"Our government, national and state, must be freed from the sinister influence or control of special interests. Exactly as the special interests of cotton and slavery threatened our political integrity before the Civil War, so now the great special business interests too often control and corrupt the men and methods of government for their own profit."

— Teddy Roosevelt

And people think unions are evil

Submitted by Chris Pearson on Mon, 2007-12-03 13:14
Tags:
Union drives, contract battles or any dust up where workers are trying to exert their right to a democratic union tends to be contentious. Employers don't want workers with power. They like being in charge. But, weak as they are, we still have laws in the US that protect the ability to form a union. Sadly, the laws are violated all the time, often deliberately. The latest example in Vermont is at Health Care & Rehabilitation Services of Southeaster Vermont, or HCRS. HCRS co-ordinates social workers for our two southeastern counties. The employees at HCRS were frustrated by mandatory overtime and other quality of life issues. To address them, they formed a union. Since March 2006, the union has been trying to negotiate it's first contract. In other words, the employer has been stalling for almost two years now. I wonder how much money employees could cost under a new contract? For over two years now HCRS has relied on outside consultants to advise them on working with the union. To be fair, there are a lot of unique laws they have to follow. On the other hand, it's well documented that many of these law firms advise management how to break the union. And they are not afraid of skirting the law to get the job done. For instance, firing an employee who is leading the union charge is a common tactic. Sure it's illegal, but you get the pesky worker out of the way for several key months until the National Labor Relations Board catches up with you. Then you reinstate said employee, say you're sorry, possibly pay back wages and take a slap on the wrist. In the meantime, the message for other workers is clear: mess with the union at your own peril. Last month 19 members of the VT General Assembly asked Auditor Salmon to look into HCRS. Since these guys get a whole lot of public funds many of us find it disturbing to know public money has gone to union busting activity. This contract battle has turned up at least three unfair labor practices against HCRS. Furthermore, just recently HCRS replaced their VT union busting firm with an even more notorious firm from New York. Here's an excerpt from a 2004 NY Times story about these guys:
Mr. Brown, a longtime maintenance man, acknowledged that a mysterious consultant known as Mr. X had advised him on how to oust the union and had helped him write fliers that called the union's leaders names like "trailer trash," "Uncle Tom" and "dog woman." Not only that, Mr. Brown testified that envelopes filled with cash had often been sent to his home. He said he had no idea who had sent them. "I don't look a gift horse in the mouth," he said.
This article tells the story of Jackson Lewis and the kind of practice that has become the norm when workers unite. Pretty remarkable. What I can't understand, is how much damage could a place like HCRS really think they're employees would inflict on them? The company has likely spent hundreds of thousands on legal fees. Could workers really be that scary? Is this how we need to spend our limited public dollars? Shouldn't we have more respect for the democratic process in the workplace? What do you think?

Help Douglas Decide

Submitted by research on Fri, 2007-11-30 11:06
Tags:
During the last campaign, Blogger Philip Baruth pointed out why Rich Tarrant's campaign song "Takin' Care of Business" fit his US Senate campaign so well. In a way that the Tarrant campaign would rather forget. This year, Hillary Clinton asked supporters to vote online for her campaign song and they gave the nod to Canadian balladeer Celine Dion. In that spirit, we offer you the opportunity to nominate a song for Jim Douglas's 2008 campaign. He announced last July but so far we haven't heard of any official song selection so we presume he'll be open to suggestions. To listen, click on each song title below. Then vote.

"Comfortably Numb" by The Scissor Sisters

"Intro" by The James Douglas Show

"No!" by They Might Be Giants

"Pretty Pink Ribbons" by Cake

"Veto" by Scissors for Lefty

Thanks for voting!

Medicare Part D and Big Pharma

Submitted by Rep. Sandy Haas on Thu, 2007-11-29 10:07
Tags:
It is always satisfying when greed backfires. As we approach the third year of Medicare Part D drug coverage, it appears that Big Pharma may be losing market share to generic drugs. Written by the drug industry, the Medicare drug bill promised a huge boon to their profit lines. Remember this is the program where the federal government is prohibited from negotiating lower drug prices (as the VA does very successfully). In fact, the program is actually chasing senior citizens away from expensive, brand name drugs.  More than 60% now choose generic drugs whenever they can, and that percentage is increasing.  The flaw in Big Pharma’s strategy turns out to be the “donut hole” (that annual coverage gap between $2500 and $5700 in drug expenses).  Because seniors try to cut expenses at or before reaching the coverage gap, they are finding that generics work just fine.  Once having made the switch, they have no reason ever to go back to the brand names. We are now in the annual six-week window when seniors can change from one Medicare Part D drug plan to another.  Plan premiums, of course, increase from year to year, and the specific drugs covered can change at any time.  For 2008, Vermont has 51 different plans with different drug lists (“formularies”), monthly premiums, co-pays, and annual deductibles.  A few  higher-premium plans offer some coverage through the “donut hole.” Price shopping is tricky.  The cheapest Humana plan (AKA Wal-Mart) was less than $8.00/month in 2006.  Beginning in January, Humana’s lowest premium will be $24.00/mo.  For those taking no prescription drugs as they turn 65, the lowest-cost plan is an issue.  To avoid future penalties on a Part D drug plan, a senior must enroll in some plan promptly upon reaching 65.  The penalty for failure to enroll when eligible is 1% per month.  So if a previously unenrolled senior suddenly required an expensive drug at age 75, any monthly premium would be increased by 120%.  (1% x 12mos x 10yrs) To analyze and compare the Medicare Part D plans available in Vermont for 2008, click here.

Pollina Steps Closer

Submitted by Vermont Progres... on Thu, 2007-11-29 01:00
Tags:

Anthony PollinaMiddlebury Political Scientist Eric Davis:

"I believe that Anthony Pollina could run a stronger race against Jim Douglas than any of those three Democrats. Now, Douglas is going to be hard to defeat -  incumbent governors in Vermont don't lose. However, if you look at Pollina's record in the 2002 race for Lt. Governor he did quite well in the northern part of the state...and Pollina should run more strongly against Douglas in those five counties than a Democrat."

[VPR Story in full]
[Times Argus editorial]
[Reformer editorial]
[VPR Story on fundraising]

  • ""

The "F" word

Submitted by Traven Leyshon on Wed, 2007-11-28 10:36
Tags:
It's out. It's not resetting interest rates that are the big factor behind the surge in home loan defaults YET. Most of the defaults happening today are for mortgages under a year old and so hadn't even hit the two year reset mark. (Nationwide, more than half of the subprime delinquencies and foreclosures this year were loans that hadn’t reset.) Its not lending to people with poor credit scores. Nope, what we have here are loans made by lenders 1) without following prudent underwriting practices, like checking pay stubs for income verification, 2) by lenders creating ever more precarious mortgage products, and 3) some mixture of fraud.  Fraud includes that by borrowers – who lied about their financial status - and lenders – who encouraged, aided and abetted the lies, while hiding the mortgage’s risky terms.   As Countrywide Financial Corp’s CEO was recently quoted, “Capitalism isn’t perfect.” Countrywide Credit is widely expected to file for bankruptcy.    Despite a lot of regulation in the banking industry, over 50% of mortgages are made by companies which are unregulated at the federal level.  This reflects the fashionable bipartisan deregulation policies of the past 25 years.   If left to the market, resetting interest rates are going to push up defaults over the next eight months or so.  This is true to a lesser extent in Vermont, where foreclosures through the first ten months of the year were 994, up 30% from a year ago, according to the Vermont Department of Banking, Insurance, Securities & Health Care Administration.    The state doesn’t have numbers on the number of mortgages which are due to reset in 2008-2009.  One approach is to take the national average – about 35% of mortgages nationwide sold in 2005-2006 were adjustable rate mortgages – and apply that to the number of homes sold in 2005 and 2006.    In 2005, 17,815 homes were sold, while last year 15,878 homes were sold, according to Vermont Realtors.  That means that maybe there are maybe 11,800 or so adjustable rate mortgages in Vermont which will face increasing interest rates next year.  Its not a huge number, but it could certainly spell trouble for the families and neighborhoods involved.   Foreclosure impacts everybody, the foreclosed family, renters and solvent homeowners, just in different ways.  Foreclosed homes typically sell at a discount of 20-25% to other owner-occupied homes.  This price drop drags down comparable prices in the neighborhood as the foreclosed home sales price is factored in.  Renters can face eviction.   A few proposals being floated would limit the pain.  The chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. is proposing that mortgage companies freeze interest rates on adjustable rate mortgages at the current rate to help borrowers avoid trouble.  Essentially, this would convert the starter rate to a fixed rate.  Banks will not be happy.  Hey, if the “teaser” starter interest rate was good enough for the lending institution when it made the loan, it should be good enough for it for the life of the loan, no?  A more tentative approach is being promoted by California Gov. Schwarzenegger who advocates freezing interest rates on certain adjustable rate mortgages for a period of time.  Much more meaningful steps to protect homeowners and renters were taken during the New Deal, as in Canada today. What can and should Vermont policymakers do?

Progressive Party sets ambitious fund raising goals

Submitted by Vermont Progres... on Wed, 2007-11-28 01:00
Tags:

November 28, 2007, VPR, by Bob Kinzel

(Host) Progressive Party leaders are setting ambitious fund raising goals for the 2008 gubernatorial race.

They'd like to raise a million dollars so that Anthony Pollina can wage a competitive campaign against Republican incumbent Jim Douglas.

VPRs Bob Kinzel reports:

(Kinzel) Backers of Anthony Pollina's run for governor have reached several basic conclusions.

One, to have any chance of defeating incumbent 3 term Republican governor Jim Douglas, Pollina must have an opportunity to go head to head against Douglas - this means there can't be a Democrat in the race.

And second, Pollina is going to need close to a million dollars to have a reasonable chance to win.

Burlington Rep. Chris Pearson is helping to organize the Pollina campaign. He says he's disappointed that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the spending limits in Vermont's campaign finance reform law because this means it's going to take a lot of money to run against Douglas:

(Pearson)"I think if you examine past campaigns, clearly a huge - at least half of the money - goes to put ads on TV, but also print ads, printing flyers, having campaign staff to get volunteers energized on the ground... It's a big undertaking to communicate a message and coordinate a campaign across the state."

Pearson says Pollina is also going to need the help of Democratic donors to reach this goal:

(Pearson)"I think we all understand that a head to head race is important and necessary if we're going to be able to oust Douglas and so ultimately this is going to require from our end some support from Democrats and that would include fundraising support."

Pearson thinks the outcome of early fundraising efforts will be a good barometer of public support for Pollina:

(Pearson) "Part of the challenge for us is to find out if Vermonters are interested in a serious head to head race with Pollina versus Douglas and I think there are a lot of signs that say they are."

Middlebury College political science professor Eric Davis thinks the Progressives may have a hard time reaching the million dollar goal because they don't have a national political party, like the Republicans and Democrats, that can funnel several hundred thousand dollars to a gubernatorial campaign:

(Davis) "But $500,000 is probably enough for a statewide candidate to be competitive- to pay for an organization, to pay for some television and radio advertising, to do polling, to do mailings, to do the other sorts of communications efforts that a statewide candidate needs to do. But even reaching that may be a challenge for a Progressive candidate."

Davis also believes that Pollina will end up in a head to head contest against Douglas because he thinks it's unlikely that any of the 3 Democrats currently looking at this campaign will enter the race.

For VPR News I'm Bob Kinzel in Montpelier.

[Source]

  • ""

Survey says: Impeach!

Submitted by Ross Laffan on Tue, 2007-11-27 08:37
Tags:
If you've been watching the Channel 3 news you may have been surprised as I was about some of their polling. One poll shows Vermonters are in favor of same sex marriage 47% to 41%. In another, sixty one percent of Vermonters say they are willing to pay more for electricity if Vermont Yankee could be shut down.  Interestingly, only 42 percent polled would vote to re-elect Governor Douglas.  (It's beyond ridiculous that Vermont continues to elect Douglas.  Hopefully, someone will run against him who can will shine the light on the fact that he's against what Vermonters want.)  One of Channel 3's recent polls revealed that 61 percent of Vermonters favored impeachment proceedings against Bush. At first I agreed that to start impeachment proceedings against Bush was a waste of time and money but I've changed my mind.  I guess I thought Congress' time would be better spent accomplishing something what with the new Democratic Congress.  Hope springs eternal.   I know that with the time remaining in Bush's term he'll never be impeached (it takes those people days just to get through the introductions in a committee hearing.)I now realize the importance of starting impeachment proceedings. What are we saying if we don't at least try?  Have we given up on the notion that we could have an administration that's not corrupt?   Does our constitution mean nothing? Democrats are smelling presidential victory and don't want to play tit for tat on impeachment.  If they deserve to be impeached then they should be.  But don't wait for a Jimmy Stewart moment in the U.S. Congress.  If you stand up and demand that Congress honor the constitution and call for impeachment they shout you down, saying you have pointy ears and your seeing a UFO makes you're a lunatic.  And what about the cost?  It would cost millions to launch impeachment.  Well, that's pocket change for us considering it would be about the same as the cost of about 30 minutes of this God forsaken war in Iraq.  Congress understands what polls are.  Usually they're ruled by polling.  They hear us but they aren't listening. Our constitution needs to be honored.  We need to believe in our government again.  End the war. Impeach the bastard.   

Earn some trust

Submitted by Chris Pearson on Mon, 2007-11-26 10:14
Tags:
As I prepare for the upcoming session in Montpelier I keep coming back to a troubling thought. Sitting on the Government Operations committee I won't be able to tackle the really big issues like energy, health care, property taxes and so on. Yeah, I'll be there to point out if leadership ignores them, but when it comes time to draft language, I won't be in the room. No first-term legislators will be - that's the way it works. So I turn my attention to smaller battles. For now I nibble around the edges - promoting new ideas like a junk-mail registry, hemp legalization, IRV, etc. These are all important - but they aren't the top-tier issues your average voter frets about. Which puts me in a funny position because too many in Vermont think the legislature is a waste of time. All they hear about is debates on impeachment and death with dignity and they're thinking "what about jobs and property tax relief?" I don't want to contribute to voters' sense of our irrelevance, but my role pushing big issues is limited. Which is why I get so frustrated with leadership. They direct the show, from lights up to curtain call. If they could deliver on one or two big issues the legislature as a whole would earn some trust with voters. Then, when the b-list issues came up, at least voters wouldn't shake their heads wondering why nobody listens when they scream about property taxes. Legislature-voter relations require a level of trust and right now we're running on empty. Let's hope leadership is strategizing how to earn some and quick.

Giving

Submitted by Robin Chesnut-T... on Fri, 2007-11-23 11:12
Tags:
"What's this?" I asked. "A giraffe." she replied. "I can see that. But why is it wearing a ribbon?" The giraffe in question is about 10 inches tall with a big red ribbon around its neck. A little exploration in the back seat amid the debris of an 18 year old’s semi-nomadic life revealed a rhinoceros (blue ribbon),  an elephant (green ribbon), and a lion (yellow ribbon). I think there were others lurking. "Well," she said. "You know how sometimes when you are driving through Rutland you see someone on the street who looks really sad? When that happens I just hop out and give them a giraffe. Or a tiger. It’s to cheer them up." "How is that working out for you?" I asked. "It’s kind of mixed. Most of them don’t know that they need a plastic animal with a ribbon in their lives. And they don’t know me so they are a little leery of strangers giving them things. But it works sometimes. Maybe when they get home they realize that they should have an animal." I thought this was a typical activity for my charming and, shall we say, "independent" daughter. But she took it a step further. "The animals don’t matter. The real point is that the person looks sad or lonely. And I want them to know that somebody noticed, that a stranger stopped to say, ‘I see you.’ And to give them a giraffe." And so thoughts about today’s Blog, which was going to be a rant about Black Friday and commercialism, became instead a reflection on how that same crap, cheap injection molded plastic animal from China with god only knows what kind of paint on them, became a means for reaching out, for touching someone in however small a way. And asking nothing in return.

Who will run against Jim Douglas?

Submitted by Vermont Progres... on Fri, 2007-11-23 01:00
Tags:

November 23, 2007, VPR, by Bob Kinzel

(Host) A big question looms on the Vermont political scene in the coming weeks.

Will Democrats and Progressives agree on a consensus candidate to run against Governor Jim Douglas in 2008?

VPR's Bob Kinzel reports:

(Kinzel) While there's a spirited discussion going on between many Democrats and Progressives about strategies for the 2008 gubernatorial race, there is one issue that they agree on: in order for any challenger to have a realistic chance of defeating Jim Douglas next year, the race has to be a two person contest.

Three Democrats, Senate Majority leader John Campbell, former state senator Matt Dunne and former ambassador Peter Galbraith are considering this race and Progressive Anthony Pollina is being encouraged by many members of his party to enter the contest.

The candidates say they're talking with each other in the hope of finding a consensus candidate, but reaching a decision is proving to be a difficult job.

That's because some moderate Democrats don't want to support Pollina and a number of Progressives aren't thrilled with the Democratic choices.

Middlebury College Political Science professor Eric Davis thinks Pollina has an advantage over the Democrats:

(Davis) "I believe that Anthony Pollina could run a stronger race against Jim Douglas than any of those three Democrats. Now, Douglas is going to be hard to defeat -  incumbent governors in Vermont don't lose. However, if you look at Pollina's record in the 2002 race for Lt. Governor he did quite well in the northern part of the state...and Pollina should run more strongly against Douglas in those five counties than a Democrat."

Davis thinks it's possible that the Democrats and Progressives will eventually reach an agreement to field a consensus candidate in the race for governor and Lt. Governor:

(Davis) "Under this scenario, Anthony Pollina would enter the Democratic primary so he could be listed as the candidate for governor with both the Progressive and the Democratic labels and the Progressives would not run a candidate for Lt. Governor so that a Democrat could run for Lt. Governor, enter the Progressive primary and also be listed on the ballot as both a Democrat and a Progressive...because in 3 person races the incumbent Republicans will certainly win."

The Progressives say they've launched an ambitious fund raising effort to demonstrate strong support for a Pollina candidacy.  They hope to raise at least $100,000 by the middle of January - that's more money than has ever been raised for a statewide Progressive candidate in Vermont.

For VPR News I'm Bob Kinzel in Montpelier.


[Source]

  • ""

Douglas (again) tries to fool mother nature

Submitted by Morgan Daybell on Wed, 2007-11-21 10:59
Tags:
Governor Douglas dropped the ball again yesterday at his press conference at UVM yesterday. Continuing to stake out his position far behind the curve in terms of the recognition of the environmental crisis, he chose largely to ignore the recommendations of his own Climate Change Commission, and instead promote cutting trees and spending more valuable time "researching" the issue. The Times Argus has the story. This is another of a long line of missed opportunities, where I believe people of all political stripes recognize the problem, and are willing to at least begin to work together.  A recent editorial in the Reformer sums well the frustration I often hear:
"he spends most of his time not attending to important state business, but traveling around the state cutting ribbons and making sure that he gets his face on the front page of as many newspapers as possible. This is not an opinion but a fact." "a majority of Vermonters would rather see a little less of their governor and hear more about how state government is being pushed to perform better because of great leadership."
We'll be off tomorrow; travel safely.  

Time for a change

Submitted by Vermont Progres... on Wed, 2007-11-21 01:00
Tags:

November 21, 2007, the Brattleboro Reformer, by Richard Davis

GUILFORD -- The political insiders are sharpening their game and they are beginning the process of planning how to best get their candidate to be the next great hope for Vermonters. The race for governor is getting the most play in the behind-the-scenes theater.

Governor Douglas is heading into year six of his three term incumbency. He is a smart politician and he spends most of his time not attending to important state business, but traveling around the state cutting ribbons and making sure that he gets his face on the front page of as many newspapers as possible.

This is not an opinion but a fact. Simply go to the governor's Web site and look at his schedule for any given week at governor.vermont.gov. Maybe that's what he thinks a governor should be doing, but I have to believe that a majority of Vermonters would rather see a little less of their governor and hear more about how state government is being pushed to perform better because of great leadership.

Douglas has spent the last five years campaigning on the taxpayers' dime. He has little to show for his years in office except for developing a list of everything that is wrong with Vermont. Taxes are too high and spending is out of control in school districts and in state government, he contends.

After five years in office the only person to blame for problems is the guy he sees in the mirror. He has had enough time to reveal his leadership qualities and he has had enough time to show Vermonters how problems can be solved. Instead, all we have seen is Jim Scissorshands, a governor who has put roadblocks up to lasting and meaningful health care reform as well as a governor who has made any progress in solving pressing environmental problems nearly impossible.

It's time for a change. My hope is for the Democrats and Progressives to come together and field a unified slate of candidates for Governor and Lt. Governor. That is the only way that Douglas has a chance of being retired from the Vermont political gravy train he has been on most of his adult life.

Anthony Pollina has announced his intention to run for Governor. I have known Pollina for a number of years. We worked together on health care legislation and I have observed him operating in a number of other issue-oriented areas such as agriculture and energy. He was on the ground floor when the Vermont Milk Company was formed.

While Douglas was out cutting ribbons and trying to spend a week eating only Vermont food, Pollina was spending months raising money and organizing a new Vermont business so local dairy farmers could get more money for their milk. He succeeded, and now a number of Vermont farmers are less concerned with how to file bankruptcy and more engaged in doing what they do best

While Douglas was cutting ribbons, Pollina was spending (and continues to spend) his afternoons informing Vermonters about important issues on his radio call-in show on WDEV in Waterbury. He has given those who agree and disagree with him and his guests the opportunity to learn about issues in depth. He has also made it possible for people with conflicting views to engage in meaningful dialogue.

Pollina is smart and he is the only person I know who can lead Vermont into the 21st century, not back into the 20th as Douglas is doing. Pollina has a broad base of support from his years of running for statewide office and it is support that is similar to that of Senator Bernard Sanders in many areas of the state.

Rep. Dave Zuckerman-P-Burlington understands and studies the political game.

He knows that Pollina's support is deep and broad and includes much more than the liberal left. As he noted in an e-mail to me, "In 2002 when he ran for Lt. Governor in the race with Dubie and Shumlin, Anthony came in third. However ... he came in second in all five central/northeast counties in Vermont. Most would agree that is not because there is a higher concentration of liberal lefties in that part of the state (except maybe places like Plainfield). What it shows is that he has an appeal across a demographic of independent voters that normally leans towards the Republican conservative vote. They are more independent than a lot of us give them credit for and they want someone who is for the little guy and who is not afraid to say what they really believe. In this upcoming race between Anthony and Douglas, Anthony can argue that it is a race between the establishment (Douglas ... lifelong politician) and the outsider (Pollina)."

I agree with Zuckerman's analysis and that is why I think Pollina has the best chance of beating Douglas next November. If Matt Dunne decides to run for Lt. Governor and the Democrats and Progressives work together, we may end up with two smart leaders who will cut fewer ribbons and stop blaming others for problems within their control.

That means they will address the problems of health care, the environment, state budgets and property taxes head on. Pollina and Dunne are people who have a track record of getting things done. They are not wannabes, they are the real thing. Douglas is still a wannabee after decades in public office.

Richard Davis is a registered nurse and executive director of Vermont Citizens Campaign for Health. He writes from Guilford.

[Source]

  • ""

The Four Year Term

Submitted by Martha Abbott on Tue, 2007-11-20 10:24
Tags:
This is an idea that keeps surfacing in the guise of "good government." The people who keep bringing it up never call it "less democracy". Currently the Snelling Center is bringing it up and they have collected a lot of money from "Funding Partners" to help them raise the profile of the discussion. But a look at their list of funding partners should raise the eyebrows of progressives everywhere. A few on the list are:  Blue Cross/Blue Shield; CVPS; Champlain Oil Co; Entergy; Fletcher Allen Health Care; GBIC; Green Mountain Power; National Life; VELCO; Vermont Gas; Vermont Mutual Insurance and Vermont State Chamber of Commerce.  It’s sort of the  “who’s who” of special interests in Vermont. This proposal has been rejected by the Legislature and by the people of Vermont every 10 years since 1961.  Now it is being brought up every four years (a shorter window for constitutional amendments).  And it is not just Governor for whom a doubling of their term is proposed, but all the statewide offices (Attorney General, Auditor, etc). And then the question is:  “What do you do about the imbalance of power between the Governor and the Legislature?  Would we need to make the legislative terms 4 year terms, too?  The main arguments are 1) “Every other state does it except NH”,  and 2) “If the Governor is going to take political risks with policies, he or she needs to be able to take them early in his/her term and have time to recover before running for re election.” As for the complexity of modern life, do the Governors of New York and  California need even LONGER terms, because their states are like whole countries in terms of size? In my experience, the need to be insulated from the voters usually means that the special interests are getting something that is not in the interests of the average voter and the politicians need time to regroup. Clearly if you look at Wash DC, two years is plenty.  If our representatives in DC can’t carry out a mandate like this one against the war, if they are this unresponsive to the voters when they have a two year term, clearly four years is going in the wrong direction. If voters have less opportunity to engage, they will engage less. Vermont has a much higher rate of voter turnout than the national average (64.4 in Vermont in 2000 vs 51.3 in the US in 2000).  Will we lose that enthusiasm if we have fewer elections?  Will people feel like their leaders are even more out of touch than now? Governor Douglas spends far too much time NOW out of his office between elections, going to ribbon cutting ceremonies and pot luck suppers when he could be working on policies to benefit working Vermonters.  If there is that much free time in a 2 year term, imagine how much there would be in 4 years. What we NEED is serious campaign finance reform and public funding of elections as well as reform of the use of the public airwaves so that candidates have time to talk about the real issues that affect people’s lives, instead of mud-slinging fests in 30 second spots run over and over. Vermont is the most fundamentally democratic place in the US and always rates in the top few on measures democracy and  performance .  We are one of the most innovative and progressive states in the country and are admired by many political scientists from other states..  Vermont has proven that we  can have a 2 year term and a working democracy. The British philosopher Edmund Burke once said:  “Liberty is never taken away in one fell swoop; it is taken away in bits and pieces and always for expedience.”

Tired of all the small talk

Submitted by Chris Pearson on Mon, 2007-11-19 11:56
Tags:
During my first full session in Montpelier I was pleasantly surprised to see the climate crisis labeled a priority. It is perhaps the defining issue of our time. To those who say we are too small to make any significant change I suggest we can only control our own behavior and establish working models for others to replicate. So far, all we got was a far-reaching bill and a veto from what's his name. Still, it was a decent beginning. This weekend I spoke to a class at Woodbury College. One member took offense to the focus on global warming and said it turned his stomach to hear so much time spent on this issue as his crushing property tax bill climbed higher. It's a fair, if short-sighted, point and I trust readers to remember my efforts to reduce property taxes. Later the same day I ran into a Burlington business owner who said the state had to start thinking about how climate change will impact Vermont's economy so we can be ready. He's no Progressive so I was taken aback. It made me wonder if the committee structure (where everyone has a narrow focus) could really deal with these big questions. In terms of our future, it seems we need a really big conference table. Around that table we need all sorts of voices and interests and in the middle we need to get serious about our energy future, our food and drinking water, our economic future, our young people, our colleges and universities, our traditions, transportation, and our needs going forward. Maybe we'll need a few giant tables pushed together. But to pick off any one piece of this discussion is missing a vital connection between them all. There is a lot at stake. We need this discussion and quick. The answers are a ways off, but we need to start putting ideas on the table. And we need the right person to chair the meeting. I don't think Gov. Douglas is up to the challenge. Do you?

Pollina in the race

Submitted by Vermont Progres... on Mon, 2007-11-19 01:00
Tags:

November 19, 2007, the Times Argus, by Editorial staff

Anthony Pollina of Middlesex has announced his intention to run for governor next year, beating prospective Democratic candidates to the punch and also, he hopes, beating the Democrats to the money jar.

Pollina's announcement was not absolute. His decision seemed to be conditioned on the ability of the Progressive Party to forge a workable alliance with the Democrats and to get a good head start in raising funds for the race.

With Pollina running, the prospects grow dimmer for Democrats considering a race against Gov. James Douglas. These include Matt Dunne, the former state senator and candidate for lieutenant governor, Sen. John Campbell of Windsor County, and Peter Galbraith, the former ambassador who now resides in Windham County.

Pollina and other Progressives reject the label of spoiler, which is the role in which they find themselves when they siphon votes away from Democrats and help to win elections for Republicans. Pollina played that role in 2002 when Republican Brian Dubie defeated Democrat Peter Shumlin and Pollina in the race for lieutenant governor. Ralph Nader, famously, played that role in the presidential race of 2000. Who would want to be called a spoiler after that debacle?

Pollina's early announcement was a form of preemptive strike. He can be assured of a sizable minority of votes, making a victory for any Democrat against the popular Douglas all the harder to achieve.

Pollina and the Progressives have nothing to lose by mounting such a campaign. By running he continues to affirm the role of the Progressive Party in Vermont politics. Even if he wins only 20 percent of the vote, that's more than zero. If he loses, he has not derailed his political ambitions because he has no ambition except to run and to advocate Progressive views. Of course, he would intend to win, but winning would be a bonus.

Dunne and other Democrats would have something to lose. Dunne did not succeed in unseating Dubie in 2006, but he showed that he is a candidate with ability, energy and vision, whose prospects for success in statewide politics are still alive. A second defeat, caused by the presence of Pollina in the race, might doom those prospects.

So Pollina is well positioned to mount an energetic challenge against Douglas, even if the election of a Progressive as governor must be considered a long shot at best.

Douglas continues to test the patience of the liberal electorate of Vermont, though there is no sign yet that erosion of support among the moderate middle has become a serious threat. His lack of leadership on energy and climate issues remains a source of contention. The Bobby Sand controversy is likely to rile up voters on the left, though moderates may be less concerned. Sand is the Windsor County state's attorney, and he sparked controversy recently when he directed the case of a lawyer and part-time judge facing marijuana charges to diversion. In response Douglas ordered state police to send major marijuana cases to the attorney general or the U.S. attorney rather than to Sand.

As a candidate Pollina would have a good time with these issues, but more importantly, he will raise many issues that other candidates don't – and which deserve to be raised. On his daily radio show on WDEV, Pollina has amped up the drumbeat on his signature issues: Economic fairness and the squeezing of the middle class, the litany of government intrusions, a failure to plan for our energy future, support for small-scale agriculture, the costly war in Iraq. Whether this is driven by political calculation or genuine frustration, Pollina's populist message for change is certain to resonate with Vermonters. Whether it's enough to unseat Douglas, that remains to be seen.

[Source]

  • ""
Syndicate content

site © 2010 and paid for by the Vermont Progressive Party ~ login ~ terms of use