Joe Biden: The Comeback Kid?

June 16, 2020February 24, 2024 ~ Randy Seaver ~ Leave a comment

A few days ago, I was drawn into yet another Facebook political debate. I can’t help it. I’m a political junkie and off my meds.

The debate was about the 2020 presidential campaign, and I made the comment that I identify as a “right-leaning moderate”

Within a few seconds after writing that post, some guy (a “friend of a friend” ) attacked me and said I was not a moderate . . .blah, blah, blah. . . .because I am not a big fan of Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential bid.

At first I thought that I should just move on. I don’t know the guy and we had never met or interacted before. But I could not help myself. I decided to defend my position and my lack of enthusiasm for Joe Biden.

In summary, I posted that I was indeed a moderate Republican — to the left of people such as Sean Hannity, former Maine governor Paul LePage and President Trump (even though I did vote for Trump in 2016). Before my ardent friends on the left hyperventilate, I will not be supporting Trump’s re-election campaign.

I voted twice for George W. Bush. I also voted for the John McCain/Sarah Palin ticket in 2008. I posted that I identify with other moderate Republicans such as Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and former Secretary of Defense (and former Maine Senator) William Cohen.

I voted for Barack Obama in 2012, yet I still considered myself to be a so-called “moderate,” steering left of hyper conservatives such as Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham and Rush Limbaugh, but to the right of outspoken liberals, such as Rachel Maddow, Jimmy Kimmel and Chuck Schumer.

This year, I will hold my nose and cast my vote for Biden. But I am worried about his mental health and his ability to execute the duties of the president.

>>>>>>>

Jolting Joe has left and gone away

Joe Biden is all but assured to be the Democrats’ choice to prevent another four years of Donald Trump.

But is Biden really the best candidate for Democrats? After almost four years of the Trump Administration, the Democrats throw Biden into the ring to take down Trump? Really? That’s the best they got?

I have my own theory about why Biden came out on top: he is not an extremist. He is experienced and he is likable. But most of all, he is a moderate and may also be able to pull some fence-sitting, moderate Republicans like me: RINOs (Republicans In Name Only).

And here’s a conspiracy theory I have heard about: The Democratic Party is banking on the probability that Biden (if elected) won’t be able to finish his first term; thus his vice presidential pick is critical — not to mention the need to fire up the Dems and increase voter turnout from younger voters who may otherwise stay at home on Election Day.

Several weeks ago there was an op-ed published in the Washington Post that details several examples of behavior and missteps that lead to a troubling possibility: Biden may have some serious cognitive issues.

In fairness, the op-ed penned by Marc A. Thiessen also reminds us that President Reagan had his own cognitive issues.

Furthermore, Biden’s age could be another chink in his political armor. Thiessen points out the following:

“Joe Biden is 77, four years older than Reagan was during the 1984 campaign. If Biden is elected, he’ll be older on the day he takes office than Reagan was on the day he left office. So yes, his mental fitness is a legitimate issue.”

As I pointed out in my aforementioned Facebook post. I am a political junkie and a second-rate pundit with an internet connection and a keyboard. But, over the course of my professional roles (journalist, public policy and political consultant,) I know it is critically important to remember that voters are more likely drawn to voting FOR a candidate as opposed to voting AGAINST a candidate.

Then again, tapping Sarah Palin as a running mate didn’t accomplish much for John McCain. Why? Because voters were electrified by Barack Obama and his charisma. Obama could have picked Vito Corleone as his running mate and still would have won the race by a landslide.

In summary? Biden’s choice of a running mate is of paramount importance.

Joe Biden is no Barack Obama. He needs to widen his base, including young voters, progressives, the LGBTQ community and yes — even moderate Republicans like me.

Outrageous Fortune

May 27, 2020February 24, 2024 ~ Randy Seaver ~ Leave a comment

Every time I start to feel a bit of optimism about the future, the reality hammer drops on my head.

Today, we learned that restaurants in southern Maine will not be able to re-open as originally scheduled because of ongoing concerns about the Cov-19 epidemic.

The social media reaction to this news has been swift from both sides of the political aisle, Republicans blame Janet Mills and Democrats blame President Trump.

There are posts calling for an armed revolution to overthrow Maine Governor Janet Mills. “. . .Open up anyways and bring your guns!!! ,” wrote one poster on Facebook.

In the Shakespearean play Hamlet, the young prince contemplates suicide, best referenced within this famous soliloquy: To Be or Not to Be.

Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer

The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,

Or to take arms against a sea of troubles

And by opposing end them.

People on the right are still referencing mask wearers as “sheep,” unable to discern the truth.

People on the left use terms like “mouth breather,” to describe conservatives.

There doesn’t seem that there is any middle ground.

And now the news released today by the governor: dine-in restaurants in southern Maine will need to remain closed until further notice, as opposed to a cautious opening date of June 1.

Think of all those businesses that purchased food and supplies as they geared up for June 1. Think about the employees called back to work. What does the future hold?

From my perspective, the future looks pretty grim, so I have designed my own plan for businesses that want to open on June 1:

Let the restaurant owners decide if they want to open or not.
Let customers decide on whether they want to frequent these establishments
Let the employees decide whether they want to work.
For people who have a weakened immune system (like my wife) stay at home.
For people who do not want go to public places, do not go there. You can order groceries and food online.

This my five-point plan. What do you think?

The war of the words

May 22, 2020February 24, 2024 ~ Randy Seaver ~ Leave a comment

I am 56 years-old. I am a white man. I live in the suburbs. I have two healthy sons and an amazing wife.

I have nothing to complain about. But still I have a knack for finding political fights on social media platforms.

I used to be a journalist, and then a columnist. I put food on my family’s table by sharing my opinions every week.

Please, however, make no mistake, I am today a little more than a second-rate pundit with a boatload of opinions, a keyboard and an internet connection. Sadly, a lot of other people I know are in the same boat.

When I was growing up, I was taught that voting, and politics were private things. That’s why we have curtains at the voting booth: to keep our choices private. Back then, however, we didn’t have an internet and access to so many people.

According to Facebook, I have more than 1,100 “friends.” Let’s get real. I can count the number of my friends on two hands,

“We are reckless in our use of the lovely word friend,” or so wrote French author Romain Rolland in 1913.

I am guilty of being a political monger, easily sucked into meaningless debates on Facebook and Twitter. But I also like to think I am a political centrist, and that it would be difficult to discern my political orientation based on my social media postings.

Maybe I am kidding myself. Maybe not.

I find it curious that so many people spend so much time engaged in political debates on social media outlets, some of which become quite heated as these amateur pundits duke it out on the world-wide web.

Both Democrats and Republicans (in almost equal measure) line up in their own turf and pontificate why their points are absolute truth. Are these people trying to recruit more members? Are they hoping to influence our nation’s political discourse?

Following my career in journalism, I accepted a job as a public relations professional. Yes, social media is a powerful communications tool in today’s world of political engagement, but every PR pro knows that it must be handled with precision.

Do you really think that name calling, badgering and screeching hardcore positions will “convert” someone from a different camp?

How much time do you spend on social media platforms, engaged in political debates?

Is it worth it?

A sheep speaks out

May 19, 2020January 26, 2024 ~ Randy Seaver ~ 1 Comment

I wear a mask when I go to the grocery store or any other place where large numbers of people congregate.

I am not a sheep. I am not afraid of Covid-19. I do not wear a mask to keep myself safe. I wear a mask because it may lower the odds (if only a minuscule number) of making OTHER people sick. I could have the virus, but the odds on that are also minuscule.

I find it sad (sometimes laughable) that some people equate being asked to wear a mask in public is some form of tyranny or as a call to arms. Jesus H. Christ, do these people get their knickers in a knot when asked to wear a shirt or shoes in a grocery store or a restaurant?

Can’t we just be considerate of others? How hard is it to wear a mask when you go to the store? Really, is this the platform for patriots to rise up against a “tyrannical” government? A fucking mask?

The biggest reason I wear a mask?

It’s because my wife is immunocompromised. She has MS, an underlying condition that increases her risk to COVID-19. So yeah, I’m kind of a big believer in wearing a mask in public.

You think I’m a “fucking sheep;” a dolt who is ready to submit to the evil government, the doctors and scientists who are all members of some grand conspiracy because I wear a mask?

Is wearing a mask such a burden? If you think so, can’t you at least be considerate of your fellow human beings?

Just wear a mask. Please

Advocacy: The power of testimonials

March 15, 2016January 24, 2024 ~ Randy Seaver ~ Leave a comment

How do you build support for your project, business or campaign?

There are a lot of tools at your disposal, but one of the most effective tools is garnering support via third-party testimonials.

Third-party voices reinforce your own messaging and they build credibility for your project.

The most powerful persuader in the marketplace, apart from a customer’s own experience, is the opinion of someone they trust, according to Cutting Edge PR.

Authentic testimonials can be produced in both traditional and non-traditional ways: from letters to the editor and op-eds in local newspapers to short videos that can be posted on social media sites such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

Consider the following research:

90 percent of consumers trust peer recommendations over traditional marketing efforts;
81 percent of customers reach out to friends and family members on social networking sites for advice before purchasing products;
59 percent of consumers say user-generated product reviews have a significant impact on their buying behavior.

These trends are just as important when trying to rally support for a community project or a political campaign.

People trust authentic, independent voices.

A campaign sign placed by the side of the road is one thing, but a campaign sign on a person’s lawn reinforces the candidate’s support in the community.

Advocacy works best when it’s delivered by people outside your project team. I have been helping a variety of clients find and recruit third-party endorsers for more than a decade.

Third-party voices are an effective tool with proven results.

I invite you to contact me to discuss how I can put my years of experience in building community support to work for you.

Randy Seaver is a former newspaper reporter and editor. He also has more than two decades of experience as a strategic communications consultant, helping a wide range of clients overcome challenges in the court of public opinion. Learn More

So long, and thanks for all the fish

February 20, 2016January 26, 2024 ~ Randy Seaver ~ 2 Comments

I have a lot in common with my hometown of Biddeford.

I am at a crossroads, and I have decided that all good things must come to an end. It’s been an incredibly fun ride, but it’s time for me to make some changes.

You may have already noticed, but last week I put All Along the Watchtower — my personal blog — to bed.

Going forward, this site will focus solely on my new business venture. The blog posts will be less personal and focused more on subjects such as public policy, politics, economic development, media trends and healthcare.

The timing for this seemed right. For many years, All Along the Watchtower focused primarily on the city of Biddeford and its political infrastructure. Because my wife was recently elected to the Biddeford City Council, it would be increasingly difficult to write about the city objectively.

And then, I decided to start my own business.

Many people have asked why I decided to launch Randy Seaver Consulting. A number of factors converged; some anticipated, some beyond my control.

Laura and I have been talking about doing this for more than a year, and finally the time seemed right. So, I find myself at a crossroads. A proverbial turning point in my life.

It is exciting and simultaneously terrifying. There is no safety net. Either I swim or I drown.

Now, with the disclosure out of the way, I would like to offer a few final thoughts on my hometown of Biddeford, a city that is facing its own crossroads; its own turning point.

Biddeford is in the midst of a renaissance, a revitalization that would be impossible to recognize 15 or 20 years ago. There is a new vibrancy here. The city’s narrative is changing and people all over Maine are noticing.

But still, there is an internal conflict in the city and it’s not so subtle sometimes.

I read something on Facebook recently that left me shaking my head. It was penned by a woman who claimed she moved here three weeks ago.

Essentially, this woman wrote that the city does not need a parking garage because downtown has nothing to offer but crime and crappy businesses. Who would want to come here? Why would they need parking? There is already plenty of street parking because Biddeford — basically — sucks.

I fought the urge to respond to this woman. I had a few questions for her. 1.) Why did you choose to move to Biddeford, if it is truly as bad as you say? 2.) Were you court-ordered to move here? 3.) Did someone force you to live here?

I understand that change is uncomfortable. I am experiencing my own incredible set of changes (and challenges). But change is part of growth while stagnation leads to decay.

I can appreciate the apprehension some people have about the city’s transformation. I also fully support the notion of constructive criticism from people who are worried about being priced out of their homes because of property taxes. These conversations happen in every community across the country.

But Biddeford has something unique, there is a strong element of self-loathing here.

Over the last few months, countless social media accounts have been set up for no other purpose than to spread negativity and vitriol through the city. No solutions are offered, none of these folks step forward to actually do anything other than gripe.

Self-hatred is prevalent here, and I wonder why more of our residents are not rooting for the city’s success. I don’t expect anyone to become a cheerleader. I respect different opinions and perspectives, but if you stay focused on the negative then you will find yourself in a negative place.

I am at a crossroads, and if I want to be successful, I must focus on success.

If I want my clients to succeed then I must keep my energy positive while also remaining open to constructive criticism.

It is the same for my hometown.

I am excited and anxious about my future. It’s no different in Biddeford.

The Outsiders

January 25, 2016January 26, 2024 ~ Randy Seaver ~ Leave a comment

Up until two months ago, most political consultants within the DC Beltway would tell you that you need a “moderate” candidate in order to win an election. That candidate, the consultants would tell you, should be a centrist, an establishment-type, someone who makes most people safe and secure. Someone predictable.

Outsiders, consultants explain, are unknown quantities; unable to steal votes from the sacred independent, middle-of-the-road voters who often carry much weight in so-called purple states like Ohio.

Conventional wisdom dictates that in order to win the general election, the primary candidate has to draw from the middle to outpace his/her opponent.

This presidential race is unlike many other races in recent history, for both the Democrats and the Republicans. But is there any truth in the theory that moderate candidates are effective for either party?

The establishment didn’t work for the GOP

Republicans bristle at the idea of an “establishment” centrist candidate. They point to the last 20 years, in which they have won only two presidential elections after unsuccessfully nominating Bob Dole in 1996, John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012.

In each of those Republican primaries, anti-establishment outsiders were quickly sent packing. Sam Brownback, Jim Gimore and Tom Trancedo were all anti-establishment outsiders in the 2008 GOP race. Rick Santorum, Buddy Roema, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry were all anti-establishment, political outsiders. Where are they today?

The establishment rarely works for Democrats

In 2008, Senator Hillary Clinton’s star was shining brightly. She seemed to be the heir apparent for the Democratic nomination. She was, by definition, a Washington insider and portrayed herself in the same mold as her husband: a pragmatic moderate who could get things done.

But a war-weary electorate was looking for something fresh. They rejected all the insiders (Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Edwards and Bill Richardson), instead rolling the dice on a virtual poltical unknown with almost no experience in Washington DC.

But the election of Barack Obama was an anomaly in politics. It defied conventional wisdom. Clinton’s campaign consultants wound up with egg on their faces.

In 2000, the Democrats took the safe bet with Al Gore, who is about as establishment as they come. Of course, we all know that Gore came within inches of winning that election, and that he was able to sway independent voters. But still, it was not enough.

Four years later, John Kerry, another insider and establishment type fended off political outsiders such as Howard Dean and Wesley Clark. He also beat other insiders Dick Gephardt, Joe Lieberman and Dennis Kucinich.

When outsiders make a splash

Many Republicans still blame billionaire Ross Perot for handing Democrat Bill Clinton a victory over President George HW Bush in 1992; and Democrats still seethe when they speculate about the damage that Ralph Nader played in 2000, supposedly stealing very critical votes from Al Gore.

This campaign cycle, both the Democratic Party and Republicans have their hands filled with so-called outsiders.

I don’t know how you describe Bernie Sanders as an “outsider” because he’s been a part of Washington’s infrastructure for nearly 16 years. But he is most certainly not an “establishment,” middle of the road candidate. He is a self-described socialist, but his poll numbers look good in both Iowa and New Hamshire. He will likely get crushed in South Carolina, but are Democrats fired up enough to “feel the bern” past Nevada?

And then there’s Donald Trump, a candidate who is all over the map. Trump defies every ounce of campaign logic known to man.

The establishment is beside itself. The National Review and Rich Lowry can’t stop him or slow him down. His off-the-cuff remarks about immigrants, Muslims and even war heroes only makes him more popular.

He is an egomaniac who has filed for bankruptcy four times. Yet, he describes himself as a fiscal conservative who can make “America Great Again.” (He’s just short on specifics)

So maybe, just maybe, this will be the year when Republican voters tell the consultants to just stuff it.

She’s a maniac

January 16, 2016January 26, 2024 ~ Randy Seaver ~ 2 Comments

Earlier this week, I sensed a disturbance in the force, and sure enough there was significant shift taking place in the city of Biddeford’s political landscape.

On Thursday afternoon, State Senator David Dutremble, a Democrat from Biddeford, announced that he will not seek a third consecutive term in the Maine Legislature. Within 30 minutes of Dutremble’s announcement, Joanne Twomey, a former state legislator and mayor, announced that she would seek Dutremble’s seat.

Oh, happy day.

And to think I was wondering about the subject of my next blog post.

My phone began ringing off the hook. “What are we going to do?” people asked. “We can’t let this happen.”

Republicans began salivating about the potential of capturing the District 32 seat for the first time in 30 years.

After all, Twomey has lost her last four bids for elected office. She embarrassed herself on the state and national stage by lobbing a jar of Vaseline at Governor Paul LePage during an event in Saco. She was carried out of the room, kicking and screaming.

The woolly mammoth was weakened, and the cavemen fetched their spears.

Over the years, I have watched Twomey closely. She considers me a mortal enemy. She has publicly referred to me as “the Darth Vader of Biddeford.”

Even I toyed with the idea of running for the seat, which brought an almost immediate response from Twomey on Facebook: Look forward to running against a Republican Randy Seaver, nothing would make me happier.

Crazy like a fox

I’m a pretty cynical guy, but even I fell for Joanne Twomey’s self-described narrative of being a champion for the downtrodden.

During her first term as a state representative in 1998, I was working as the editor of the Biddeford-Saco-OOB Courier, and I penned a glowing column about Twomey, describing her “a champion of the people, a fearless advocate for those with no voice within the political power structure.”

She liked me then, and she invited me to her home for a second interview in her back yard, serving fresh fruit, sandwiches and cookies. I threw journalistic ethics out the window and devoured those cookies. (They were awesome)

But as the weeks and months wore on, and as I heard other stories about Twomey and her stint as a city councilor in the early 1990s, my perception changed. I learned that she kept a political enemies list. Once I criticized her for something, my name found its way to that list.

In reality, there is only one thing Twomey cares about: her own political ambition. She refuses to be pragmatic in order to achieve goals. Instead, she conducts herself like a petulant child, stubbornly digging in her heels and shrieking that she is “principled above all else.”

While Twomey tells you that she is principled and fighting the good fight on the side of the angels, take a look at her actual track record.

1.) In 2003, she testified against a proposed casino. In her testimony before the Biddeford City Council, she said: “In my Christmas village, there is no casino.” Seven years later, when she was the mayor and facing a budget pinch because of a new school, she suddenly flipped and quickly became a cheerleader for a another proposed casino in Biddeford.

Principled? Really?

2.) Twomey built her political career on the backs of criticizing the owners of the MERC waste-to-energy facility. In 2009, while seeking a second term as mayor, she held a press conference and was hugging the company’s owners in front of news cameras just two weeks before the election. She said they had come to terms on a solution.

Two weeks later, after securing her re-election bid, she once again reversed her position. Principled? Really?

3.) During Biddeford’s Democratic caucus in 2012, Twomey said the city needed a “real Democrat” in Augusta, failing to mention that she encouraged Democrat State Rep. Paulette Beaudoin to run for her former legislative seat.

But is she a viable candidate?

In the early 1990s, Twomey was removed by police from City Hall, following another hissy fit, when once again her rage trumped manners and decorum. As a state representative, she cried on the House floor when she did not get her way. She is a professional victim and the consummate hypocrite.

But remember this: she has a political base of support in Biddeford. She was elected to four consecutive terms in the Maine House of Representatives. During her last two terms, she beat her Republican challenger by a 2-1 margin. Okay, so…Biddeford rarely elects Republicans and the other candidate was not much of a candidate to begin with.

She made her political comeback in 2007 by winning the mayor’s seat, but it was hardly a mandate. It was a three-way race that included two city councilors: John McCurry and Ken Farley. A mere 38 percent of the city’s voters cast ballots. Twomey won with 1,742 votes. Farley was close behind with 1,573 votes and McCurry finished with 1,052 votes.

Essentially, McCurry and Farley split the moderate vote and let Twomey slide in to office with fewer than 2,000 votes.

Her biggest political victory came two years later, when she sought a second term as mayor. In a four way race, Twomey walked away with 4,100 votes, easily outpacing second-place candidate David Flood (2,640).

Twomey seemed unstoppable. She was a political force to be reckoned with.

The Fall From Grace

In the summer of 2011, I and some other Biddeford residents decided that our city needed a change, and we rallied around another former legislator, Alan Casavant, when he decided to seek the mayor’s seat.

Casavant had also served many years on the city council and was also elected to four consecutive terms in the Maine House of Representatives. But unlike Twomey, he never cried on the State House floor. He never screamed or shrieked when he did not get his way. He is professional, mild-mannered and responsive. He was just what Biddeford needed to clean up its tarnished image.

A lot of people told us we were nuts. They said Twomey could not be defeated. Ethan Strimling chided me for mounting a campaign against a seemingly invincible candidate. Many people in Biddeford, led by Twomey, were advocating for a casino during tough economic times. They saw no other way forward for the city. Casavant had his doubts.

By any measure, Casavant’s campaign was the proverbial long shot. But guess what happened?

Casavant won that election with more than 63 percent of the vote, beating Twomey, 4,165-2,504 with a turnout of 53 percent of voters. Casavant not only beat her, he surpassed even Twomey’s best election result in 2009.

Twomey was stunned and cried before television news cameras.

In 2012, she tried to claim back her state house seat from incumbent Paulette Beaudoin. She lost that primary challenge.

In 2013, she tried to make a comeback as the city’s mayor. Again, Casavant beat her: 2,377-1043.

And last year, she gave up on the mayor’s seat and instead sought one of two at-large seats on the city council. In that five way race, Twomey came in third (1,080), well behind second-place finisher Laura Seaver (1,790)

What does the future hold?

Over the last 18 years, Twomey holds a 6-4 election record. Not that shabby, really.

By contrast, (during the same time period) Casavant holds a 7-1 record.

It remains to be seen who else will run for Dutremble’s seat. It’s a tough job that demands incredible flexibility and a tremendous amount of time with virtually no way to rival a regular income. Twomey, retired, is in a perfect position for that job.

Speaking just for me, Twomey will be a tough candidate to beat. That said, someone sent me a design of her campaign sign this morning, This sign was allegedly designed by Perry Aberle. As a professional campaign consultant, I can tell you that this one of the most horrid and ineffective campaign signs I have ever seen.

But what do I know? I’m just the Darth Vader of Biddeford.

Come to the dark side.

Space Oddity

January 6, 2016January 26, 2024 ~ Randy Seaver ~ Leave a comment

On Tuesday, the new Biddeford City Council voted 8-1 (Mike Ready) to reduce the public comment portion of its municipal officers’ meetings from five minutes to three minutes.

The reaction from some members of the public would make you think that the council had just approved a trade agreement with North Korea.

Now mind you, this particular portion of the council meeting (Public Addressing the Council) has existed since the mid 1990s, but lately it has become a free-for-all hodgepodge of bitching, whining and moaning about things that the mayor and council have no control over.

Despite the new rule, any member of the public is still able to comment on any action item before the council before the council begins discussion on that topic among its members.

The Public Addressing the Council concept was adopted as sort of a bonus round, allowing citizens to speak about items that are not on the council’s agenda.

Some cities and towns, including Maine’s largest cities of Portland and Bangor, also have a portion of their council meetings set aside for public commentary about non-agenda items. Other towns and cities throughout Maine do not have such an accommodation for the public.

The city of Biddeford is not restricting public speech. They could have easily done away with the Public Addressing the Council portion of the meeting. Instead, the city is working diligently to restore civility and decorum in the Council Chambers.

After all, as Shakespeare wrote: “Brevity is the soul of wit.”

Or consider this: President Abraham Lincoln delivered the 272-word Gettysburg Address in less than three minutes, so if you can’t get your point across in three minutes, then you need to learn how to focus.

If you have a problem with the city’s snowplow service, or if you think ambulance rates are too high you should be able to deliver that message succinctly, and three minutes is plenty of time.

If three minutes was enough time for Abraham Lincoln to deliver a historic, landmark address to the nation, then it’s an ample amount of time for raising your gripe with the city council.

NOTE: Four members of the council, including Michael Ready and Laura Seaver, voted in favor an amendment to the overall order that would have kept the time limit at five minutes That amendment, however, failed.

Disclosure: I am married to Biddeford City Councilor Laura Seaver, and I want her home in enough time to massage my feet and fetch my dinner before bedtime.

Who’s your daddy? Student loans, step parents & the government

January 1, 2016January 26, 2024 ~ Randy Seaver ~ 3 Comments

I sometimes wonder if it would have been better for my youngest son if I had not married Laura.

Well, technically speaking, he is not my son. His biological father lives somewhere in Aroostook County and is averse to both work and financial responsibility.

For more than 15 years, I have consistently treated Tim and Matthew as my own sons. I attended the parent teacher conferences. I brag about their accomplishments. I lay awake at night worrying that they will not make the right decisions. I helped with the homework. I taught them to drive and how to kayak. I tell them that I love them. I scold them and discipline them. I never hesitate to give my time, money or other resources to ensure that they are okay.

But they are not my children, and while that may seem cold and misguided, it is a reality that I must accept in order to avoid resentment. It is reality, and at all costs, I must cling to reality as much as possible.

Sometimes I like to fantasize that I live in a different reality. In most ways, our family ignores the fact that we are a “blended family.” The kids call me Dad.

For all intents and purposes, our family functions no differently than any other nuclear family, where both biological parents live in a house with their own children.

But real life is rarely like the Brady Bunch. There are some distinct disadvantages to being a step-parent.

If I could go back in time, I would not change a thing. And before we proceed any further it’s important to remember that our family is not unique. In fact, so-called traditional families are being out-paced by non-traditional families.

Using data from the American Community Survey and the Census Bureau, analysis by the Pew Research Center found that 46 percent of children under 18 live in households headed by two heterosexual parents in their first marriage, compared to 1960 when 73 percent of children fit that description, and in 1980, when 61 percent did.

Translation: more than 50 percent of American families are non-traditional. The new normal.

A double standard: the step-parent trap

Because my youngest son chose not to be adopted or carry my last name (it was always their choice), there are some distinct disadvantages to being a step-parent. For example, I cannot sign any legal documents for them. I cannot authorize medical treatments. I have no custodial rights. When it comes to making many critical decisions, my approval is not necessary. The government, for the most part, considers me a non-entity, and those things are reserved for biological parents.

But there is one notable exception, when the government is only more than happy to give full weight to my role as a step-parent.

And for those of you with college-age children, you can probably guess what that exception is: eligibility determination for federal student financial aid.

While I understand it must be increasingly difficult for the US Department of Education to determine the eligibility status for a growing number of unique family situations, I still think it is unfair that the government insists on considering my financial earnings and records to determine how much student aid Matthew can receive.

If the government were to adhere to recognizing only the legal parents, Matthew would qualify for considerably more financial aid.

A quick search on Google reveals that there are hundreds of stories out there about FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) and its unfairness to blended families.

A 2006 story in the New York Times reveals many of the complexities that non-traditional families face when attempting to secure financial aid for their household children.

“Which parent is responsible for college? What about stepparents’ income? Child support? Just because you think of your family one way doesn’t mean a college will agree. Each sets its own rules on how to define the family, and those definitions have substantial impact on how much money a student can get.”

Theoretically, if I divorced Laura in 2014 (but still lived with her in the same house), Matthew would qualify for more financial aid. The government looks at married couples, not roommates.

Thus, we have set up dysfunctional system that practically begs step parents to cheat, or more likely to avoid becoming step-parents altogether.

Matthew is 18 years old. If I married his mother last year, my income would count. Thus, if you a marry a woman with children that the government considers adults (old enough to sign legal documents, get married and register for the Selective Service) then the government assumes you are prepared to kick-in for their college education.

Does that make sense to you?

Now here’s the part that will make me seem like a cold, heartless bastard. I will not pay for Matthew’s college tuition. This was a conversation Laura and I had before we were married.

I will, however, help Matthew go to college. He can live at home completely rent free during the entire time he is registered as a full-time student. I will feed him and give him money for books, transportation costs, etc. This would greatly reduce the cost of his education if he were to attend the University of New England, the University of Southern Maine or Southern Maine Community College.

But if Matthew chooses a school beyond the logistical realities of living at home, it is up to him to find a way to swing those costs: student loans, grants, scholarships and (gasp) working.

It is my firm belief that this approach will benefit my youngest son by introducing him to the real world while providing him with a safe cushion to fall back upon.

For the record, this is the same approach I would use if I were Matthew’s father instead of his step-father.

So, in the end is Matthew better off because I married his mother so many years ago, or is he worse off?

Considering that I have supported him for most of his life and always treated him like I would my own child, I would say he is ultimately better off, even if the government will penalize him because of my income. And that, folks, is the real step-parent trap.