Category Archives: Uncategorized

VTGOP Chair still beatin’ that dead horse

4 Replies

One week ago today, Vermont Republican Party Chair David Sunderland publicly embarrassed himself in an attempt at some cheap publicity. He sent a letter to Secretary of State Jim Condos complaining that an Elections Office staffer had posted a comment on a “hyper-partisan, far left blog” (I blush) revealing “a concerning political bias.”

He simultaneously released the letter to the media and posted it on the VTGOP website without giving Condos the opportunity to respond. By doing so, Sunderland made it clear that he was looking to stir up trouble rather than seek resolution.

Condos almost immediately replied, and it was a complete smackdown of Sunderland’s complaint. Condos had been aware of the posting before Sunderland, and had already spoken to the employee, asking him to respect the office and its need to be even-handed in conducting electoral business. There is, of course, no legal way to constrain state employees from exercising their free speech rights, so Condos merely asked for some discretion. And, as Sunderland himself admitted, he has frequently dealt with the administrator and has never seen a hint of partisan bias in the man’s work.

Well, Sunderland isn’t the kind to give up on a controversy just because he’s wrong. And indeed, he sent Condos a follow-up letter earlier this week and simultaneously released it to the media. This time, the media wisely ignored the thing.

Condos replied to Sunderland the following day; I received Condos’ letter through a public records request.

Sunderland’s second missive makes it clear that his real target is not the administrator in question; indeed, he drops any demand for action against the administrator. What he really wants is to fabricate an issue to use against Condos, a Democrat who has been the closest thing to unbeatable since he first won the office in 2010.

Continue reading →

Matt Dunne: first impressions

3 Replies

I didn’t attend Matt Dunne’s campaign launch on Monday. (Didn’t make Sue Minter’s on Tuesday either.) But I have looked over his prepared remarks and his updated platform, and here are some thoughts.

Overall: He’s positioning himself as the outsider, using some pretty strong language about the current crowd in Montpelier. He’s also positioning himself as the candidate of new, fresh ideas; to some extent his platform delivers on that. There are disturbing whiffs of New Democrat (a.k.a. Republican-Lite), but not enough to make a definitive judgment.

Before diving into details, let me emphasize that these are early impressions. I don’t have a horse in this race; I could see myself backing any of the three Democrats. Plenty of time to achieve clarity. That said…

His speech can be viewed online; I don’t see the text posted anywhere. (I received the text in a media email blast.) It’s pretty standard stuff, connecting his own experience to the issues in play. Indeed, there’s an almost comical bit of job-description tailoring:

We need new leadership with different experience, experience that reaches beyond the traditional structures of state government ot incorporate the best of the public, private and nonprofit sectors.

Leadership that is grounded in Vermont, but has had experience around the country to understand what can be done to move our state forward.

That definition fits Dunne with a startling precision, and conspicuously excludes his Democratic opponents. And Phil Scott.

As for policy, Dunne is clearly making economic development the centerpiece of his campaign.

Continue reading →

Some of Pat Leahy’s ideas kinda suck

2 Replies

He's had better days.

He’s had better days.

Two of Senator Leahy’s signature initiatives have been in the news lately, and the attention hasn’t exactly been flattering to the quality of our senior solon’s ideas. One is the EB-5 program, which allows wealthy foreigners to buy green cards by investing in job-creating projects; the other is a Homeland Security funding formula that ensures a piece of the pie for small states.

Let’s do the latter first. Late last month, Leahy’s office issued two press releases touting either $6.7 million (July 28) or $6.8 million (July 25) in Homeland Security Preparedness Grants, take your pick. But hey, what’s $100,000 when you’re getting it from Uncle Sam’s sofa cushions?

Both releases brag about Leahy’s role in creating “a formula… that protects smaller states like Vermont” and expands on the point:

Leahy has long championed all-state minimum funding formulas for homeland security grants to ensure that smaller, rural states like Vermont are included and supported by federal resources to thwart and deal with terrorism. Since 2001, Leahy’s all-state minimum has brought Vermont more than $115 million in federal funding to help first responders upgrade equipment, modernize radio systems and offer new training opportunities.

I remember the Congressional debate over this formula. At the time, many thought it was a bad idea. And even though Vermont has benefited, I question its wisdom.

Continue reading →

A particularly obvious spin of the revolving door

2 Replies

Oh looky here, another top Shumlin administration has turned in his resignation. This time, it’s Brent Raymond, the chief overseer of (and cheerleader for) EB-5 programs in Vermont. His biggest task has been to kinda-sorta ride herd on the Bill Stenger suite of projects, including a major expansion of his ski resort in the Northeast Kingdom.

And where’s Mr. Raymond going?

Raymond said Monday he has accepted a position working for Mt. Snow and Peak Resorts…. Mt. Snow has a $52 million EB-5 project with the Vermont Regional Center.

… Raymond said as part of his new duties he will be working on Mt. Snow’s EB-5 project.

Small world, isn’t it?

Once again, I am moved to say “This is exactly the kind of thing that makes people think our government is a den of corruption and insider dealings.”

And “This is the kind of thing that illustrates, as if any further illustration was required, the need for an independent state Ethics Commission. And some tougher ethics laws, while we’re at it.”

Continue reading →

Riddle me this, Gasman

1 Reply

On Friday, I had to drive from Montpelier to Burlington. And, since gas is always more expensive in the Queen City and environs, I made sure to fill the tank before I hit the freeway.

But when I got to Burlington, what to my wondrous eyes did appear?

Gas was cheaper. Anywhere from five to 15 cents a gallon cheaper than in Montpelier.

Huh.

This hasn’t happened in, I don’t know, roughly forever. Gas is always more expensive in Burlington.

For years, Bernie Sanders has been alleging price fixing by the four companies that own most of Chittenden County’s gas stations. The companies have consistently denied any collusion — although, it must be noted, they usually bring down their prices for a while after Bernie kicks up a fuss. And then quietly goose them back up once the heat’s off.

Still, no matter how loud Bernie gets, they’ve never actually gone lower than adjacent markets.

So what could have caused this historic price drop?

Continue reading →

A watershed moment for legalization in Vermont

2 Replies

This year, the state legislature did its best to tippy-toe around the issue of marijuana legalization. We heard the usual excuses — the time is not right, it needs more study, we’ve got too much else on our plate — and ended with an expensive consultant’s report sitting on a shelf.

Since then, two rather dramatic things have happened. Two weeks ago, Corrections Commissioner Andy Pallito called for the legalization of marijuana and the decriminalization of personal use of other drugs.

I always knew that guy was a hippie! (Photo from his Facebook page.)

I always knew that guy was a hippie! (Photo from his Facebook page.)

And now, we have a pro-legalization essay by the top Republican in the State Senate, Joe Benning. His piece, posted today on VTDigger, said legalization is inevitable, that marijuana is a useful and “widely popular consumer product,” that legalization would result in “a safer product,” and — here comes the Republican part — it would create “a legitimate, properly regulated industry [that] can only lead to more real, good-paying jobs.”

Well.

Sen. Benning can’t swing the vote on his own since his caucus numbers a mere nine*. The next step in marijuana law is up to the many Weebles in the Democratic majority, who’ve been painfully hesitant on the issue.

*Originally I wrote “seven,” but the good Senator corrected me. Must have stumbled upon outdated numbers in my expert Googling.

But I’d think that Benning’s advocacy would give them an opening to advance legalization. Democrats tend to be thoroughly spooked by the threat of Republican counterattacks on crime issues. And although Benning is only one Republican, he’s a very influential one. His stand ought to inoculate Democrats from GOP attacks.

It’s hard not to see this as a big step toward the death of the costly and ineffective War On Drugs, or at least the death of its most ineffective component, the war on Weed.

Southern Vermont: Journalism-free zone?

4 Replies

A while ago I was chatting with somebody from Seven Days, and I half-jokingly suggested that Vermont’s only financially healthy print publication should think about launching a Southern Vermont Edition. Or at least, including some southern Vermont content within the existing paper. (The Rutland Herald and Times Argus share stories, but what’s front page in one is often on page 5 in the other.)

Well, it might just be go time.

New England Newspapers Inc., has laid off 10 editorial employees in Vermont and Massachusetts.

The company laid off three newsroom staffers at the [Brattleboro] Reformer. Tom D’Errico, the manager of content marketing, Mike Faher, senior reporter, and Pat Smith, the newsroom clerk, were given notice on Friday. On June 12, Michelle Karas, the managing editor of the Reformer and the [Bennington] Banner left earlier to take a job at The Colorado Springs Gazette. The Banner laid off newly hired reporter Jacob Colone, and the [Manchester] Journal let go of Brandon Canevari.

Leaving two papers with “skeleton crews”: three reporters at the Banner and only two at the Reformer, whose coverage of Vermont Yankee has been invaluable to the entire state. And at the Journal, they’re facing a Zen question: what do you call a newspaper with no reporters? That’s right: zero.

Continue reading →

Bob Helm’s blurred face gets more unwelcome airtime

3 Replies

Hey, remember State Rep. Bob Helm’s (R-ALEC) star turn in a hidden-camera video? The one recorded at an American Legislative Exchange Council meeting at a tony Savannah resort?

The one where he happily acknowledged that his expenses had been comped by lobbyists? And further, that he had solicited lobbyist donations for other lawmakers to attend the conference?

Yeah, well, the video has gotten another airing on Atlanta’s Channel 11, which has done a follow-up to its earlier piece on the toxic combo platter of lobbyists, lawmakers, big money and secrecy that characterizes an ALEC conference. This time, investigative reporter Brendan Keefe documented ALEC’s inadequate and misleading response to his original report. He used the opportunity to re-air some absolutely wonderful footage of his encounters with ALEC officials and his ultimate eviction from the hotel — where he was a paying guest — by uniformed sheriff’s deputies doing security for ALEC.

The video is recommended viewing. But here’s a transcript of a key passage, in which Keefe tries to interview a guy who ought to be prepared for such an eventuality — ALEC’s Vice President of Communications, Bill Meierling. The encounter takes place in the opulent lobby of the Hyatt Regency Savannah Hotel, and Meierling’s obvious discomfiture at being buttonholed by a persistent reporter is just wonderful.

Keefe: Can we do an interview with you?

Meierling: Actually, no.

K: Why not?

M: Um, if you’ll please turn the camera off.

Continue reading →

The triumph of low expectations

1 Reply

Well, hooray, we got us a health care bill. It wasn’t looking like it on Friday night and Saturday morning, but Governor Shumlin and top lawmakers finally inked a deal providing a whole three million dollars more for health care reform.

“I wish there were other things we could include,” said Rep. Bill Lippert, chair of the House Health Care Committee. His Senate counterpart, Claire Ayer, called the bill “pathetic.” And single-payer advocate Dr. Deb Richter told VTDigger: “For perspective, $3 million is what we spend as a state on health care in four hours,”

How’d we wind up with $3 million? Ass-backwardly, of course.

At the eleventh hour, health care reform came in last on lawmakers’ list of reasons to raise taxes, behind closing the budget gap and paying enough for clean water that the EPA might, hopefully, get off our backs. As the Governor pushed for fewer tax hikes and more spending cuts, health care was caught in the wringer.

On Friday night and Saturday morning, there were four big bills hanging fire: taxes, spending, economic development, and health care. Health care was a distant fourth. In fact, hallway chatter had it that health care would fall from the agenda, partly because of revenue shyness and partly because any bill would be so small as to not be worth the trouble.

On Saturday morning and early afternoon, as lawmakers and administration officials tried to reach common ground on revenues, it became clear that health care would have to settle for whatever crumbs fell from the conference table.

Continue reading →

How the philosophical exemption was lost

17 Replies

A few weeks ago, the state legislature had apparently decided not to open the Pandora’s box of vaccination policy. The general feeling was, let’s let the 2012 law play out a while longer and see where it goes.

And then, for reasons still unexplained, a couple of key state Senators (Kevin Mullin and John Campbell) grabbed that box and threw it open. They amended a barely-related Health Department housekeeping bill, H.98, to include an end to the philosophical exemption on childhood immunizations. The Senate Health Care Committee gave it a mere two hours of hearings, one for and one against; it sailed through the committee and the full Senate.

Even so, it seemed likely that the House would let the amended bill lie. Leadership decided to have the House Health Care Committee hold hearings on H.98, even though the bill was never officially given to that committee. Those hearings were quickly scheduled, and they were quite extensive. At the time, it seemed like a ploy to run out the clock. Even more so as the hearings continued through the penultimate week of the session.

Funny thing, though: the more time passed, the more things seemed to shift entirely. By the end of last week, the momentum was clearly on H.98’s side. A House vote seemed certain and passage seemed likely, if not a sure thing. Monday’s public hearing was a chance for all parties to sound off, without actually affecting the process.

Which brings us to Tuesday, covered in my previous post. The Donahue amendment lost by the narrowest of margins, and then H.98 passed the House with ease.

This time, I’m here to explain why this happened. Not how it happened; you’d have to get John Campbell and Shap Smith into a rubber room and fill ’em full of truth serum to find that out. As for the why, here’s my two cents. Or three, if you prefer.

Continue reading →