crop of Democratic politicians in Washington, with a few notable exceptions. Progressives are tired of the liberal lethargy that seemed to characterize the first few years of this presidential administration, when the thirst for legislative victory too often meant sacrificed principles and lost opportunities. Neither the president nor his Democratic allies in Congress can afford to perpetuate this trend.

As Democrats, we shouldn’t and can’t be afraid to illustrate what’s at stake. An increasing concentration of wealth at the top and diminishing incomes for the rest of us mean economic stagnation. It doesn’t take a Nobel laureate to know that more tax relief for those at the top of the socioeconomic strata won’t remediate the real problem — a failure of consumer confidence and aggregate demand. In an economy driven by consumption, accounting for nearly 60 percent of all economic activity, it’s a fool’s errand to believe that corporate profits can soar as consumer confidences collapses.

Nothing short of a radical reorientation of our economic paradigm is required. The fixation with less government and lower taxes, while a popular political refrain, ignores the reality that trickle-down tactics simply haven’t worked. If anything, the Bush-era policies have contributed to widening inequality and exacerbated a seemingly intractable deficit debacle.

Rather than stimulate economic growth, these generous giveaways have widened the chasm between the poor and the rich. They have also robbed the American people of the ability to redress our budgetary woes with a balanced approach to both revenue and expenditures.

Sensible solutions

2012 presents Democrats with a real opportunity to address these and other problems with plausible, progressive alternatives. The timidity of the Tea Party and the GOP’s draconian dogma simply aren’t real replacements for sensible solutions; solutions like expanding the earned income tax credit for middle class workers, or as former Labor Secretary Bob Reich has proposed, imposing higher marginal rates on the wealthy and eliminating the distinction between capital gains and ordinary income to partially fund wage supplements for cash-strapped workers.

These proposals and others would have the effect of reconstituting a ragged middle class and eliminating a perversity of our tax system that unfairly penalizes the poor and rewards the rich.

Progressives must also stand against calls to dramatically reduce or scale back our investment in public infrastructure. While conservatives love to rail against profligate spending and a burgeoning bureaucracy, non-defense discretionary spending is at a historic low, and the government’s contribution to research and development as a percentage of GDP in 2009 stood at a meager 0.08 percent. These are hardly positive attributes in our current economic climate, when history shows that public investment is an indispensable ingredient in fostering a full and robust recovery.

2012 is not a time for progressives to retreat from their principles. It’s a time for Democratic politicians to give Americans a real alternative. As a Democrat, I’ll continue to support principled progressives who share my belief that a return to President Clinton’s philosophy of “opportunity for all, responsibility from all, in a community of all Americans,” is the best recipe for national unity and shared prosperity.

Cotoia is a paralegal with Holt Mynatt Martinez, P.C. in Las Cruces and a member of the Democratic Party State Central Committee from Doña Ana County. He previously sought the Democratic nomination for the District 7 seat on the Public Education Commission.

Alexander J. Cotoia

On June 1, I lost the Democratic nomination for the District 7 Public Education Commission seat. As a 24-year-old college student and first-time political candidate, the result was somewhat anticipated, but nonetheless frustrating.

After three months of attending candidate forums, speaking to diverse audiences and engaging in one-on-one conversations with the residents of District 7, I felt encouraged that so many people wanted to work with me to expand instructional support and remediation for minority students, modernize vocational-technical education, and expand our existing charter-school framework to provide students with genuine opportunities for academic and personal growth.

But while my loss was disappointing, I was even more disturbed by the losses of other credible young candidates throughout the state, each of whom brought vision and passion to their respective races. I think any one of them – including my friend, fellow Democrat and former District 36 candidate Nicole R. Parra-Perez – would have brought much-needed change to a static system that seems, to quote former President Franklin D. Roosevelt, to be “frozen in the ice of its own indifference.”

This lack of demographic diversity simply isn’t conducive to sound public policy. While experienced policymakers may have the benefit of hindsight that younger candidates lack, there is something to be said for the vision and vitality of young people and their willingness to look beyond what’s orthodox or conventional for solutions.

A number of our sister states, including Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Ohio and others, have at least one member of their Legislature under the age of 30. New Mexico has none.

According to a 2003 study conducted by the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers, out of nearly 7,000 state lawmakers nationwide, only 321, or a little over 4 percent, were under the age of 35. That’s hardly a positive attribute for a representative democracy.

It’s no wonder primary turnout was abysmal. Faced with the same alternatives election cycle after election cycle, the voters were rightfully suspicious of the hyperbole that this election was any different.

A new generation of leaders

We cannot continue to correlate longevity of service with quality of service. Faced with perennial debates over taxes and spending, the proper size and function of state government, and a litany of other vexing social and economic problems with long-term repercussions, young people deserve a seat at a table.

I don’t claim to have all the answers on how to bring about such a dramatic change. But I do support the expansion of term limits to legislators and public financing of all political campaigns, not just judicial and Public Regulation Commission races, as a positive first step. In the absence of the Legislature implementing these policies of its own volition, I think it’s incumbent upon the electorate to be more conscious of alternatives at election time and hold legislators’ feet to the fire when their rhetoric isn’t supported by their record.

I also believe that there is strength in numbers, and that younger candidates can benefit from forming political action committees designed to maximize their financial leverage and level the proverbial playing field.

The major political parties would also do well to encourage younger candidates to step up to the plate. In an era of pervasive political apathy and rampant voter distrust, we need a new generation of leaders to restore the public’s confidence in government and right a ship of state that seems to have capsized.

Cotoia was a Democratic candidate for the District 7 Public Education Commission seat, which encompasses the entirety of Doña Ana County and portions of Otero County. He is also a legal assistant and a New Mexico State University student.