Tag Archives: Heidi Scheuermann

Phil Scott Prioritizes Corporate Profits Over Public Safety

The headline might seem outrageous, and I’m sure it won’t make anyone on the Fifth Floor happy, but it’s the plain truth.

Vermont’s judiciary system is grossly underfunded and understaffed. The result is a huge backlog of pending cases measured, not in weeks or months, but in years. Gov. Phil Scott’s solution? Cut a few more positions from the courts.

This is the same governor who said, in his State of the State address, that public safety was one of his top priorities. The House decided to boost the Judiciary instead of strangling it, and approved a bill that would pay for more positions in the court system by increasing corporate taxes and fees by a skosh or two. This appears to be a no-go for Scott, who would rather kill any kind of tax or fee increase than, I don’t know, fully fund the judicial system at a time when he claims that we face a public safety crisis.

Continue reading

Congratulations to the Progressive Party on its Hostile Takeover of Vermont Politics

There seems to be a popular delusion among Republicans in these parts, even the non-fringey types. In the words of outgoing Rep. Heidi Scheuermann,

…the Progressives have taken over the VT Democratic Party.

This same belief was expressed a few months ago by VTGOP Chair Paul Dame, when he compared the Progressive Party to a parasitic horsehair worm that had taken over the Democratic Party from within.

Outgoing Sen. Joe Benning said much the same thing in his post-election post-mortem: “Ideologues in the Democratic/Progressive supermajority,” he wrote, are driving policy that “runs counter to Vermont traditions and fiscal capacity.” At least he put the Democrats first, but still he’s conflating the Dems and the Progs in a way that’s far from the truth. The two parties sing from different hymnals on many of our most contentious issues, and the Dems always sit in the right-hand pew. Top Democrats are fond of styling themselves as small-P progressives, but they are definitely not the capital-P kind. Not at all.

Continue reading

Empty Chairs in the Vermont House

Note: In the few hours since I posted this piece, even more retirements have been made public. I have written a separate post with the new names; read it here.

The state House has 15 standing policy committees. One-third of them, at minimum, will have new chairs next session.

First to announce departure was Government Operations Chair Sarah Copeland Hanzas, now running for Secretary of State.

Then, as the 2022 session was in its closing days, four influential chairs announced their retirements. Health Care’s Bill Lippert, Human Services’ Ann Pugh, Education’s Kate Webb, and most recently, Ways & Means’ Janet Ancel. That’s a huge amount of experience to lose all at once. And we may have more retirements announced in coming days, as the May 26 filing deadline for major-party candidates is less than two weeks away.

You know, I wrote a piece last summer about how the Senate had a huge seniority issue. At the time, the average senator was 63.4 years old. And the average age of committee chairs was a remarkable 72.1. Some wires must have gotten crossed because clearly the message was delivered to the House, not the Senate.

How much experience is the House losing? Let us count the years.

Continue reading

House Republicans Choose Sides, and Most Have Chosen Wisely

Lovely architecture provides an outstanding backdrop. Loses a couple points for lighting. 8/10

A resolution condemning the Capitol riot of January 6 and calling for President Trump’s resignation or removal passed the Vermont House today on a one-sided vote. Seven Days reported the tally as 130 to 6. VTDigger reported 130 to 16. But it was a voice vote, so I’m not sure where the numbers come from. All the “No” votes were cast by Republicans, but represent a small percentage of the GOP caucus.

There was apparently no floor debate. But there was some discussion of the resolution earlier in the day, at a House Republican caucus meeting captured on video. A total of eight lawmakers spoke in opposition, which again calls into question the 130 to 6 tally. Those eight do not include Rutland Rep. Tom Terenzini, who didn’t speak in caucus but opposed the measure as well. I count at least nine “No” votes.

So who are they? Reps. Lisa Hango, Patrick Brennan, Carl Rosenquist, Brian Smith, Lynn Batchelor, Vicky Strong, Mark Higley, Rodney Graham and Terenzini. (Two members, Reps. Bob Helm and Art Peterson, made remarks that did not disclose how they would vote.) We’ll get to their statements after the jump.

Several Republicans voiced strong support for the measure, most notably Reps. Felisha Leffler, Scott Beck, Lynn Dickinson and Scheuermann. Referring to the rioters, Scheuermann said, “What they were doing was appalling. I was ashamed. I thought it critical for us to do this as a body.”

Continue reading

Finally, Bruce Lisman.

Once again displaying his impeccable sense of timing, retired Wall Street executive Bruce Lisman let it slip today that he will, indeed, run for governor. As a Republican.

And he did so on the very day when Rand Paul was in town for a speech and fundraiser. Which he did not attend.

Way to step on the party’s headline, Bruce!

He did not actually announce anything, but he did notify various Republicans he was going to file his candidacy papers Tuesday, and he didn’t tell anyone to keep their lips zipped. Gee, Bruce, why not wait ’til Wednesday?

Continue reading

A heartbreaking tale of innocence defiled

Pity poor Paul Dame, freshman Republican lawmaker, whose blissful ignorance was suddenly and violently stripped away as he was forced to the disheartening realization that politicians sometimes do political things.

Well, that’s the charitable interpretation of his opinion piece, entitled “Stop the Blame Game,” posted on VTDigger this week. The uncharitable view is to see it as a cynical attempt to seize the high road and ignore reality in the process.

Dane is reacting to an opinion piece written by Rep. Tim Jerman, vice chair of the Vermont Democratic Party, which accused the Republicans of putting their “negativity machine… in full gear,” and “trashing the… achievements of the 2015 Vermont Legislature.”

Dame is indignant over Jerman’s “partisan and inflammatory” essay that lowers itself to “partisan name-calling” instead of working together to meet the challenges facing Vermont.

Shocking, I know, that a top Democrat would try to attack Republicans. Mr. Dame is either the freshest babe in the legislative woods, or he’s being deliberately mendacious. Because if you take a gander at recent statements from the Vermont Republican Party, you see a consistent pattern of partisan attack.

Dame effectively accuses Jerman of poisoning the well of bipartisan cooperation. Truth is, the Republicans have been pissing in that well for months and months. And somehow Dame is surprised — nay, shocked — that Jerman might actually decide to respond in kind.

To illustrate my point, let’s take a stroll down the Memory Lane of VTGOP press releases.

Continue reading

Like it or not, the Vermont Legislature needs to address ethics

Secretary of State Jim Condos is making a welcome, and timely, push for an independent State Ethics Commission. In a press release issued this morning, he also called for “a clear law regarding ethics, conflicts of interest, and financial disclosure for our elected officials.”

This really shouldn’t be an issue; we are one of only three states without such a body. And in a year that’s already seen Attorney General Bill Sorrell facing an independent investigation, a sitting Senator arrested on felony charges on the Statehouse grounds, significant questions about the Senate President Pro Tem, and a secretive House Ethics Panel with a very permissive interpretation of “ethics,” you’d think we could dispense with the old “We’re Vermonters, we do the right thing, we don’t need an ethics law” argument.

I mean, if anybody still believes that, they’re whistling past the graveyard.

Continue reading

Vermont Health Connect: a very conditional victory

So the Governor and a full brace of minions came out Monday morning to announce that Vermont Health Connect had met the first of his two deadlines, or milestones, or benchmarks: the implementation of a change of circumstance feature.

This, after VHC was taken offline for the weekend to install upgrades, a move that prompted premature glee among reform opponents like State Rep. Heidi Scheuermann.

Yeah, not so much.

But the declaration of victory, though sounded loud and clear, came with a handful of asterisks. The Vermont Press Bureau’s Neal Goswami:

The upgrade, which is still being phased in by the administration, will allow customer service representatives to make changes to consumers’ accounts in an automated way.

“Still being phased in.” Got it. And…

“It means that we now have the capability, the tool, to be able to change your circumstance when things change for your insurance. And the outcome of that, as we get it up and running, will be a much smoother system that has been evading us since we launched,” Shumlin said.

“… as we get it up and running…” Hmm.

Continue reading

Rent-to-own: Fixin’ a hole

This morning, I sat in on a House Appropriations Committee hearing on S.73, a bill that would set limits on the rent-to-own industry — an industry that’s virtually unregulated and preys on cash-poor Vermonters.

For those unfamiliar, RTOs offer household furnishings and appliances with very little cash up front, but interest rates that’d make a banker blush. Not to mention undisclosed fees and charges. According to Legislative Counsel David Hall, current state law gives the Attorney General rule-making authority; but RTOs write their contracts in a way that effectively puts them beyond the reach of current law.

Hey, I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.

The result is a Wild West marketplace that, according to VPIRG, results in consumers “paying many times the original price of the original item- far more than they would pay if they purchased the item from a traditional retail establishment.”

The bill would establish price caps and disclosure requirements on the industry.

Continue reading

Just shoot me now.

Vladimir: What do we do now?
Estragon: Wait.
Vladimir: Yes, but while waiting.
Estragon: What about hanging ourselves?
Vladimir: Hmm. It’d give us an erection.
Estragon: (highly excited). An erection!
Vladimir: With all that follows. …
Estragon: Let’s hang ourselves immediately!”
― Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot

I don’t honestly get the political media’s fascination with former Wall Street tycoon Bruce Lisman. Yes, he founded (and funded) a vanity proj — er, advocacy group, Campaign for Vermont, to peddle his particular brand of biz-frendly pseudo-centrism. Ever since, the media have been Waiting For Lisman, ever anticipating his supposedly inevitable run for Governor.

And here to brighten up your Monday morning comes VPR’s Peter Hirschfeld with another round of “Who Asked For This?”

As Shumlin’s Approval Numbers Fade, Bruce Lisman Finds His Political Voice

Awww crap.

By “political voice,” Hirschfeld apparently means “Lisman is finally criticizing Governor Shumlin by name instead of in code.” There is little or no evidence that Lisman has found an authentic political self — an identity that can attract broad support.

Until Shumlin’s near defeat in November, Lisman had mostly refrained from personal attacks on the governor, or no-holds-barred criticism of initiatives undertaken under his watch.

“We really were a high-road, certainly nothing that smacked of political action – more policy action,” Lisman says.

Yuh-huh, stop right there, boss. From day one, Lisman’s Campaign for Vermont has consistently been critical of Gov. Shumlin and legislative Democrats. But he never said “Shumlin” or “Democrat” — instead making reference to “Montpelier.” For which, as a resident of Montpelier, I say “thank you for using my town as an epithet.”

Lately though, Lisman has assumed a more contentious tone. And it comes after a close election that Lisman characterizes as a “rebuke” of the sitting governor.

Take cover, boys! Sheriff Lisman’s coming to town!

Let’s be blunt. Lisman’s only political credentials are his Wall Street fortune and his willingness to spend a small fraction of it on a political group that has, as far as anyone can tell, failed to draw much support outside of the narrow band of elites who believe they have evolved beyond mere politics into a higher plane of enlightened self-interest.

(Example: Lisman, who presumably invests a large share of his fortune, has advocated cuts in capital gains taxes. Self-interested much? And he has issued a Mitt Romney-like call for everyone to have “skin in the game,” i.e. pay income tax. Which is an astoundingly regressive position for a “centrist.”)

Here’s what I said the last time I was forced to consider Lisman’s electoral prospects:

Bruce Lisman will never be Governor of Vermont. He’s not terribly well known, in spite of his travels around the state; he’s a lousy campaigner and public speaker; and most importantly of all, Phil Scott stands squarely in his path. Scott is a much better advocate of pretty much the same policy ideas. He’s far better known, he’s a more effective speaker and a proven fundraiser, and he has a major party structure behind him.

Still true. And here’s another: Bruce Lisman has the political instincts of a concrete block. He has dillied and dallied with the notion of running for governor to the frequent detriment of those who share his worldview. One example: In the spring of 2014, when his fellow CFV-er Heidi Scheuermann was mulling a race for governor, there suddenly came word from Lisman that he might just make a run himself.

I can’t say for sure that his brief and pointless flirtation elbowed Scheuermann aside, but it sure didn’t help. And then, as suddenly as he’d encouraged the speculation, Lisman quelled it, leaving the VTGOP to the tender mercies of Scott Milne. If that’s an example of the political acumen we can expect from Lisman, then I see him stumbling out of the gate. That is, if he ever finally decides to get IN the gate. He seems to have a hard time making that call.

I won’t go through the rest of Hirschfeld’s piece in detail because, frankly, I’d rather gouge out my eyes with a hot poker. But I will point out some examples of Bruce Lisman’s downright squicky faux-humility. On running for governor:

“I don’t give it a lot of thought,” Lisman says. “I guess I’m in the same place I’ve been. I don’t give it a ton of thought. Thank you. It’s nice of you to ask it in that way.”

Eeeewwwwww.

“And lots of people have post-election said to me, gosh you should have run, or I hope you run next time,” Lisman says. “And that’s nice. I mean it’s a nice thing to hear. It’s very flattering.”

Bleuuuurrrrrgh.

And finally, what could ol’ Bruce do to put a topper on this cavalcade of self-regard? Oh yeah, he could go third-person.

“Do we need a payroll tax? We think not.”

Ugh. Just threw up in my mouth a little.

But after all this, here’s my message for Bruce Lisman: Go ahead. Run for governor. Pull out all the stops. You won’t win, but at least our media will be able to stop camping out on your metaphorical doorstep.

Estragon: I’m going.
[He does not move.]