( – promoted by Sue Prent)

   This is in response to Enosburg/Bakersfield Rep. Larry Fiske’s letter in the 4/23/15 St. Albans Messenger, explaining his vote on S.141, a bill that proposes to keep guns out of the hands of violent offenders, spousal abusers, or those who are suicidal or are a danger to themselves and others.

     S.141 passed the VT House by a vote of 80 – 62, following much testimony and impassioned discourse. I salute all the concerned citizens, ( the “green shirts” and the “orange shirts” both ), who showed up at the State House to engage in civil debate and to let their representatives know their views. This was democracy in action. I especially applaud the people who had the courage to bring up and work for this bill, in a state where even the most established politician avoids confronting the sensitive issue of anything to do with guns.

     I thank Rep.Fiske for making the effort to tell us the reasons behind his “no” vote, but I take real issue with some of his statements. I’m also very puzzled by the “vote explanation” he gave after the vote in the State House.

   Firstly, Rep. Fiske refers to our Constitutional 2nd Amendment securing our right to bear arms, as if this bill negates that. I’m sure he heard the other side, which was that it is the responsibility of legislators to protect the most vulnerable Vermonters from those who would abuse our 2nd Amendment. This was not a vote on the right for citizens to bear arms.

  Next he mentions the emotions brought forward by some members “which were moving as well as thought-provoking.”  Rep. Sam Young (D-Glover) gave poignant testimony about his suicidal brother who killed himself with a gun he easily purchased in another town because there was no database like S.141 would establish.

According to the Vermont Digger, Representative Young said, “If he was in that database, nobody would have sold him that gun” ().  Rep. Till ( D-Jericho) spoke of  Vermont’s firearm death rate being double the rate in New York and almost 3 times the rate in Massachusetts because of our high number of gun deaths by suicide, averaging 60 Vermonters per year, and said this bill “is not enough…. but it is a step “on the path to reducing this public health scourge”.

    Finally, Rep.Fiske talks about those who struggle with PTSD, especially veterans, and how hunting and shooting at gun clubs can provide an important outlet for them.  As most of us have heard, Chris Kyle (of American Sniper fame) was killed (along with a friend) when a soldier with PTSD shot them at a firing range. Perhaps it’s not a great idea to give severe PTSD sufferers firearms, until they have been able to recover sufficiently.

   Apparently those voting no on this bill are also against having a registry of felons convicted of violent offenses, something that 49 other states already do, and which law officers want.

   In closing, Rep.Fiske says “I wish someone could tell me where the problem is.” This really has me stumped. After all the “moving as well as thought-provoking” discussion by his fellow legislators, how can he be at such a loss to know what the problems might be? Maybe he wasn’t listening ?

   But the most puzzling of all is Rep. Fiske’s “vote explanation”, which ironically was the identical speech used by both Rep. Marianna Gamache ,(R-Swanton ), and Rep.Rodney Graham,(R- Williamstown ), to “explain” their votes at the time.  (See House Journal ).

This is a segment of the speech he repeats in his letter : “Tens of thousands of dollars in special interest money from outside of Vermont has poured into campaigns, lobbyists and in marketing efforts designed to scare constituents into believing we have a gun violence problem in Vermont…”

   I wonder how it was that Reps. Fiske, Gamache, and Graham each came up with the same identical speech? Who are their speechwriters? What outside interests, pouring money to influence “campaigns, lobbyists, and marketing efforts”, bade our two Franklin County representatives to stand up on the House floor and mimic each other with a speech that sounded like those “special interests” wrote it for them? I am sure that other Franklin County residents would want to know.

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

    Because of my Saturday job, I wasn’t able to attend the last Franklin County Legislative Breakfast of the season, held at the Enosburg Legion on April 11. From some descriptions I heard, it sounded like a doozy. Social services programs were one prominent topic of discussion. It seems that all but one of the legislators present answered that, while there had to be cuts to these programs, they really didn’t want to make them, especially those helpful to the person who was asking them for their position on this!  Considering that all our Republican delegation campaigned on cutting spending while not raising any new revenue, this position doesn’t sound particularly honest. The one more forthright legislator, Rep. Steve Beyor, allowed that he thought some of the social services should be cut, though he didn’t specify which ones. Many in the smallish crowd actually applauded him for his attempt toward honesty. Some individuals held forth, as some always do at these events, about all the “welfare cheats” they had known – those who sold their “fuel assistance” oil to someone else, or those who cheated on “SNAP”-funded groceries in some way, etc., etc.

I always wonder how many of these folks have reported such cheaters – seems like the right course of action if you care about assistance getting to the people who need it. For each “cheater” I’ve heard about, I know there are dozens of people in need who receive the help and boost up that makes all the difference: disabled, elderly & alone, people struggling with long-term illness, single parents working at low-wage jobs, those with finances devastated by health care bills, children needing foster-care, young people needing help with training or education, etc., etc.

Latimer Hoke of the Franklin County weekly, the County Courier, had a thought-provoking editorial in the April 9, ’15 issue, attempting to get us to try imagining just how much a billion really is. He was right to say it is something that most of us cannot fathom. But it’s time for us to start trying to understand what it really means these days when we talk about “the billionaires” buying our government, keeping the playing field permanently tipped in their direction, calling the shots. Whether you’re progressive, conservative or tea-party, you should care about how much “big” money is now in charge of things….

It’s getting all too clear now, since the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that “money is speech,” and individuals and corporations both should be allowed to pour in unlimited amounts of it into political campaigns. We are already getting used to elections costing “billions” instead of millions, and this year we hear that the two Koch brothers have decided to spend nearly $900 million on the 2016 elections. That is as much as each of our two national parties budget for the national elections. Not only are our elections becoming ridiculously long – this one has started a year and 7 months ahead – but we have allowed the creation of an unofficial but equal ” Koch Party.” And of course we hear about quite a few other billionaires making their own plans on what candidates to back (no, actually that should be “purchase”).

One thing that the Republicans have done excessively well is to convince the middle and the working classes that the poor are to blame for their economic problems.

Folks, it’s really time for us to shift our sights a little bit higher……

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

As a Progressive, I was somewhat shocked by Franklin County Republican chair Steve Trahan’s recent discussion with a group of Republican college students , ( St.Albans Messenger, 11/19/13 ). He noted that when they were asked what changes were needed for our country, they replied first and foremost with the need to disconnect government from corporations, get money out of politics and to curb the military industrial complex as it is taking authority away from the American people. These are the same things that U.S. Congressman Bernie Sanders and the Vermont Progressive Party have been saying for the last 25 years, in contrast to the Republican Party in Washington, who have been fighting tooth and nail to do just the opposite.

These young Republican college students have grown up with the realities of Republican policies. They have seen for themselves that tax breaks for the rich, corporate welfare and allowing money to rule politics has only made the rich become obscenely rich, while the middle class has struggled with flattening wages over the last 30 years. These policies have brought constant war, and dimmed their own hopes for the future, as the income gap between the extremely rich ( with all their money and influence ) and the rest of the American people has become greater than anywhere else in the world. The youth of this country can no longer believe they have the same chance at ” the American dream ” as preceding generations have had.

The Democrats also go along with these policies while paying lip service to the middle class and poor, but in the end, they take the same corporate and special interest money and nothing changes. We need a new party in this country, one that does not embrace corporate lobbyists or accept their money and who will fight for the 99% of us who struggle and work hard for our families and for a just society. Vermont is the only state in the union with such an established third party. It is called the Vermont Progressive Party (www.vtprogressiveparty.org) and has been thriving for decades with elected representatives in Montpelier. The time is right for this party to grow in America.

It is remarkable that these young Republicans are not just quoting the same old tired Republican talking points. They see that corporate dominance of the government needs to end, they see that money needs to be removed from politics and that the military industrial complex that is bleeding the country dry in terms of blood and treasure needs to be sharply curtailed. Mr. Trahan, you say that you are “awestruck, impressed and filled with hope and a great deal of pride” for these young Republicans, as well you should be. My question is, “Do you agree with them on these three points?” Your party bosses in Washington certainly do not. Please reply.

(This could use broader visibility… – promoted by simplify)

Checked my mailbox today, and there sat Vermonters First FOURTH slick mailing to me . Oh my god, will it ever stop ? , I want it to stop because it’s f…in’ bad for my health…you’ve heard of “road rage”- I suffer from “mail rage”, and I feel like, what did Romney’s son say ?, ” I feel like taking a punch at …someone – not sure who… maybe Target Enterprises in California, who produced this beauty. They don’t even look like Vermonters in the photos – couldn’t Tayt have at least sent them some Vermont photos ?

Here’s the new twist – instead of telling us who to vote FOR, they’ve done that 3 times already, maybe they’re not sure that strategy is effective enough, or something, now they’re trying something NEW…..now they’re telling you who to vote AGAINST. Just trying to cover all the bases, so to speak, maybe they don’t have faith in the voters to figure out that if you vote FOR someone, you probably won’t also vote for the other one on the ballot.

Oh, and the scare line of b.s. this time ?  Let’s try to DOUBLE  the  scare line – if voting to raise them once hasn’t left them quivering piles of jelly, let’s raise ’em twice…wow, that’ll get ’em : WITH TOTAL CONTROL IN MONTPELIER – DEMOCRATS VOTED TO RAISE OUR PROPERTY TAXES TWICE – AND THEY WILL RAISE YOUR TAXES AGAIN. ( I’m not sure exactly what they’re referring to here, but it doesn’t really matter, does it ? )

OK, and stuff like this : “Now they want to push through the largest tax increase in state history. And they voted to keep it a secret from us. They want to raise taxes on day care centers, dentists, barbers, carpenters , doctors, plumbers.”

Now this seems wildly disengaged from the truth, but what are you going to do : patiently go through it step by step, explaining the reality ? That didn’t work so well as a debate tactic for Pres. Obama, did it ? He had to come up with ” it’s Romnesia ! “.

So here’s the thing folks…..if you find this as aggravating as I do, PLEASE come up with some catchy little phrase that sums up what you think is going on here, and write a little letter to our local papers. If we can’t complain to the Republican Party, ( who had “nothing” to do with this ) or to the Republican candidates themselves ( ditto) , we need to at least let people know what we’re thinking about this……

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

After reading about Lenore Broughton, who has given $680,000 so far to her controversial right-wing superPAC, Vermonters First, I came upon some fascinating information on her family, especially her grandfather. Important disclaimer : This bears no reflection on Mrs. Broughton, but it does describe a world of historical precedent that echoes eerily of the present day political climate.

So much was I reminded of the efforts of our current batch of financiers against “the government”,such as the Koch Bros., Sheldon Adelson and many others, that I offer these links to anyone who wants to brush up on this era in our history, and to contemplate FDR’s words in a speech that to my ears, could be delivered today. He was speaking of a group in particular, the American Liberty League, that plotted a coup against him, and which was financed in part by Mrs. Broughton’s grandfather, Sewell Avery.

About Sewell Avery, Lenore Broughton’s grandfather:

 “Sewell Avery, a precocious darling of the right-wing anti-New Deal movement, came from a wealthy Michigan family of lumber barons. Avery was president of Montgomery Ward, America’s first mail-order business. Created in 1872, its first store opened in 1926. By 1929, it was the world’s top retailer, with 530 outlets. He was a director of J.P.Morgan’s U.S.Steel Corp. In 1931, Avery was president of U.S. Gypsum, America’s top supplier of plaster.”…

About the American Liberty League:  

“Lurking in the background behind the plot to oust FDR was the American Liberty League , a pro-business think-tank and ultra-right wing lobby group. Avery was a financier of the American Liberty League and a National Advisor for the Crusaders, a fascist front group for the A.L.L. He was also a University of Chicago trustee “where an anti-radical drive took a sudden spurt after the Crusaders went into active anti-labor activity.”‘….

FDR on the League:

On Jan. 3, 1936, in an unprecedented joint session of Congress, when President Roosevelt announced a ban on military exports to fascist Italy, he blasted the American Liberty League.

“They steal the livery of great national ideals to serve discredited special interests…. This minority in business and industry… engage in vast propaganda to spread fear and discord among the people. They would gang up against the people’s liberties…. They seek the restoration of their selfish power…..

Our resplendent economic aristocracy does not want to return to that individualism of which they prate, even though the advantages under that system went to the ruthless and the strong. They realize that in 34 months we have built up new instruments of public power. In the hands of a people’s government this power is wholesome and proper. But in the hands of political puppets of an economic aristocracy, such power would provide shackles for the liberties of the people. Give them their way and they will take the course of every aristocracy of the past – power for themselves, enslavement for the public.”

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

    Now that the Supreme Court has decided that the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, ( or as I like to think of it , Obama Cares ! ), is constitutional, politicians can now only go on and on about the “mandate”: is it a tax, a penalty, a premium, or revenue… and so on. Instead of focusing on the root causes of our health care problems, and helping with real solutions, they only fight over what are essentially symptoms of long-term neglect to reform our health care” system” in this country. Meanwhile these same politicians, who don’t shirk at taking away access to health care for some people, themselves enjoy mandated health care payed for by all of us taxpayers, whether or not we ourselves have health care !

  The same behavior of endlessly arguing about the “symptoms” of Vermont’s path toward health care reform under Green Mountain Care rather than coming up with real “root cause” solutions is equally true of single-payer critics here in Vermont.

Even the ACA, with its many excellent provisions that a majority of Americans would like to keep, does not adequately address the rising cost of health care. This is because it is based on the moderate Republican model of “Romney-care” which makes people buy coverage from the usual suspects, private for-profit insurance companies. Ironically , this was a failed effort to gain bi-partisan support of Republicans, who have now become the most vicious opponents of the former Republican “success story” of Gov. Mitt Romney. ( Romney himself has been forced to practically disown what he once bragged about. )

 

    As Vermont works towards a single-payer solution to address our “symptoms”, we are taking an over-all look at the way things are done currently, including existing mandates. The goal is to come up with a co-ordinated and comprehensive “treatment”, ( to use the health care metaphor ), in the way that health care providers themselves urge as the best way to treat & heal a patient.

On the other hand, Green Mountain Care opponents trot out the same old hyperboles, ( “a runaway train”, “Titanic-care”), but are unable to offer any solutions.

   When I first wrote this last week, Sen. Randy Brock, who has made health care his signature issue in running for governor, was hosting a fundraiser featuring Maine’s controversial governor, Paul LePage. Gov. LePage is hyperbole-champion among Republicans, if that is possible, having just recently referred to the IRS as the “Gestapo”. He may be gracing Sen. Brock’s beautiful home in Swanton because he has “reformed” health care in Maine, and Sen. Brock has been desperate to come up with some plan of his own to offer on the campaign trail. But Maine’s new policy is more one to avoid, rather than to emulate. While premiums for some have gone down by covering less, rates for those who can least afford it, ( seniors and small businesses ), have increased . Insurance companies have been given more power to to vary their rates based on age and geography. Small rural health care facilities, where there are no other nearby options for residents, may be forced to shut down. The real kicker is the individual insurance market can reduce premiums using a $22million PUBLIC subsidy. Maine residents are subsidizing private insurance companies !

  So let’s hope that Sen. Brock decides not to push LePage’s ” solution”.