Author Archives: John S. Walters

Unknown's avatar

About John S. Walters

Writer, editor, sometime radio personality, author of "Roads Less Traveled: Visionary New England Lives."

The case for vaccination

2 Replies

As the legislature moves ever closer to adjournment (still scheduled for Friday the 15th), one of the unanswered questions is, Will the House take up a Senate-passed bill that would eliminate the philosophical exemption to childhood vaccinations?

If you ask me, I suspect the House will leave it hanging till next year. Lawmakers could plausibly argue that the issue hasn’t gotten a full airing this time around, since the Senate passed the provision as an amendment to a barely-related bill.

Although, on the other hand, no amount of discussion and airing will satisfy the anti-vaxxer crowd, so why not just lance that boil?

We’ll see. But while the issue is still pending, I thought I’d present a short-form version of the argument for vaccination.

Vaccines work.

Well, maybe a slightly longer-form version.

Continue reading →

The vicious circle of taxation rhetoric

4 Replies

Ah, spring. The buddling of the trees, the blossoming of the daffodils, the abrupt transition from shoveling snow to tending the yard.

And the annual flowering of complaints from conservatives, businesses, and Peter Shumlin about how Democrats want to tax everything. Look at all these tax proposals: sales tax on services, new limits on tax deductions, sugary beverage tax, candy, tobacco, payroll tax, development fees and farm-fertilizer taxes, plastic bag fee, fee hikes for various professions, tax on vending machines, and I’m sure I’m missing a few others.

Take them all together, and you have a picture of Montpelier liberals trying to squeeze the lifeblood out of our economy by taxing everything in sight.

There’s a problem with that. Nobody in Montpelier wants to “tax everything.” Not a single Democrat, not a single Progressive. Here’s the reality.

Continue reading →

All Bernie all the time

1 Reply

A good newspaper covers the waterfront. It provides an overview of what’s gone on in the world, the things you need to know, things you might not otherwise know.

Those of us who still read newspapers appreciate the chockablock presentation of stories from the community, nation, and world. It’s a tangible StumbleUpon that gives you more information about the things you’re aware of and brings other items to your attention, making you a better-informed and more well-rounded citizen.

Well, the Burlington Free Press is here to say “Screw that mess.”

Today’s Freeploid, from the top:

Page 1: Bernie Sanders
Page 2: Bernie Sanders
Page 3: Full-page advertisement
Page 4: Bernie Sanders
Page 5: Bernie Sanders
Page 6: Bernie Sanders
Page 7: Bernie Sanders
Page 8: Bernie Sanders
Page 9: Bernie Sanders
Page 10: Bernie Sanders
Page 11: Bernie Sanders

Page 12: Editorial and op-ed about Bernie Sanders.

Finally, on page 13, the first non-Bernie content: a pair of opinion pieces about other subjects.

After that? Sorry, no room. The next ten pages are devoted to Sports, with the variety of content you expect from a good newspaper.

Continue reading →

Shumlin doubles down on bashing fellow Democrats

3 Replies

If you thought there was a chance that Governor Shumlin would tone down his insistence on last-minute spending cuts, well, think again. Earlier, he’d called two key Senate committee chairs on the ceremonial carpet to argue for tax reductions and spending cuts — in a spending bill that had already passed the Senate Appropriations Committee. This didn’t go over well with Democxratic lawmakers, per Paul Heintz:

Gov. Peter Shumlin’s erstwhile allies in the Democratic legislature lashed out at him Thursday for pushing new cuts after the Senate Appropriations Committee signed off on the budget.

“It’s insulting to the process,” complained one top Dem.

… “It’s been pretty lonely in there all winter,” Sen. Bobby Starr (D-Essex/Orleans) said, referring to the Appropriations Committee, on which he serves. “I woulda thought they would’ve been in at least a month ago, if not five, six weeks ago, offering some suggestions.”

House Majority Leader Sarah Copeland Hanzas noted that the House-passed tax and spending bills actually called for less spending than the Governor’s original budget plan. She called the gubernatorial disconnect “perplexing.”

Welp, the Governor is unbowed by all the pushback.

Continue reading →

Phil Scott asks some dumb questions

2 Replies

Apparently our humble & lovable Lieutenant Governor still has a bug up his butt about public financing of election campaigns. You may recall that Phil Scott had never uttered a word about public financing* until Dean Corren qualified for public funds last year, forcing Scott to actually put some effort into his campaign. The experience was traumatic enough that it birthed a “philosophical objection” to public financing in Scott’s mind.

*Correction: I’ve been informed that Scott has voiced objections on previous occasions. Sen. Joe Benning: ” I first heard him expressing his disagreement with public financing of campaigns when I met him back in 2010.” I thank the Senator for taking the time to write. I’d still like to know if Scott had ever expressed his disagreement on the public record, but clearly his concerns precede his 2014 campaign.

On Tuesday, Scott grabbed an opportunity to again state his “philosophical objection” to public financing, and raise a series of far-fetched questions about the law’s workings.

His testimony before the Senate Government Operations Committee drew no attention in the media because it was immediately followed by Attorney General Bill Sorrell’s appearance, in which he belatedly acquiesced to calls for an independent probe of his campaign finances. Yeah, that kinda overshadowed everything else.

Also, Scott’s remarks were immediately dismissed by the committee, which had convened to consider a single technical change in the law; there was no time for broader questions.

But before it vanishes into the mists of history, let’s recount some of Phil Scott’s testimony.

Continue reading →

Okay, Bernie, go for it.

Leave a reply

So Bernie Sanders is running for President. Good for him.

He doesn’t have a snowball’s chance, of course. FiveThirtyEight’s Harry Enten thoroughly debunks any notion of a Sanders victory:

Polls show Sanders doesn’t match up well against Clinton. He trails her by nearly 57 percentage points nationally, 54 percentage points in Iowa and 40 percentage points in New Hampshire.

More than that, there seems to be very little desire on the left for a challenger to Clinton. She regularly earns 60 percent support among self-described “liberal” and “very liberal” voters, according to national polls. And Sanders’s colleagues in the Senate with the most liberal voting records — those who would be key to starting a mutiny against Clinton — have already endorsed her.

Which is not to say that Bernie shouldn’t run. He absolutely should. But his candidacy should be seen as a useful counterpoint to Hillary Clinton’s cautious centrism, and a rare opportunity to get high-visibility coverage for Sanders’ left-of-center ideas. Rarely does a leftie get the kind of serious media exposure that is routinely given to conservative nutbags like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. Having Bernie share the debate stage with Hillary is a singular opportunity to spread the leftist vision and force the front-runner to define herself more clearly.

She’ll win. And if she becomes President, I expect the Sanders challenge won’t have any effect on her administration. But it’s useful nonetheless, if only for the media exposure.

Besides, what has Bernie got to lose? Nothing. He’s not up for re-election in 2016; he’s near the end of his political career anyway; and while he has little hope of matching Clinton in fundraising, he doesn’t have to. He’s got a good start already, in the big fat campaign accounts that he’ll never need in Vermont.

He had four and a half million bucks at the end of December. He’s got proven broad appeal to a nationwide base of small donors who can be counted on to give generously (as defined within their financial limitations) to a Sanders presidential bid.

Besides, a Bernie candidacy will be less fueled by money than by the force of his personality and ideas. Bernie doesn’t need a robust 50-state ground game to achieve his goals; he needs to hold noisy rallies with partisan crowds cheering him on.

So go ahead, Bernie. There’s no shame in being a useful foil, and in capping your thoroughly unlikely political career with a high-profile run for the Presidency.

I do wish you’d found a way to announce your campaign in Vermont, though.

A new path forward for Peter Shumlin?

Leave a reply

Maybe he’s pulling a Tom Salmon, and planning to run as a Republican next year.

Nah, I doubt it. But it’d explain the sudden, aggressive, and decisively centrist re-insertion of himself into legislative debates. At the very last minute. After months of serenely floating above it all, and letting lawmakers shred his proposals to pieces.

The latest comes from VTDigger’s Anne Galloway, who tells us that the top Senators on taxes and spending were yanked into the Governor’s office yesterday afternoon to get an earful of his displeasure with the current budget and tax bills. According to Galloway, he “hates the tax bills from the House and Senate and would prefer to cut more from the budget.”

And:

While it’s the governor’s prerogative to influence the legislative process and ultimately sign or veto the legislation, Shumlin’s down-to-the-wire timing perplexed insiders who say the governor has had four months to influence the budget and tax bills, and has not made a concerted effort to do so until now.

… “Disrespectful” was a word several people used to described Shumlin’s late-game tactics.

He certainly seems to have adopted a scorched-earth approach toward his relationship with the Legislature — after promising, after the 2014 election, an open and collaborative approach. You know. that listening and learning stuff.

Continue reading →

VPR and Sorrell: It got worse

5 Replies

Okay, so Vermont Public Radio got my worst grade for its coverage — or should I say “complete absence of coverage” regarding the campaign finance scandal threatening to engulf Vermont Eternal General Bill Sorrell.

VPR didn’t even send a reporter to Tuesday’s Senate Government Operations Committee hearing, at which Sorrell reversed course and endorsed the idea of an independent investigation of his campaign activities. Something he had consistently refused to do since the fall of 2012, mind you.

And then today, the big guest on “Vermont Edition” was none other than Bill Sorrell himself.

I gave VPR its bottom-of-the-barrel grade before I head the Sorrell interview.

Now I have. And VPR just fell below the bottom of the barrel.

First of all, having devoted no perceptible airtime to the allegations against Sorrell, they give him the VPR platform for a solid half hour?

And then, even worse, they spend the first 20 minutes of the interview NOT talking about campaign finance, but the GMO labeling law and this week’s developments in the case. Jane Lindholm’s intro didn’t even mention Sorrell’s troubles; there was a single passing generic reference to “campaign finance.”

Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room. We have one of our top elected officials having to accept an independent investigation of his activities — something that has rarely or perhaps EVER happened in Vermont history — and you don’t lead with it? You didn’t even mention it?

Continue reading →

Somebody’s ethical compass needs a tune-up

1 Reply

Congratulations to Governor Shumlin for finding the time in his busy schedule to do something about Eternal General Bill Sorrell.

Like Sorrell, the Governor couldn’t see the seriousness of the situation on his own; he had to be dragged kicking and screaming. I hope his moral compass is truer in other areas, though I fear not.

Also, the next time he pleads a lack of time to deal with an inconvenient issue, we’ll know it’s bullshit.

But that’s not my primary topic for this missive. No, that would be the Vermont media’s widespread failure to address the Sorrell story until it smacked them between the eyes.

Not all are equally guilty, and I’ll offer a ranking below. But their failure in the Sorrell case is sadly typical of the Vermont media’s myopia when it comes to the foibles of the powerful. There’s a presumption of innocence, a reluctance to challenge, that’s uncharacteristic of the media at its best.

Let’s take John Campbell, for instance. In late February, Seven Days’ Terri Hallenbeck wrote about the Senate President Pro Tem having “quietly increased his office’s staffing and more than doubled his payroll.”

The response from the Vermont media? Crickets.

Admittedly the dollars involved are not large — we’re talking roughly $55,000 before and $110,000 after — but big stories have been spun out of smaller stuff. Usually involving a nameless functionary, not an elite officeholder. (Anybody ever hear of William Goggins until this month?)

Why did Campbell get a free pass? I have no idea, but it reflects poorly on our fourth-estate watchdogs.

Continue reading →

Sorrell caves (updated)

1 Reply

I can explain everything

I can explain everything

It’s rare when a journalist can draw a straight line from his/her news story to a significant event. Such is the case today for Seven Days’ Paul Heintz, whose reporting on Attorney General Bill Sorrell started the ball rolling — with ever-quickening speed — to today’s events. Because after several days of blithe assurances that there was no need for an independent investigation of Bill Sorrell because Bill Sorrell had looked into Bill Sorrell’s activities and determined that Bill Sorrell did nothing wrong, Bill Sorrell reversed course today.

It’s hard to imagine this would have ever come to pass without Heintz’ stories about sloppy campaign finance reporting by Sorrell, questions about a big out-of-state donation that helped him win the 2012 Democratic primary, and questionably cozy relationships between Sorrell and some big national law firms that do business with the state.

Throughout last week, Sorrell denied he’d done anything wrong and insisted an investigation would be a waste of money. Today, in a statement to the Senate Government Operations Committee, he acknowledged the need for an independent probe. Further, he heartily endorsed the creation of an independent commission to oversee election law, which would remove that authority from his own office.

When asked about his change of heart, he said:

What I realized was that this was a distraction here in the building and certainly a distraction in my office. I didn’t want the appearance that I had something to hide, so even though it will cost money, the integrity of the office of Attorney General and my personal integrity are too important. If we have to spend some taxpayer moneys to clear my name — or see that justice is done, either way — it’s worth it.

Nice stick save, General.

Continue reading →