The Valley Viewpoint

The older I get, the more convinced I become that generosity has very little to do with money.

Last night, I found myself watching an old episode of ER. Dr. Mark Greene was dying, and in one of his final conversations with his daughter, he offered her a simple piece of advice: “Always be generous.”

Of all the lessons a father could leave his child, that was the one he chose.

I’ve known people with very modest incomes who were incredibly generous. They never seemed to have much, yet they were always the first to buy a cup of coffee, lend a hand, or make room at their table for one more person.

It stayed with me long after the credits rolled.

I’ve also met people who had everything money could buy but guarded every minute, every compliment, and every opportunity to help someone else.

Generosity is a way of living. It’s a decision.

During my years in the law and in human resources, I saw generosity at its best—and its absence at its worst. I watched attorneys who understood that justice wasn’t simply about winning a case but about treating people with dignity. I worked with leaders who looked beyond a résumé and took a chance on someone with character but little experience. Those acts of generosity didn’t just fill jobs or resolve disputes; they changed lives.

I also learned that generosity has nothing to do with being weak. You can hold people accountable and still treat them with respect. You can make difficult decisions and still preserve another person’s dignity. In fact, some of the strongest leaders I’ve known were also the most generous—with their time, their wisdom, and their willingness to help others succeed.

In broadcasting, I experienced another kind of generosity. Every morning, thousands of people invited me into their homes and cars. They shared their stories with me, laughed with me, disagreed with me, and trusted me enough to become part of their daily routine. That kind of trust is a gift. It reminds you that relationships are built one conversation at a time.

I’ve discovered the same thing in my personal life.

Sometimes generosity is simply giving someone your undivided attention. Putting the phone down. Listening without planning your next response. Laughing together over something that no one else would understand. Letting another person know they are seen, appreciated, and loved.

As I’ve gotten older, I’ve also realized that generosity isn’t limited to what we give to strangers. Sometimes the hardest person to be generous with is the one closest to us. It takes generosity to forgive. It takes generosity to apologize. It takes generosity to assume good intentions instead of the worst.

As I thought about Dr. Greene’s words, I realized they weren’t really about money or gifts. They were about the kind of person we choose to become. We can be generous with our patience when someone is struggling, generous with our praise when someone succeeds, generous with our forgiveness when someone falls short, and generous with our love while we still have the opportunity to give it.

When my life is over, I doubt anyone will remember the titles I held or the positions listed on my résumé. I hope they’ll remember something much simpler.

That I tried to be generous.

Generous with my time.

Generous with my words.

Generous with encouragement.

Generous with forgiveness.

Because in the end, our legacy isn’t built by what we accumulate. It’s built by what we freely give to others.

And perhaps that’s why a dying father chose those three simple words as one of his final lessons to his daughter:

Always be generous.

One of the most fascinating political stories unfolding in New York isn’t simply Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s agenda. It’s the reaction—or perhaps more accurately, the lack of reaction—from many of the business leaders who will be expected to operate under it.

A recent New York Post editorial argues that despite Mayor Mamdani’s increasingly confrontational approach toward the business community, many of New York’s corporate leaders continue to remain publicly silent. The editorial points to decisions that have further strained relations, including removing longtime business leaders from advisory roles connected to the Mayor’s Fund while advancing an agenda that many executives believe is openly skeptical of private enterprise. (New York Post)

Whether one agrees with Mamdani’s policies or not is almost beside the point.

The larger question is why so many influential business executives seem unwilling to publicly challenge policies they privately acknowledge could damage New York City’s economic future.

Businesses make investment decisions based on predictability. They hire employees when they believe the climate is stable. They expand when government views them as partners rather than adversaries. When elected officials repeatedly portray employers as obstacles instead of engines of opportunity, confidence begins to erode.

History shows that businesses rarely leave overnight. Investment slows first. Expansion plans are delayed. New projects are reconsidered. Eventually, jobs follow the capital.

What surprises me isn’t that a democratic socialist mayor is pursuing the policies he campaigned on. Voters elected him knowing his philosophy. What surprises me is how reluctant many business leaders appear to defend the very economic system that created the companies they now lead.

Leadership isn’t demonstrated when everyone agrees with you. Leadership is demonstrated when speaking carries personal or professional risk.

The business community has every right to disagree with City Hall. Likewise, City Hall has every right to pursue its vision. But silence should never become the default response when fundamental economic policies are at stake.

Healthy cities require healthy debate. Government needs business. Business needs government. Neither succeeds by treating the other as an enemy.

If corporate leaders genuinely believe current policies threaten investment, employment, or economic growth, they owe New Yorkers more than quiet conversations behind closed doors. They owe them honesty.

Because in the end, the cost of silence may prove far greater than the cost of speaking up.

One of the things I’ve learned over the years is that campaigning and governing are two very different things.

Campaigns are built on promises. Leadership is measured by what happens after the election is over.

Last week, Dutchess County District Attorney Anthony Parisi announced the creation of the Smart Prosecution, Strategic Intelligence and Violence Elimination Unit. It may be a mouthful to say, but the concept behind it is both simple and important: bring prosecutors, investigators, crime analysts, and local law enforcement together from the very beginning of an investigation to identify repeat offenders, dismantle criminal organizations, and build stronger criminal cases.

It’s an idea that deserves recognition.

For decades, prosecutors often became involved after an arrest had already been made. This model turns that process around by making prosecutors active partners from the outset. That means better coordination, stronger investigations, and, hopefully, stronger prosecutions.

Anthony Parisi deserves credit for thinking beyond the traditional model.

Throughout his career, he has earned a reputation as someone who values preparation, collaboration, and professionalism. This new initiative reflects those same qualities. Rather than simply reacting to crime, his office is attempting to stay one step ahead of it.

That is good leadership.

The timing is also encouraging. Within days of announcing the unit, investigators credited the collaborative approach with helping identify repeat offenders during a significant narcotics investigation. That doesn’t prove long-term success, but it does demonstrate that this isn’t merely a press release. It is already becoming part of the way the District Attorney’s Office conducts business.

As someone who has spent much of my career evaluating organizations and leadership, I appreciate people who are willing to rethink the way things have always been done. The easiest path is to preserve the status quo. The harder path is to ask whether there is a better way.

Anthony Parisi appears to be asking that question.

Of course, every public initiative should ultimately be judged by results. Taxpayers deserve to know whether violent crime declines, whether repeat offenders are removed from our streets, whether victims receive justice more quickly, and whether the partnerships being built today produce safer communities tomorrow.

Those are fair expectations.

But leadership also deserves to be acknowledged when it demonstrates vision. Too often we wait to criticize when something goes wrong, yet hesitate to recognize public officials when they introduce thoughtful, innovative ideas that have the potential to improve government.

This is one of those ideas.

The overwhelming majority of police officers, investigators, and prosecutors come to work every day with one purpose: protecting the people they serve. Giving them better tools, better communication, and better intelligence is an investment in public safety that benefits every law-abiding citizen in Dutchess County.

I hope this initiative succeeds—not because it will validate a political promise, but because every successful prosecution represents another victim who received justice, another dangerous criminal held accountable, and another family that can feel a little safer.

At the end of the day, that’s what the people of Dutchess County expect from their District Attorney.

And based on this initiative, Anthony Parisi has taken a meaningful step toward delivering exactly that.

Good government isn’t measured by the promises made during a campaign.

It’s measured by the confidence its leadership earns once the campaign is over.

I’ve been thinking a lot about freedom lately—not as a political ideal or an abstract concept, but as something that quietly evolves over the course of a life.

A friend recently shared his story with me. It didn’t feel rehearsed. It felt like someone opening an old photo album, one memory leading naturally to the next.

The first act was a bicycle.

He was just a boy, too young to call what he felt “freedom.” He only knew that everything changed the moment his feet left the ground and the pedals carried him forward. The neighborhood became an adventure. Every street was an invitation. There was nowhere he had to be, only places he wanted to discover.

He told me he never thought about life back then.

He simply lived it.

The second act arrived years later with the unmistakable rumble of a Harley.

By then, life had become more complicated. Careers, responsibilities, obligations—the weight that adulthood inevitably places on our shoulders. But the first time he twisted the throttle, something awakened inside him. It wasn’t just the sound of the engine or the miles of open road. It was the return of a feeling he hadn’t realized he’d been missing.

For a little while, the demands of life fell silent.

The road asked nothing of him except that he keep moving.

Then came the third act.

Today, he finds that same feeling every morning walking his dog, Buddy.

No roaring engine. No open highway. No destination.

Just the quiet rhythm of footsteps, a faithful companion at his side, and the peaceful certainty that this moment is enough.

When he said that, I realized something.

Freedom doesn’t leave us as we grow older.

It matures.

What begins as the excitement of limitless possibility becomes the exhilaration of movement. And if we’re fortunate, it eventually becomes something even richer—the quiet contentment of simply being present.

The bicycle gave him wonder.

The Harley gave him adventure.

Buddy gave him peace.

Three chapters of one life.

Three different expressions of the same longing.

Because perhaps freedom was never measured by speed, distance, or horsepower.

Perhaps it has always been measured by those rare moments when we feel completely at home in our own lives.

Over the past several months, I’ve taken the time to read many of the motions filed by Luigi Mangione’s attorneys.

Good defense lawyers are supposed to challenge the government’s evidence. They are supposed to protect their client’s constitutional rights. That’s their job.

But these filings go much further.

They attempt to transform an accused killer into a folk hero.

They invite the public to see Luigi Mangione not as a man charged with executing another human being on a Manhattan sidewalk, but as a modern-day Robin Hood—a crusader supposedly acting on behalf of millions frustrated with America’s healthcare system.

That narrative is as dangerous as it is dishonest.

Robin Hood stole from the rich to help the poor.

He didn’t allegedly ambush an unarmed husband and father, gun him down, and then become the subject of social media fan clubs, fundraising campaigns, and celebrity worship.

Yet that is precisely what we are witnessing.

According to reports, organizations supporting Mangione are openly encouraging jury nullification—the extraordinary notion that jurors should ignore the law and acquit because they sympathize with the defendant or agree with his perceived political cause. Millions of dollars have reportedly been raised for his defense while supporters work to recast him as something other than what he is accused of being: a murderer. That should alarm every American, regardless of political ideology.

I’ve watched this strategy unfold not only in the court filings but also in the court of public opinion.

The legal arguments consistently paint a picture of a man driven by noble motives, almost inviting the public to conclude that the victim somehow represented an unjust system rather than being an individual human being.

Brian Thompson was not a symbol.

He wasn’t an abstract concept called “health insurance.”

He was a husband.

He was a father.

He was someone’s son.

He was a man who never got the chance to defend himself.

Our justice system has never recognized a political grievance as a license to kill.

Nor should it.

If anger at a corporation becomes a mitigating factor for homicide, then where does it end?

Do we excuse violence against politicians because someone dislikes government?

Against judges because someone dislikes a ruling?

Against journalists because someone dislikes a story?

Against police officers because someone dislikes law enforcement?

The answer must always be no.

There is another aspect of this case that troubles me deeply.

A generation has been raised to believe that if your cause is righteous enough, almost any tactic becomes acceptable. Violence is no longer universally condemned; it is increasingly weighed against the popularity of the grievance.

That isn’t justice.

That’s moral relativism dressed up as activism.

The defense is entitled to challenge every piece of evidence.

They are entitled to insist the government prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

But neither the defense nor outside advocacy groups should succeed in convincing America that political frustration somehow transforms an accused assassin into a freedom fighter.

The courtroom is not a stage.

It is not a movie.

It is not a place for mythology.

It is where facts matter, evidence matters, and human life must matter above all else.

If we begin rewarding political violence because we happen to agree with the motive, we will have crossed a line from which it will be extraordinarily difficult to return.

The rule of law cannot survive if we replace Lady Justice with Robin Hood.

There is an old saying among trial lawyers: People rarely lie in perfect harmony with the documents.

That is why congressional hearings matter.

They are not television productions designed to generate headlines. They are fact-finding exercises. Witnesses testify under oath, and every answer becomes part of a permanent record that can later be measured against emails, internal memoranda, diary entries, draft reports, scientific publications, and the testimony of others.

Anthony Fauci’s recent appearance before Congress was never going to rewrite the history of COVID-19.

But it did reveal something just as important.

It revealed how accountability works—or should work—in a constitutional republic.

Throughout his testimony, Dr. Fauci frequently distinguished between what he personally recalled, what others may have done, and what he believed at the time. He defended many of the decisions made during the pandemic while acknowledging that scientific understanding evolved as new information became available.

That, in itself, is not remarkable.

Science should evolve.

Evidence should change conclusions.

But government accountability operates under a different standard.

The issue before Congress is not whether every public health recommendation proved correct.

It is whether Congress and the American people received complete, accurate, and truthful information from the officials entrusted with extraordinary power.

During the pandemic, Americans surrendered freedoms that previous generations would have found unimaginable.

Businesses closed.

Churches went dark.

Schools emptied.

Families watched loved ones die through windows or video screens.

Workers lost careers because of vaccine mandates.

Children lost milestones they will never recover.

Those decisions were defended as necessary because Americans were told they were grounded in the best available science.

That makes today’s oversight all the more important.

Several issues continue to receive congressional attention, including communications surrounding the early discussion of the virus’s origins, interactions with outside researchers, the development of public messaging, and internal government deliberations. Members of Congress have also questioned whether prior public statements align with documents that have since become public.

Those are legitimate areas of inquiry.

Legitimate questions deserve legitimate answers.

Legally, however, the standard is demanding.

A contradiction alone does not establish criminal conduct.

A witness does not commit perjury simply because later evidence creates tension with earlier testimony. Federal prosecutors generally must prove that a materially false statement was made knowingly and willfully. Honest mistakes, confusion, evolving recollections, or imprecise language are not enough.

Likewise, allegations involving false statements or obstruction require proof of intent—not merely disagreement or inconsistency.

That is why investigators assemble records before reaching conclusions.

Emails.

Meeting notes.

Calendar entries.

Draft documents.

Phone records.

Contemporaneous communications.

Those records often tell the story more accurately than memories formed years later.

History reminds us that powerful public officials are often judged not only by the decisions they made but by how candidly they explain those decisions once the crisis has passed.

The American people do not expect perfection.

They do expect honesty.

That expectation applies equally to presidents, governors, members of Congress, judges, military leaders, and public health officials.

Anthony Fauci was entrusted with enormous influence during one of the most consequential periods in modern American history.

With that influence comes a corresponding obligation to answer difficult questions.

Not because accountability is punishment.

Because accountability is the price of public trust.

Congress’s work is not finished.

Additional hearings, document reviews, and reports may provide greater clarity. Whether they ultimately uncover evidence of legal wrongdoing or simply reinforce existing explanations remains to be seen.

But the larger principle should unite Americans regardless of politics.

No public servant should be insulated from oversight.

No expert should be immune from scrutiny.

And no government official—regardless of reputation, title, or years of service—should ever be beyond accountability under the law.

That is not an attack on science.

It is a defense of democracy.

The Greek philosopher Heraclitus wrote, “Character is destiny.” Twenty-five centuries later, I cannot think of a better lens through which to view Anthony Fauci.

For years, Dr. Fauci was one of the most trusted public health officials in America. Republicans and Democrats alike sought his counsel. Presidents from both parties relied upon him. The white lab coat became a symbol of scientific authority, and millions accepted his recommendations because they believed the man delivering them possessed the integrity worthy of that trust.

Then came COVID.

No one expected perfection. We were confronting a virus the world had never seen before. Guidance would evolve. Science would change. Honest mistakes were inevitable.

What many Americans found far more difficult to accept was something else entirely: the appearance that protecting reputations sometimes became as important as pursuing the truth.

Over the years, congressional investigations, released emails, agency records, and public testimony have fueled persistent questions about pandemic decision-making, communications, and accountability. Reasonable people continue to disagree about what those records ultimately prove. But the larger issue extends beyond any single email, hearing, or headline.

Trust.

Public trust is built slowly and lost quickly.

When officials appear dismissive of legitimate questions, when critics are portrayed as enemies rather than participants in scientific debate, and when institutions seem more interested in defending themselves than explaining themselves, confidence erodes. Science depends on evidence, but public health depends on trust. Without trust, even sound guidance becomes harder to accept.

Watching Dr. Fauci testify before Congress, I was reminded that credentials alone cannot sustain credibility. Intelligence is not enough. Experience is not enough. Position is not enough.

Character is what remains when authority is questioned.

True leaders possess the humility to admit uncertainty. They acknowledge mistakes without viewing every criticism as a personal attack. They understand that accountability strengthens institutions rather than weakens them.

It is worth noting that both Dr. Fauci and I were educated in the Jesuit tradition—an education rooted in a simple but demanding principle: above all else, character matters. The Jesuits taught that knowledge without integrity is incomplete, and that service without humility is hollow. That foundation stays with you for life, especially when confronting moments of public crisis and moral complexity.

Whether Anthony Fauci ultimately is remembered as a dedicated public servant who did his best during an unprecedented crisis or as a symbol of institutional overconfidence will be debated for decades. Historians will continue to examine the record, and citizens will continue to reach different conclusions.

But one reality already seems undeniable.

The pandemic exposed a dangerous fracture between government institutions and the people they serve. That fracture cannot be repaired with press conferences or carefully crafted talking points. It can only be repaired through transparency, honesty, and accountability.

Heraclitus understood that long before congressional committees, cable news, and social media.

Character is destiny.

Not because destiny is predetermined, but because our character shapes every decision we make. Those decisions become habits. Habits become reputations. Reputations become legacies.

And legacies are the only verdict that time cannot overturn.

Perhaps Anthony Fauci’s most enduring lesson will not be about virology or epidemiology. It will be a reminder that public office is ultimately an exercise in stewardship. Authority is borrowed from the public, not owned by those who wield it.

Once that trust is lost, no title, no résumé, and no lifetime of accomplishments can fully restore it.

Character always has the final word.

In 1881, a 23-year-old Theodore Roosevelt arrived in Albany as one of the youngest members ever elected to the New York State Assembly. Idealistic, energetic, and convinced that public service was an honorable calling, he believed he could help make government better.

What he found instead left him deeply disheartened.

In his diaries and later writings, Roosevelt described an Albany dominated by patronage, political machines, and a culture where powerful interests too often outweighed the public interest. Rather than accept it as “the way things were,” he exposed corruption, challenged members of his own party, and insisted that government belonged to the people—not to those who happened to control it.

Reading Roosevelt today, I couldn’t help but wonder how much has really changed.

No, today’s New York is not the Albany of the Gilded Age. But the habits that frustrated Roosevelt have an uncanny way of resurfacing whenever transparency gives way to politics and public service takes a back seat to political advantage.

Here in Dutchess County, we’ve seen examples that should concern anyone who believes government works best in the sunlight.

Consider the Red Hook eminent domain controversy.

For years, residents have questioned why government would continue pursuing the seizure of private property despite repeated legal setbacks, significant taxpayer expense, and a referendum in which voters rejected the proposal. Regardless of where you stand on the merits, the process has left many citizens wondering whether their voices truly mattered.

Then there was the recent special meeting of the Dutchess County Legislature regarding the proposed 26 Oakley settlement.

Legislators were called to a special session, only to watch the majority postpone the very resolution they had convened to consider. The delay placed time-sensitive construction bids at risk and raised legitimate concerns about additional costs to taxpayers.

If there were unresolved questions, why weren’t they addressed before calling the meeting?

Government should not manufacture urgency only to delay action once everyone arrives.

Increasingly, we are witnessing something else Roosevelt would likely recognize: political theater replacing thoughtful governance.

Too many newly elected officials seem to believe that governing begins with a press conference, a social media video, or a carefully crafted sound bite. Every disagreement becomes a political spectacle. Every policy debate becomes an opportunity for performance. Winning the news cycle often appears more important than solving the problem.

But government isn’t theater.

It is where budgets are balanced, roads are repaired, public safety is protected, and taxpayer dollars are stewarded responsibly.

Those responsibilities demand preparation, humility, and a willingness to listen—not simply the ability to energize your political base.

Roosevelt understood that corruption doesn’t always arrive wearing handcuffs.

Sometimes it appears as secrecy instead of transparency.

Sometimes it appears when procedure is manipulated to produce a predetermined outcome.

Sometimes it appears when elected officials become more interested in protecting a political narrative than answering legitimate questions from the people they serve.

This isn’t about Republicans or Democrats.

Neither party has a monopoly on virtue, and neither is immune from arrogance.

It’s about remembering who government works for.

Roosevelt believed elected officials were temporary stewards of the public’s trust. They were expected to welcome scrutiny, not resent it; answer questions, not avoid them; and lead with integrity rather than ideology.

Those lessons are just as relevant today in Dutchess County as they were in Albany nearly 145 years ago.

The buildings have changed.

The technology has changed.

The news cycle has certainly changed.

Human nature?

Not nearly as much.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The taxpayers of Dutchess County deserve an answer.

Why was a special meeting of the Dutchess County Legislature called if the Democrat Majority had no intention of allowing a vote?

Legislators were summoned to a special session to consider the agreement for the proposed 26 Oakley project. Members interrupted their schedules, staff prepared for the meeting, and taxpayers picked up the tab—all with the expectation that the Legislature would finally make a decision.

Instead, the Democrat Majority pulled the rug out from under the process, postponing the very resolution that justified calling the meeting in the first place.

This wasn’t leadership.

It was political theater.

And taxpayers may soon receive the bill for the performance.

The bids associated with the project are scheduled to expire this weekend. If they do, Dutchess County could be forced to rebid the work in an inflationary construction market, potentially adding millions of dollars to the cost of the project.

Millions.

Not because of an unforeseen emergency. Not because of a natural disaster. But because the Democrat Majority apparently failed to resolve its own internal questions before dragging the entire Legislature into a special meeting.

That is government at its most inefficient.

If legitimate concerns existed, they should have been raised, debated, and resolved long before legislators were called to the chamber. Instead, the Majority chose to hit the pause button at the eleventh hour, placing taxpayers at financial risk while offering little explanation for the delay.

This has become an all-too-familiar pattern in government: meetings without decisions, delays without accountability, and taxpayers left paying for political indecision.

Leadership requires preparation.

Leadership requires making difficult decisions.

Leadership requires understanding that every day of unnecessary delay has a cost—and that cost doesn’t come out of a politician’s pocket. It comes out of yours.

The Democrat Majority had an opportunity to demonstrate decisive leadership.

Instead, it demonstrated dysfunction.

If these bids expire and the price tag climbs by millions, taxpayers should remember that those additional costs weren’t unavoidable. They were the direct consequence of a Majority that called a special meeting without being prepared to do the very thing the meeting was called to accomplish.

Dutchess County deserves better than government by postponement.

Taxpayers deserve leaders who come to the table ready to govern—not ready to delay.

Pizza. What is it about pizza? An invention created for the masses: breads baked with emmer wheat; polenta made from ground barley; cheese, fresh and aged, made from the milk of cows and sheep; pork sausages and cured meats; vegetables grown in the fertile soil along the Tiber. In these staples, more than the spice-rubbed game and wine-soaked feasts of Apicius and his ilk, we see the earliest signs of Italian cuisine taking shape.
The pillars of Italian cuisine, like the pillars of the Pantheon, are indeed old and sturdy. The arrival of pasta to Italy is a subject of deep, rancorous debate, but despite the legend that Marco Polo returned from his trip to Asia with ramen noodles in his satchel, historians believe that pasta has been eaten on the Italian peninsula since at least the Etruscan time. Pizza as we know it didn’t hit the streets of Naples until the seventeenth century, with Old World tomato and, eventually, cheese, but the foundations were forged in the fires of Pompeii, where archaeologists have discovered 2,000-year-old ovens of the same size and shape as the modern wood-burning oven. Sheep’s- and cow’s-milk cheeses sold in the daily markets of ancient Rome were crude precursors of pecorino and Parmesan, cheeses that literally and figuratively hold vast swaths of Italian cuisine together.
To me, on a more personal level, Pizza became a reward. You see, on 89th and Lexington Ave. directly across the street from Dr. Rosenblatt’s office, where my sister and I were dragged to as children, was a pizza place. Our mother always brought us there after our Doctor’s visits. After being terrified by Dr. Rosenblatt’s walrus moustache and being injected, poked and prodded, those slices of pizza represented freedom. I can still taste them. It didn’t matter if we ate them close to dinner time, or if we had to jingle change to make sure that we could get a few slices, they were the best. Even today, I make it part of my routine after visiting the Doctor to always grab a slice. It reminds me of one more visit down……Thanks, Mom……

There are policy disagreements. Then there are moments when elected officials reveal just how disconnected they have become from the realities faced by the people they represent.

This week, more than 100 elected officials across New York—including 28 from the Hudson Valley—signed a letter urging congressional leaders to abolish and dismantle U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Not reform it. Not improve oversight. Eliminate it.

For me, this debate isn’t theoretical.

Nearly twenty years ago, my 17-year-old niece, Elizabeth Butler, was murdered by a man who was in this country illegally. That tragedy forever changed my family. It is why every time politicians reduce immigration enforcement to an ideological talking point, I think not about agencies or budgets—but about empty seats at family dinner tables.

Over the years, I’ve also written about Sheridan Gorman, the Yorktown Heights teenager whose promising life was cut short. I’ve written about Laken Riley, Rachel Morin, Kate Steinle, Jamiel Shaw, and countless other victims whose names became known only after preventable tragedies.

These aren’t statistics.

They were sons. Daughters. Sisters. Friends. Neighbors.

Every one of them left behind families whose lives would never be the same.

ICE was created after September 11 because our nation recognized that immigration enforcement is not simply paperwork—it’s a matter of national security and public safety. Like every government agency, it deserves oversight and accountability. But abolishing it altogether ignores one unavoidable question.

If there is no ICE, who enforces federal immigration law?

Who tracks down criminal aliens with removal orders? Who dismantles international human trafficking organizations? Who investigates child exploitation networks crossing our borders? Who removes repeat offenders who have already violated our nation’s laws?

Those responsibilities don’t disappear because politicians vote to erase the agency assigned to perform them.

Among those signing this letter are elected officials representing communities throughout the Hudson Valley. These are not anonymous activists. They are the very people entrusted by voters to make decisions affecting our neighborhoods, schools, and public safety.

That is why their position deserves scrutiny.

The Hudson Valley has spent years grappling with the consequences of a broken immigration system—strained public resources, contentious debates over migrant housing, and growing concerns about public safety. Yet instead of discussing how to improve enforcement while protecting civil liberties, these officials have chosen to demand the elimination of the nation’s primary immigration enforcement agency.

Reasonable people can debate detention standards. They can debate transparency, due process, congressional oversight, and the humane treatment of every individual in custody.

But abolishing immigration enforcement altogether is not reform.

It is surrender.

My family’s loss taught me something I wish I never had to learn: every preventable crime leaves behind parents, siblings, children, and friends who spend the rest of their lives wondering whether someone in authority could have made a different decision.

Before politicians sign letters demanding the end of ICE, I hope they spend a few moments with those families.

Listen to their stories.

Look them in the eye.

Then explain why eliminating the agency responsible for enforcing our immigration laws will make America safer.

If they believe abolishing ICE is the right path, they should proudly defend that position at every town hall, every county legislature meeting, and every campaign event.

And then let the voters decide.

Because this debate isn’t about politics.

It’s about whether the next family has to endure what mine—and so many others—already have.

Modern medicine has made breathtaking advances: robotic surgeries, gene editing, precision diagnostics, even artificial intelligence promising to diagnose a tumor faster than a seasoned oncologist. Yet for the average American patient, the experience still starts the same way it did thirty years ago: a clipboard, a laminated insurance card, and a gnawing uncertainty about what’s covered, what’s not, and who’s going to fight for them when the claim inevitably gets denied.

Welcome to the American healthcare system—where innovation races ahead, but access limps behind, weighed down by bureaucracy, billing codes, and corporate incentives that often seem designed to confuse more than to cure.

At the center of this chaos stands the insurance industry. Ostensibly created to pool risk and spread costs, it has instead evolved into a labyrinth of pre-authorizations, formularies, step therapies, and denials issued by people who’ve never met the patient in question. Insurance companies don’t practice medicine. They practice delay. Deny. Reimburse at 60 cents on the dollar—maybe.

These insurers have built fortresses of cost containment and red tape, staffed by algorithm-driven adjusters, legal departments fluent in the fine print of exclusions, and actuaries who can tell you the statistical lifespan of a diabetic foot—but not what it’s like to live with one.

Caught squarely in the middle of this mess are America’s pharmacies—once the neighborhood cornerstones of care, now reduced to traffic cops at the intersection of prescription and permission. Pharmacists field irate customers whose medications have been swapped out for insurer-approved “alternatives.” They place hour-long phone calls to providers and benefit managers to chase down prior authorizations that used to take minutes, if they happened at all.

They’re the ones who have to explain why your doctor-prescribed inhaler isn’t covered, but the generic from a different manufacturer is. Or why your copay has mysteriously doubled because your employer changed pharmacy benefit managers without telling you. In many cases, these are life-sustaining drugs, not optional luxuries. Yet pharmacists are made to look like gatekeepers, when in truth they’re barely hanging on to the gates.

And then, in the shadows of this sprawling infrastructure, often underpaid and overburdened, you’ll find the benefits customer service rep. The invisible middle layer. The triage nurse of paperwork. They are the translators, the mediators, the therapists-by-proxy for a public that has been taught to fear their Explanation of Benefits (EOB) more than their diagnosis.

These reps field calls from people in pain, people confused, people angry. They are expected to know the intricacies of a thousand different employer group plans, each with their own deductibles, coinsurance rules, and quirks that even the brokers don’t fully understand. They’re asked to explain why a claim was denied because it was coded as “preventive” instead of “diagnostic”—as if that were something the patient had control over while lying half-naked in a paper gown.

They are not the villains in this story. They are often the only humans left in a process that has become increasingly automated, outsourced, and inhuman. When they say, “I understand your frustration,” they often mean it. But they’re hamstrung. They can’t override system logic. They can’t authorize payment. They can’t reverse a denial issued by a third-party review panel. And yet, they are the ones who take the heat.

This is the state of things: medicine at its most advanced, bureaucracy at its most impenetrable, and customer service at its most thankless. The doctors are burning out. The patients are fed up. The pharmacists are drowning in paperwork and policy. And the reps? They’re the ones still picking up the phone.

If there is a future where healthcare is both humane and efficient, it will not come solely from a new app or federal mandate. It will come from a systemic reimagining—of how we value care, how we fund it, and how we treat the human beings who keep the gears turning from behind the cubicle walls and pharmacy counters.

Until then, we remain in the waiting room.