Mulish Behavior

The Free Press, Open Government, and Sally Fox

2010-10-28T19:27:00.000-07:00

I was stunned to read the list of Free Press endorsements for Chittenden County Senate. The Free Press predicated its Senate endorsements for Chittenden County on transparency and accountability in government. It went so far to say it is the "number one issue of this campaign."

Given that, the Free Press endorsement of Republican Charles Smith defies logic. Smith was part of a Douglas Administration that relied on something called the "deliberative process privilege" to stymie transparency in government and keep government documents away from the pesky prying eyes of the public. But, don't take my word for it. Here's an excerpt from a Peter Freyne column in Seven Days from 2005 when Smith was AHS Secretary under Jim Douglas:

"The Guv already has executive privilege, but now argues Vermont should embrace what's called the "deliberative process privilege" to protect agency and department records from public view. He notes it is recognized in other states and also by the federal government.

Douglas won round one last summer when Washington County Superior Judge Matthew Katz cited the "deliberative process privilege" in denying public access to two documents sent by Commissioner Patrick Flood to Charles Smith who at the time was the secretary of the Agency of Human Services."

How does that square with the Free Press' endorsement of Smith? It doesn't. Instead, the Free Press seems to fall for the old canard of "balance" (meaning, we'd rather at least one other Republican to endorse for the sake of numbers, rather than worry about being intellectually consistent) and chose to contradict its own stated "number one issue" of the campaign.

A better choice would have been to endorse the obvious alternative: Sally Fox.

Sally is a former State Representative and has chaired the powerful House Appropriations Committee. As such, she's well aware of both the intricacies of government and the importance of public access to information. She's spent most of her career involved in public service in one form or another (both in the House, and as an advocate). Given the fact the state faces a huge $120 million budget deficit, wouldn't it have made more sense to endorse someone with both expertise in the critical area of government appropriations and open government?

The fact is the Free Press blew this call according to its own criteria. If you live in Chittenden County and care about the budget deficit and government accountability one of your six votes for State Senate should go to Sally Fox on election day.

Dubie's World: Targeting the Poor is Pure Vermont

2010-09-13T17:33:00.001-07:00

Today Brian Dubie issued either a freudian slip... or the truth. You choose. In a debate with Sen. Peter Shumlin on the Charlie and Ernie Show on WVMT, Dubie said that the programs he will cut to balance the budget will "target the most vulnerable." Later, his campaign manager said that is not what he meant. I guess, my question is what does he mean? If he's not talking about "reforming" the programs that benefit the most vulnerable, then what programs is he talking about? He said precisely what he meant... the truth just happened to slip out.

Coincidentally, Senate Republicans in Washington today demanded more tax cuts for the rich. Hmm. Goes hand in hand with Dubie's pledge to reduce taxes on the super-rich in Vermont. Target the poor, and hand out the money to rich folks. Nice. This is sticking up for the middle class and working Vermonters? At least they're honest.

In Brian Dubie's (and the GOP's) world, "targeting" the poor to provide tax cuts for the rich is Pure Vermont.

Brian Dubie: Invisible Man, Invisible Plan

2010-09-11T18:39:00.000-07:00

Brian Dubie has finally released his so-called "economic plan" after taking the summer off - he is truly the "invisible man" of Vermont politics (what other politician can you think of who would unveil the centerpiece of their campaign and then give the press 12 minutes to ask questions before bolting without providing any details - maybe in keeping with his latest "marathon" gimmick he could spend 26.2 minutes answering questions next time he calls a press conference). Meanwhile, the Democrats criss-crossed the state, met with voters to hear their concerns, honed their platforms and generally campaigned on ending the Bush-Douglas-Dubie recession through responsible balanced budgeting, comprehensive health care reform, and policies that encourage both employers and workers. Peter Shumlin won the primary fair and square and now the general election race is on.

The contrast between what Peter Shumlin and the Democrats offer and what Dubie is offering could not be more stark. Shumlin and the Democrats will help Vermont weather the Republican Recession by targeting help to Vermont businesses, maintaining essential services, avoiding lay-offs and stabilizing our workforce, while minimizing the harm to the most vulnerable in the budget. Dubie's plan appears to be a series of slogans and nothing in the way of specifics with respect to what programs and services he will cut after his $250 million tax cut giveaway to the richest Vermonters. He is truly the "invisible man" with an "invisible plan."

The good news for Peter Shumlin and the Democrats is that this election will be won or lost on the economy. And, they are going to make Dubie own the disastrous economy that he and Jim Douglas' policies have foisted on Vermonters over the last 8 years. Dubie's platitudes and unwillingness to disclose specifics on how he would balance the budget show he is not ready for prime-time, and that he has no real solution for what ails our economy. His "proposal" will usher in an era of permanent budget crisis that Vermonters cannot afford. In sum, the Dubie plan is simply "deficits as far as the eye can see."

Yesterday, the New York Times panned tax cuts as good for politics, but bad for the economy. The article simply confirms what we already know: the empty promises of "trickle-down" economics promised by Brian Dubie do nothing to help the economy. In fact, the economists commenting in the article point out that the recession is a function of weak demand, not supply. So, supply-side economics will do little to nothing to stimulate the economy because even if suppliers use the money for investment (a big "if" since as we know, many of the wealthiest who do not need the money will simply pocket, or save it), the problem is that nobody is buying. There is no demand. Their conclusion? Put the money into direct stimulus programs that are proven effective: unemployment benefits, temporary assistance for needy families, food stamps, job training, etc. That money goes directly into the economy, and creates demand for other goods and services. Read the article here.

So much for Brian Dubie's "economic plan."

Vermonters must ask themselves: did Jim really = Jobs? If so, where are they? Are you better off now than you were 8 years ago? The vast majority of Vermonters are not. Brian Dubie is offering more of the same. We cannot afford the unfulfilled promises of the GOP and Brian Dubie. The Republican prescription for what ails our economy leads to increasing poverty (ironically, the article notes that the increase will take place on "Obama's watch"... of course, it is only as a result of the Bush era economic policies - had President Obama and the Democrats not intervened with the stimulus package, extended unemployment benefits and more, the incidence of poverty in the U.S. right now would be even greater) and more people in homeless shelters. It's time to give the Democrats a shot to turn our economy around ensuring Vermont is poised to take advantage of the recovery when it comes.

Toles Nails It...

2010-09-09T17:42:00.000-07:00

Tom Toles, editorial cartoonist at the Washington Post neatly summarizes the mood of the electorate... or so the GOP hopes:

-We are fine with the trend of an ever-greater share of the American economy going to the very richest people. We like a tax policy that encourages this trend. We don't feel that power follows wealth and so do not fear any negative consequences from this.

-We oppose any actually workable plans to rationalize the health care system in this country and feel that the long trends of ever-increasing costs for ever-shrinking coverage will fix themselves.

-We prefer more religion in government and schools and less science, and we feel this will lead to good outcomes.

-An opinion that climate science is wrong will make it be wrong.

-Deficits didn't matter before, but now they are all we can think about.

-We blame President Obama for the bad economy, but anything he does about it can only make things worse and make us blame him even more.

-We like Republicans even less than Democrats but plan to elect them in a landslide, and that this will improve things.

Did I miss anything? --Tom Toles

Souter's Supreme Smackdown (Or, "How I Learned to Love the Constitution and Put 'Originalism' to Rest")

2010-06-04T04:50:00.000-07:00

Anyone who pays attention to the U.S. Supreme Court knows that for the last generation an epic battle has been taking place over the role of constitutional interpretation. The old Warren Court and its progeny read the Constitution as a competing body of rights and laws that, taken together with specific facts of individual cases gave us a broader understanding of constitutional rights (e.g., a view that "separate" is "not equal" and/or, for example, a "right to privacy"). Conservatives, notably the Federalist Society led by Justice Antonin Scalia, have been trying for years to whittle away at our rights by interpreting the constitution as a "literal" document, something they call "originalism" which would greatly limit the Court's ability to protect many of the rights and responsibilities many Americans have come to believe are bedrock principles of our jurisprudence.

But even Justices in the middle are pushing back on this excessively narrow and limited view of the Constitution. That is, a limitation on the essential core of "judging." Most notably recently retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter.

The Washington Post ran a recent opinion column by E.J. Dionne on a speech given by Justice Souter at Harvard University's commencement ceremony. Souter, was the "quiet" Justice from neighboring New Hampshire, appointed by George H.W. Bush in 1990, who retired in June of 2009. He now continues to serve on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as an active Justice.

The press, rather simplistically, has mistakenly characterized Souter's remarks as a defense of "judicial activism," when really it is a repudiation of the judicial activism practiced by those on the right -- the theory that the Constitution must be read as a static, literal document, inflexible, inviolate, and irrelevant to our times. In short, Souter's remarks are a clear refutation of the illogical approach of the Federalist Society and others on the right with respect to constitutional interpretation (what they like to think of as "originalism" or the philosophy that we can (and must) resolve all of modern society's legal conundrums by a strict "fair reading" (Souter's words) of the Constitution).

Souter's point is that the Constitution sets out many general legal and moral principles that are frequently in conflict with one another (e.g., "liberty" vs. "security" and/or "equality") thereby precluding a simple literal reading. Rather, judges are required to weigh these principles against one another in the context of the facts of a given case and contemporary legal, moral, and ethical norms. That is, taking into account our societal values, not as a determinative factor, but perhaps as context for a decision based on the law, but also not so disconnected from the reality of society that you couldn't have, for example, a decision like Brown v. Board of Education, which would not have been possible from an originalist perspective. Does that mean, according to Justice Scalia, the Federalist Society (and others) that Brown should be overruled?
It is troubling that this is the logical extension of originalist theory in the context of important decisions like Brown.

In fact, the "originalist" philosophy, far from being a mainstream judicial philosophy, is more akin to statements made by people like Rand (and Ron, for that matter) Paul and the Tea Party Movement. Paul, who recently won a primary contest in Kentucky for a U.S. Senate seat flatly stated that the federal government had no business ending segregation at lunch counters and other private establishments serving the public through the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Anyone interested in reading more about Souter's remarks and their impact should also see the New York Times Saturday editorial, and Linda Greenhouse's blog on the New York Times website.

Finally, a pitch to check out "The Nine," Jeffrey Toobin's excellent book about the current U.S. Supreme Court which gets to the heart of the politics of the most recent Court members and their judicial philosophies.

Lovers of liberty and constitutional freedom should take heart... most mainstream legal scholars, and even moderate retired Justices of the Court recognize that a return to the 19th century and the days of Plessy v. Ferguson is not in the best interests of all Americans.

A Better Way to Fix the Unemployment Fund

2010-04-28T17:27:00.000-07:00

The Brattleboro Reformer endorsed an unemployment fix today that would gradually increase employer contributions and avoid benefit cuts to laid off workers and their families - a position we have advocated for months. You can read the editorial here. The Burlington Free Press also ran the following op-ed on the same topic today:

If you could restore the unemployment fund without cutting benefits and with less harm to employers would you do it? Of course. Yet the Douglas Administration continues to preach doom and gloom regarding the insolvent Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund unless it gets its way which includes higher taxes on employers and cuts to laid-off workers and their families. Another proposal would even tax workers to solve the problem. What the Administration has failed to tell most Vermonters, however, is that there is a better way to solve the unemployment fund problem: one that minimizes the impacts to both employers, avoids benefit cuts to laid-off workers and their families, and doesn’t tax working Vermonters.

A legislative study committee tasked with reviewing this issue spent months talking to employers, workers, and policy experts and came to the conclusion that the fund could be solvent by 2016 with smaller increases in the taxable wage base of employers through that year and no benefit cuts to unemployed workers. That’s a win-win for Vermonters.

Inexplicably, neither the Administration nor a bill introduced in the Senate have been able to solve this thorny problem without hammering working Vermont families as a prerequisite to restoring the fund. The National Employment Law Project (NELP) says the proposed benefit cuts are the worst in the nation. The Administration’s plan would also levy higher taxes on employers through 2015 than the study committee’s approach. The Administration likes to say it has a “balanced” approach to this problem. But, the Administration's "balanced approach" simply offers "pain" and "more pain." That is hardly the kind of "balance" most Vermonters want or need.

The key to restoring the fund is to make adjustments to employer contributions over time, and eventually to index contributions to the fund so that corrections ensuring solvency are made automatically in the future. Shifting the burden onto the backs of the unemployed or Vermont workers is not good for the economy, and destabilizes families who can least afford it. Benefit cuts would also result in more than $100 million taken out of the economy over four years. In tough economic times that is a recipe for prolonging the recession. A long overdue adjustment to employer contributions is something everyone has agreed is essential - including the Administration and employers - and it would minimize the harm to Vermonters and the impact on the Vermont economy.

Cynics might suggest that the attempt to shift the burden onto the unemployed and working families is the beginning of an attempt to force workers to ultimately pay for what has traditionally been an employer-sponsored insurance plan. Unemployment insurance has been part of the cost of doing business since its inception, and it has been a remarkably effective way to maintain workforce readiness during periods of temporary economic uncertainty. That bedrock principle of the fund should remain intact.

Vermont’s leaders should do everything possible to put the unemployment fund on the road to recovery as soon as possible - but not at the expense of Vermont’s labor force. Twenty-five years of inaction with respect to the taxable wage base created this shortfall, and it will take time and effort to restore the fund. But, the notion that unemployed workers and their families, or employees should pay to solve a problem they did not cause is both unjustified and unreasonable.

It is also far outside the mainstream of what other states are doing to deal with this problem - 35 states are raising employer contributions to restore their UI funds, while just 3 have made very minor benefit cuts. The Administration’s plan is far and away the most radical benefit grab in the nation. Its approach would destabilize families and impede the ability of Vermont workers to get back to work as quickly as possible by putting a hole in the economic lifeboat that keeps them afloat.

Vermont lawmakers have wisely resisted the Administration's attempts to create a panic mentality on this important issue. The best way to restore the unemployment fund is to do the one thing that everyone agrees on: gradually adjust employer contributions gradually over time to minimize the pain over the next few years and ensure the long-term viability of the fund.

Murray Hill Incorporated for Congress...

2010-03-14T07:59:00.000-07:00

Coming soon to a congressional district near you... corporations running for office. Thanks, U.S. Supreme Court!

While it's nice that this company has a sense of humor, it's a pretty sad commentary on the state of our country. This really crystallizes the point that corporations have bought and paid for our democracy. They are calling the shots and citizens and their interests have been forced to take a backseat when it comes to setting the policies and priorities of our nation. See the effort to derail health care reform as Exhibit A.

Remember in November: GOP Blocking, Cutting Unemployment Benefits

2010-03-01T16:42:00.000-08:00

If you have lost your job, or if you know someone who has lost their job - maybe a friend of family member - remember who kicked you when you were down.

Here in Vermont the Douglas/Dubie Administration and its allies are doing everything it can to balance the unemployment fund on the backs of laid off workers and working people. The Administration has been pushing to cut benefits to unemployed workers and their families for months. Meanwhile, a bill introduced in the Senate with Republican backing has proposed both cuts to benefits and a tax to be levied on all Vermont workers to pay for the failure of employers to keep up contributions for the last quarter century. This is akin to taxpayers bailing out Wall Street for its failure to observe even the most basic tenets of fiscal responsibility.

If you want conclusive proof of just how bad things have got with respect to the GOP's view of those who have lost their jobs in the Bush-Douglas recession, look no further than the poster-boy for anti-worker sentiment, Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky. Never mind that unemployment rates in Kentucky are 10.4% and rising as of December. Bunning has repeatedly blocked efforts to extend unemployment benefits to millions of struggling unemployed families across America.

It's reprehensible. And, he knows it. Later, when ABC News attempted to question Sen. Bunning about his votes against extending these essential benefits, he refused to elaborate and then gave the astonished reporters the finger. The only reason someone would get that defensive about a vote is because he knows it is not a principled vote. You can check out the story and video here.

So, when election time rolls around and you're wondering who's got your back if you lose your job... remember it was the GOP who said no to benefits for laid off workers and their families. That includes the Douglas/Dubie Administration that has aggressively pushed for benefit cuts in Vermont.

My Wife Went to the Climate Talks in Copenhagen and All I Got Was this Lousy Blog Post

2010-03-01T11:04:00.001-08:00

One of the joys of having a traveling spouse/partner is that you get to live vicariously through their experiences. Back in November, my wife went to Copenhagen for the climate talks. I stayed home doing the usual routine of work and juggling our two-year old. So I got to hear all about the trip (which sounded pretty darn cool), but there was a paucity of photos. Little did I know that she had scrapped the clunky digital camera in favor of her iPhone camera (easier to toss into a handbag, or cross a line of picketing protesters)... and they were all squirreled away there. So, after snapping a few pics of our son after cross-country skiing at Ole's the other day, I came across this stash of great first-hand photos of Copenhagen. Hence, this post.

I know, I know the Climate talks were a bust (and a lifetime ago in political time - does anyone still remember that at the time this was a pretty big deal?!). Still, it was an amazing spectacle of people genuinely concerned about the future well-being of the planet and its inhabitants. Figuring out how to soothe mother nature, transition to a new energy future, and do it all while maintaining the global economy is no easy task. So, while leaders from around the world grabbed headlines and accomplished little, what really struck me were the every day people who also converged to make their concerns and their hopes known - the protesters, business leaders, non-governmental organizations, and students who all make up essential, constructive parts of the climate solution were all in evidence, and they may be the key to making a dent in the carbon dioxide problem. Starting locally, and firmly rooted in economic opportunity. So, while an intergovernmental treaty remains elusive it was still worth the effort. Whoever said making progress is easy?!

Highlights of the experience included watching creative protesters at work, seeing the African delegation walk out of the talks (temporarily) as a result of not feeling heard or represented. While it may seem messy, this is democracy writ large, and it illustrated the competing concerns of the various players.

In short, people give a damn. They care about what happens.

Plus, Denmark is really cool. They have beautiful architecture...

And, as a bonus, the Danes have put their money where their mouths are by putting wind to work for them at every turn (see wind turbine above). One of the signal highlights of Abby's trip was a ferry boat tour of the offshore windfarm that is helping to produce 20% of Denmark's electricity. Amazing. If the Danes can do it, so can we.

The Danes are descendants of a people who depended on water and wind to get by: the Vikings.

Guess those Vikings knew a few things after all. Everything old is new again...

Eventually we're going to have to deal with this issue. Maybe not now, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of our lives (with apologies to Humphrey Bogart).
Someday our old coal-burning power plants are going to resemble something akin to this old boat and people will wonder how we ever got by with those remarkable antiques.

Rainy Days for Reach Up Program

2010-02-20T11:14:00.000-08:00

Is it raining yet? Well, that may all depend on who you are. We all feel the economic uncertainty of this recession. But, the storm of the recession affects us differently depending on our ability to weather it. Those in the top income brackets see the clouds and feel a steady drizzle. Not pleasant, but certainly not life-threatening. Middle-income earners are caught in a heavy rain without an umbrella and they're soaked. Low-income workers and those reliant on public assistance, however, are soaked through, chilled to the bone, and near drowning with no prospect of help on the way. It's time to use the rainy day fund and other revenue sources to help balance the budget and aid those most in need of assistance.

The Douglas administration recently proposed cutting more than $53 million from the budget of the Agency of Human Services, affecting thousands of Vermonters who rely on its services. Six million dollars in cuts alone come from the Department for Children and Families (DCF). A large share of that comes out of the pockets of those with the least: families on welfare, or "Reach Up." For many low-income Vermont families, every day is a rainy day involving a scramble to find enough money to just get by. Using the rainy day fund now would avoid detrimental cuts to Vermont families in need and provide immediate stimulus to the economy because the money does not need to be raised and would be spent immediately.

Reach Up recipients have a hard time finding work. For example, one recent DCF annual report showed a 28 percent increase in barriers (lack of transportation, housing, etc.) to employment over a one-year period. A proposed 20 percent cut to support services that help eliminate those barriers means more families will find it difficult to move from welfare to work. That could cost the state more in the long run. The state should be looking for ways to preserve funding to overcome barriers to employment.

The administration has proposed counting almost 1,100 families' disability payments from SSI against them for purposes of determining eligibility for benefits. Recently, other states like Massachusetts have considered and rejected eliminating the SSI disregard. Reach Up households that have disabled family members face more challenges and therefore are least equipped to absorb additional cuts, or worse, be deemed ineligible because of their receipt of SSI.

Elimination of innovative programs like Reach Ahead (a modest $50-$100 per month in food support for families leaving Reach Up) will be a hardship to those families who go without, and will ensure Vermont has a harder time meeting its federal work participation requirements because those recipients are counted as part of our work participation rate. If Vermont continues to fall short of federal mandates, we run the risk of penalties that will prove costly to the state.

Other states are beginning to question the wisdom of simply trying to cut their way out of budget crisis, and are instead finding ways to equitably address revenue and preserve essential programs and services. Oregon citizens, for example, just voted overwhelmingly to increase income and corporate taxes on those with the greatest ability to pay. We should likewise question whether budget cuts that disproportionately affect low-income people are the only way to resolve our budget crisis.

The Reach Up program is just one important program of many that should not fall prey to a "cut at all costs" mentality. Vermont must not abandon its commitment to those in need. We are fortunate to have a rainy day fund containing $60 million. We should use it. Immediately. After that we should put everything on the table with fairness and sustainability as cornerstones of any budget solution. Considering sources of new revenue, rainy day funds and budget cuts together is a balanced approach to solving our budget woes. And it would provide a little shelter from the storm for all Vermonters.

Originally published in the Burlington Free Press and Times Argus.

Fair and Balanced - The Oregon Way

2010-01-27T16:15:00.000-08:00

That's right. I'm not talking about Fox News, I'm talking about Oregon voters. Yesterday, voters went to the polls approving two major tax hikes - one on individuals making more than $125,000 per year (or $250,000 for households), and one on corporations.

The conventional wisdom was that in Oregon any tax hike put to the voters would go down to defeat. In the end it wasn't even close. Voters showed their common sense and commitment to essential programs and services. Measures 66 and 67 passed by 54-46 and 53-47 percentage margins, respectively. Together, they will provide almost $750 million in new revenue to the state of Oregon.

The good news for anyone interested in ensuring that everyone pays their fair share, is that other states are now looking to follow suit: Washington state and California are now considering doing the same. Could Vermont be next?

Challenged and (Short) Changed?

2010-01-25T16:49:00.000-08:00

The buzz at the beginning of the legislative session was that the Administration and its private contractor Public Strategies Group (or "PSG") had found $38 million in "savings" and "efficiencies" in the budget through its new report "Challenges for Change." You can read the report here.

Some of the language in the report is a little puzzling. For example:

“These challenges are not just about money; they are about better results with less money. In contrast to a “cut,” challenges give Vermonters hope that at least some of the budget balancing solution will be a winner for them.”

Takeaway: "Cuts" are not actually "cuts." A little Orwellian for my taste. Best of all, these cuts will give us "hope" and make us all "winners."

Or, consider the speed at which the report urges adoption of its recommendations:

"'Design' can be a structured, rapid process for adding a lot of the necessary meat to the bones of these challenges. It can even take place during the upcoming legislative session so that legislators and the Governor can see more specifics before approving the concept. Good designs can be produced in two to three weeks if the design process is intensively supported with people facile in new thinking."

Takeaway: Don't sweat the details. These cuts are best made quickly, by “facile” thinkers. And, if you oppose them you’re obviously just stuck in the “old way of thinking” and clearly are not a “facile” new thinker.

Hmm. What about taking opposing views and/or debating the recommendations of the report:

"There will be great resistance to every one of these challenges. This is natural; in fact, it is desirable because the resistance can teach us what we need to know to make the changes successful. We have found that the best approach is not to try to overcome the resistance, but rather, to embrace it. Embracing the resistance does not mean yielding to it."

Takeaway: Resistance is futile.

So, what's it going to cost Vermont's essential programs and services?

"The eight challenges issued here will address an estimated $38 million general funds and $12 million in property tax pressure in FY 2011. In FY 2012, after full implementation, it is estimated to reduce spending $72 million in general funds and $26 million in property tax pressures."

Umm. $38 million now? And, $72 million later? Wow. A total of $110 million. Who knew this much money was just lying around?!

Oh, but it's actually not just efficiencies or money to be had. It actually does require cuts after all (unspecified cuts, but cuts nonetheless). You see the report actually highlights each section by providing how much a percentage will be cut (e.g., 5% in Human Services in FY 2011 and another 10% in FY 2012) followed by a bunch of platitudinous bureaucratic gobbledy-gook that seems to be trying awfully hard to disguise it.

In addition, the report advises that Vermont should establish so-called "charter agencies" with wide latitude to make new rules, policies and procedures and cut through bureaucratic red-tape. Trouble is that bureaucratic red-tape is there for a reason. State agencies can't just unilaterally act. They must abide by federal and state laws and regulations. Those laws and regulations are in place to ensure the proper distribution of funds, to protect recipients (due process anyone?), and to assure that certain outcomes are met. Is it always the most efficient vehicle with the best outcomes? Nope. But, it usually does OK, and it balances the rights of individuals, the interest of taxpayers who provide the funds, and fair outcomes with the needs of administering the various programs.

The charter agency idea has been tried. Once. In Iowa. After five years of experimenting, the state allowed the authorizing language to sunset. Nobody wanted to go back. While at least one writer claims that the end result was that certain efficiencies and practices did come out of the exercise, the charter agency idea itself was not the answer:

"I was not a big fan of charter agencies," says state Senator Jeff Danielson, who did his Master of Public Administration thesis on the misuse of performance measures in government. "I viewed it as kind of a fad, as basically the culmination of the privatization movement where you tell an agency to be entrepreneurial and operate on its own, but the reality is they still had to deal with legislative oversight and rules."

You can read the whole article here.

Many Vermonters are increasingly questioning just where the $38 million in "savings" will come from and how it will affect Vermonters. There are many unanswered questions about this plan: How will it affect low-income and working Vermonters? Who will be monitoring the program to ensure results? What happens if the savings are not as great as claimed? What is the interplay between "deregulating" state agencies and the federal and state requirements the state must comply with? Put another way: is this even legally possible? And, even if it is... is it advisable?

Let's hope that all these questions are asked and answered by the legislature before any action is taken to adopt this plan. Vermonters should be assured that the end result is not a challenge only to low-income people who get short-changed in the process.

Budget Boogaloo

2010-01-25T05:20:00.000-08:00

Some of you Beatles fans out there may recall the fabulous solo careers launched by the breakup of the Fab Four. Paul gave us Wings, John gave us the Plastic Ono Band, George gave us enlightenment, and Ringo? Well, Ringo gave us an "All-Star Band," that cinematic cult classic "Caveman" and "Back-Off Boogaloo."

What does this have to do with Vermont and our current budget predicament? Well, Jim Douglas, like Ringo, continues to playback the same setlist he's relied on for seven years and counting. And, while we can forgive Ringo his song-writing trangressions because he's charming, peace-loving, and gosh darnit, people just like him, we can't say the same for Jim. Jim's latest opus is the budgetary equivalent of Back-off Boogaloo. An uninspired, repetitive mish-mash that ultimately takes us nowhere. Actually, come to think of it, maybe there's another Beatles song that better sums up Douglas' tenure: "Nowhere Man."

He's a real nowhere man
Sitting in his nowhere land
Making all his nowhere plans for nobody

Doesn't have a point of view
knows not where he's going to
...
Nowhere man please listen
You don't know what you're missing
Nowhere man, The world is at your command

He's as blind as he can be
Just sees what he wants to see
Nowhere man, can you see me at all
Nowhere man don't worry
Take your time, don't hurry
Leave it all till somebody else
Lends you a hand

I'm not the only one thinking in musical terms about the latest budget issued by the Douglas Administration. Dolly Fleming of the Coalition of Vermont Elders leads with a musical analogy, but then sums up the problem with this budget nicely in the Free Press: "Calling for efficiencies and redesign cannot be an excuse to downsize and abdicate the state's responsibilities to help preserve the dignity, security and well-being of vulnerable Vermonters. We are our neighbors' keepers and we need public structures, services and supports in place. This is not something a civilized society does only when convenient or in prosperous times." Full column here.

While this budget proposes to raise property taxes on the middle class (by reducing income sensitivity for middle-class homeowners and transferring teacher retirement oligations to the education fund) it does nothing to solve our long-term budget problems. Because there is no revenue solution, Vermont may find itself right back where we are again next year and the year after. Even the Burlington Free Press (usually a knee-jerk champion of the lower taxes mantra) acknowledges that now is not the time to rollback the modest tax adjustments that were passed last year to address part of the problem. We would do far better if we all shared the burden, imposed a temporary income tax surcharge that provided enough sustainable revenue to get through the recession intact. In short, we would all be better off if we just tried to get by "with a little help from our friends."

The Protected Class...

2010-01-20T18:01:00.000-08:00

Governor Douglas continues to do his best to look out for a special, protected class of Vermont citizens. Who is this special minority Diamond Jim has taken an interest in through the years? Kids? The elderly? The disabled?

Nope. Rich people. To his credit, he has at least been consistent in his choice of interest group. He has consistently sought to provide special treatment for those with the most among us. Close the capital gains loophole? He opposed it. Support for the Bush tax cuts that benefited the super-rich in this country (and squandered the Clinton budget surpluses)? For it. More taxpayer dollars for private corporations ($25 million at last request, through VEGI). For it. Yep, he's consistently been a friend to the have's at the expense of the have nots. But, his largesse may finally be catching up to him thanks to a recession brought on by the trickle-down policies he supported throughout his tenure during the Bush years. And, I'm not the only one noticing.

Indeed, the "Great Recession" as it's popularly become known, was brought on by the reckless fiscal policy of the ultra conservatives in the Republican party. The deregulation that led to massive investment in toxic assets on Wall Street that led to a severe market crash, the unscrupulous lending practices of mortgage brokers who instantly flipped bad loans to other corporate entities, which were then packaged by real estate investment groups and sold as risky investments on Wall Street - all of it was a direct result of the "less is more" laissez-faire approach to economics that Douglas and his buddies in the GOP blindly subscribed to over the last decade. Well, it ruined many a 401-k retirement fund, led to massive layoffs, and the result is that state's are now feeling the pinch of lower revenues leading to huge fiscal crises in state budgets around the country.

So, here we are in Vermont with a $150 million budget gap. And, Douglas trots out the same old plan as last year: Cut your way out. In addition to calling for massive cuts this time around, however, Douglas is adding a new and insulting wrinkle: tax the middle class by raising property taxes, but pretend that you're not really doing it. It's insulting because he doesn't think people will figure out that his plan is all about raising taxes on the middle class. Worse, it's not a shared burden. The highest income earners are left out! The people Douglas wants to soak are not the rich, but the folks in the middle who are struggling with mortgage payments, childcare costs, and stagnating wages.

Douglas is proposing reducing income sensitivity for middle-class property taxpayers which will immediately raise their property taxes. And, on top of that he's going back to the well with his plan to shift teacher retirement commitments from the general fund to the education fund which will force local school districts to either eviscerate their local school budgets or raise taxes themselves.

But, raise a nickel from anyone who took a ride on the Bush gravy train throughout the last decade? Nope. The joke is that the governor is fond of saying "we're all in this together." What he really means is that we're all on our own. But Douglas and his "protected class" are indeed in this together. To the great detriment of the rest of us, and the future of the state of Vermont. Some joke.

Here's hoping the legislature charts a more responsible, sustainable course. A balanced approach would immediately tap the rainy day fund infusing $60 million into our economy. As the Public Assets Institute recently showed, this would provide immediate and much needed stimulus to our local economy and eliminate a huge chunk of the budget gap. The legislature should then identify on a case-by-case basis any responsible savings, efficiencies or budget cuts for non-essential programs and services. And, finally, the legislature should look at the remainder and implement a fair, sustainable income-tax surcharge weighted most heavily on those who can most afford it. Such a strategy would ensure that we are truly "all in this together" and that we come out of it stronger and better positioned for the future.

To do anything less is to join Jim Douglas with his head in the sand.

Health Care Reform: A Moral Issue

2009-08-30T11:44:00.000-07:00

Bill Moyers has been running a great series on his PBS program, Bill Moyers' Journal. He's compared the U.S. health care system to other nations which provide comprehensive, quality, universal health care coverage. He's talked to former insurance executives who are just now speaking out against the corporate practices in which they engage (both to thwart efforts at reform, and in denying coverage generally), and he's been on the interview circuit talking about how and why health care reform is a moral issue that continues to be appropriated by big money interests at the expense of ordinary American citizens.

And, if you don't believe Moyers, just listen to this former CIGNA executive (Wendell Potter) he interviewed recently:

Must viewing for anyone interested in the current national dialogue over health care in America.

Greenwashed: Jim Douglas versus the environment

2009-07-01T20:10:00.000-07:00

Recently, Gov. Douglas was nationally ranked by Greenopia among the top ten greenest governors (8th overall). It's unfortunate that no actual investigation into this ranking was performed by the online 'zine. As Nancy Remsen of the Burlington Free Press pointed out in VT Buzz, Greenopia based its conclusions on the Governors' own websites rather than on critical analysis of actual results based on policies and procedures established by the various governors during their respective tenures.

While Greenopia based its conclusions on reproducing some of Gov. Douglas' favorite soundbites "Clean and Clear", along with some murkier "accomplishments" like "tax incentives," "biofuel initiatives," and efforts to "make state government greener" it did not seriously consider Douglas' real environmental record on a host of issues.

What Greenopia did not report is Gov. Douglas' efforts to dismantle Act 250 (Vermont's signature land-use planning law), failure to enforce stormwater runoff laws, dismantling of environmental protection staff through state employee layoffs, opening up pristine state wilderness lands to noisy, polluting ATV riders, and on and on. Not to mention placing his Administration in the pocket of Entergy Nuclear power company. The Governor has repeatedly thwarted efforts to make Entergy Nuclear pay for its own clean-up costs, most recently by issuing a veto this past legislative session that would have required Entergy to set aside or replenish sufficient funds to do so.

In short, a more critical and thoughtful analysis of what Gov. Douglas' record on environmental issues really reflects would probably have placed him much closer to his good friend Sarah Palin, who brought up the bottom of the rankings at 48th out of 50 governors on environmental issues. You betcha.

"Two for America..." 8 and 48, respectively.

Overridden!

2009-06-02T15:42:00.000-07:00

The Vermont House of Representatives voted 100-50 to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto of the legislature's budget.

This is a huge political victory for Speaker Shap Smith, and a sure sign that the power dynamic in Montpelier has changed for the remainder of the biennium. No more can Gov. Douglas count on the veto to sustain his conservative agenda.

While Speaker Smith will justifiably get the lion's share of the credit, don't forget about the very able Majority Leader, Rep. Floyd Nease, who is responsible for making sure they get the votes.

Among the other winners are: Sen. Peter Shumlin, who orchestrated a 23-5 vote in the Senate, and advocacy organizations who mounted considerable opposition to the Governor's proposed budget.

Oh yeah, and let's not forget the biggest winners of all - middle-class, working, and low-income Vermonters. This includes Vermont property tax payers who will not have to worry about the massive property tax increase Jim Douglas had in mind. The social safety net remains intact, if a little tattered. But the fight is really just beginning. Next session look for another attempt to cut social programs.

It will be interesting to see who wins the spin wars: Douglas will claim the Democrats now "own" both the budget, and the economy. Democrats should insist that Douglas take responsibility for getting us into this mess, and that they prevented his massive property tax increase. The real question will be this: does the economy turn around? If it does, the Dems will get all the credit and Douglas will be in real trouble. If it doesn't, Douglas is going to blame all the ills of the world at the feet of the Democrats. Will voters buy it?

"businesses against tax hikes" claim inability to pay, but give heavily to Republicans

2009-04-25T16:50:00.000-07:00

Don't know if anyone noticed the (albeit small) presser presented by small businesses against any revenue proposals to solve the budget crisis. But, it's hard to take the so-called representatives of small businesses seriously when the spokespersons speaking against a tiny income tax increase (about 50 cents per month to the average Vermont taxpayer) are giving hundreds and thousands of dollars to Jim Douglas and the Republican Party.

A cursory search of the Secretary of State campaign finance disclosure reports showed:

Bart Frisbie gave at least $3,250 in contributions to the Governor alone.

Blair Enman and/or Enman Engineering gave at least $200 to Gov. Douglas

Rene Laberge gave at least $200 to Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie.

Shawn Shouldice Banfield (the lobbyist/organizer behind the news conference) personally gave at least $400 to Lt. Gov. Dubie.

Amanda Ibey's PAC, HOME PAC gave $300 to "Friends of the Republican Party" and at least $1000 to Gov. Douglas

William Driscoll's group, Associated Industries of Vermont gave at least $1000 to Friends of the Republican Party

Nobody would ever suggest that these folks don't have a right to contribute to whoever they wish. But, it is disingenuous at best to suggest they cannot afford a very modest income tax increase when these folks are literally giving away hundreds and thousands of dollars to their conservative friends at the highest levels of state government. Something doesn't add up.

When most people understand they could save hundreds of jobs, preserve essential services and institutions, avoid a massive cost-shift onto their local community (and avoid a worsening of the recession for that matter) by contributing a dollar here and there, they overwhelmingly support a small tax increase, or a tax increase on those with the greatest ability to pay.

Save Our State Set To Strike Again...

2009-04-13T16:28:00.000-07:00

The Save Our State coalition has created an "SOS-EZ" mock tax form ("the 'EZ' way to 'Save Our State' - the form approximates the look of an actual 1040EZ form).

Go to the S.O.S.-VT blog for more information and to find out how to get involved.

Here's the basic information:

Message: Raise Taxes, No More Budget Cuts!

What: SOS-EZ Tax Day Event

Why: To Support Raising Taxes in Vermont To Save Essential Programs

When: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 at 10am

Where: Tax Dept. Help Window (133 State Street, 2nd Floor)

Who: Save Our State Coalition

Marriage Equality

2009-03-20T18:59:00.000-07:00

The Senate Judiciary committee took an historic step today, passing S.115 (the marriage equality bill) by a 5-0 margin. The measure is slated to be voted on by the full Senate on Monday.

Vermont Freedom to Marry is requesting that supporters contact their Senators to urge them to vote "yes" on S.115. And, you can contact members of Senate Judiciary (Sen. Sears, Sen. Campbell, Sen. Mullin, Sen. Cummings, and Sen. Nitka) to thank them for their passage of this important bill that will confer this fundamental civil right to the gay and lesbian community.

Kudos to the Senate Judiciary comittee for taking this important first step to marriage equality.

Dizzy Douglas

2009-03-12T16:29:00.000-07:00

So, the Governor's people are saying that state employees that make $30,000/year can afford to cough up $1,500 each (that's a pretty big "tax" increase on them), but he won't even consider slightly higher taxes across the board for Vermonters akin to the Snelling Surcharge proposed by Rep. Michael Fisher?

The logic here is dizzyingly inconsistent. First of all, if according to the Governor, Vermonters who make $30,000 or more is the threshhold for giving back, then why not apply that to all Vermonters? Second, under the Snelling Surcharge, it would only kick in when you make about $45,000 AGI (so it gives lower income folks a break). Finally, a person making $45,000 would only pay about an extra $66. A couple making $70,000 would pay an extra $92. That's a far cry from asking someone making $30,000 to give up $1,500 of their income.

Jim is Digging Himself into a Very Deep Hole

It appears that the Governor and his allies by suggesting that non-profit employees at $60,000 income, and state employees at $30,000 can all afford to give up 5% of their respective incomes are actually supporting income-based determinations of who can afford to pay (and how much). So, essentially what the Governor is doing is advocating raising taxes (albeit by taking it off the top up front rather than after it has already been paid out) on select groups saying they can afford to give more. Meanwhile, he turns around and says we have no more taxing capacity. So, which is it Governor?

And, if this "taxation by obfuscation" is what we can expect from this Administration, how long until the Governor simply enacts a 5% paycut provision on every group in the state until he's filled all the budget holes?

"Presto-Change-o! No new taxes!"

Regardless of whether or not there actually is a nefarious plot to enact "hidden taxes" by making us all give up 5% of our salaries, rather than spread the wealth according to people's ability to pay and raise lots more money at much less cost, there is no doubt the Governor's logic simply doesn't add up.

Here's something else that doesn't add up: the amount that would actually go to helping us out of this budget mess. The savings from making these paycuts effective would only be about $11 million. An income tax surcharge would raise $40 million or more.

Is the Governor up for the disingenuousity of the year award? Why not just come clean and support an income tax surcharge like the one proposed by Rep. Fisher and/or other income tax proposals? Oh, but that would be "divorced from reality."

What Obama Giveth, Douglas Taketh Away

2009-02-27T17:00:00.000-08:00

Since November, Gov. Jim Douglas has put his spin-machine into overdrive to ratchet up the drumbeat for budget cuts, budget cuts, budget cuts (with maybe a tiny break to mention layoffs).

It all seems like an exercise in cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, the message from the Governor is that the sky is falling and the only choice available to us is to slash essential human services budgets, fire state employees and raise health care premiums and prescription drug benefits for seniors and people with disabilities. Meanwhile President Obama says the federal government will provide aid to the states to help fill budget holes. Not only that, but his first budget lays out an ambitious agenda that sets aside more than half a trillion dollars for health care reform, massive energy infrastructure investments, and many, many other dollars flowing from the federal government to the states.

So what gives?! Obama is going to save us, right? But Douglas is still playing the Soup Nazi.

Douglas: "No soup for you!"

But there's a reason for the cognitive dissonance. Obama trots Jim out for a photo op to show "moderate" Republican support for his stimulus package and his first budget proposal (it was hard not to imagine a retractable leash on the Governor as he sat in the Presidential box behind the First Lady). Jim can trot out the photos of him with Obama to show he's a "different" kind of Republican - one who works with Democrats and has a friend in the highest of high places in Washington, D.C. So, the short answer for this oddest of political bedfellows is that they need each other (obviously, Jim needs Obama far more than Obama needs Jim), or maybe better put: they can use each other.

Douglas: "He likes me... he really likes me!"

Meanwhile, back here at home, the chickens are coming home to roost on the Governor's budget. And, as will happen with chickens from time to time, there's some egg on the faces of those who simply advocated "across the board" cuts without regard to program area, maintenance of effort funds tied to federal dollars, and what might be coming in the stimulus package. As it turns out many of the cuts proposed by the Administration are either not possible, or ill-conceived. Some of the federal dollars require the state not cut funds (maintenance of effort) in order to receive them. So, as Secretary of Administration, Neale Lunderville was forced to admit this morning on the radio, (paraphrasing) "it doesn't make sense to cut $2.5 million dollars in the state budget, only to lose out on $250 million in federal stimulus money, and we're just not going to do that." The Times Argus also reported that he conceded the same thing when the stimulus package was announced.

Other examples include proposed cuts to Vermont's Reach Up program. The federal government is offering to pay 80% of the tab for increases in caseloads. The Administration is proposing instead to reduce caseloads - not because need is going down (they expect 2,000 new cases in the coming years), but because they're proposing to just throw families who need assistance off welfare altogether. So, reducing our caseload, despite increasing need may well preclude our ability to tap into new federal funds that would help thousands of Vermont families in need. By delaying or terminating the Reach Ahead program (a food assistance program to provide newly working families with some support so they don't slip back onto Reach Up), our work participation rate will suffer and Vermont will be sanctioned to the tune of multiple millions of dollars. Far more than we would save by stopping that innovative new program.

So, where does all this leave us? Well, we have arguably the most sweeping progressive budget and agenda coming out of Washington since Lyndon B. Johnson's War on Poverty.

Meanwhile, here at home, the Governor who promised us that Jim would equal Jobs has given us longer unemployment lines.

The Governor who promised us an "affordability agenda" gives us rising health care premiums, takes food off the tables of low income families, and increases the cost of prescription drugs.

Let's face it for six years, Jim Douglas took credit for the Vermont economy during the early go-go part of this decade. He OWNS this economy, and he subscribed to every rule in the Bush playbook. Now that the economy has imploded due to Republican fiscal recklessness, Douglas refuses to face up to it. But, it's too late... That economic recipe was quite the "bitter swill". So he'll point to the federal government ("their fault") and he'll point to the legislature ("their fault"), but in the end, these are his budgets, his policies, and he has largely had his way with the legislature over the years. The more he squirms, the tighter those knots are going to get and simply saying "there's nothing we can do" isn't going to play.

Recently the Governor mentioned that he thinks the legislature is "divorced from reality" for suggesting we raise a modest amount of new revenues to couple with the stimulus package to fix the budget crisis (they included some cuts as well). That may be better than being married to recalcitrance. The Governor in clinging to his "cuts will save us all" mantra has taken on a tinge of that childhood wish:"if I say it enough times it might become true." Safe to say that nobody in the Administration owns a pump, or knows how to prime it.

Meanwhile, despite his insistence that "we're all in this together" the Governor asks nothing of the most affluent among us. No sacrifice. Nothing from those who took a ride on the Bush express and saw their incomes skyrocket over the last eight years. I'm trying to imagine what the Governor means when he says that we're all in this together. This recession looks very different depending on whether you're sitting in a homeless shelter, or you've recently been foreclosed upon, or you've lost a benefit on which you rely as opposed to having to give up that vacation to Thailand this year.

That rare air in the presidential box must be pretty thin and going to his head. On the one hand, while in Washington he thinks he's an FOB (Friend of Barack). Meanwhile, outside the glare of the klieg lights in D.C., Jim Douglas is doing everything in his power at the local level to blunt the reforms that President Obama is attempting to implement at the federal level. That is not a recipe for recovery, that is a recipe for disaster. It doesn't make sense, and it's not good politics.

Profile in Courage: Rep. Michael Fisher - And, WWSD?

2009-02-07T10:11:00.000-08:00

"Profile in Courage"? Isn't that laying it on a bit thick? Not when you can't get the Governor or any other legislator for that matter to even say the "T"-word. I give Rep. Michael Fisher (D-Lincoln) great credit for saying that now is the time to raise taxes and distribute the burden of digging out of this recession by each Vermonter's ability to pay. It is our shared responsibility.

WWSD: "What Would Snelling Do...?" The answer? Probably something very similar to what Rep. Fisher has proposed to help solve Vermont's budget woes. In fact, Rep. Fisher calls his plan "The Snelling Surcharge" in a nod to the former Republican Governor's efforts to restore fiscal order during the last big recession back in 1991.

According to the Burlington Free Press, Rep. Fisher's plan would: "impose a 3 percent surcharge on the state tax liability for incomes between $46,700 and $171,950, 6 percent on tax liability for incomes between $171,500 and $307,050, and 9 percent above $307,050. Fisher offered examples of the tax that would be added: A person making $46,700 would pay an extra $66. A couple with the same income would pay $50. A couple earning $70,000 would pay an extra $92."

Finally, somebody has the courage to do what is required to address our shrinking revenues. Good for you, Rep. Fisher. Somewhere Dick Snelling should be smiling, exhaling a sigh of relief, and thinking: "at last somebody with a head on their shoulders and the guts to do what is right!"

Let's hope the Governor and the legislature demonstrate similar courage and are equally up to the task of "Saving Our State."

S.O.S. Rallies a Huge Success; Hundreds Turn Out to Protest Governor's Budget Cuts

2009-02-02T19:28:00.001-08:00

Hundreds of concerned Vermonters turned out on cool evening to send a clear message to Vermont Governor, Jim Douglas: No More Budget Cuts!

Use the stimulus package, raise the revenue, but stop balancing the budget on the backs of the poor, the elderly, and people with disabilities.

The message come out loud and clear as community after community from Bennington to White River Junction joined the chorus of voices saying "Enough!"

Even citizens in the Governor's hometown of Middlebury turned out to protest the Governor's proposed budget cuts. Click here for WPTZ's story on the Middlebury rally.

Rough numbers are trickling in. Here's what some organizers are saying (these are estimates, not confirmed counts):

125 people in Burlington

120 Montpelier

100+ Brattleboro

28 St. Johnsbury

25 St. Albans

30 in Rutland

18 Bennington

65 in Middlebury

25 in Northfield

40 in Newport (Newport!!)

35 in White River Junction

Many legislators also turned out in their districts to listen to these dedicated citizens, and to respond to our shared concerns.

Congratulations to all the people who turned out to make this a huge success!

S.O.S. (Save Our State) Rallies - Feb. 2nd at 5pm

2009-02-01T17:38:00.000-08:00

Concerned Vermonters everywhere are rallying to protest further budget cuts that erode our social safety net and harm low-income and working families, the elderly, and people with disabilities. Join in! Go to a rally site near you.

Bring yourself and add your voice to the chorus saying "stop the cuts", "raise sustainable revenues", "put people first."

What: SOS (Save Our State) Rallies (Statewide)
When: Feb. 2nd @ 5pm
Where: Various locations statewide
Why: To protest budget cuts and advocate for raising new revenues to help low-income families, seniors, and people with disabilities.

For more information about this effort, just go to the SOS Vermont blog and get involved!

Assault On Vermont's Social Safety Net Begins

2009-01-27T06:44:00.000-08:00

Advocates have been stepping up to protest the Administration's budget rescissions to the 2009 FY budget and more recently the proposed budget adjustment. Essentially, while the Governor loops his message "no new taxes" "shared burden" etc. What the Administration is really saying is that there will be no tax increase on the wealthy or the middle-class, but that we will shift the costs of government programs onto the backs of the poor, the elderly, and the disabled. And, oh yeah, kids.

In addition to proposing elimination of VPharm, a program designed to help seniors cover the cost of prescriptions, the Governor has reached into the pockets of the poorest - families on welfare to balance his budget.

Despite a stunning 31% increase in barriers to employment identified by Reach Up beneficiaries over the last three years, the Administration targeted $400,000 of rescission cuts that would have helped people get off welfare and move into the workplace for fiscal year 2009. The very purpose of Reach Up is to help Vermonters overcome barriers to employment. Vermonters want to work, but these cuts strike at the heart of low-income families ability to do just that.

But now the Administration is going even further. The Administration has proposed saving money by implementing "full family sanctions" which would terminate benefits to families with children altogether when a beneficiary is alleged to have violated a rule. This is wrong. Vermont has a tradition of putting its children first. Implementing full family sanctions flies in the face of that tradition, exposes children to deprivation and will only further strain social service agencies.

It's worth noting the legislature recently empowered a study committee, the Child Poverty Council, to look into the issue of child poverty in Vermont and identify ways to reduce child poverty by 50% over ten years. Our goal should be trying to find ways to reduce child poverty, not exacerbate it.

Additionally, the Administration plans to save money by counting Supplemental Social Security Income benefits for the aged, blind and disabled (SSI) against low-income families when calculating their Reach Up grants. Currently SSI is not considered countable income when determining Reach Up grants. When you are poor and disabled, every dime counts. Taking money out of Reach Up grants because someone is aged or disabled will turn bad situations into desperate situations. While federal law allows states to count SSI as income against welfare grants, only Idaho and West Virginia have the dubious distinction of holding age and disability against beneficiaries. We should not join that list.

The Obama Administration has actually included an extra SSI payment in its proposed stimulus package. It recognizes the need to provide additional resources to the elderly, blind and disabled. Douglas' counting of SSI toward welfare beneficiaries would essentially take that away. So, what Obama giveth, Douglas taketh away.

Finally, the Administration is recommending the state delay implementation of Reach Ahead, a food assistance component for families coming off the Reach Up program. The purpose of Reach Ahead was to help families reach their food budgets each month while they re-enter the workforce. The state does receive a benefit by funding Reach Ahead because it can count those individuals toward its work participation rate thereby avoiding federal sanction. In addition to taking food off the plates of hungry children, we run the risk of losing federal money through sanction because we will not be able to meet our work participation rates without adequately funding Reach Ahead.

The Vermont Low Income Advocacy Council (VLIAC), Voices for Vermont's Children, Legal Aid, and many other advocates are also opposing the Administration proposal to cut essential benefits in order to balance the budget on those least able to afford it. When you put together the budget rescissions to Reach Up - which directly impedes low-income Vermonters' ability to work - and add in the elimination of funding for Reach Ahead, full family sanctions, counting SSI against the Reach Up grant, plus other factors like reduced case management and the projected dramatic increase in caseload - it is sure to adversely affect low-income families during the most serious economic catastrophe in memory.

To some this may simply look like an attempt to balance a budget through various line items. To me it looks like the Governor is picking the pockets of the poor.

This Land Was Made For You And Me...

2009-01-19T12:50:00.000-08:00

The inauguration festivities are underway in Washington, D.C. and Sunday there was a huge concert for the President-Elect. Nothing rang in the new American optimism like Pete Seeger:

Racine to Run for Governor in 2010

2009-01-05T16:19:00.000-08:00

Doug Racine is organizing early to build momentum for a gubernatorial run in 2010. Speculation began about a Racine candidacy after former Gov. Phil Hoff publicly mused about a Racine campaign in a recent op-ed column. Most recently, Hoff called an organizing meeting of past and present Racine backers to encourage Racine to run.

Doug Racine isn't wasting any time. “I’ve got some things to talk about,” said Racine in Seven Days Blurt blog, posted by Fair Game staff writer, Shay Totten. “I do not see a clear economic development strategy in this state, for starters. And, it's about broadband, it's child care, and it’s a health care system that works. Those are the things that make a state a community attractive and that’s not happening in our state right now," he said.

Hoff says Racine is tops.

Today, Vermont Public Radio's John Dillon reported that Racine does, in fact, intend to be a candidate in 2010. Here's an excerpt of the VPR story:

(Dillon) Racine chairs the Senate Health and Welfare Committee. He says he would build his campaign on job growth and improvements to the state's transportation and communication infrastructure.

(Racine) "And we need to stay focused on our kids. You know, the governor's own Next Generation Commission focused on the fact that a third of our kids are either not graduating from high school or are not getting the education they need to be part of the workforce. That's a huge issue for the future of Vermont's economy."

(Dillon) Racine served as lieutenant governor in the late ‘90s. In 1991, he was president of the Vermont Senate when the state faced an earlier fiscal crisis. He ran the Senate when Republican Governor Richard Snelling worked with Democrats to pass budget cuts and a temporary tax increase.

(Racine) "I feel very proud that we worked on a very difficult situation in a bipartisan way. And we had a really strong leader in Dick Snelling, he wasn't figuring out how to put the blame on somebody else. He was very statesmanlike. He sat down with legislative leaders, who happened to be the other party, and said, `We've got a problem to solve, so let's figure out how to work together to come up with a solution that we're all going to like a little bit of and we're going dislike a little bit of it.' And in the end we got Vermont out of its problems."

"Putting Everything on the Table"

2008-12-12T15:51:00.001-08:00

Jim Douglas and others reflexively say that they will consider all the alternatives when dealing with the current budget crisis. Is that really true? Despite claims to the contrary and his insistence that "all options are on the table," Gov. Douglas continues to refuse consideration of revenue or exhaustion of resources (read: "rainy day funds") as part of the budget picture. Instead, he appears to mean that all budget cuts will be "on the table."

Some are beginning to question the Governor's logic. Paul Cillo, a former legislator and currently the Executive Director of the Public Assets Institute (a public policy and budget think-tank) wrote a compelling op-ed that ran in the Free Press, Rutland Herald, and Times Argus recently.

An excerpt:

"Elected officials tend to talk about the current budget crisis as a spending problem: Spending is too high so we need to cut the budget.In fact, we have a revenue problem: too few dollars coming into state coffers...

...The state still has more than $100 million in rainy-day funds -- reserves that can help fill the revenue hole as longer-term solutions are put in place. While these funds should not be swallowed in one gulp, they exist for times like these. The state should not be afraid to use them strategically -- and plan to replace them as the economy improves.

Temporary tax rate increases for people in the upper-income brackets also should be part of the solution. Such increases are less of an economic drain in a recession than either general tax increases or budget cuts, according to economists like Barack Obama's new budget director, Peter Orszag.

Republican Gov. Richard Snelling used this approach during the 1991 recession, and those tax rate increases helped see the state through hard times. In fact, in the two major recessions that occurred during Snelling's tenure -- in 1983 and 1991 -- Vermont dealt with its budget problems with a package of cuts, tax rate increases and deficit spending."

You can find the complete essay here.

If our leaders truly want to find ways to help Vermonters weather this recession they need to be willing to make tough decisions and truly consider all the options available to them. That includes finding new sources of revenue, using our taxpayer funded reserves, and, yes, disciplined and responsible budget cuts.

Simply eviscerating public benefits and services is not the only solution, and certainly it is not the responsible solution. Cutting benefits and reducing spending will create a drag on the economy by taking money out of it.

I have yet to see the Douglas Administration provide any analysis of the actual economic impact, and potential negative economic consequences, of a potentially devastating "feedback loop" established by budget cuts to balance the budget and deal with the economic crisis, but which in turn leads to reduced consumer spending, which in turn drags down tax receipts requiring still further cuts.

For example, the Administration is silent with respect to what $65 million in cuts would actually do to our economy. What if $65 million in budget cuts to essential services leads to $80 million dollars in reduced economic activity? Is that still a strategy worth pursuing? For example, what happens when a beneficiary has a cash money benefit cut, or a service cut that they then need to pay for themselves, but cannot for lack of money? And, what happens when service providers who administer those benefits in turn lose their jobs? What about the landlord who fails to get revenue because the money that would have gone to a beneficiary to help pay back rent is no longer available, etc. therefore leading to an empty unit and/or decreased income revenue and depressed tax receipts?

This analysis may be hard to quantify, but current budget discussions underway in Montpelier have not even made the attempt. Essential services and public benefits are economic stimulus because it is money that is immediately turned around and paid out for goods and services in our local communities. That allows consumers to spend and therefore has a stimulative effect on the economy. Whether that stimulative effect is greater than the cost of the programs remains a question that should be examined. But, the fact remains this Administration is not doing the work to make its case.

Jeb = Jobs

2008-11-20T06:40:00.000-08:00

VPR is reporting that Vermont State Treasurer Jeb Spaulding is recommending immediate investment in Vermont's roads and bridges... real economic stimulus that would help keep Vermonters working, create demand for goods and materials, and repair our broken transportation system. Oh, yeah, and it's paid for!

For years Jim Douglas has failed do anything about our ailing infrastructure and instead simply puts a band-aid over the problem. Our bridges are falling down, our roads are pockmarked and crumbling. Yet, the Governor does nothing. Why? Well, making those repairs costs money.

Jeb's plan sounds great, right? Fix our roads and bridges and provide jobs for working Vermonters. So, what's the catch? The catch, is how you pay for it. Treasurer Spaulding has suggested a 5-cent per gallon increase in the gas tax to bring in about $20 million annually. The total cost of repairs is closer to $120 million or more, so the state could get all the money up-front by bonding it and using the tax to pay it back over time. Then, the state could either retire the tax after about six years, or continue it to pay for other needed infrastructure improvements. Typically, Jim Douglas is going into political pounce mode and is likely to declare this "high taxes" that Vermonters cannot afford.

But is that really true? First of all, gas prices have dropped dramatically over the last few months. We were paying $4 and more per gallon. Gas is now about half that (I've seen it for $2.19. A nickel increase would only raise it to $2.24. Now obviously, gas prices are volatile and the cost will likely continue to go up and down for awhile. Still, why not take advantage of the opportunity while prices are low? In the meantime, we're facing a terrible recession and Vermonters need the work. And, they really need good roads and bridges to support people getting to work, our tourism trade, the distribution of goods and services and to save the wear and tear on our vehicles.

Second, pumping money into the economy that goes directly into creating demand for construction materials and that creates jobs is classic economic stimulus - precisely the kind that may create more economic opportunity than it costs. People use their paychecks (which is taxable income) to buy goods and services locally, which in turn puts money in the pockets of local shopkeepers, etc. and adds to the total gross receipts for the state. This is exactly the kind of activity we should be encouraging right now.

Finally, here is someone with a plan. An actual honest-to-goodness plan(!) to not only fix our infrastructure, but to invest in our communities and our people and actually do something about the economy. We're still waiting for Jim Douglas' plan. Unfortunately, a plan does not appear to be forthcoming. The Gov's position appears to be that we cannot afford to do anything, so the only thing to do is cut the budget, cut services to low-income people who need them now more than ever. It's hard to know if that is part of an actual strategy, or if it is simply the political equivalent of pulling the covers up over your head and hoping these problems will just go away. But, a plan it is not.

The Governor and the legislature should consider Treasurer Spaulding's plan carefully. Vermonters should get behind this. It is time to do something about our economic situation. This is a worthy plan.

Racine Beats Douglas!

2008-11-08T07:12:00.001-08:00

One of the interesting tidbits from Vermont's election results is this:

Popular Democratic Senator Doug Racine beat popular incumbent Republican Jim Douglas in Vermont's most populous county (Chittenden County, the only place the two of them were both on the ballot).

Racine received about 44,000 votes in unofficial results, whereas Douglas received about 42,000 votes.

It's telling because the Governor's race is always a high profile affair and most people will cast a ballot there... down-ticket races tend to suffer from voter drop-off.

Now clearly, people weren't making a judgment about Racine over Douglas directly because this was not a head-to-head match-up. And, theoretically many voters could have voted for BOTH Douglas (for Governor) and then pull the lever (or fill in the circle) for Racine down the ballot. Still, if you're just looking at raw voter preference, at least 2,000 more voters expressed a favorable opinion for Racine than for Douglas.

Democrats can only wonder what this race might have looked like if a stronger Democratic candidate like Racine had jumped into the race early without progressive opposition and hammered Douglas on the economy.

The Fierce Irony of Now

2008-11-08T06:46:00.000-08:00

Did anyone else catch the supreme irony of people in CA and FL (in particular, but also AZ) voting to elect our first black president thereby shattering the legacy of jim crow and fully recognizing the scope of civil rights in this country, only to have some of those very same voters acting to take away civil rights from gay couples through ballot initiatives all over the country?

It's absurd and sad, really, that in breaking one barrier we simply erect others in its place. It is clearly not the pressing issue that the economy is for some voters, and yet some individuals felt the need to make that civil rights/social issue central to their election process. Don't we have more important things to deal with than spending millions of dollars overturning the California Supreme Court decision that granted the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples?

Apparently for some, the need to interfere with, and regulate, private conduct (despite its philosophical inconsistency with the Republican platform of minimizing government intrusion) has not gone away.

Civil rights leaders frequently reference Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s words for action to expand civil rights: "the fierce urgency of now," meaning the imperative to recognize immediately the hypocrisy of failing to extend basic civil rights to all Americans (indeed, all people).

Landslide!

2008-11-03T12:22:00.000-08:00

That's what tomorrow is shaping up to be: a landslide.

I know, I know... don't jinx it.

I don't believe in jinxes.

I do believe in organization. I believe in message discipline. I believe in voter turnout. I believe in tens of thousands turning out for rallies for change. I believe in polls that underrepresent first-time voters and voters who no longer have landlines. And, I believe in the electoral college tilting inexorably in favor of Barack Obama and the states for Democrats generally.

So, put your money where your mouth is. Predictions?

Popular vote: Obama - 54%; McCain - 46%.

Electoral college?

Obama: 352 (ME, VT, NH, NY, MA, RI, DE, CT, MD, NJ, DC, PA, MI, OH, VA, IL, FL, WI, IA, MN, MT, CO, NM, NV, CA, OR, WA, HI).

McCain: 186 (AK, ID, UT, WY, SD, ND, AZ, NE, MO, KS, OK, TX, AR, LA, MS, AL, GA, NC, TN, KY, WV, SC, IN).

Dems end up with 58 seats in the Senate (gain of 9 seats); 259 seats in the House (gain of 26 seats).

Oh, and one last prediction: The first state called for Obama after the polls close? Vermont... at 7:04 p.m. EST.

You heard it here first. Somebody will be eating crow on Wednesday.

See how your predictions stack up against the pros and pundits at the Washington Post. Just click here and you can check out all their numbers on the key races tonight. Interestingly my prediction on the electoral college math matches up most closely with Ed Rollins (big GOP advisor) and Eleanor Clift (liberal-lefty from Newsweek and McLaughlin Group). My Senate/House picks coincided with Juan Williams of NPR and Bill Maher of whatever it is he does (HBO? Smarminess?). Hmmm. What does it all mean?!

Are you better off now...?

2008-11-02T05:23:00.001-08:00

The Burlington Free Press published this recent op-ed I submitted on the financial mess we're in and the Democratic leadership we'll need to clean it up:

Author's note: No, the irony of using Ronald Reagan quotes to make my point is not lost on me (we're ultimately digging out from his now-debunked "trickle-down" economic theories), but what can you say, the guy was the "great communicator"and had some terrific one-liners. And, yes, I know that 1980 was not his first presidential run (he ran in the 1976 primary against incumbent Gerald Ford), but in my hurry to get the article submitted, I overlooked that historical detail. In my defense, the editors at the Free Press didn't catch it either.

Here's the article in its entirety:

My Turn: Are you better off...?

The central issue of this election is a variation of Ronald Reagan's famous line from his first presidential run: Are you better off now than you were six, or eight years ago? Unfortunately, for the vast majority of Vermonters, the answer to that question is "no."

Republicans have shown they cannot manage taxpayer dollars. The Bush administration took the huge surpluses of the Clinton years and turned them into deficits as far as the eye can see. The worst part? The money wasn't even spent on education, health care, needed infrastructure or paying off the national debt -- things that would make our lives better. Instead, that money was wasted on a tax giveaway to the wealthiest Americans (who do not need the help), corporations already making record profits and an unnecessary war in Iraq that is costing us billions every month.

In Vermont, Jim Douglas champions his so-called "Affordability Agenda." Can you think of anything that has become more affordable over the last six years? Gas? The price of milk? Home heating oil? Housing costs? Do we have better jobs at better wages? Again, unfortunately, the answer to these questions is no. The governor's response to Vermonters economic concerns is lacking. He subscribes to the same economic principles that guide the Bush administration and the national Republican Party. Typically he hides this by saying that there is nothing he can do about the "national economy," which implies two things: 1) This is not my fault, and 2) there is nothing I can do about it. That is not good enough.

There are things the state can do to make life more affordable for most Vermonters. If the federal government will not repeal the Bush tax cuts, why not do it here at home? Give middle- and low-income Vermont taxpayers a tax cut on their state income taxes by adjusting state income taxes on the wealthiest to make up for the federal giveaway of the Bush years, or by closing the capital gains tax loophole. The state could tap the rainy day funds, (which is, after all, our money) to ensure the social safety net remains intact and to expand home heating assistance (beyond the LIHEAP funding our congressional delegation has secured), provide foreclosure protections to Vermont homeowners (as other states are doing) and supplement budgets for homeless shelters and foodbanks.

It is possible to "prime the pump" here at home to help Vermonters ride out this recession. In fact, it was not so long ago that another Vermont Republican governor, Richard Snelling, saw the wisdom of using the state budget and tax policy in a progressive way to weather the recession of the early '80s. We can do it again.

Another Reagan line used to great effect in 1980 was "a recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours." I submit that this year, a recovery will only be possible when George Bush and Jim Douglas lose theirs. Democrats have shown they are fiscally prudent, and have better ideas for investing in Vermonters and turning our economy around. History has proven the borrow-and-spend giveaways to the wealthiest Americans and corporations do not, in fact, trickle down to the rest of us. Those priorities and incessant deregulation have brought us to the brink of economic ruin.

It took Democrats (Clinton and Dean) to turn our economy around in the '90s. We can do it again. Now is the time to plan for the recession, while implementing responsible tax and budget priorities and regulating industry. The Republicans have put us in a deep hole. Together we can work our way out of this economic mess, and Democratic leadership will help get us there. But we have to act now. There is not a moment to lose. Vote Democratic this year.

Powell Endorses Obama

2008-10-19T18:44:00.000-07:00

Talk about "putting country first"... Gen. Colin Powell did so today by endorsing Sen. Barack Obama for President. This is perhaps the best 7-minute summary of why Obama is the right candidate at the right time.

Joe the Plumber: "Social Security is a Joke"

2008-10-18T11:36:00.000-07:00

John McCain may want to rethink his strategy of putting "Joe the unlicensed, non-taxpaying plumber" on the campaign trail with him. Especially in places with lots of retirees (like Florida). With respect to Social Security, Joe says: "Social Security is a joke... never believed in it, don't like it."

Joe would rather see the elderly fend for themselves and eliminate the single most effective poverty elimination program in history.

Oh, and he doesn't want to have to pay back the "$10 trillion" economic mess the Republicans handed us. So, instead of taking the tax cut that Obama would give him, he prefers to give away more money to the super rich and big corporations under McCain's tax plan and make it two or three times that. Hmmm... his logic is truly dizzying.

This guy is as scary as he is uninformed. It is increasingly clear that he doesn't represent middle- or working-class America in the slightest.

Palin-drone

2008-10-03T18:34:00.000-07:00

A man, a plan, a canal—Panama! Sit on a potato pan, Otis...

No, these were not Sarah Palin's references to her understanding of foreign policy (though it may very well be - we still do not know), or a put down of Joe Biden. They are, in fact, palindromes... letters or expressions that can be spelled or used backwards or forwards.

How is this relevant to last night's Vice Presidential debate?

Sarah Palin's programmed coached expressions... her "verbiage" as she likes to say... were basically just that: backwards and forward, regardless of the question her answers were rote and simplistic enough they could be recited backwards and forward:

McCain and me are Mavericks, Mavericks are me and McCain.

Repeat ad nauseam.

Finally, Palin's statements, like most palindromes are utterly nonsensical.

I'm not saying that Palin's performance was a total disaster. She did make it through the debate without stumbling. Still, is that really the bar we've set for the Vice Presidency? I hope not, it's a pretty low standard. Besides, as Slate journalist Fred Kaplan points out: she still knows nothing about foreign policy!

So take heart, Democrats. McCain was the big loser. While Palin didn't implode as she did in the embarrassing Katie Couric interview(s) below, Joe Biden clearly won the debate. He was knowledgeable, restrained and Presidential. Safe to say that if those were the options available to describe Palin on a multiple choice exam she would be... none of the above.

Wake Up America!

2008-08-26T18:01:00.001-07:00

I gotta hand it to Dennis Kucinich. Amidst the freeze-dried, scripted, teleprompted, and overproduced speakers at the DNC Nominating Convention the man speaks truth to power. Check it out for yourself:

So Much for the "Straight Talk Express"

2008-07-11T19:37:00.000-07:00

McCain struggles to answer why men can get Viagra covered by health insurance but women cannot get contraception covered.

If anything can create a gender gap for Obama it is increasing awareness of McCain's inability to understand the issue of reproductive freedom and how men and women are treated differently. Not just on the abortion issue, but in terms of contraception and women's health care generally. There is a double-standard here that must be addressed and McCain just doesn't get it.

Wonder if he's mum on this because he's got a prescription?

Jim = Jobless

2008-03-12T04:12:00.000-07:00

Time for a new bumpersticker, Governor.

The Vermont Press Bureau reports today that Vermont is hemorrhaging jobs at a rate of about 2000 a year. That's the magic of the Douglas "Affordability Agenda." Vermont Tiger schill and supply-side apologist, Art Woolf says it is "not because our economy is doing lousy." Hmmm. Why would it be, then?

Oddly enough, it's usually the Vermont Toothless Tigers who are out trashing the Vermont economy. Now Woolfie is trying to make it sound like things aren't so bad (it's not the job-loss that hurts, it's that when we rebound in a year, we won't have enough workers, sayeth Art). Maybe with an election year looming constantly harping on Vermont as a bad place to do business is suddenly not looking like a winning strategy, eh? Time go give Do-Nothing Douglas a little cover so he isn't the one who ends up jobless? Could be...

Douglas Stiffs Retirees

2008-03-10T02:23:00.000-07:00

First, he kills the energy bill which would have created long-term savings and affordability for average Vermonters. Then, he cuts funding for affordable housing and conservation in Vermont. Next up? Taking a bite out of retirement funds for state employees. Are you starting to see a pattern here? Is the American Dream dying?

That may be overstating it a little, but when it comes to his "Affordability Agenda" it basically comes down to this: In Jim Douglas' world if you are independently wealthy, life in Vermont will be affordable - for the rest of us... uh, not so much. Douglas' failure to plan beyond the current fiscal year and seek long-term solutions for Vermonters is at the heart of his penny-wise, pound foolish budget and his other legislative priorities.

On the other hand, there is one new job he could create that would have a major impact on Vermont's future: New Governor. He's looking near invincible right now, but all things change in politics, and adopting these short-sighted policies may hasten his demise. Maybe not today, mabye not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of his life (with apologies to Bogey).

At least Jeb Spaulding is stepping up and holding Douglas' feet to the fire. In today's Times Argus, he takes Douglas to task for stiffing the state retirement fund:

"As a former state treasurer, you must know that is not a prudent action, because the problem of under funding compounds itself. It is the first time in recent years we have intentionally underfunded the state employees' retirement system. We shouldn't be starting new spending initiatives, no matter how worthy they are, unless we can meet the obligations," Spaulding said. "It's not like we can decide we want to change the rules of the game for the people who are on the job now."

Spaulding wrote to Douglas outlining his concerns: "I find it difficult to justify proposing new spending initiatives at the same time you are proposing not to pay the bill for services already rendered." Spaulding wrote. "I do hope the Legislature will correct the situation by funding the actuarial recommendations for the Vermont State Employees' Retirement System in full."

Giving New Meaning To Iraq's "Green Zone"

2008-03-05T14:10:00.000-08:00

All I can say is "wow."

Town Meeting Day!

2008-03-04T10:27:00.000-08:00

** Cross-posted at Exit Voices. Worth checking out to post your own town meeting day stories.

*******************

Just finished up Northfield Town Meeting. My son’s first town meeting day (he’s just 5 months old)! Felt great giving him a front-row seat to democracy in action.

Most items passed without much debate. The exception? A proposal to establish a $500 fund for picnic tables at recreational areas in town. Small town democracy at its finest!

I was particularly pleased that the town voted in favor of establishing a conservation commission, something a small, dedicated band has worked on for about a year now. They’ve already secured some grant funding for surveys of the Dog River and trail- work on Payne Mountain. Commission status will boost their grant potential for other projects in the future.
It’ll be interesting, too, to see how the other big items fare: There’s a ballot item for a new police station, and of course the school budget. The former went down last time, but there is renewed interest b/c of the building’s dilapidated condition; the latter is almost always a close, 50-50 vote with one side or another eeking out enough to carry the day (followed by a series of re-votes, ugh!).

Rep. Anne Donahue was there… so was Sen. Bill Doyle. Didn’t see any other political glitterati, however.

I was pleased to see most members of our Democratic Town Committee were present for the meeting.

Wonder how much a meaningful, contested primary this year boosted town meeting attendance. It would be interesting to find out. Do people just turn out to vote? Or, do they stick around to discuss the details with their neighbors at the town meeting? What do you think? Anybody else observe greater numbers at the meeting? I’m sure the overall vote tallies will be substantially higher - probably record numbers.

As for a wish list item for the ballot, here’s mine: One thing I would love to see is the elimination of the recall rule. It requires a legislative fix, but currently Northfield voters can overturn a result by getting a small number of petitioners to call for a re-vote (think it’s 5 or 10%, or something). This means that even when we get a majority vote, a tiny minority can call it back and rely on a much smaller turnout the second time around (because special elections frequently have smaller turnout either because folks don’t know, or forget a special vote is happening, or because there aren’t other elections/candidates/ballot items to bring people out to the polls). This happens frequently when we do happen to pass the school budget. It’s a real thwarting of democracy, and a deceptive way to go about doing town business.

Obama in Vermont?

2008-03-01T07:32:00.000-08:00

According to the Washington Post, Sen. Barack Obama is taking time out of his Texas/Ohio schedule to campaign in both Rhode Island and Vermont. Here's what the Post had to say:

"In a testament to the importance being placed on every state and delegate in the hard-fought Democratic contest, the candidate will take time away from Texas and Ohio to stump in this state as well as in Vermont, which will also hold a primary on Tuesday."

Anyone else out there have any information on this?

Exxon's Free Lunch (Oil On the Side)

2008-02-28T06:43:00.000-08:00

Anyone who has checked out David Cay Johnston's excellent new book, "Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You With the Bill)" has probably already pulled most of their hair out by now. The rest may be gone soon if word coming from the U.S. Supreme Court following oral argument on damages in the infamous (and long overdue - 19 years) Exxon/Valdez case is correct... or at least it may merit a new chapter in any reprints of Johnston's book.

Some analysts predict the Court will use the obscure tenets of maritime law, and a 200-year old case (the "Amiable Nancy") to overturn or diminish the $2.5 billion in punitive damages (already only half the original amount) awarded by jury trial in the decades long case. Originally complaints were filed in 1989 and then consolidated for trial in 1994. The jury awarded its verdict in 1994 - $287 million in actual damages, and $5 billion in punitive damages. You can find a complete timeline here.

Since then, what's happened?

Well, nothing. At least not much anyway. The company has paid out some settlement money (to the government for criminal fines (although even those may have been mitigated by the feds at taxpayer expense, according to the New York Times), for some tribal claims, among others, to the tune of a little more than $1 billion). And, they had clean-up costs of about $3.4 billion. Of course, the clean-up is still incomplete (by some reports only about 14% of all the oil spilled was actually recovered and/or remediated). And, the damages in the form of lost jobs, businesses, and biodiversity will perhaps never be recovered. The settlement monies and actual damages may sound like a lot, but as the plaintiff's attorney in the Supreme Court appeal pointed out, the total award to each plaintiff to date amounts to about $15,000 per plaintiff.
Probably... Tell it to the whale.

So, the Supremes have an opportunity to affirm the jury award and to send a message to corporate polluters that they must abide by some basic rules we all learn in kindergarten: clean up your own mess, and when you make a mistake, don't do it again! In all likelihood, though, the Court will look to determine the outcome on two narrow grounds. First, was the drunken captain (convicted of negligence, but acquitted of "driving under the influence") an "agent" of the corporation; and second, are punitive damages in maritime cases limited by maritime law? The Justices appeared to be skeptical of the first point, and affirmative, or at least supportive of the premise of that last.

This does not bode well for the fishermen and women, the local industries, the towns, the wildlife, or anyone or thing connected with the fallout in Alaska of this environmental catastrophe.

Oh, and message to polluters: drag litigation out as long as you can (Slate reports that 20% of the orginal plaintiffs - about 6,000 people - in the case have already died - not to mention the fact that even if they end up having to pay the full $2.5 billion, it represents only about 3 weeks of last year's record profits... some disincentive, huh?) and hope for a few more conservative justices on the Supreme Court - of course, that may not help you much if they're all shareholders!

Oops, Did I Just Delete That...?

2008-02-27T08:54:00.000-08:00

Yes. They he/they did. But, Bush and his cronies at the GOP have decided "eh... all that email wasn't really very important anyway."

On the other hand, perhaps the missing email is so important that our fearless leaders have decided to engage in a systematic effort not to restore the tapes containing the "lost" email from the White House to the RNC which covered hundreds of days and potentially thousands, maybe millions of email correspondence between 2001 and 2003. Especially important would be any email leading to the run-up of the Iraq war, and/or email that could violate the Hatch Act from Karl Rove and/or other high level White House officials. According to the Washington Post, the RNC has now said it "has no intention of trying to restore the missing White House e-mails."

So much for transparency in government. Needless to say, the Bush Administration not only dismantled the Clinton policy of preserving all official White House correspondence, but it weakened its email system so that anyone (at least up to 2005) could enter the system and actually manipulate existing email messages. How scary is that?!

Both the National Security Archive and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington have sued the White House Office of Administration to force the back-up, preservation, and/or production of the missing email.

Don't you just think that Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman long for the days of shredders and tapes. After all, it worked for Nixon.

Enough To Make You Ralph...

2008-02-26T10:12:00.001-08:00

Tom Toles, editorial cartoonist at the Washington Post sums it up nicely (the caption reads: "Change and Experience: The ability to change an election outcome and the experience of having done it"):

Stuart Carlson and Patrick Oliphant were pretty good, too:

And the Harold Myerson, writing for the Washington Post, compares Ralph to Fidel but only in the narcissistic sense. An excerpt:

"Nader and Castro do come together on the ground where ego meets history. Nader said Sunday that he was running again partly in reaction to the Democrats' efforts four years ago to keep his name off the ballot in some states. This combination of principle and grudge match seems Fidelistic to a fault. Just as the revolution was Fidel, to be entrusted to no others, so the banners of American democracy and progressivism are Ralph, no matter if a number of his positions are being articulated by the likely Democratic nominee. The cause is Nader's alone; accept no substitutions.

Like Fidel Castro, Ralph Nader is not only in love with but hears history speaking through his own voice."

Dodd to Keynote DWC Awards

2008-02-25T11:39:00.000-08:00

The Vermont Democrats announced today that Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut) will headline this year's David W. Curtis Awards dinner on April 25th at the Hilton in Burlington. The annual fundraising event is Vermont Democrats' premier event and the biggest fundraiser of the year.

Quick, name three things you know about Chris Dodd! Well, you probably know he's a Senator for Connecticut. You probably know he was a recent presidential candidate; and you may even know he was widely supported by the firefighter's unions during that contest. All of the above are widely reported and were fairly recently in the news.

Here are three cool things about Dodd that maybe you didn't know:

1) He worked to ensure passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act ensuring that working families don't have to choose between their job and their family (he's now working to try to encourage that time off be paid time-off according to his Senate website) - as my wife and I recently had a baby I can attest to the importance of this federal protection;

2) He helped establish the "pay as you go" rules back in 1983 which ensured that any programs requiring budget increases enacted were disciplined by accompanying tax increases or budget cuts. It was this kind of fiscal discipline that enabled the Democrats and Bill Clinton to finally balance the federal budget, and later to begin an unprecedented era of budget surpluses (until the Bush Administration took a wrecking ball to their handiwork), and sound fiscal management. His work on this has helped to ensure that Democrats are now more trusted to handle economic matters than Republicans.

3) He served his Peace Corps stint in the Dominican Republic in Moncion, a tiny hamlet in the northwest part of the country. I traveled extensively in the D.R., living there between 1998 and 2000 and teaching 5th grade in Santo Domingo. But, I also lived in Santiago for awhile (the second largest city in the heart of the country), and traveled to that area up near Monte Cristi and Dajabon (the northwest crossing into Haiti). It's a fantastic, rugged country. Most folks associate it with the fine beaches, but I associate it more with the interior: miles of friendly people, rugged mountains (the highest peak in the Caribbean, Pico Duarte - Just over 7,000 feet and named for the father of the country), and backpacking everywhere. It's a wonderful travel destination if you enjoy getting off the beaten path.

You can find out more about Sen. Dodd at his Senate website.

Should be a great night for Vermont Democrats. My dad would be delighted.

Patriotism, or Prop?

2008-02-25T05:32:00.001-08:00

Some critics of Sen. Barack Obama are suggesting he may not be patriotic enough to be president. Specifically, some Republicans are criticizing his failure to wear an American flag pin on his lapel, and a reported failure (once) to cover his heart during the singing of the national anthem as indicative of a lack of sufficient patriotism on his part. Rather than actually questioning Sen. Obama's patriotism, this is actually an old story that some are trying to resurrect to blunt Obama's momentum as he speeds to the nomination and the Republicans attempt to find something (anything!) to try to define him.

Is it true? Is our likely standard-bearer a "Freedom Hater"?! A "USA, U-S-A" chant breaker?! A flag burning defeatist?

Not even close. Obama's own explanation is more eloquent than anything I can post. His words speak for themselves:

"I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.

I'm less concerned with what you're wearing on your lapel than what's in your heart.

You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve. And you show your patriotism by being true to your values and ideals. And that's what we have to lead with, our values and ideals."

The truth is that millions of Americans go to work and school every day and don't sport a flag pin on their lapel. Some do, for sure, and bully for them. I wager that most do not turn around and accuse their non-flag wearing friends and neighbors of being unpatriotic. The point is that patriotism is not measured by flair.

Ah, but they are not running for president, the critics might say. In this dangerous, post-9/11 world our leaders must literally wear their patriotism on their sleeve, they might say. Really?
Did Abe Lincoln wear a flag pin throughout the Civil War? Umm, no. Does that make him any less of a patriot? I don't think that's a fair characterization of the man who saved the Union. What about Franklin D. Roosevelt, another wartime president? Did he wear a flag on his lapel? Nope. Sheesh, didn't he worry that people would think he was an aryan sympathizer? Or, a Stalinist? Not likely. The simple truth is that those were serious men whose commitment to country was unquestioned because of what they said and what they did. Flag as fashion accessory was not a prerequisite for those times.

So what's changed?

The first is that after 9/11 jingoism came back with a vengeance. Republicans quickly figured out that patriotism could be exploited to pass an agenda that benefited the wealthiest Americans and largest corporations at the expense of the vast majority of Americans. If you questioned the policy, you were quickly labeled "unpatriotic" in the name of 9/11. Fear ruled and people got in line. Politically, it was a master stroke. But is political manoeuvering "patriotic"? It depends. If the manoeuvers are used to benefit the vast majority, call for shared sacrifice (and actually do so), and/or are legitimately financing a military effort, then arguably yes. But, simply exploiting a catastrophe or tragedy for purely political gain - that is to pick up congressional seats, or secure a presidency, or to pass an agenda that has no clear benefit for most Americans or saddles future generations with debt - is not patriotic political expression.

Second, there is a great deal of frustration and anger that Americans were paid lip service by President Bush but were never called to serve, or sacrifice after 9/11. So, the frustration and anger of many Americans who see the flag (either on car bumpers, or on lapels) as indicative of patriotism is justified, but misdirected when levied at others who have not brandished the symbol. The frustration is shared and should be directed at the one responsible for failing to bring Americans together: George W. Bush.

After 9/11 many (most?) Americans truly wanted to come together in a show of unity. Many wished to share the burden and sacrifice of giving something back to the American community. But there was no call for sacrifice. Rather than instituting a national call for service (either civil or military, or both (note: Bush did call for national service... remember FreedomCorps?! But he has since largely abandoned any real effort to make service a priority)), or calling for taxation to fight our foes abroad, or planting victory gardens to increase food production while reducing transportation costs of food, or calling for massive recycling drives - all of which we were called to do during wartime(s) in the past, our President instead called on us to "go shopping." Frustrating, indeed.

So, Americans being independent and enterprising took it upon themselves to show support. In many cases they did volunteer their time and/or open up their wallets for a variety of causes. Many enlisted in the armed services. And, many took it upon themselves to make a statement by either wearing or displaying an American flag symbol. Some did both. Some did one or the other. In almost all cases, however the display of the flag as patriotic symbol was a personal statement, but not a measuring stick by which to demean other Americans who chose to act with patriotism rather than simply display it.

So, is patriotic display absent patriotic action more valuable than patriotic action absent patriotic display? I think clearly the answer is no. Anyone who goes into public service -whether civil or military is engaging in a patriotic act. After all, the sweat of your labor is going into the support and maintenance of the very institutions on which this great nation are founded. However, it is not required to wear a flag to prove you're committed to your cause.

Unfortunately, the display of a flag on the lapel of many politicians seems somehow less an act of patriotism than it is a sword or shield to distinguish oneself to voters. I wear a flag; message to voter: I am not weak on terrorism. The inference, of course, then is that if you do not wear a flag then you are weak on terrorism. This seems to be the root of criticism leveled at Obama.

In any case, Sen. Obama's actions are the very definition of patriotism: community organizing in low-income neighborhoods in Chicago; service in the Illinois General Assembly; service in the U.S. Senate; a presidential campaign premised on the twin messages of hope and change all wrapped up in the confident, optimistic slogan: "Yes, we can." This is perhaps the most patriotic campaign effort since Ronald Reagan's 1984 "Morning in America" campaign.

If Barack Obama can finally break through the cheap rhetoric of those who call unlabeled Americans "unpatriotic" and demonstrate that words and deeds signal more than simple pageantry, he would be rendering our nation a great service. We are traditionally a great and humble people. Patriotism is not a commodity, nor is it a monopoly owned by a political party. The very suggestion is unpatriotic.

Perhaps through this criticism (and his defense of it) Sen. Obama will reestablish that patriotism is an idea... a sentiment... a feeling; it is worn in the soul, not on the sleeve. That would make this patriot proud indeed.

What Part of "Affordability" Doesn't Jim Douglas Understand?

2008-02-21T04:37:00.000-08:00

... I guess it's the "ability" part. Douglas is rightly being criticized for gutting money for the housing and conservation board in his budget. That's money set aside for land conservation and affordable housing in Vermont. Gov. Dean always found money to put into VHCB (the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, which administers the Vermont Housing and Conservation Trust Fund) because he knew that Vermonters value the land, that it would help family farms, and that it created opportunities for Vermonters to put a roof over their heads at reasonable cost. But, it's not just advocates objecting to these short-sighted cuts. Legislators are catching on as well.

Is He Putting In, or Taking Out?

So what exactly is Douglas proposing? How about a 30% (or $5 million) cut in funding. That represents a loss of 120 affordable housing units, and saving 10 family farms and 10 community conservation efforts.

According to the Vermont Land Trust, "in the past 20 years, VHCB investments in Vermont communities have created more than 8500 permanently affordable homes and apartments and conserved more than 500 farms and 250,000 acres of forests and natural areas. For two decades, this has all made sense because affordable housing and conservation have strengthened our communities, conserved our world-class landscapes and in turn advanced our economic vitality."

This is Douglas' idea of promoting "affordability"?! Sounds more like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Maybe his public service announcement (ironically titled "Stretch Your Limits") should be retooled for Vermonters whose economic limits are being stretched. He doesn't even have to change his lines: "I'd like to challenge all Vermonters [sic] to stretch their limits this winter... then write to me and tell me how it's helping you..."

Hmm. Not a bad idea. Why not write Jim Douglas and tell him how his so-called "affordability" agenda, and that of his friend George W. Bush, is stretching us all to our limits (one new report out today even shows how Americans are tapping their retirement funds today in order to get by). The GOP agenda has helped us to record high gas and home heating oil prices; skyrocketing housing and rental costs; inaccessible and/or unaffordable health care, and skewed budget priorities that help the most affluent but do little for the rest of us.

While Douglas has routinely campaigned on, and championed, this agenda Democrats should hang this around his neck like the albatross it truly is and make him pay for his empty promises.

If we don't we'll all be paying for it for years to come. How about this for a Democratic ticket slogan: "Are You Better Off Now Than You Were Six Years Ago?" (with apologies to Ronald Reagan... Obama was right, he did have some good ideas!).

Obama Wins Wisconsin/Hawaii; Field Staff Reaches Out to Vermonters

2008-02-20T06:31:00.000-08:00

Sen. Barack Obama continues to pick up big momentum ("Obamo-mentum?"). Last night he won his tenth consecutive primary victory over Sen. Clinton by winning the crucial states of Wisconsin (a primary) and Hawaii (a caucus state).

Coincidentally, I received a friendly phone call from Obama's Washington County field organizer the other day. She asked that I post the following information for folks who want to get involved:

Please join the Obama campaign over the next two weeks to help drum up as much support for Senator Obama in Vermont, and Washington County as possible. If you are able to help out at all, from making phone calls to knocking on doors, we need you. Every vote will matter, and we're eager to have as many Obama supporters at the Primary on March 4th as possible.

We will have an office in Montpelier at 41 Elm Street, Second Floor, and a phone banking location in Montpelier as well, though we can also email you some phone calls to make from home.

If you are interested in getting involved, please contact Washington County Field Organizer, Emily Polak at (603) 521-5588 or by email at epolak@barackobama.com. You can also check out the campaign website for news and events, here.

We're looking forward to working with you!

**********

Note: don't be fooled by the New Hampshire exchange. Many of Sen. Obama's northeast region folks have been moving between New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont.

UPDATE: Just found out there is a "grand opening" for Obama's Montpelier office. Details below.

Montpelier Obama for America Office Opening

Thursday, February 21st - 7 pm

41 Elm St., Second Floor (Above the Soup Restaurant)

All are welcome.

I have not heard from any of Clinton's people, but the Times Argus reports they are having a news conference today to kick off their efforts.

The Romnivore's Dilemma

2008-02-07T10:46:00.000-08:00

OK, so Mitten has dropped out. What to do if you are part of the GOP Conservative Establishment? You don't like McCain... that's why you were for Mitt to begin with. Do you heart Huckabee now?

Granted McCain now appears to have this thing sewn up, but if Huckabee doesn't drop out and continues to campaign through the other primary states, it could be interesting to see what the "true" conservatives decide to do - both organizationally and in the money race.

Also, if Mitt's strategy is to angle for a VP slot as an "economic" counterweight to McCain's foreign policy credentials (not likely in any event as the two men apparently can't stand one another... on the other hand, I seem to recall there was no love lost between JFK and LBJ, yet they forged a ticket for strategic reasons), what to do if Huckabee continues to pick up southern states, and arguably the conservative mantle? Some suggest that Huckabee may now drop out and lobby for the VP slot.

Regardless, it looks like the Republicans are doing what they always do: circle the wagons and annoint the frontrunner in hopes of preserving an orderly nominating process.

It's really too bad. We won't have Mitt to kick around anymore. On the plus side, now he can spend his money to discover "who let the dogs out":

Barack Steady, Baby

2008-02-06T07:51:00.000-08:00

A close race in last night's Super Tuesday sweepstakes. However, Obama's bottom line is that he did what he had to do last night. Win more states than Hillary (13-8; probably 14-8 if his narrow lead in New Mexico holds up) and make it a draw in the delegate count (540 for Hillto 539 for Obama). A solid, steady (if slight) victory for him.

Last night's result was a photo finish, but because he won more states and received an equal number of delegates, Obama wins by a nose. Money and upcoming primaries favor him.

True, Clinton won the biggest prizes (California, New York, New Jersey), but these were all states where she had huge leads and she's going to split some of the delegates there with Obama anyway. The fact that he's cut into her overwhelming national lead by taking the plains states, the south, and southwest speaks volumes about how far his campaign has come.

You can find more (and better) analysis over at Slate and the Washington Post. On the other hand, David Brooks at the New York Times has a different (and interesting) take, giving Hillary the edge in a protracted battle for the nomination.

Coming up, the calendar seems to favor Obama. He raised $32 million in January alone and should have a fundraising advantage (Question: does Hillary's big win(s) in places like California and New York change this equation? Will she start to rake in more dollars now that she's won there, claiming that she's the "frontrunner" and pursuing celebs and Democratic rank and file)? It will be interesting to see where the money goes following this result.

This Saturday are the Louisiana primary, and Washington and Nebraska caucuses (Feb. 9); Sunday is the Maine caucuses (Feb. 10). As RealClearPolitics points out, Obama is likely favored in the first three given his success in the south and plains states, Clinton perhaps in Maine. The so-called "Potomac Primary" is next Tuesday, Feb. 12th and should favor Obama as well with Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia all casting ballots - states with large African American populations that should favor the junior Senator from Illinois. Obama also figures to win his birth-state, Hawaii, on Feb. 19th. In short, it appears Obama's momentum should continue, whereas Clinton's appears to be ebbing. But there will also be more debates, and obviously a week is a long time at this point - there may be mistakes that could doom either candidate before voting in any of these key remaining states. Hillary's best hope to staunch the bleeding may be a stand in some of the other large, delegate-rich states voting in early March, specifically: Texas, Ohio (March 4), and later Pennsylvania (April 22).

Although Hillary is roughly 80 delegates ahead overall (783-709, according to CNN), that is largely due to early superdelegates who have committed to the Clintons, rather than a result of voter preference. In fact, based on last night's results, it appears that the delegate count is literally split 50-50 (Hillary with 540, Obama with 539 - this is for Super Tuesday results only; if you factor in all the earlier primaries and caucuses, Obama leads by a delegate count of 603-590).

All that to say, we're pretty much in the same position we were in before the Super Tuesday primary kicked in. Both candidates showed they are well-run and can win where it counts. Obama gets the slight edge because he is better positioned to continue, and because of the breadth and diversity of his state (and delegate) count.

So, onward. Let the games begin... er, continue!

Super Tuesday Eve

2008-02-04T04:51:00.000-08:00

February 4, 2008. Big day. First, it's my birthday, so I get to celebrate. Spent yesterday bowling with friends and then off to a Super Bowl party. I get props for predicting the headlines and a Giants win (sorry, Pats fans).

All that said, today is also Super Tuesday Eve. Tomorrow voting begins in more than 20 states (22, to be precise) across America.

It's a bit like the Super Bowl, isn't it? Frontrunner/juggernaut (Clinton) who has led nationally all season up against upstart underdog (Obama) who has all the momentum. As with the Giants, I'm giving Obama the edge tomorrow. Don't know exactly how he'll do it, just a feeling.

Maybe it's the viral videos they're putting out. Pretty cool:

Barack Star!

2008-01-29T13:27:00.000-08:00

I've been remiss in not posting sooner on Sen. Barack Obama's tidal wave/tsunami/earthquake (choose your metaphor) in South Carolina. This was a victory he desperately needed - most important it showed he can take a punch (Bill's, not Hill's), absorb it, counterpunch, and win. Nice.

Obama's star is on the rise after a huge victory in South Carolina and being handed the key to Camelot by the Kennedy's.

Not only did he take apart the Clinton machine in South Carolina (a stunning 55%-27% victory), but he laid claim to the Democratic establishment's mantle of leadership. The real Democrats. Remember how Bill and Hillary were the "New Democrats" (you know, the ones who "ended welfare as we knew it" and declared "the era of big government is over"?). Well, the "Old Democrats are back. And, they're back with a vengeance. Sen. Ted Kennedy (along with Caroline and Rep. Patrick Kennedy) gave perhaps the best (and most damning, as far as the Clinton's are concerned) endorsement speech of the year so far. At least that's certainly what David Brooks thought.

Obama is reaching out to Americans... and has them believing again. Can he restore our faith in government?

Kennedy's speech was good. Obama's was better. This guy is good. I'm starting to believe. See for yourself:

The Stimulus Package Nobody Is Talking About...

2008-01-25T11:20:00.000-08:00

Congress and the Bush Administration (with the blessing of Treasury Secretary Paulson) have struck a tentative deal to send between $300 and $600 each to working Americans (so up to $1,200 for married (working) couples, plus an extra $300 for each kid). Hallelujah, and glory be...

Stimulating discussion: Do you trust these men to save the economy?

This is a cheap trick that insults the intelligence of our citizenry. The rationale is simple enough: Give working Americans a little cash in their pockets and they will go out and spend, spend, spend(!) thus giving the American economy a shot in the arm and avoiding recession.
The message is to simply continue conspicuous consumption... ie, we can simply spend our way out of this mess. The problem is that it doesn't work.

Back in 2001 they tried this rebate trick, too. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. Studies show that respondents to polling on the issue said they actually spent about 20% of the money on durable goods. The Tax Foundation notes one survey that showed: "the spending rate was quite low compared to what many economists had expected." Another study showed the figure slightly higher (between 20%-40% spent) and argued that it did have a significant effect on the economy. Even if you believe that study, it's not the picture that our friends in Washington, D.C. paint of folks running into the street waving hundred dollar bills.

I remember getting my check for $300. I used it to pay off some credit card bills. And, trust me, I would rather have done without it and known it would help pay off the national debt, build new schools, or pave roads. The specious argument that many conservatives use is to say: go for it! Send your check back to the government if that's the way you feel... or send it to a non-profit organization. While the latter is certainly an attractive and plausible option, the former doesn't make any sense. A singular contribution to the federal government does nothing. The purpose of taxation is so that many small contributions from millions of citizens adds up to a substantial pool of money that may be used for the public weal.

Now, what else did we get for that $300/person back in 2001? Hmmm. How about federal deficits as far as the eye can see? How about cuts to federal aid to states, reductions in essential human services, and more unfunded federal mandates. Such a deal!

Honestly, if you think about it how much is $300, or even $600 per worker going to get you? A month's rent (if your rent is cheap)... While it is a not-insignificant amount of money for low-income workers, the reality is that it's just not enough to get anyone through six months or a year of hard times that lay ahead. In short, the proposed stimulus package sends the wrong message for the wrong time.

Instead of using a transparent (if popular) election year trick to put a small amount of cash into the hands of Americans, why not focus on a real, long-term stimulus plan?

Such a plan might include:

1) Rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans (over $200,000);

2) Repealing (or at least recalibrating) the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) so that middle-income Americans are no longer caught in its clutches;

3) Using the new tax revenue from the wealthiest Americans to pay for unemployment insurance compensation extensions, increases in food stamp benefits, and workforce training (this was considered by the House, but they stripped it from the bill in order to move it; the Senate may put it back in, but there's no telling if a conference committee will pass it, or if Bush will sign it with these provisions included).

4) Corporate welfare reform - specifically stripping oil and coal research and development from the already hugely profitable private companies we subsidize and putting it into real renewable energy R&D and implementation. How about replacing every oil derrick in Texas with a wind turbine?

5) Balancing the federal budget.

If we have learned anything since the Bush Administration took over in 2001 it is that its economic policies are pure bunk. It took the largest budget surplus in American history and turned it into the largest deficit. This stimulus package will only make it worse.

How come nobody is talking about this?!

Actually some people are. Michael Bloomberg has just come out panning the entire package. The guy has some smarts, and some cojones. According to news reports of his comments on the package at a speech before the U.S. Conference of Mayors he said: "We can't borrow our way out of this. The jig is up." And, "It's not going to make much of a difference because we've already been running huge deficits. If we spend all the money right now, and there is no recovery because of it, then we don't have a second hand to play."

When it comes to money, Bloomberg makes dollars and sense.

His solution? According to Newsday: "Bloomberg argued that the government's first goal should be to stop the bleeding in the housing sector. "What good is a rebate going to do for a family who's about to lose the place that they sleep in?" he said. Instead, the mayor argued, the government should:

Adopt a capital budget to oversee long-term infrastructure spending, instead of the current year-to-year spending.

Offer financial counseling, modified loans and, in some cases, subsidized loans to homeowners who find themselves unable to afford their mortgages.

Overhaul immigration laws to bring more workers in, not keep workers out."

Wow... how refreshing. Instead of demonizing immigrants and demagoguing the immigration issue, there is a politician out there who actually says "let them in..." the words on the Statue of Liberty actually still mean something:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

If anyone should know the meaning of that old Emma Lazarus poem ("The New Colossus"), it would be the Mayor of New York. Is this guy actually going to run for President? An independent truth-teller (and former Democrat) who is self-funded and not as crazy as Ross Perot could sure make the race very interesting.

Ross was boss, back in '92.

While we're at it, why not throw in real progress on health care (say, universal, single-payer?), and fundamentally shift our economic priorities to help ALL Americans, not just those at the top of the socio-economic ladder?

What could be a better stimulus plan than building a foundation for long-term economic growth and prosperity and eliminating class anxiety by strengthening the social safety net for those in need?

Galbraith Dips a Toe into Gubernatorial Waters...

2008-01-22T14:38:00.000-08:00

Anthony Pollina's day just got a little worse... and Jim Douglas probably thinks he's got it made (although that false sense of security may be his undoing) as Peter Galbraith takes another step towards running for Governor.

Today Galbraith sent out an email touting his "Vermont Leadership Fund" which will support candidates at all levels, but presumably serves as the official "dipping of the toe" into gubernatorial waters.

"Interesting," as Peter Freyne would say. You can check out the message and contribute at: http://www.vermontleadershipfund.org/.

Maybe this guy CAN give Douglas a run for his money. At least he's got the guts not to be scared off by Douglas and/or Pollina (yet).

For those of you unfamiliar with Peter Galbraith, here's a video of his take on the Bush Administration's handling of the Iraq War, the surge, and its broader implications. If this guy can indict the Douglas Administration the way he goes after the Bush Administration in this clip, that should go a long way to shoring up his credentials. Stay tuned!

The conventional wisdom that Douglas cruises in a 3-way race. But the conventional wisdom is wrong: Douglas has it much easier in a head-to-head race against Pollina.

Here's why:

For starters, there are a large percentage of old-guard Democrats who simply WILL NOT vote for a Progressive, regardless of how much courting goes on, and regardless of whether the Democratic leadership could convince someone from running to give him a free pass (which won't happen). In that case, Douglas either picks up those folks ("Douglas Democrats"?), or they take a pass on voting in that race. So, Douglas stands to win with anywhere from 55%-45% (best case for Pollina), or perhaps in a landslide somewhere around 65% or 70% to Pollina's 35% or 30%) (more likely).

Second, in a 3-way race, the Democrats will vote, and turnout will be high in a hotly contested presidential election year. So, it does provide the opening to keep Douglas with a plurality of the vote - either throwing it to the legislature and allowing the 3rd place candidate to make a public appeal to throw their votes to the 2nd place candidate), or at a minimum hampering him by denying him a mandate.

Lastly, might I suggest that if the Dems put forth aggressive energy and health plans this session and Douglas vetoes them, or if the economy continues to worsen, OR, any number of other X-factors come into play (suppose Galbraith outraises Douglas using his national/international connections - who knows?!), then perhaps, just perhaps, the Democrat finishes first. Not entirely outside the realm of possibility if all the stars align.

In Defense of "Hillary Flick"

2008-01-16T05:14:00.000-08:00

OK, full disclosure: I would be perfectly happy if Hillary were to win the nomination. I feel like such a square for even saying that. All my cool friends are born-again Obama-philes. I know, I know... Obama is the Democrat-du-jour, the "change-agent." Edwards (truly, my first choice), the populist, is a longshot at this point, and much to my consternation keeps running third. But like Obama's candidacy, Hillary's run is, in fact, also historic. And, yet somehow she and her campaign are taken for granted.

That said, Hillary just seems to be trying so hard. Poking a little fun at her campaign is almost irresistible. Slate sums it up neatly: some folks just don't like her because she is an over-prepared, perfectionist goody-two-shoes. Call it the "Tracy Flick syndrome."

Pretty good, no? Almost spot on perfect, I'd say.

And yet... and yet there's something nagging at me the way the media, the pundits, and even some voters I've heard talk about her candidacy. It's as though there is this latent sexism... unspoken, yet prevalent. Pervasive, even. And, I don't like it. Not one bit. She's tough, she's smart, and yes, she's experienced.

So, why the Hillary bashing? Is it because we're afraid of the Republican smear-machine? Well, she was certainly right about the "vast right-wing conspiracy." But, I don't think that Democrats worried about "electability" explains it all. After all, the Republicans hate her because they fear her.

What about on the issues? Well, there she's a true-blue Democrat with all the bona fides of someone who has been through the health care wars (and with the battle scars to prove it). True, some would say that the "New" Democrats she represents are a sell out. But, we loved Bill and that and "triangulation" was what he was all about. He's not perfect, we said, but he's ours and he gave us eight years in the White House. How is Hillary any different? If you loved Bill, or at least voted for him, then Hillary should be good enough for you. Besides, she's just macchiavellian enough to steal any good ideas the GOP has, alter them with a liberal twist, suck them in to pass it, and then stick it to 'em right where it hurts. Just like Bill (probably better than Bill). Matthew Yglesias, over at the Atlantic, put it succinctly: "frankly, the idea that Clinton would use dishonest political tactics to beat the GOP is, in my view, probably the most appealing thing about her."

True, her position on Iraq is a liability, but no more so than Obama's position (or most of the Republican field, for that matter). The bottom line on Iraq is that none of the candidates really know what they will do once in office. And, the conditions in Iraq are driving the policy, not the other way around. Until someone new assumes control of the Oval Office and gets a real intel assessment it is all speculation. The likelihood that even someone like Edwards (or, even Kucinich!) could waltz in and just pull the troops out without consequence is unlikely and unrealistic. So, despite most Democrats desire to pull out of Iraq, I suspect that regardless of party or individual plan we are likely to be there well into a new Administration and beyond.

If nothing else Hillary would drive the Republicans absolutely crazy. Just like Tracy Flick in "Election." And, don't forget how the movie turned out: She ends up coming out on top in her battle against Matthew Broderick's character, when he attempts to turn the election against her by manipulating the vote totals (something Al Gore has actually experienced, and which could happen again): The poor fellow ends up losing his job and guiding tours at a museum somewhere in the capital and she ends up on Capitol Hill. That's probably what is in store for anyone who messes with Hillary - even with a 52% popular vote ceiling. It might be worth electing her for that alone.

So, yes, Hillary (if it comes to that). Not bad, and even good (or better) in some ways. And, a woman to drive the Republicans to distraction. How novel!

** In the meantime, I'll continue to support Sen. Edwards' longshot bid. I must say, I like that he's within spitting distance of an upset in Nevada (Obama-32%; Hillary-30%; Edwards-27%) and he was great in the debate last night (especially on the issue of Iraq, nuclear energy production, and corporate cash) distinguishing himself from his rivals.

NSA: Big Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?

2008-01-14T05:31:00.000-08:00

It's nice to know the almighty dollar still rules - even when it comes to national security.

Despite caving in to government spying on Americans through their telephone records, for "national security" reasons, apparently such patriotism extends only so far as the FBI budget allows. Apparently, more than half of almost 1,000 bills in five different FBI field offices were not paid on time; some FISA-authorized surveillance was dropped or interrupted as a result of unpaid bills.

From Reuters: "American Civil Liberties Union attorney Michael German said, 'It seems the telecoms, who are claiming they were just being 'good patriots' when they allowed the government to spy on us without warrants, are more than willing to pull the plug on national security investigations when the government falls behind on its bills.'"

It makes you wonder: if getting the information from those telecom accounts was so important to national security in the first place, why would the FBI let them lapse for nonpayment? Maybe they really weren't that important. Also, why would the telecom companies just shut them off if they were really interested in being "good patriots"? Could it be that they, who agreed to allow these transgressions in the first place, are still peeved that they haven't been granted immunity from civil suits for doing this, as they've requested?

Of course, domestic spying on Americans without a warrant is unconstitutional on its face. Still, the Bush Administration has successfully chipped away at our Constitutional freedoms. There is an excellent primer on the legal arguments for and against wiretapping at NPR's website.

US Supreme Court 5-4 Decision: Lethal Injection OK for Voters Without Photo ID (Scalia: "If they're dead, they're probably voting anyway.")

2008-01-10T07:53:00.001-08:00

... with apologies to the Onion.

Ok, so the Supremes have not handed down a decision in either the lethal injection case, or the voter identification case, but we can be fairly certain given the make-up of the court where they'll come down.

For those readers who are unfamiliar with these cases, here's a quick take on each:

Lethal injection: is it constitutional under the Eighth Amendment (read: is it "cruel and unusual")? Specifically, this case was brought by two death row inmate(s) in Kentucky. The case, Baze and Bowling v. Rees, centers on the narrow question of whether or not the way lethal injection in that state (a three drug cocktail - one to knock you out, one to paralyze you, and one to stop your heart) is administered is constitutional. It does not challenge the death penalty on its face. Still, it's an interesting case because it tests the limits of death penalty protocols.

Scalia (of course) takes the lead suggesting that 1) these folks don't really deserve that much consideration anyway ("This is an execution, not a surgery," he snaps! And, "the other side says that to know whether the person is unconscious or not, all it takes is a slap in the face and shaking!"), and 2) even if the pain caused can be considered "unnecessary" the standard is that in order for it to be unconstitutional, it must be "unnecessary and wanton."

Scalia says: "Put 'em down..."

This is a distinction without a difference. The definition of "wanton" is "done, shown, used maliciously or unjustifiably," or "deliberate and without motive or provocation," or "without regard for what is right, just, humane, etc." If the state knows that its protocols are unnecessary and likely to cause pain yet disregards that likelihood, doesn't that make it "wanton?!" Not in Scalia's book.

Of course, this case with its particularities and subjective fights over what constitutes pain, or how much pain is permissible, etc. ignores the elephant in the room: namely whether or not the death penalty itself ought continue. It's likely the Court will come down on the side of Kentucky in determining (as Scalia put it): "If the protocol is properly executed," presumably no pun intended, then "there's no risk." Slate has an excellent analysis on this case, and concludes with emphasis on the larger issue:

"There are so many real problems with the death penalty—racial disparities and inadequate trial counsel and sloppy crime labs. Anyone who thought those problems might be solved by inducing a sweeter sleep was probably dreaming anyhow."

Voting Rights. The second case referred to above, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, was just heard yesterday. It's a challenge to Indiana's 2005 "strictest-in-the-nation" voter ID law. The law requires every voter to produce photo ID at the polls on election day when s/he goes to cast a ballot. If they don't have it they can go to the county seat in some cases many miles away to get one after signing an affidavit that they cannot afford one (and by the way for which they must also produce a birth certificate - another hurdle in time, organization, and expense). Then they have to go back and vote. Ostensibly, the law was created to prevent that favorite conservative election day canard: voter fraud.

However, as anyone with any knowledge on the subject will tell you, this is almost entirely a figment of the right's imagination to scare the public into allowing such measures to be entered into law. It's the same justification used to continually raise objections to same-day voter registration, which is only available in a handful of states. Yet, voter fraud in the United States as a whole is exceedingly rare. Even in states where presumably you could get away with it - Minnesota, Maine, New Hampshire, Idaho, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and North Dakota (which has done away with registration altogether), voter fraud is virtually unknown. In fact, those states routinely have among the highest participation rates with few, if any, documented cases of fraud (I'm aware of only one case in Maine involving some college students who mistakenly voted by mail in their home states, then turned around and cast ballots in Maine near their college - they were not prosecuted).

Still, let's not lose the forest for the trees. As Slate's analysis points out, this case is shaping up not to be about what the appropriate burden for voters to bear should be with respect to the state's interest in ensuring the virtue and sanctity of the ballot box. Instead, this case appears to be shaping up as a debate over "facial challenges" - that is lawsuits designed to challenge laws that are unconstitutional on their face in every circumstance and not an "as-applied" challenge that affects only the litigants.

Chief Justice Roberts: "You have about this much chance of convincing me..."

In fact, it is arguable the appellants in this case can even show harm without a facial challenge: the case was brought before an election had even happened, and while the appellants could produce a handful of folks who didn't actually have photo ID's and would be "burdened" by the law, none had actually been denied their vote. Instead, the real reason for bringing the suit is to avoid injury to the potentially thousands of individuals who would be disenfranchised on election day because they do not have a photo ID and/or don't have transportation to get to the county seat, or can't afford the fees, or quite simply don't want to go through the hassle.

Let's get one thing straight: Justice Terrence Evans had it right in dissent when this case was before the Indiana Supreme Court: "Let's not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic."

Unfortunately, on appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court, not only is it likely that the increased barriers to voting for seniors, minorities, and indigents in Indiana be upheld, but it may be the fig-leaf conservatives have been looking for to do away with facial challenges altogether.

Meanwhile, Justice Thomas continues to show his usual, admirable restraint from the bench.

Justice Thomas: Mum's the word...

What Now?

2008-01-08T18:48:00.000-08:00

As I write election returns from New Hampshire are coming in. With almost half the precincts reporting, Hillary is narrowly leading Barack Obama. Edwards is a distant third. While this likely dooms Edwards (and certainly Richardson will be dropping out soon, despite his claims that he can compete in Nevada), what does this mean for the race generally?

One thing it might mean is that the reports of Hillary Clinton's demise are premature. The Clinton's are well loved by rank and file Democrats. What is so surprising is that she is doing so well in a place rife with Independents, like New Hampshire. Time will tell how the voters broke. One theory is that Edwards' folks decided he just wasn't viable and ended up breaking for Clinton... they are blue-collar rank and file Democrats more likely to support her than the cerebral Obama. Another theory is that women ended up breaking heavily for Clinton after her performance in the debates and the "Diner Sob." Finally, Obama's youth brigades may have told pollsters they were for him, but then ended up not turning out (that's what you get for inspiring frat-boys, Barack).

But seriously, the other thing it might mean is that rather than coasting, Obama may, in fact get the proper vetting and scrutiny that his campaign will need if it is to survive a general election campaign - particularly if McCain emerges as a consensus candidate (the only one who might be able to pull out a win against the Democrats in 2008). I think Obama (or Clinton, for that matter) would make a fine nominee. However, his campaign to date has largely centered on platitudes and variations on the "change" theme. That won't hold up for the next 11 months. We're going to need more... "beef" as Walter Mondale so eloquently put it to Gary Hart back in '84.

Slate ran a post on this topic that is worth checking out. It's clearly a huge victory for Clinton if she pulls it out, but it isn't a death knell for Obama, just a reality check. Getting the nomination against the caliber of opponent he is facing shouldn't be easy.

Apparently, it isn't.

We Can't Lose!

2008-01-06T15:39:00.001-08:00

That's the conclusion I came to after watching the two New Hampshire debates last night. That's a prediction and an exhortation (i.e., we can't afford to lose!).

The Republicans spent the evening fixed on fear, terrorism, war, immigration and living in the past on 9/11.

By contrast, the Democrats focused on the pressing issues facing America: health care, education, jobs and the economy, getting our troops out of Iraq, and looking ahead with optimism, strength and hope for the future.

Which platform sounds more appealing to you?

One thing I've noticed is that the various camps are digging hard into their positions, which is only natural and perfectly understandable given the heated battle for the primary elections. After the primaries, however, we all have to forgive and forget and get behind whoever the eventual nominee. The debate last night reinforced for me the sense that whoever gets the nomination is going to be a VAST improvement over the current Administration and any of the candidates the GOP has to offer.

Here's my quick take on the Democratic debate:

Obama was once again impressive: thoughtful, mature... presidential. His message of change may well be the most positive and inspiring of all the candidates. He makes a good frontrunner.

Hillary's performance came off as very human, funny, and smart. It showed she is well-positioned to lead. Despite what some folks say (they worry about her high personal "negatives"), she would make a great president and I firmly believe she can win if she gets the nomination.

John Edwards is definitely the most fired up of the bunch. He has a point: no matter how good your plans, if the big corporations are calling the shots in Washington then not much is going to get done. Not sure if that message is enough to bring him the nomination, but it is making a difference on the trail and it resonates with voters who know that despite our best efforts health care reform has been stymied in this country by those interests since Hillary tried to get universal care way back in 1993.

Bill Richardson probably has the best resume of the bunch. He's smart, but clearly frustrated that "experience" may not mean as much to voters given his polling numbers.
Best lines of the night:

Hillary, after being asked by moderator Charlie Gibson on why her personal negatives are so high... why is it that people don't seem to like you? She replied: "Now you've hurt my feelings." Which got a big laugh. "But I'll try to carry on." More laughs. The Obama chimed in: "You're likeable enough, Hillary."

Richardson on mistakes made during the debates and if he would correct any of them. He immediately said: "In the first debate I was asked who my favorite Supreme Court Justice was... I asked 'dead or alive' (big laugh). So, I ended up saying Whizzer White because I figured he must be good if he was appointed by Kennedy. Of course, later I learned that he was against Roe v. Wade, against civil rights... so, yeah, in hindsight that wasn't a very good answer." The place broke up. Points for honesty and humility.

Edwards on the same question: "Well, I've already got this one figured out... in an earlier debate I teased Hillary about the jacket she wore to the debate. I'll never do that again... by the way, Hillary, you look very nice tonight." Again, the place broke up, and points to Edwards for making fun of his earlier gaffe.

Vermonters Rally With Edwards in New Hampshire

2008-01-06T06:43:00.000-08:00

I spent yesterday canvassing for John Edwards and later attended the rally he held in Lebanon, New Hampshire. Here's a shot of some of the campaign staff and volunteers. A dedicated bunch. some of 'em fresh from the plains of Iowa.

They gave me a walking list in Enfield, NH and I spent a couple of hours going door-to-door chatting up our neighbors to the east.

Whether or not I made any difference for John Edwards, I can tell you that the good people of New Hampshire will be glad when Tuesday comes and goes. They are fried, burned out, and fed up with volunteers, canvassers, staffers, and even the candidates themselves begging for their votes. That message came through loud and clear. One 72-year old woman declared: "It's bordering on harrassment!"

Later, though she engaged in a spirited discussion on the problems with our health care system. "Thank God we're relatively healthy," she said, "we paid for at-home hospice care for my father. Cost us $13,000 for 13 days and our insurance wouldn't cover it... and that was back in the early '80's. I can't imagine what it would cost now!" By the end she gave me a wink and said "I do like that Edwards is standing up to the big corporations... they're running everything" She made the whole trip worthwhile.

Edwards was fired up and his pitch of taking on corporate greed and special interests seems to be catching on with voters.

Here's his opener:

Folks were pretty fired up. I was glad to see a strong Vermont contingent helping out with canvassing. Bill McKowne of Cambridge (below) was ready to knock on some doors. Said he was for Edwards based on "electability" and just got the call about the Lebanon rally the day before.
I was glad to make the trip. It's always good to get a taste of presidential politics up close and personal. Good to see Matt Dunne, Kevin Leahy, and Ben Cohen making the trip too. For more pictures and accounts check out Green Mountain Daily who also had a feisty, motivated contingent on-hand to help out.

Theodore M. Riehle, Jr. (Dec. 20, 1924 - Dec. 31, 2007)

2008-01-04T09:31:00.000-08:00

When you drive up and down Vermont's roads and scenic byways, you have Theodore M. Riehle, Jr. to thank for the beautiful views.

Mr. Riehle was a Vermont Republican who, in 1968, authored the legislation forbidding billboards on Vermont highways. Although controversial at the time, the bill passed thanks to a different breed of Republican. At the time, Mr. Riehle and other environmentally conscious Republicans were in the vanguard of environmental thinking and stewardship. While not as far reaching in terms of size and scope as Act 250 - Vermont's landmark planning and development law (signed into law by former Gov. Deane C. Davis, also a Republican in 1970) - it is hard to think of anyone who has had as much impact on what we see as we drive around the state than Mr. Riehle.

Mr. Riehle died peacefully after a brief illness on New Year's Eve. To be sure, the billboard law was not his only accomplishment, but it may be what he is best known for - read his obituary for more about the man.

All in all, not a bad legacy.

Obama-Time: Sen. Barack Obama Wins In Iowa; Edwards is 2nd, Clinton a Close 3rd

2008-01-04T07:11:00.000-08:00

Obama-philes everywhere are celebrating their man's victory in the first meaningful vote of the presidential election season. Congratulations to Sen. Obama on a hugely important win in Iowa. There is plenty of analysis on the race and what this means to the other candidates, but for now it's Barack Obama's day. A well-fought, well-earned victory.

I will say that the other interesting development is Edwards' second-place finish. While a third place finish would probably have doomed him, he now has a claim to being the "alternative" to Obama in a way that Hillary is not. But he now has to win or come in second in either New Hampshire (unlikely) or South Carolina (more likely) in order to stay alive until Super Tuesday. His biggest problem (that Clinton doesn't face) is cash. He doesn't have enough of it compared to his rivals. Will he get any kind of bounce? Can shoe-leather and message make up for lack of money? Traditionally, of course, the answer is no but if Edwards continues to present an obstacle for Clinton then Obama may cruise to the nomination.

And, what about Sen. Clinton? She is a savvy, well-financed candidate with more than a few tricks still left up her sleeve. No doubt she will be much tougher to beat on Super Tuesday when large states (California, New York, Florida, Michigan, etc.) start to vote.

And, what will Vermonters decide to do if the race is still up for grabs in March? Maybe our little primary won't be so inconsequential after all?!

Top Ten Dumbest Legal Arguments Made by the Bush Administration

2008-01-01T05:46:00.000-08:00

It's year in review time here at Mulish Behavior (and everywhere else, for that matter). One of the best I've seen so far is by Slate.com legal correspondent, Dahlia Lithwick. She's put together a great list. To read the entire article at Slate, click here.

Meantime, here's their quick and dirty take on the Bush Administration's Top Ten Dumbest Legal Arguments of 2007. The envelope, please:

10) The NSA's eavesdropping was limited in scope;

9) Scooter Libby's sentence was commuted because it was excessive;

8) The Vice President's Office is not part of the Executive Branch (Hmmm. Must be part of the Judiciary Branch, then, right?);

7) The Guantanamo Bay detainees enjoy more legal rights than any prisoners of war in history;

6) Waterboarding may not be torture;

5) Everyone who has ever spoken to the president about anything is barred from congressional testimony by executive privilege;

4) Nine U.S. Attorneys were fired by nobody, but for good reason;

3) Alberto Gonzales (explanatory note: they put the former AG into his own category because he had so many good whoppers throughout the year);

2) "State Secrets" (never have so many been used to hide so much lying and incompetence...);

... and the Number One Dumbest Legal Argument made by the Bush Administration in 2007:

1) The United States does not torture.

It really is worth taking a few moments to read the entire column over at Slate. Check it out.

Busted! Mainstream Media Finally Catching on to Douglas' So-Called "Affordability Agenda"

2007-12-30T13:37:00.000-08:00

Today's Times-Argus editorial page devotes a full column taking Jim Douglas to task for his habitual knocking of Vermont's economic and jobs development climate.

Jim Douglas and his so-called "affordability agenda"

are digging Vermont into a big hole.

Is the mainstream media finally catching on to the political agenda behind the "affordability agenda"? Or, are they just getting tired of his say-more, do-less attitude? Either way it's high time the Governor was subjected to a little more scrutiny. Maybe his days of getting a free pass are finally over.

An excerpt:

"Don't believe what the governor is going to tell you about our young people moving away. Declaring that the sky is falling because of Vermont's status as the oldest state in the union has become as much a part of Jim Douglas' routine as is his folksy demeanor and having a veto showdown with the Democrats come springtime.

Douglas has in fact built his "affordability agenda" on the idea that we are chasing young people out of the state with our high taxes.

But it's not true.

...It's time Douglas stopped doing a similar disservice to Vermont business. The perception is that Vermont is not business-friendly, in part because our state's chief executive won't stop telling people that's the case.It's easy to see why he's doing it: It gets Jim Douglas re-elected...

So what can Douglas do? He has talked about finding a regional solution – emphasis on the "talk." And he has put forward some positive initiatives around education, selling the state as a "green" destination and small business development. None of those things can hurt.

But playing Chicken Little over taxes is worse than useless because it encourages those people and businesses that want to be in the Northeast to look elsewhere.

Vermont can't afford the "affordability agenda" if it's being sold one knock on the state at a time."

Kudos to the Times Argus editorial staff for this important work. Read the entire column here.

Three things this editorial makes clear:

1) "Don't believe what the Governor is telling you..."; and

2) The Governor is doing our state and our business community "a disservice"; and

3) Vermont can't afford Douglas' so-called "affordability agenda."

Sounds like a platform for Vermont Democrats to run on in 2008.

'Nuff said.

Who Will Fight the Good Fight?

2007-12-17T10:50:00.000-08:00

Democrats are looking for a candidate who will win in 2008. Fortunately (or unfortunately), we have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to viable candidates for the nomination. Hillary, Obama, Edwards... they are all legitimate contenders who (barring catastrophe) could - should! - deliver the White House next year.

Given that, we need to consider not only who can win the election but who is best equipped to actually create the change we want to see in this country once the election is over. That is: who will fight the good fight for ordinary Americans after the elections are over?

Will the real change agent please stand up?

The conventional wisdom on this point breaks down the three contenders into two basic camps based on their current rhetoric: Institutional candidates and the Populist Candidate. So, Obama is the outsider, right?! Wrong.

Obviously, Hillary is trying to show she is most "electable" by running an insider's campaign. Message: Elect me - I have experience and I know how to work the controls. "Competence, not cronyism." Not bad... but hardly a wholesale system shake-up.

Obama's message? Elect me because I'm inclusive. Everyone has a seat at the table and together we'll make change. His website touts his efforts to partner with unlikely allies: Obama, his site reminds us, "enlisted the help of Republican allies to limit lobbyist influence." I don't know about you, but that is less than encouraging. Even if you like the idea that the guy can build bridges, work together, etc. The statement itself strikes me as something of an oxymoron.

Paul Krugman points out:

"...believing that the insurance and drug industries — which are, in large part, the cause of our health care problems — will be willing to play a constructive role in health reform," is unrealistic. Krugman argues that it's perverse to run on inclusion and then turn around and give voice to the very powers who are stopping the change he advocates from actually taking place.

Nope. If that is really Obama's message, that won't get the job done. That's not going to be good enough.

The real change agent with the message and the muscle to take on Washington special interests is John Edwards. He's campaigning on a populist message that says "Elect me. I will NOT give the special interests a seat at the table. They've owned those seats for too long. It's time to give the American people the seats around the table." His website doesn't even bother having a link to "fighting Washington corruption" or "taking on Washington" - probably because just saying it means that you're going to be trying to work with the powers that be...

Read the article, here.

Edwards appears to be the only candidate ready to "stick it to the man" and actually take the moneyed system head-on. He can afford to tell the truth since he has nothing to lose sitting in third place in most of the polls. "Families are working harder for stagnating wages when there are nearly 60 lobbyists for every member of Congress." Fixing America "will take strong, bold steps, not incremental steps and half measures." True enough.

America needs someone willing to lay out a clear vision for the country and take risks, not someone who will continue to compromise our values in the pursuit of maintaining power. For that reason, Edwards seems to have the most to offer.

** Newsweek has just come out with Edwards on its cover touting him as the "sleeper candidate." Some interesting analysis on how he could sneak a win with Hillary and Obama splitting up larger municipalities in Iowa, which through arcane rules could allow smaller, rural areas where Edwards is working to carry the day.

Report: Nation's Wealthy Deprived of True Meaning of Christmas

2007-12-11T11:22:00.000-08:00

It's true... the wealthy really have it hard at the holidays. Note: While I love this parody put together by our friends over at The Onion, I had to laugh that it's sponsored by Ford's giganto-super-sized "hybrid" SUV. Yikes.

Still, you gotta love this "news report":

Report: Nation's Wealthy Cruelly Deprived Of True Meaning Of Christmas

The Drug War Bible: King James Version

2007-12-07T22:05:00.000-08:00

Great post by Jack McCullough over on Green Mountain Daily exposing King James' hypocrisy in the public kerfuffle over Windsor County State's Attorney Robert Sand and his sane approach to dealing with non-violent drug offenders in Vermont.

An excerpt:

"The Valley News had the story yesterday... "just days before Douglas' rebuke, a case involving 110 marijuana plants in neighboring Orange County was also sent to diversion. That case, and the Republican prosecutor who declined to seek criminal sanctions, escaped Douglas' scrutiny."

.... So why the change of heart? Yesterday in the Valley News, "Douglas spokesman Jason Gibbs said the two cases are not comparable." Why not? Because of the appearance of preferential treatment to a lawyer in the Windsor County case, and the fact that Sand is known to disagree with Douglas' opinion on how marijuana should be dealt with.

In other words, he decided to attack Bobby Sand and not his counterpart in Orange County, Republican Will Porter, for purely political reasons."

Read the entire post, here, at Green Mountain Daily.

This is another interesting example of the GOP abandoning its self-professed traditional federalist principles. Usually Republicans argue that local control should be king. And, the elected representatives closest to the people should be allowed to reflect the popular will ("keep big government out"). In this instance, rather than viewing Sand's position as an interesting experiment that could actually yield data on a persistent social problem, the Gov. decided to try to score political points rather than actually take an interest in solving the problem and respecting the will of Windsor county voters.

This may be the year that Vermonters actually get a glimpse behind the curtain and see the hypocrisy for themselves. Methinks this one is going to come back to bite King James. He may be sorry he ever waded into this...

Trashed! Why Douglas, the Chamber, and Vermont Tiger Talk Down Vermont's Economy

2007-12-05T05:26:00.000-08:00

They're at it again.

Have you noticed a trend in how Gov. Douglas, the Chamber of Commerce, and their buddies over at "PaperTiger" continually assail Vermont's business climate? This has been going on for some time now, but we are likely to see the hue and cry reach fever pitch as the election season heats up and the Governor poses as the tough guy standing up for jobs and the little guy. Of course when it comes to actually doing something for the little guys (energy veto, anyone?), the Gov takes a pass.

Usually Governors are the "cheerleaders-in-chief" of their economies. That is, they work tirelessly to promote their state as a good place to do business. Not so here in Vermont. So, what gives?

Well, for one thing, "Jim=Jobs" hasn't exactly panned out. For another, maybe things aren't really as bleak as they seem? While most states are severely buffeted by recession, we tend to weather those storms pretty well. I guess if your definition of a successful business climate is strip malls, McMansions, and a stripping away of cultural identity then certainly by that measure we lag behind other states. But this is Vermont! Do we really need to trade away our heritage to look just like "Anytown, U.S.A."? I don't think so.

Finally, to the extent that things really aren't getting better for most average Vermonters, it is not due to the bogeyman the Administration and its apologists point to ("high taxes" and "regulation"). Rather it is the necessities: health care, energy and transportation costs and basic housing that can make living in Vermont challenging - the very issues that Douglas and his pals prefer to duck.

Could it be that the Right in Vermont has decided the only way to maintain its hold on the Governorship is to trash the economy and scare Vermonters in order to preserve his political hide?

Worse, does such a Machiavellian strategy create a self-fulfilling prophecy that things don't, in fact, improve, thereby allowing the Governor and every other right-winger to turn around and blame the poor business climate on others? Perhaps.

Put it another way, what business owner do you know that would say to its customers: "I hate my products. They are overpriced and nobody wants them!? But, no really buy them... really, I'm open for business." Essentially, this is what Douglas and the Chamber are telling prospective businesses and entrepreneurs every time trash Vermont's "business environment."

This brings us to the implicit fallacy of the Douglas "Affordability Agenda." More slogan than program, this impressively slim manifesto allows the Governor to defend doing nothing in the interest of maintaining the status quo. The implication being that any action taken is likely to make things worse, not better. And, so as things get worse the Governor continues to scare-monger the issue and the cycle continues.

Where have we heard scaremongering and empty slogans used in the service of pressing a purely political agenda at the expense of the public?

Just remember the next time you hear Douglas, the Chamber, and "Paper Tiger" decry the state of Vermont's economy they don't do it in the service of the average Vermonter. They are pressing their "Agenda" in pursuit of a political objective: Declaring "Mission Accomplished" while failing to act in the public interest to make life better and more affordable for the rest of us.

In short, the so-called "Affordability Agenda" is simply political "strategery" masquerading as public policy.

Douglas' Worst Nightmare: Racine Considers Race for Governor

2007-12-03T05:49:00.001-08:00

With no Democratic candidates currently announced for governor, some exciting news may be developing. The Vermont Press Bureau spoiled Jim Douglas' breakfast this morning by reporting that Sen. Doug Racine (D-Chittenden) (shown here presenting an award) is considering a run for governor.

This is Douglas' worst nightmare, and potentially very good news for Democrats because Racine may be the best hope Democrats have to defeat Douglas. Here are five reasons why:

1) Name Recognition: Racine has held statewide office before and is perhaps the only candidate who is as well known to Vermont voters as Douglas.

2) Hometown Advantage: Racine is from Chittenden County and can count on prevailing in his home county, the largest in the state. He defeated Dougals in Chittenden County in 2002 by a margin of 46% - 43%). This deprives the well-known Douglas of a huge advantage against anyone else (he's cleaned up in Chittenden County against all other contenders in past elections 56% - 40% against Clavelle; and 56% - 42% against Parker).

3) GOP-Fatigue: Racine lost by a whisker to Douglas in 2002 (45% - 42%), a non-presidential year when turnout is typically lower than usual. This year the presidential election can be expected to boost turnout generally, and more specifically, boost turnout for the Democrats after eight years of Bush-fatigue.

4) History: Traditionally, it has taken Racine two runs to prevail. This was true of his runs for Lieutenant Governor. Perhaps "two is the charm."

5) Douglas' Achilles Heel: Overconfidence. Nobody expects the Democrats to win this year against "Do-Nothing Douglas." Douglas' biggest liabilities are his overconfidence and his so-called "affordability agenda" which has done little to improve the lives of most Vermonters, despite his having occupied the Pavilion Building for the last five years. This may be the most important (and overlooked) reason that Democrats may have their best shot in years to defeat the incumbent - if they find the right candidate with the right message at the right time.

No doubt about it, Racine could be Vermont's "Comeback Kid" in 2008 should he choose to run.

Is it time for a Draft Racine movement?

Post Thanksgiving Update: Turkeys Refuge in California

2007-11-26T17:44:00.001-08:00

Ok, so Jim Douglas is off to California this week to deal with what is surely important business at the GOP Governor's Association Meeting (like, umm, getting re-elected). The meeting is in Dana Point, CA, which is home to the "turkey trot" and the "festival of whales." It is the the 116th wealthiest (per capita) community in California and was formerly the home of Nicole Brown Simpson.

Now, Dana Point looks like a perfectly nice place to have an association meeting. In fact, scoff all you want about events like the "turkey trot," but I was impressed that the funds raised go to benefit the Orange County Food Bank.

It got me to thinking... Vermont food shelves are currently unable to keep up with demand. The holidays are supposed to be a time of joyful reunions, family meals, and time to relax and reflect on the coming new year. For many Vermont families living at, or near, the poverty line, however, the holidays are a time when heating bills are going up and it becomes more and more difficult to make ends meet.

This year several news stories have focused on the bare shelves at area food shelves. The Vermont Food Bank is a good place to go to find out more about the food shortage facing low-income Vermonters and what you can do to help (and to locate the food bank nearest you to make a donation). But, why stop there? Organize your office, your neighbors, your local church or club and get involved to make it a little easier for those with the least this time of year. Get out there and make a difference!

You may recall that the Republicans recently "renamed" hunger in America. They're not doing much about it, but we can make a difference individually and collectively.

Which brings us back to the GOP Governor's Association Meeting and Jim Douglas, and Dana Point. What's on the agenda? A turkey trot? Raising awareness about hunger in America? Well, actually you won't find any mention of poverty, hunger, or anything resembling a serious discussion addressing the concerns of low-income and/or middle class folks on the GOP Governor's Association Agenda. You will find lots of wining, dining, golf tournaments and a "day of beauty" for our nation's GOP Governor's, however. Oh, and there will be lively discussions with the insurance industry. What a bunch of turkeys.

Reason and Brimstone: John Edwards at League of Conservation Voters Forum

2007-11-20T10:55:00.000-08:00

Funny, I was just talking about John Edwards. I suspect most of the candidates will have their global warming platforms worked out well before the general election. For some reason, it's suddenly become fashionable. Still, it's good to see Edwards out there banging the drums early. Thanks to Julie over at Reason and Brimstone for posting this.

Reason and Brimstone: John Edwards at League of Conservation Voters Forum

Poverty in Vermont

2007-11-19T08:53:00.001-08:00

One of the things that bothers me about political discourse in this state (and our nation) is the lack of serious discussion about poverty by our elected officials and people running for office. There is a lot to say on the topic, and we should be hearing more about it.

Of course, if we solved our poverty problem then by definition we would be solving a host of other social ills: low wages, homelessness, affordable housing, health care, and the list goes on. But few individuals are actually talking about poverty itself (presumably because politicians figure that poor people a) don't vote; and b) the people who do vote - middle and upper class people - don't want to have to think about poverty as a serious issue, or if they do then solely as an intellectual exercise).

Jim Douglas talks a lot (and I mean A LOT) about his so-called (and remarkably thin) "affordability agenda." My question is precisely WHAT in this state is getting more "affordable?!" Energy and transportation prices are way up (a major problem in a remote, rural state like ours), housing prices may have stabilized with the recent housing market downturn, but certainly they are not going down and market rents are absurdly high. The genius of Douglas' "affordability agenda" (and the key to debunking it, in my view) is that he is basically arguing against doing ANYTHING because safeguarding the status quo is more "affordable." So, doing nothing is most affordable. Well, pardon me if I disagree. Douglas vetoed an energy bill which would have truly made electricity for most Vermonters more "affordable," while reducing our carbon footprint substantially through increased efficiency measures. He has done little to aggressively promote the creative economy, he opposes the wind industry (which, by the way is eliminating property taxes and spurring development and good paying jobs a scant 60 miles away, just across the lake in neighboring New York). If a Democrat opposed an industry that could bring that kind of tax advantage and those kinds of jobs to our state they would be pilloried by the Republicans. So, why does Douglas get a free pass on this stuff?

The only people I see really talking about poverty right now? John Edwards (who has made it one of the central themes of his presidential campaign), Matt Dunne (who brought Edwards to Vermont for a daylong conference on the topic, and Sen. Doug Racine and Rep. Ann Pugh who are co-Chairing the Vermont Child Poverty Council to try to cut poverty in Vermont by 50% within ten years. At a public forum, Sen. Racine recently said: "We didn't lose the 'War on Poverty,' we just stopped fighting it." Well put.

The Democrats should be calling Douglas out on this at every opportunity and make his "affordability agenda" the albatross around his neck.

While we're on the topic of being poor in Vermont, I can't resist giving a shout out to the Flight of the Conchords, HBO's mockumentary about two New Zealanders trying to make it in New York. Funny stuff. Here's their take on living low-income in NYC: "Inner City Pressure." Check it out:

Toward a "New Federalism"?

2007-11-19T08:53:00.000-08:00

It is troubling that polls show that Democrats have broad public support for their positions on the crucial issues of the day, yet have trouble translating that strength into a compelling vision for the nation. To wit:

Despite the Republican edge on national security, Democrats are more trusted on the War in Iraq, 45% to 41%. As an issue the war is Very Important to 63%.
Democrats have a five-point edge of 41% to 36% on the issue of Immigration, Very Important to 54%. In early August, not long after the death in Congress of a bitterly debated immigration reform bill, Immigration was Very Important to 58%. Democrats then had a ten-percent margin over Republicans on the issue.
Even on Taxes, which most voters would like to see cut, Democrats are preferred by a margin of 45% to 40%. It's Very Important to 55%.
The Democrats have double-digit advantages on Education (48% to 35%), Social Security (49% to 33%), and especially Health Care (53% to 32%). Education is Very Important to 58%. Social Security and Health Care are Very Important to 61% and 66%, respectively.

Republicans have made "liberal" and "taxes" dirty words, and established government as the enemy. Instead of working to build public trust in government, the national GOP's mission is to denigrate the very institution(s) they seek to occupy. The benefits of this strategy are clear when public mistrust of our institutions is at all time highs. Further, the GOP benefits from a kind of feedback loop where trashing government and/or incompetence (resulting from cronyism and mismanagement) leads to poor results ("heck of a job, Brownie"), which in turns lowers the public's faith in government that much more and reinforces the negative impression the national GOP is building.

Of course, Democrats have not done a very good job arguing that "more" government is not really what they are talking about, but rather "efficient," or "effective" government. Bill McKibben argues in "Deep Economy" that for a long time "more" and "better" were essentially branches on the same tree, and therefore our capitalist drive worked perfectly to ensure that as one acquired more, one's lot in life improved. However, once there was enough food, shelter and the American standard of living improved, scarcity of resources was no longer really a problem for most. In short, McKibben argues that once you reach a certain socio-economic status, getting more stuff doesn't generate the kind of satisfaction that it does when resources are scarce. He refers to so-called "happiness" indexes to illustrate his point that even though Americans' standard of living rose exponentially throughout the 20th century, at some point general satisfaction has leveled off, or even declined.

Well, the same might be said of government. That is, there was a time when "more government" simply was better government. "More" and "better" were branches on the same government tree. Certainly that was true during the depression when government simply had to intervene to expand, regulate, and create jobs. It was true during the World War II when the government expanded again and ruled the economy (and subsequently ushered in a period of perhaps unparalleled economic expansion). It was also true during the 1960's when civil rights and the "War on Poverty" cried out for legislation. Then in the 1970's as the Cuyahoga River caught fire and bald eagle populations dropped precipitously from exposure to DDT, Americans again realized that the federal government had to regulate polluting industries: the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the EPA (among others) were all born. Again, more government was better.

Today, many of the tools available to us to fix the ills of society already exist. Sadly, those tools are rusting away from neglect under the Bush Administration. When you have a President and Justice Department that brazenly ignore the law, or simply reinterpret them to their liking, and an EPA that won't enforce the laws already on the books, or which promulgates rules that subvert congressional intent or departmental purpose (or worse... that engage in Orwellian doublespeak: "Clear Skies" anyone?) then government is dysfunctional and public support for its institutions naturally wanes because the public rightly perceives its interest is no longer central to the mission of government.

So, the challenge then is not necessarily to preach "more government," but rather, perhaps, to talk about "better government" or "efficient government" or even "sustainable government" (could there really be such a thing?!). We should be making this case in clear and poignant terms. But we don't. Why?

For one thing there is an inherent tension between offering government solutions and a prevailing public sentiment that "government is the problem, not the solution," (thanks a lot, Ron) - and that if there are solutions they cost too much. Still, we're stuck with the perception for a lot of folks, that government simply is not working, or does not represent them.

For almost 50 years (since Goldwater), the GOP has planted the seeds of discontent in the context of bureaucracy, taxation, and public services. However, their efforts to regulate our private lives has backfired largely for the same reasons. The irony of the failure of the Christian Coalition to infiltrate party politics and push its conservative social agenda through the GOP is because the Reagan mantra attacking government was so successful.

So, how do Democrats pursue a vision of government that is vibrant, efficient, activist with respect to the economy and regulation of industry, yet laissez-faire when it comes to individual freedoms and social mores? How about something along the lines of "New Federalism."

Laugh or cry about it, Howard Dean was onto something when he started talking about letting states decide issues for themselves when it came to gun laws (the same laws that work well in Vermont do not necessarily work well in New York City, e.g.) and on the question of gay marriage versus civil unions. And, he nicely stole a page from the Republican playbook denouncing unfunded mandates established by "No Child Left Behind" and changes to law enforcement responsibilities imposed by Homeland Security measures. And, of course this does not mean abandoning issues of individual rights or civil liberties to the mob (that's where the federal courts come in to ensure equal protection and due process). But, Dean also argued that some issues were too big for the states to handle themselves. That is, some issues are uniquely the province of the federal government: health care, energy policy, national security, and tax policy are examples. And, of course Dean was correct about the war in Iraq from the beginning (but I digress). Still, Dean never crystallized the individual aspects of what he was talking about into a coherent vision that could sum it all up.

Does anyone remember this?!

I would call this "New Federalism" a muscular liberal interpretation of the old "laboratories of democracy" which would revitalize local control, galvanize Democrats, and attract independents and libertarians. A call that would spark activist participation coupled with progressive views of what is possible at the federal level. Could an agenda like this turn government into a lean, and not-so-mean fighting machine on behalf of ordinary citizens. It's certainly worth considering.

Mulish? Really?

2007-11-18T19:08:00.001-08:00

Well, I suppose so. It's about time we dug in our heels a little bit... practice a little "stubbornity." We need a renewed focus on the twin imperatives of a sane and rational foreign policy and a muscular domestic agenda that includes a balanced budget, health care for all, a strong, vibrant public education system, and serious environmental policy that begins to mitigate the effects of climate change and recognizes our natural resourcesfor what they are: precious commodities that must be safeguarded for future generations.

Oh, and hey, while we're at it how about some new domestic agenda items? Modern economic realities are stressing working families to the breaking point as Americans (and Vermonters) try to work too many jobs and/or hours for not enough money) how about subsidized, quality child care? And, a guaranteed 6 weeks vacation per year? I remain convinced that a candidate for national office who ran on a platform of just making those two issues a priority would win among families in a landslide.

So, yes... Mulish. Sometimes being stubborn is a good thing.