Thank you Bernie and keep up the fight. So say we all! -------------------------------------------
Bernie Sanders to Make Sure Public Option Gets Up-or-Down Vote, Defying Reid, Durbin
-- By: Jon Walker
We recently learned that Harry Reid (D-NV) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) were actually whipping against the public option and trying to deny the American people a real up-or-down vote on the issue in the Senate. It is good to see that Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is willing to defy them and instead go with the will of the American people. From Greg Sargent:
"I think somebody should do that, and I'd certainly be prepared to do that," Sanders told me when I asked him if he'd be willing to commit to introducing a public option amendment. This is, in effect, a commitment to introduce the amendment if no one else does.
As I have explained earlier, if even one senator offers a public option amendment, and it is ruled germane, it would likely receive an up-or-down vote as part of the reconciliation vote-a-rama. Designing a public option/public program buy-in that would be ruled germane and does not violate the Byrd rule should definitely be possible.
Durbin's argument against the public option amendment, or any other smart, pro-consumer, Democratic amendments, is that they could endanger passage of the reconciliation bill if it is sent back to the House. Given that Republican sources are saying the Senate parliamentarian ruled the House must first pass the comprehensive Senate health care bill before the reconciliation fixes can be taken up, the fear that the public option amendment could derail the reconciliation fixes seem strange.
If it gets to that point, Durbin will already have the health care reform bill he originally voted for signed into law. The reconciliation fixes are minor, and clearly not overly important to Durbin, since he already voted for a bill with all the "problems" in it. Since Durbin does not want the important student loan reform bill as part of reconciliation, there is no reason to actually worry about the fate of the reconciliation sidecar bill from his stand point.
Just in time for St. Patrick's day, there's a new player in the marketing trend that has notorious corporate offenders energetically painting themselves green in order to entice the growth sector represented by environmentally concerned consumers. Walmart, it seems, wants its piece of the green pie.
This trend toward "green-washing," has already seen some real whoppers (like the oxymoronic "clean coal") floated out there in its opening salvos. The marketing concept is simple: if you get ahead of your PR problem and re-brand your product or business model to sound environmentally responsible, there is a good chance that this new image will be accepted and reinforced by consumers before naysayer's can force them to learn the awful truth. Then it's game over because the marketplace has a notoriously short attention span for the onerous details.
Is Walmart getting a pass from much of the environmental community who should be giving it's green claims greater scrutiny?
In a new blog-post Stacy Mitchell (The Big Box Swindle), Senior Researcher for the New Rules Project scolds environmental groups for failing to take a closer look at Walmart's recent attempts to green-up their corporate image:
Great story in today's Times Argus/Rutland Herald about the Vermont Low Income Advocacy Council, the state's foremost anti-poverty advocacy organization.
I've worked closely with VLIAC, and Edna Fairbanks-Williams, for many years, on issues ranging from housing and evictions to electric industry restructuring, low income energy programs, unemployment compensation, and many other issues. These advocates not only live the life, they also deeply analyze and understand the issues and technicalities.
(Doug Racine posted this and, as part of GMD's policy of placing candidate posts on the front page, here is the latest from Doug Racine. - promoted by Caoimhin Laochdha)
Just sent out this press release - Doug Racine
MONTPELIER, VT -- The Senate Health and Welfare Committee today unanimously passed S.88, which calls for a complete overhaul of Vermont's health care system. The bill creates an oversight panel to hire expert advisors who will design an implementation plan for health care reform. The stated purpose of the redesign is "to ensure that individual programs and initiatives can be placed into a larger, more rational design for access to, the delivery of, and the financing of health care in Vermont."
(Once again, in keeping with GMD's policy of promoting first-hand diaries by the candidates to our front page, here is the latest from Matt Dunne. - promoted by Sue Prent)
The campaign team was delighted to see a new analysis of the WCAX poll this week. As many of you on GMD recognized when the results were first released, the margin of error in the poll meant that the pure ranking of candidates was not necessarily a true picture of the field.
University of Vermont Political Science Professor Anthony Gierzynski shows that the Vermont Governor's race is still wide open, and that when the margin of error is taken into account, three of the Democratic candidates are statistically actually tied with Brian Dubie.
When I got into this race, everyone knew that it would be a challenge early on to compete with the other well known candidates who have been on the statewide stage for years. We were pleasantly surprised to have such strong numbers so early on in the race.
Those of you in the netroots have been a critical part of sharing candidate positions and visions across the state, demonstrating that elections do not have to be dependent on incumbency or spending large sums of money. We can have an election about who has the best experience and ideas to move our state into a new era. Regardless of who you support, thank you for bringing a refreshingly deep discussion to this important election.
As the campaign moves into the next phase, we will be building the kind of grass roots outreach efforts that Vermonters expect. Many of you helped with our quiet effort to engage thousands of Vermonters coming out of the polls on town meeting day. You can expect more of these volunteer driven efforts as Vermonters become increasingly ready to engage in a conversation about our state's future.
I hope you will join us in this exciting year by signing up on our newly revamped website: http://mattdunne.com/
Former City Councilor Andy Montroll and former Burlington Telecom boss Tim Nulty, along with Ron Cassel, Stanton Williams, Paul Guiliani, Rick Royer, Paul Millman, Richard Donnelly, and Don Mayer make up the so-dubbed "group of 9" - the cadre of technical professionals and investors who have offered to step in and cover the late payment on BT's debt in exchange for being given the reins of the whole operation (or in Nulty's case, re-given... is that a word?). Calling themselves "Reboot Burlington Telecom," the group has a website up detailing their proposal (ht CandleBill).
RebootBT has already done the impossible; carved out a growing space for those who think the whole endeavor is a hopeless disaster under the Kiss administration, but really don't want to see it abandoned. That's a space that hasn't existed for months - really, ever since Progressive Party leaders tried to make the whole thing into a partisan referendum, setting up a "you're with the mayor or you're against BT" dynamic.
They certainly succeeded in that, but the results of that now-polarized dynamic have hardly gone their way. Now, the only realistic hope for salvaging the situation - particularly in terms of public confidence - would seem to be in accepting Reboot BT's offer.
Thankfully, the City Council is filling the void and moving forward on their own as - naturally - the mayor and Jonathan Leopold have all but ignored the offer. After all, going with it would be a tacit admission that they screwed up.
But this switch to web-based government, just like the switch to web-based flight reservations and banking, means better service to clients at lower cost to the service provider. Not too good to be true. March 7,2010
Governor Jim Douglas’ resident smart tech man, Tom Evslin, is still threatening Vermont with an earlier promise of a government that will be run just like web-based flight reservations and banking services. He has expanded on this theme lately and now highlights the wonder of ATMs and computerized bank records as examples of efficiency for state government.
Another newly added folksy illustration of life after our technological revolution is how easy it will be to apply for a hunting/fishing license. (Currently Hunting /fishing licenses can easily be purchased at most general stores in Vermont.) Perhaps he’s keeping it simple out of consideration for those that don’t share his vision of Vermont bureaucracy “in the cloud.”
But once records become electronic, they're wherever you need them to be. It doesn't matter whether they're in a corporate data center, on a disk in a state office. or somewhere off in a huge computer center operated by Google or Amazon (technically this is called being "in the cloud"). When you need access to them, they're where you are. You can withdraw money from any ATM (at least if you don't mind fees); you can charge at any store; and you ought to be able to go into any government office to do whatever government business you need to do.
He never touches the potential problems with cloud storage of public records on systems accessible through Google or Amazon. Previously his performance at the Vermont State Recovery Office was rated 47th out of 50 at providing required public access to economic stimulus spending and contract bid information. Evslin is a smart fellow, yet he persists in making simple arguments for his brave new world, with only fleeting references to what he calls “current organizational constraints.” These constraints would surely involve “attendant discomforts, confusion, and fears,” but Evslin glosses over these specifics and proceeds speedily past. No reason to dwell on job and pay cuts.
Anyone with a minimum familiarity with web-based transactions knows the fur-balls that electronic data can cough up. I wish he trusted in his vision and Vermonters enough to raise the level of discussion above 1960’s Popular Science Magazine. Stop chatting up the wonder of a government as futuristic as ATMs and airline flight reservation systems.
How about an open discussion about who wins and who loses in your bureaucratic cloud? Get out from the closed door meetings and explain to Vermont citizens, (or clients as you call them) how these changes will challenge them.
Call me old fashioned, but all the sweeping, absolutist ranting against "earmarks" as "pork" leaves me cold. Sure, we can all agree that gazillion dollar bridges to nowhere are a bad thing, but funding for projects at local universities? Support for renewable energy projects? Public works? Infrastructure projects?
Hell yes I think those are perfectly good uses of federal tax dollars. In fact, I'm of the school that thinks securing such assistance for worthy, meaningful home state projects is a fundamental part of a US Senator's or Representative's job. That's why I appreciated this from the Freeps today:
Vermont does better than any other state when it comes to qualifying for federal money distributed on the basis of census data, a new study has found.
[...] According to the Brookings data, Vermont received almost $1.79 billion in federal money in fiscal 2008 based on Census-related statistics, or $2,873.67 per capita. The per-capita average for the country was $1,469.
Heck, with all the inevitable "earmark" whining that's probably filling up the Freeps comment section by now, allow me to offer a hearty "damn fine job, gentlemen".
Looking forward to the day (not too far off, maybe?) when our senior Senator becomes Chair of Appropriations...
Doris Haddock, aka Granny D, died Tuesday afternoon, March 9, 2010. She had turned 100 years old in late January, and celebrated with a party at the NH State House. When she was 90, she walked across the entire country for campaign finance reform (there's an HBO documentary available free on Hulu, called "Run Granny Run").
In 2004, she ran a very grassroots campaign for Senate against Sen. Judd Gregg. She lost, yes, but not before showing up the GOP for the arrogant, elitist gang it was, and Gregg for the patronizing sexist he is.
There's a website dedicated to her speeches, many of which still pertain to how politics is done in 2010.
We elect our representatives to represent our values and our needs in shaping public policy and allocating community resources. In this work, the regular citizen doesn't stand a chance if elected representatives must first go to wealthy special interests to fund their campaigns. The representation game is over before it begins.
It is nothing particularly new. But in the past, the wealthy lived among us. We shopped in their stores on Main Street and their children went to grade school with ours. We shared the same community interests and values.
We are now talking about inhumane organizations of inhuman scale and international allegiance. They care not if our main streets or our families prosper or if they blow away. We must not have these monsters influencing our community decisions. We must not allow them to provide funds for our candidates, where those funds will deny us proper representation.
