On Wednesday, a column you wrote was published in the Los Angeles Times, and it can be found online at http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-000007462jan30.story. Your implication seems to be that President Bush was refusing to meet with you during spring 2001 to discuss California’s energy problems. After documenting a handful of failures to schedule meetings with his staff, you say "something is wrong when a senator representing 35 million Californians is not able to talk personally to the president."

I find this fascinating, after nine years of providing you with the constituent input you say you want, only to have such commentary disappear into the ether. For me, your e-mail address is a sinkhole. Thus it is with anyone who disagrees with you; that’s your reputation. You’re having trouble meeting with the President? My heart bleeds.

But Senator Feinstein trying to get a personal meeting with the President, is different from Constituent Freeberg trying to get a reply from Senator Feinstein. I never demanded to see you personally. I’d just like some input. Since you claim to represent "35 million Californians" and I’m one of those, I figure I’m entitled.

You are a legislator and are thus sworn, in some manner, to represent me. Bush is an executive and has no similar obligation to you. A third important difference is that I have done nothing to injure, annoy, or to hinder you. During the timeframe you mention in your column, you and Senator Boxer obstructed several judicial appointments in a naked and pointed effort to communicate your displeasure with Bush. See http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pgigot/?id=95000445.

In that situation, your attempts to get an audience with a President Freeberg would have been even more frustrating. I think Mr. Bush was very nice with you.

But I am pleased that you believe in elected officials showing consideration to the interests of the governed. I’m re-submitting to you my comments about energy price controls, which I originally sent nine months ago. You didn’t reply; perhaps you were busy demanding meetings with the President. You need to see this because you seem to think Californians are united behind the price control concept. If I’m a Californian, that’s not the case.

You’ll just have to take my word that Enron executives didn’t meet with me, or tell me what to think about price controls.

Sincerely,

Morgan K. Freeberg
Voter, California 4th Congressional District

Referenced letter originally sent May 27, 2001:

To: senator@feinstein.senate.gov
Date: May 27, 2001
Subject: Energy price controls are BAD, BAD, BAD!!!
cc: senator@Boxer.senate.gov, doolittle@mail.house.gov

Dear Senator Feinstein,

You and I both know price caps don’t work. This letter addresses what the rest of your potential voters know about it. Price controls are a political loser.

Evidently, you don’t see that just yet. In your statement about Benedict Jeffords, you express the hope that you can now pass a wholesale energy price cap bill you have sponsored.

Governor Davis has invested his political future in price caps and other socialistic remedies. A rising hopeful for the Presidency just half a year ago, today he is a lame duck. I refer you to the link below, but you could probably get a feel for what’s going on just by entering "Davis Favorability" into any search engine.

http://www.cnsnews.com/Politics/archive/200105/POL20010525a.html

We’re not in the 1930s anymore. Americanized socialism can’t earn four terms in the presidency today; it brings electoral defeat, as it always should have. People have become more educated and responsible - - - it’s widely known that price controls started the problem we have in the first place. They are fraught with problems. The biggest concern by far is that price controls reduce supply. Our energy problem is an issue of supply & demand. Placing the supply in jeopardy will only exacerbate the situation.

An idealistic senator sincerely interested in solving our energy woes, would expunge her agenda of any support of price controls. A self-interested one, motivated purely by political expediency and lust for power, ought to do the same. Thought you’d like to know.

Sincerely,

Morgan K. Freeberg
Voter, California 4th Congressional District