"There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done."

— Teddy Roosevelt

Efficiency and Transparency

Efficiency and transparency in Government are the latest buzzwords out of the mouths of politicians, especially during election times. Imagine if the candidates had to wear the logos of their corporate sponsors. That would be a new level of transparency! Can you imagine a candidate giving a speech about our need for financial reform while wearing a J.P. Morgan jump suit and a Bank of America hat?

Massey Tragedy Relevant to Vermont

Tags:
Last week's disaster at Massey Energy's Mine killed 29 miners. Forty nine coal miners have died at Massey operations since 2000. The safety violations at the nonunion mine - more than 450 last year, and just last month another 57 - are well documented. It is no coincidence that accidents happen far more often in non-union mines. Union mines give workers a greater say in the safety of the mines. It’s done through union safety committees, something missing from the non-union mines. In a non-union operation, asking questions or challenging company mining practices or safety procedures can lead to termination. We should learn from the grim facts associated with the mines Massey controls - as well as recent tragedies at other nonunion mines like Sago, where 12 died; Crandall Canyon, where 9 miners and rescue workers were killed; and Darby, that claimed two lives. It is not just coal mines where union representation can make the difference between life and death. Like mining, bridge construction can be dangerous work. Like mining, unionized construction projects are way safer than non-union operations. Think about that as the Douglas Administration tries to block the Project Labor Agreement which would bring union work rules and safety to the Champlain Bridge construction. For those who accommodate or mimic the anti-union rhetoric pervasive in corporate America, the Douglas Administration, and all too often the media, there is a price. It is more dangerous workplaces, whether a mine, a hospital, or construction - and a greater threat to worker and public safety.

Legislative Update: The Challenge Continues

As the Legislature grapples with the first "progress report" from the administration regarding the Challenges for Change, longstanding distrust colors the conversation. Many of the proposals contained in the progress report simply recycle administration ideas that have been rejected repeatedly by the legislature. Did the administration really believe that huge policy changes could just slide through under the mantle of challenges?

In general, the legislature has said "No." The second Challenges bill may include modest adjustments to statutory requirements, but big policy changes must go through the standard process of committee hearings and floor debate in both the House and Senate. Such initiatives as the forced drugging of people with mental health issues require more than a paragraph buried in a budget bill.

Last week the committees of jurisdiction analyzed the progress report and presented their evaluations to the House Appropriations Committee, which is charged with drafting the “Challenges II” bill. We are hopeful that the process going forward will continue to involve the legislature. More importantly, we need to have Vermont citizens and the community organizations that serve them participate in thinking about how services could be redesigned to better meet their needs and accomplish our overall goals.

Legislative Update: Spent Nuclear Fuel and Greenfield Restoration

This past week the House Natural Resources and Energy committee passed H.589, a bill that creates a trust fund for greenfield restoration of the Vermont Yankee site and a spent nuclear fuel management fund, neither of which is covered by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in their accounting of decommissioning costs.

As of now, because of the Senate vote and the effective House concurrence in this bill, the plant is scheduled to close March 21, 2012. Decommissioning can't begin until the spent fuel has cooled down for at least five years (2017). After that, it takes about 8 years (2025) to decommission the plant before greenfielding can begin.

What greenfielding will do is get the site to a condition that allows future beneficial use of the land, whether for other energy production, industrial use, or commercial use.

Up to now, greenfielding was only covered in a memorandum of understanding. If this bill passes both bodies and escapes a veto by the Governor, both greenfielding and spent fuel management funding will be put into law.

The issue of Safstore, Entergy’s plan for a 60 year extended time delay for decommissioning, is unresolved. Safstore is an NRC-approved method and timeframe for decommissioning, but it does not have to be Entergy’s choice. Under Safstore decommissioning would not commence until 2072. Greenfielding would not take place until 2080.

A 60 year delay of greenfielding will cause many lost opportunities for economic benefits from productive use, including jobs, taxes, and economic multiplier effects.

Because there might be another legislative vote on continued operation next year, we must continue to keep big pressure on the legislature and this company. We must work to end operations on March 21, 2012 and to begin decommissioning as soon as possible after that date.

Krugman On the Questions of our Generation

As we enjoy 80 degree days in early April it's difficult not to think about climate change. Right-wing knuckle-heads in DC really missed the point when they built that igloo for Al Gore claiming the record snow fall in DC was a signal that climate change isn't real. In fact, climate experts have predicted for years that global warming would create extreme weather patterns so the snowfall actually proves the point! So what to do? The New York Times Magazine has a long article called "Building a Green Economy" by Paul Krugman. It's well worth the read because asking these questions and finding the answers, in the mind of this blogger, is our most pressing challenge as a humanity. Below are a few key paragraphs that jumped out to me. Overall it's not a depressing analysis about how we're doomed. It's a brave declaration of how we can curb greenhouse emissions and still have a vibrant economy.
"What if you manufacture a widget and I buy it, to our mutual benefit, but the process of producing that widget involves dumping toxic sludge into other people’s drinking water? When there are “negative externalities” — costs that economic actors impose on others without paying a price for their actions — any presumption that the market economy, left to its own devices, will do the right thing goes out the window. So what should we do? Environmental economics is all about answering that question." "But if you look at the evidence the right way ­— taking averages over periods long enough to smooth out the fluctuations — the upward trend is unmistakable: each successive decade since the 1970s has been warmer than the one before. "And this brings me to my third point: models based on this research indicate that if we continue adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere as we have, we will eventually face drastic changes in the climate. Let’s be clear. We’re not talking about a few more hot days in the summer and a bit less snow in the winter; we’re talking about massively disruptive events, like the transformation of the Southwestern United States into a permanent dust bowl over the next few decades. "When shoppers go to the grocery store, for example, they will find that fruits and vegetables from farther away have higher prices than local produce, reflecting in part the cost of emission licenses or taxes paid to ship that produce. When businesses decide how much to spend on insulation, they will take into account the costs of heating and air-conditioning that include the price of emissions licenses or taxes for electricity generation. When electric utilities have to choose among energy sources, they will have to take into account the higher license fees or taxes associated with fossil-fuel consumption. And so on down the line. A market-based system would create decentralized incentives to do the right thing, and that’s the only way it can be done.
Well done Krugman. Much appreciated.

Counting Pennies

Tags:
As the Legislature considers alternatives to the Challenges for Change proposal from the Agency of Commerce and Community Development (ACCD), I hope they will seek savings from the entire universe of expenditures.  In addition to leaving out ACCD central administration and Tourism & Marketing, they somehow forgot tax expenditures.  Since the process is supposed to work off the Unified Economic Development Budget, let's see what it has to say. Based on figures from the Tax Department, the cost of economic development tax expenditures for the last five years of available data was over $28 million (averaging $5.6m per year).  Although some are convinced that these types of expenditures are cost-effective, many of us are not persuaded.  Shouldn't everything be on the table?  If there are sacred cows, shouldn't there be objective evidence in support of their special protected status?  I guess some changes are more challenging than others.

Plutonomy and preventing the poor vote

A memo from Citi Group in 2006 talks about how they view the U.S. as a "Plutonomy," not a democracy. They invented this word, but it basically means a society where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The memo describes this as a good thing and Citi cites why they will continue to invest in companies that cater to the Rich. On page 10 under the heading "risks", they explain that the greatest risk to their strategy is that the poor get to vote and the poor represent a much larger percentage of the electorate.

We know what he said. What did he mean?

Tags:
I just spent a few minutes on VPR with Tom Evslin and Sen. Snelling. The subject was Challenges for Change; in my case, specifically economic development. I challenged the Agency's proposal and Mr. Evslin said that the goal was to protect outcomes, not organizations. I questioned whether anyone knew what the outcomes had been. My portion of the show was cut short so I didn't get to tell Mr. Evslin or the VPR listeners these two rather startling facts:
  1. Since July 2002, the State has spent at least $311 million for economic development (including federal funds). [I would put the figure much higher, perhaps $500 million.]
  2. Today we have 9,000 fewer private sector jobs then we did in July 2002.
Does that mean all the money was wasted? Certainly not. But it tells us that the State's strategy cannot overcome the business cycle. And we know that much of those expenditures were not long-term investments so - for the most part - we're no better prepared for the next recession than we were for this one. So I'm a little curious about exactly what outcomes Mr. Evslin and the Governor think they're protecting.

Open Debate and the Public

Tags:
Last night at the gubernatorial debate at the "Old Labor Hall" in Barre, a man who interrupted the debate, was ousted because he didn't wait his turn to ask a question. If the walls could talk, I think we would hear that an interruption of this sort wasn't the first when it comes to labor issues. Yes, he did interrupt the debate, but it was "public" television, would it have been better for the candidates to answer or was it better that he was ousted?

They Appear to be Challenged

Tags:
The numbers were released yesterday for the proposed cuts in Economic Development required by "Challenges for Change." The following programs are targeted to lose ALL state funding: VT Sustainable Jobs Fund ($233,890); Adult Technical Education ($430,000); AHS Micro Business ($328,000); VT Council on Rural Development ($47,500); VT Employee Ownership Center ($23,750); VT Women's Business Center ($19,000) It is not clear if this is supposed to take effect in FY11 or FY12. The good news is that we didn't raise taxes on the wealthy. The total cuts from zeroing out the above programs is $1,082,140.  This represents one-fifth of one percent of total personal income tax revenues in 2008; and it represents 1.68% of the state taxes paid by the 400 Vermonters who earned more than $1 million. I'm glad the governor has his priorities straight. A few comments about the very first outcome measure: "Create one non-public sector job for every 200 persons in the region served per year" Where did this number come from? How does it compare to historic (non-recession) job growth? How will we know if state programs are responsible for the job growth? And how will we know which programs (if any) were causally related to job creation? Does it matter where the jobs are created? (i.e., Chittenden Co. or rural areas with higher unemployment) Does it matter whether they are FT or PT? Does it matter what they pay or if they have benefits? In my view, this will tell you absolutely nothing about the cost-effectiveness of the programs funded.

Closed-door meeting on Yankee canceled

April 1, 2010, the Times Argus, by John Curran

MONTPELIER — Buffeted by criticism over plans to host a closed-door meeting with elected officials about the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission canceled it Wednesday.

The meeting, which was organized to give elected officials the chance to meet with federal regulators without the press and public listening, was to be held at Keene Country Club in Keene, N.H., on April 14.

Tea Party and Healthcare

I am completely disgusted with the nastiness that the so-called Tea Party people are stirring up re: health care reform. Spitting at people and advocating violence are just appalling. Interestingly, the concept of requiring all Americans to get insured has been widely supported by Republicans for years and was proposed as an alternative after Clinton’s attempt at overhaul failed in the 1990’s. Health economist Mark Pauly notes, “The idea of an individual mandate as an alternative to single payer was a Republican idea.” His 1991 paper, describing how mandated insurance could be combined with tax credits, was well-received by the George H.W. Bush administration. Pauly believes that Republicans are currently reacting so badly to this legislation solely because it was passed by Democrats. As a Progressive, of course I understand that a single-payer system is the only way to really reform our system in a meaningful and sustainable way but, given the incredible power of the insurance and drug company lobbies over far too many members of Congress, I knew that single-payer would not be the first step in the reform process. I’m certainly not thrilled with much about the new law, but I do think that it could be a stepping stone for something better. If we can elect a governor who understands this issue, we have a chance of pulling off something better here in VT and then we can show the rest of the country how it should be done.

2nd radioactive isotope confirmed in Yankee soil

March 31st 2010, the Times Argus, by Dave Gram

MONTPELIER — Test results have confirmed the presence of another, more dangerous, radioactive substance in the soil at Vermont's only nuclear power plant, officials said Tuesday, five days after announcing they had found and stopped tritium leaks at Vermont Yankee.

The state Health Department said Tuesday that cesium-137 was found at the site. The substance has a half-life of 30 years, about 2-1/2 times that of tritium, which was found in early January. A half-life is the time it can be expected to take for a substance to lose half its radioactivity. Unlike tritium, cesium-137 does not occur naturally in the environment; it is a product of nuclear fission.

Bipartisan Challenges for Change

Tags:
Last week was a first for me as I watched in the Democratic caucus the melding of the Republicans and the Democrats under the golden dome. We broke for caucus to discuss a heated debate over delaying the vote on the budget. House Leadership and the Governor's administration was withholding data on the controversial "Challenges for Change". Some Legislators were under the impression that "outcomes" data for "Challenges for Change" was available in some form. The report was due from the administration and agencies, to the full legislature, that day, by statute. And we were voting on the budget. The administration and house leadership along with some committee chairs decided to withhold it even though according to statute it was supposed to be released. This is wrong. At the Democratic caucus it seemed odd that the leadership would not take questions from legislators from another party (I suppose because it was their caucus, they would not recognize anyone other than from their party to speak). Yet they invited Neal Lunderville and Jim Reardon to the table to calm their caucus as well as to help soothe the Republicans into moving the vote on the the budget, rather than delaying the vote. The scene that night was more than working "collaboratively", it was actually a "scheming" with leadership from both parties involved, withholding information from "ordinary" legislators. This is wrong. Many Republicans wanted to hold up the budget, but the reality is that they voted overwhelmingly for "Challenges for Change". So, they bought in to the idea a month ago. They wanted it both ways. Vote for the Challenges for Change and its $38 million in "savings" but not allow the budget to be voted on even though the $38 million "savings" were included in the budget. Double speak from the Republicans again. I don't like "Challenges for Change." I don't like the "cuts" it will bring to state government under the guise of "savings." Still I seized the moment and voted in favor of a budget that included many human services pieces that were absent from the Governor's budget proposal. Was this a strategic move? Maybe, but then the question is: "whose strategy?" Party followers will have to answer those questions. Anyway, this was a budget that we couldn't let lie around for too long.

Corporations are People Too

Tags:
The recent Supreme Court Ruling that Corporations are People (entitled to the same rights as you and me), makes it obvious, to me, that the supreme court ruling is a way to get more "voting power" to the rich. It specifically allows Corporations to pump as much money as they want into "their" candidates. My fear is that it will eventually go even further: "If corporations are people, then they should also get a vote."
Syndicate content

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