Well, well. Three members of Bruce Lisman’s supposedly nonpartisan Campaign for Vermont made an appearance at a legislative hearing last week — an appearance special enough for CFV to put out a news release. And you’ll never guess what they talked about.

Yep, high taxes, electricity costs, and uncertaintly over health care reform. Three talking points that are high on Lisman’s list and also — purely coincidentally, I’m sure — key VTGOP campaign issues. But before we get to that, let’s take a quick look at CFV’s website, which has sprouted a poll question. I’m sure it’s a fair, unbiased attempt to gauge the opinions of Vermonters on a key issue facing the state.

NOT.

Should the legislature allow, as the federal law allows, citizens and small businesses the choice to purchase their health insurance inside and outside of the Vermont Health Care Exchange [sic; there is no question mark at the end of the sentence.]

— Yes, I think everyone should be allowed to choose where they purchase their insurance.

— No, I think only employees of big businesses and members of public unions should be allowed the choice of where they purchase their insurance.

I’ve written about Bruce Lisman and the CFV several times now. And this kind of BS is exactly why. CFV claims to be a nonpartisan group trying to ensure a better future for all Vermonters. Bruce Lisman makes all kinds of soothing noises about being positive, building consensus, and growing the economy while maintaining “an unwavering commitment to social responsibility and environmental stewardship.” (from CFV’s website)

But then he pulls crap like this. And he fills our airwaves with radio ads that are clearly aimed at reinforcing Republican ideology, with an occasional token gesture toward the center. (Never the left.) It’s this monumental, and patently obvious, hypocrisy and double-dealing that gets me so irritated with CFV. I’d be happier if they simply changed their name to “Campaign to Supplement an Ineffectual Vermont GOP Through Undisclosed Large Contributions From a Wealthy Vermonter.”

Sorry if the acronym CSIVGOPTULCFWV is a bit unwieldy, but it’s a hell of a lot closer to the truth.

And if you don’t believe me, just ask El Jefe General John McClaughry, Vice President of the Ethan Allen Institute and ruthless advocate for free-market economics:

“If there’s one Vermonter of distinction, ability and vision that Vermonters ought to listen to in these trying economic times, it should be Bruce Lisman,” said EAI VP John McClaughry.

After the jump: a Lisman mugshot, and Republican talking points on display.

I found that little gem in an announcement (pictured nearby, viewable in larger type here, love the mugshot) of a 2010 lecture by Bruce Lisman on growing Vermont’s economy, an event co-sponsored by — yep — the Ethan Allen Institute. All I can say is anyone who attracts the admiration of El Jefe General immediately earns my skepticism and mistrust.

(And anyone who would put out a flyer for a lecture entitled “Finding Skin” with a mugshot-style photo of a Hannibal Lecter lookalike is either absolutely clueless or has a wonderfully subversive sense of humor.)  

Now, on to the legislative testimony of three CFV “Partners”: Marc Sherman, owner of Stowe Mercantile*; Sean Walsh, General Manager of PBM Nutritionals, a Milton-based maker of infant formula sold under a variety of brand names; and William Sayre, identified as President of Duncan Hermanson Corporation, but known to WDEV listeners as Rob Roper’s frequent guest, sidekick, and substitute host on “True North Radio,” the conservative talk show underwritten by the Ethan Allen Institute. Sayre also happens to be the board chairman of Associated Industries of Vermont — another “nonpartisan” group. Not.

*Not to be confused with the other Marc Sherman, owner of Outdoor Gear Exchange in Burlington. They are two different people. Funny world, innit?

According to the news release, Sherman “expressed concerns about the cost and choices being proposed in Vermont’s Health Care Exchange.” A line that could have been lifted from Lisman’s health care radio ad, which is one long, loud anti-reform dog whistle.

That’s all for Mr. Sherman. On to Bill Sayre, who repeated his frequent contention that “Vermont’s tax burden has become one of the highest in the nation relative to income.” He’s been repeating this howler at every opportunity for years now.

And he knows it’s a howler. See, back in 2009, he was named one of three members of the Blue Ribbon Tax Structure Commission, a panel appointed by the Legislature to look into Vermont’s tax system. The Commission’s report was issued in 2011, and included this assessment of Vermont’s tax burden:

Vermont’s choice of tax base makes tax rates unnecessarily high as federal deductions pass through and reduce taxable income. The effective tax rates paid by Vermonters are competitive with other states.

The panel also debunked the myth that taxes are forcing people to leave Vermont.

Available data suggests that those entering Vermont earn more than those leaving. Also, Vermont’s top tax bracket is populated by high-income events, not high-income earners. While the data cannot determine something as subjective as why people are moving, it does demonstrate that definitive claims that the wealthy are moving out and about the effect of this migration are more complicated than currently assumed.

Blue Ribboner Bill Sayre disagreed with pretty much all the Commission’s conclusions, and submitted his own long-winded “Minority Perspective” alongside the Commission’s. In response to the finding that Vermont’s effective tax rates are competitive, he wrote the following:

Regardless of the tax mixture, Vermont’s tax burden is too high.

So he’s shifted from an evidence-based conclusion to an opinion: Screw the details, our taxes are too damn high. And on the subject of Vermonters fleeing our high taxes, he acknowledges that the data doesn’t support his contention. But…

Overall, Vermonters should not be satisfied if anyone is leaving Vermont due to high taxes, and there is substantial anecdotal evidence that it happens frequently.

So his argument boils down to (a) our taxes should be low enough to satisfy the most ardent libertarian, and (b) screw the data, I’ve got anecdotes.

So Bill Sayre exited the Tax Commission with his beliefs intact, and he continues to spout those beliefs even though he’s had a thorough exposure to contrary evidence.  And this week, he shamelessly peddled them to a joint legislative committee. Y’know, Mr. Lisman, for a nonpartisan, you have some funny friends.

Finally, Mr. Walsh, who made an odd and irrelevant point about electricity costs.

Mr. Walsh pointed out that Vermont may have one of the lowest electrical costs in New England, but that his cost per kilowatt hour was already double that of the company’s Idaho operation.

Ah, the classic Vermont/Idaho comparison. Like apples and, er, potatoes. Doug Hoffer, once and future (we hope) candidate for Auditor, posted a very cogent comment about this CFV news release. In it, Hoffer points out that Idaho has “several enormous hydro facilities. Indeed, 76% of Idaho’s electricity is generated from big hydro.”

So comparing Vermont to Idaho on electricity costs is like comparing Vermont to Saudi Arabia on oil reserves, or Vermont to Florida on average winter temperatures. Sorry, Sean, we can’t match Idaho and never will.

Walsh’s real concern was the Democrats’ commitment to renewable energy (like, ahem, hydro?), which he warns will increase electricity costs and, presumably, force our industries to move to Idaho.  

So there you go. Under the aegis of the “nonpartisan” Campaign for Vermont, three business leaders go to Montpelier and reinforce key Republican talking points. To paraphrase John McCain, that’s not nonpartisanship you can believe in.