Tag Archives: Times Argus

Tales of perfidy from the business pages

4 Replies

Hey, working folks, hope you enjoyed Labor Day. Yep, you got your one day; the other 364 belong to the employers.

We’ve got two examples of capitalism at work in Vermont: another shifty move from the formerly conscience-ridden Keurig Green Mountain, and a T-shirt factory meets its inevitable demise.

First up, from the Reuters news service:

When Keurig Green Mountain Inc said last December it was shifting its coffee buying operation to Lausanne in Switzerland from its headquarters in Waterbury, Vermont, it said the move would establish the company as a “global beverage player.”

The seller of brewing machines and single-serve coffee pods said nothing about a little-known exemption in the U.S. tax code…

Ah yes, the tax code: refuge of capitalist scoundrels.

Continue reading →

Bruce Lisman, cruisin’ for a bruisin’

3 Replies

The weekly emission of “political analysis” from former Douglas Administration minion Michael Smith arrived, as usual, with my Saturday Times Argus. Most of it was the usual Republican-canted bushwah, but he led off with a paragraph that brought a smile to my lips:

Is Bruce Lisman considering a bid for governor? That’s what some are saying Lisman is telling them. In fact, one local businessman said Lisman told him he is definitely running.

Oh please. Oh please please PLEEEEEEEASE run for Governor. I’m beggin’ ya.

Because if he does, he’ll be setting himself up for his worst moment since that fateful time during the collapse of his former paymaster, Bear Stearns, back in March 2008:

In the middle of the afternoon, Bruce Lisman, the usually taciturn 61-year-old co-head of Bear Stearns’s stock division, climbed atop a desk near his fourth-floor office and demanded his traders’ attention. “Let’s stay focused,” he bellowed. “Keep working hard. Bear Stearns has been here a long time, and we’re staying here. If there’s any news, I’ll let you know, if and when I know it.”

His prediction soon proved inoperative, as Bear Stearns suffered an ignominious collapse in the financial meltdown that almost killed the global economy.

A gubernatorial bid won’t be nearly so cataclysmic — more of a whimper than a bang — but it’ll end just as badly for Our Man Bruce.

Continue reading →

A wake-up call to Vermont Public Radio

9 Replies

What follows is a tough assessment of our state’s public radio outlet. First, let me make clear that VPR is a strong organization that does a lot of good things. It’s my #1 spot on the radio dial. But in the words of Uncle Ben:

With great power comes great responsibility

VPR occupies an outsized space in our media landscape. It is the only media outlet that is not seriously strapped for money. It is deeply resourced and amply staffed.

VPR occupies a King Kong-sized space in the nonprofit landscape. It is a fundraising machine. It barely has to even ask for money*, so loyal and responsive is its listenership. When it does have to ask, it has a monster-sized megaphone at its disposal. I have no idea how VPR’s success impacts other nonprofits — especially those with parallel missions, like VTDigger or the Vermont Symphony Orchestra or the Vermont Humanities Council — but I do know that VPR rakes it in.

*Its spring fund drive was cancelled after listeners responded overwhelmingly to brief pre-drive pitches; its summer drive was whittled to practically nothing. Most public radio stations would kill for a response like that.

Numbers? Well,in FY 2013 (the most recent figures available), VPR’s total revenues were $8.27 million. Its neighbor to the east, New Hampshire Public Radio, which serves a population twice as large, took in $6 million that year. Of course, NHPR has to compete with other public radio services in all of its markets; with the exception of the Connecticut River Valley, VPR has a public radio monopoly. Plus, it’s the only NPR affiliate that reaches the Montreal market.

Anyway, that gives you a taste of VPR’s financial might. Now, remember the words of Uncle Ben:

With great power comes great responsibility

By that standard, VPR falls short.

Continue reading →

Apology and retraction re: Sunderland essay

Leave a reply

Over the weekend, I posted a piece noting that VTGOP chair David Sunderland had sent out an opinion piece castigating H.361, the education reform bill, even though it was the result of Democratic/Republican cooperation and enacted with bipartisan support (and opposition).

My mistake, and my apologies to Sunderland and to VPO readers. He did not write the essay in question — although he did send it out to the VTGOP’s email list. That’s a little surprising given broad Republican support for the bill, but it’s not nearly as strange as it would have been if he’d written the piece.

The essay was actually an Editorial that appeared in the May 27 Times Argus. I first saw it in the VTGOP email blast, and jumped to a conclusion. My fault.

I’m updating the original post with a link to this retraction. I don’t want to delete the post because that would be, IMO, dishonest.

Thanks to Robert Maynard of True North Reports for pointing out my mistake. Sorry I didn’t believe you the first time, Robert.

VTGOP chair throws his own people under the bus

6 Replies

UPDATE: I was mistaken when I wrote this post. The opinion piece was not written by Sunderland; it was a Times Argus editorial. See this new post for details.

Vermont Republican Party chair David Sunderland, having been eerily quiet during the bulk of this year’s legislative session, is now throwing around boilerplate press releases and opinion pieces like there’s no tomorrow.

A recent missive, published in the May 27 Times Argus, castigates H.361, the education reform bill, as “a mess of a bill,” a “coercive regime,” the result of a “panicked” legislature. He claims the bill “will raise property taxes” (nonsense) and introduce inequity to what he called the “painstaking and thorough quest” that resulted in the adoption of Act 60 in 1997.

Which is funny in itself, because Republicans have been loudly beating the drum for repeal of Act 60 and its 2003 amendment, Act 68. Sunderland may be too young to recall that Act 68 was adopted because of severe problems with Act 60. But hey, if he views the halcyon days of Act 60 through rose-colored glasses, that’s his right. Of course, he may be completely alone in his nostalgia.

But that’s not the real story here. The most significant, nay stunning, aspect of his essay is that H.361 was a bipartisan bill. It was a cooperative effort of Democrats and Republicans in the House Education Committee, and it passed the Legislature with substantial Republican support. In the House, 23 Republicans — almost half the caucus — voted for H.361, including House Minority Leader Don Turner and Assistant Leader Brian Savage.

Continue reading →

Gruber contract officially downsized

Leave a reply

One argument the Republicans have made in their desperate effort to fan the flickering flames of Grubermania is that, although Gov. Shumlin cut off Jonathan Gruber’s pay, his contract remained intact and would require a formal rewrite.

Well, mission accomplished, per the Mitchell Family Organ:

State officials released an amended contract with MIT economist Jonathan Gruber Tuesday evening, lowering the maximum amount payable to $280,000.

… Some Republicans had maintained that the original contract required official changes, and said Gruber’s “handshake agreement” with Lawrence Miller, Shumlin’s chief of health care reform, was not sufficient.

The amended contract reflects the change in pay for Gruber.

The full contract can be viewed at the link above.

I’m sure the Republicans will come up with fresh rationales for their obsession. But the contract can no longer be cited as an issue. And if they possess a shred of intellectual honesty, they’ll stop referring to the Gruber contract as a $450,000 deal and adopt the true figure, $280,000.

Ball’s in your court, guys.

Here’s a pleasant surprise

Leave a reply

I didn’t think the Governor had it in him, especially in the wake of his Election Night smackdown. But he’s not giving in to the Pitchfork Brigade’s call for the head of Jonathan Gruber. Neal Goswami of the Mitchell Family Organ:

Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin said Monday that a state contractor under fire for derisive comments he has made about American voters and a Vermont commentator will not have his state contract terminated despite calls to do so by Republicans.

Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist, has a personal services contract with Vermont that will pay him up to $400,000 to test economic models related to Shumlin’s universal, publicly-financed health care proposal, often referred to as a single payer system.

The Governor’s stand does come with strings: He will not exercise an option to extend Gruber’s contract beyond its expiration in Februiary. And he did his best to dump all over the contrator whose economic model is too valuable to do without:

…”for me it’s not just what he said, it’s that he actually thinks this stuff. It’s not the way we do things in Vermont.”

Shumlin was also careful to delineate between Gruber the technocrat and Gruber the policy advisor:

“It’s our plan, not his. It’s our policy, it’s our hope for the future and it’s our plan. We’ve used him as a calculator not a policy advisor,” Shumlin said.

Okay, fair enough. Keep him on, and do what you must to distance yourself from his arrogance. Much better than to give in to the howling mob.

Time to change the subject

3 Replies

Huh. Day One of Vermont Health Connect 2.0 passed uneventfully, the website performing as expected with only “minor issues” that were resolved immediately.

“It was a nice, boring morning,” [chief of health care reform Lawrence] Miller said. “And that’s what we look for.”

Cool beans.

Of course, unlike last year, the site wasn’t overwhelmed by hordes of eager applicants. According to the Mitchell Family Organ, the site processed 80 new applications and 401 renewals. A nice number, but not a flood. And, we should note, some of the website’s functions are off line until after the open enrollment period ends.

So, baby steps. But so far, so good.

And as long as things are going well, we can safely ignore Republicans’ call to tear the whole thing down and join the federal exchange, complete with its lower subsidies and possible dismantling by the Supreme Court.

And now that things are looking up for VHC, must be time for Republicans to change the subject.

Oh, here we go.

A video from Vermont shows Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber mocking a Vermonter who expressed concern about single-payer health care.

That’s better. It’s getting harder to challenge Obamacare and Shummycare on policy grounds, so let’s demonize somebody!

And filling the role, in the fine tradition of Hillary Clinton and Valerie Plame and Lois Lerner and Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton again and the hordes of illegal gangbanging youth swarming our borders (remember them?), not to mention Demon Number One, President Obama himself, is Jonathan Gruber, “architect” of Obamacare.

Let’s posit first of all that Gruber seems to be an arrogant ivory-tower type with no conception of how his ill-considered words sound in the wider world. To judge by the carefully-selected words spoken on a handful of videos trumpeted by the right, Jonathan Gruber is a proper asshole.

However…

To call Gruber the “architect” of health care reform is quite a stretch. His primary contribution was the development of an economic model that allowed the testing and comparison of possible reform measures. And from what I’ve read, the Gruber model is uniquely accurate. It’s a valuable tool, and Gruber’s been well compensated for its development and use. He’s been employed by the federal government and the Shumlin Administration (and by a whole bunch of other states) to use his model and consult on details of reform programs.

But he is not the architect of anything. Not in Washington, and not in Montpelier. He did not create the system; he was one among many. And he had nothing to do with the political strategy that led to its enactment, which makes his views on political strategy irrelevant.

You could call him the Ted Williams of health care reform. He’s a terrific power hitter. But he is not the manager or general manager, much less the owner. His thoughtless and arrogant remarks are no more relevant to health care reform than Ted Williams’ famous battles with the press were to his performance at the plate.

Convenient, isn’t it? Just when VHC is getting off the ground and Obamacare is starting its second round of successful enrollments, opponents of health care reform have “discovered” comments made by Gruber two and three years ago.

The video cited above was recorded in 2011 by the conservative website True North Reports.

And now — more than three years later — it’s the outrage du jour? How convenient.

The video’s existence was reported by Vermont’s own version of James O’Keefe, the Koch-funded Bruce Parker at Vermont Watchdog. His story was reposted by True North Reports — without comment on why a three-year-old video that True North Reports itself produced should be considered hot news today. What has TNR been doing with this video for the past three years?

By the way, the Vermonter who was mocked by Gruber in 2011?

El Jefe General John McClaughry.

As Gruber sits listening, the committee chair reads a comment from a Vermonter who expresses concern that the economist’s plan might lead to “ballooning costs, increased taxes and bureaucratic outrages,” among other things.

After hearing the Vermonter’s worries, Gruber responds, “Was this written by my adolescent children by any chance?”

El Jefe is shocked, shocked that Gruber would say such a thing. Although he’s certainly been called worse. And I myself have occasionally wondered if El Jefe’s opinion pieces might have been written in crayon.

In this particular case, McClaughry’s thunderings were so exaggerated, so over the top, that they invited mockery. And Gruber, unwisely, took the bait.

So now the Shumlin Administration is under pressure to take their irritable, impolitic slugger out of the lineup because he acted like a jerk.

Three years ago.

If you ask me, the Republicans are desperately changing the subject. They’re running out of time to undercut health care reform on its merits, so they’re demonizing one of its leading academics.

And, if you ask me, Jonathan Gruber’s remarks have no relevance to the merits of health care reform. None at all.

 

A phony “crisis of conscience”

Leave a reply

So I stopped at my mailbox this morning and picked up my copy of the Times Argus.

And there, splashed across the front page, was a writeup of the latest twists and turns of the trumped-up “controversy” over a potential Legislative vote for Governor. 

The article is entitled “A Crisis of Conscience?”

Well, at least it was framed as a question, not as a statement of fact.

Because the answer to the question is a clear, unambigious “No.” There is no crisis, and this is not a matter of conscience. Or, shall we say, deciding whether to ratify the election of Peter Shumlin is not a matter of conscience.

What is a matter of conscience is whether Republican lawmakers are going to jump on board this Bandwagon of Convenience devised by second-place finisher Scott Milne and abrogate 150+ years of precedent to cast their votes for Milne.

And here I thought the Republicans considered themselves the true guardians of the Vermont Way.

Atop the Times Argus’ front page spread were photos of Milne and Shumlin. The caption next to the Milne shot says “Republican Scott Milne won the most districts in the state with 62.”

I've got just the idea for you! Low mileage, runs good, new battery & tires. Don't mind the rust.

I’ve got just the idea for you! Low mileage, runs good, new battery & tires. Don’t mind the rust.

This statement is at the core of Milne’s argument. He won more legislative districts, or more counties if you prefer, than Shumlin, and this shows his broader appeal.

Well, fiddlesticks. As is the case every election, the Democrat rolled up big majorities in the more populated areas of the state, while the Republican won in most rural areas. If you look at the Secretary of State’s election map, you’ll see that there is more red than blue. Of course, some of those districts that went for Milne contain more moose than people, but it looks impressive on the map.

And unfortunately for Milne’s argument, we do have this principle of “one person, one vote.” Vermont’s old system of electing one Representative from each community (one for Burlington, one for Glastenbury) was ruled unconstitutional in 1964. Milne’s argument is cut from the same unconstitutional cloth.

The article itself lists the 43 Democratic lawmakers who face this alleged “crisis of conscience.” Their districts cast more votes for Milne than Shumlin, so (the article asks) should they stick with their man, or support the wishes of their constituents without regard to the wider picture?

Based on Vermont history, this is a phony dilemma. Virtually every time this question has arisen, it’s been answered the same way: the person with the most votes wins. And on those few times when the legislature failed to honor this precedent, there was something shady going on, or there were profound repercussions after the fact. Or both.

The 1976 Lieutenant Governor’s race, Milne’s favorite, had some of both. Plurality winner John Alden was known by many to be under criminal investigation when the legislature voted for the second-place finisher, T. Garry Buckley. Also, there was controversy at the time over the fact that Buckley had actively lobbied for lawmakers’ votes. That controversy was one big reason why his own Republican Party turned against him in 1978 and opted for Peter Smith for Lieutenant Governor.

Scott MIlne can go ahead with his little game, because freedom of speech. And opportunistic Republican leaders can go on supporting his quest even though they know they’re in the wrong, and they know that MIlne will lose in the legislature. They’re just trying to sow a little mayhem and create a fake political argument that Governor Shumlin’s next term is somehow illegitimate.

Just as, I suppose, Jim Douglas’ first term was illegitimate because he failed to win even 45% of the popular vote. And, by extension, his entire eight years in office were illegitimate because if he hadn’t won that first election, it’s doubtful that he would ever have been elected Governor.

The only conscience involved here is the conscience of the Republican Party. They know that precedent is on Governor Shumlin’s side. Many of them voted Shumlin’s way in 2010, when he failed to win 50% of the popular vote. But they are grasping at a straw of opportunity instead of hewing to the Vermont Way.

It’s understandable. But it’s also crass, opportunistic, and unconscionable.

There are only two questions in play, neither of which constitute a “crisis” because they are easily answered.

1. Did Peter Shumlin get the most votes?

We are 99% sure the answer is “Yes.” We’ll be 99.9% sure after the results are certified Wednesday morning. We’d be 100% sure if a recount confirms the official result.

2. Does Vermont have a clear and consistent precedent for dealing with this situation?

That answer is an obvious “Yes,” Republican gamesmanship notwithstanding.

Case closed.

The self-bigotry of low expectations

Leave a reply

This should be a very good day for Vermont Republicans in legislative races. It won’t be, of course, and therein lies the rub.

Earlier in the campaign, Lt. Gov. Phil Scott talked about picking up double-digit seats in the Legislature, putting a perceptible dent in the Dems’ substantial majorities. But now?

“I will be happy if we gain one seat,” [Senate Minority Leader Joe] Benning said. “It means that the Republican Party is moving in the right direction.”

“If we pick up one seat we’re moving in the right direction,” said House Minority Leader Don Turner, R-Milton.

Joe, Phil and Don, smiling through their tears.

Joe, Phil and Don, smiling through their tears.

Gee, ya think they’re reading from the same script?

The above quotes are from a story by Neal Goswami, published in the Sunday Mitchell Family Organ and produced as a (shorter) radio piece by VPR. (VPR’s website has the full text of Goswami’s print article, available without paywall.)

The Republicans are hoping for more than two seats. But they’re clearly trying to set the bar as low as possible so they can claim some sort of victory no matter what happens.

Which means that in their minds, it’s quite possible that the VTGOP will do no better than a token advance. And that’s bad news for the Republicans’ future in Vermont, for two big reasons. First, from Senate Majority Leader Phil Baruth:

“Pickups, frankly, would be pretty tough,” Baruth said. “Last election we expanded pretty much to the limits of what we could reasonably hope for.”

So, if the Democrats are at the theoretical limits of their legislative hegemony, why can’t the Republicans make a significant comeback in 2014? Especially when this campaign represents “a perfect storm” of opportunity, according to Joe Benning himself.

The ingredients of that “perfect storm” include the continuing perils of Vermont Health Connect, fears about single-payer health care, widespread anger over rising property taxes, a sputtering economy, and early signs of Shumlin fatigue among voters.

On top of that, there’s no Presidential or U.S. Senate race to drive Democratic turnout; the races for Congress and Governor are uncompetitive; and Republicans have failed to mount credible races for the other four statewide offices. (Sorry, Shane-O-Mac.) Democratic voters have every excuse to sit this one out.

With all that going for them, the Republicans will be happy with a handful of gains. Leaving them, still, in a very weak minority position.

And that shows you how far away the VTGOP is from being truly competitive.  There are a whole lot of legislative seats that are simply uncompetitive. There are too many liberal and moderate voters who see nothing attractive in the Republican Party — even when they’re feeling dyspeptic about the Governor.

Plus, the Republicans are at a huge organizational disadvantage. The Dems have a well-organized, well-resourced ground game and world-class voter data. They were able to out-recruit the Republicans because of their organizational edge, so they have strong candidates in some vulnerable districts.

And they have poured their resources into the most competitive battlegrounds, like Rutland and Franklin Counties. Because the Republicans are uncompetitive in so many places, the Dems can, as the Governor would say, “focus like a laser” on the most crucial contests.

Which is why, even in a “perfect storm” of Republican opportunity, the Democrats are poised to hold onto virtually all of their vast legislative territory.

And that tells you all you need to know about the magnitude of the task facing Vermont Republicans.