Dems Cave on H.520, or, Now I know How Rush Limbaugh Felt.

Democrats cave (3.00 / 1)

This session of the legislature the Vermont Democratic Party has defined leadership as doing what the Gov. wants. On education, on property tax relief, on impeachment and on energy they have caved. No wonder he will be reelected, there is no opposition. Lincoln once asked General McClellan if he might borrow the army since the General did not seel to be using it. We might ask Gaye and Peter the same thing about the Democratic legislative majority -- they certainly are not using it.

Yoda

---

by: yodavt @ Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 12:09:00 PM CDT

the chicken little bit... (0.00 / 0)

...is a bit much, don't you think?

First off, I think this was a bad move, but let's be clear on a few things

It was a bad strategic move. It was strategy. The much ballyhooed funding mechanism was just that - a FUNDING MECHANISM. You (and many others) are so quick to jump to the worst possible scenario that you're not really drawing any distinction between the bill's funding and the policy contained within. Al Gore did not promote it because he liked the tax - he promted it because he liked the content (what a concept!).

Unless somebody can show me otherwise, the Dem leadership has not "given up" on any of the things that are actually IN the bill. It's ridiculous to feed cynicism and counter-propoganda by conflating the funding with the program.

Now, the REASON it was bad strategy is that it leaves Dems no where to go in July without cutting into content. This is an example of the ridiculously Golden-Dome-Centered thinking our electeds display. The move was obviously designed to grab the high ground for the meeting with the Governor today. The problem is, nobody CARES about the meeting with the Governor today. It may be a big deal to the leg leadership, but by the time the veto session opens, nobody will even remember it happened.

Switching on the funding source was, in my opinion, a perfectly valid option to keep the bill alive. It's the content I care about - and its the content Vermonters SHOULD care about. The problem is that they ran to that option NOW, when it wont do them any good at ALL, and now they have nothing for the veto session - and around we go again.

(And Brattlerouser - dont we already have a front page article on this?)

undercaffeinated

---

by: odum @ Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 12:09:34 PM CDT

DUH! My Brainfart n/t (0.00 / 0)

"Why is it a penny for your thoughts but you gotta put your two cents in? Somebody out there is making a penny." -Steven Wright

---

by: Brattlerouser @ Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 12:24:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the Recommendation (0.00 / 0)

...and for my 5.2 seconds on the front page!  :)

I'm not bitter:  I do see Odum's point:  when your friends shoot themselves in the foot, it's not very nice to kick them in the arse...and besides, a recommendation is actually better for us small fry, we stay above the fold longer!

Still...although I REALLY think this was a REALLY Dumb bit of strategy and that the party leaders need a spanking--

---The victors called the revolution a triumph of liberty; but now and then liberty, in the slogans of the strong, means freedom from restraint in the exploitation of the weak.

--Will Durant, "The Story of Civilization: Caesar & Christ"

---

by: goDLC @ Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 16:11:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the Recommendation (0.00 / 0)

...and for my 5.2 seconds on the front page!  :)

 

I'm not bitter:  I do see Odum's point:  when your friends shoot themselves in the foot, it's not very nice to kick them in the arse...and besides, a recommendation is actually better for us small fry, we stay above the fold longer!

Still, though, I REALLY think this was a Very Dumb bit of strategy and that the party leaders need a spanking--

---The victors called the revolution a triumph of liberty; but now and then liberty, in the slogans of the strong, means freedom from restraint in the exploitation of the weak.

--Will Durant, "The Story of Civilization: Caesar & Christ"

---

by: goDLC @ Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 16:14:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You are Right, Odum: RETREAT IS A STRATEGY. (0.00 / 0)

Frankly, Odum...

..no I don't think it's a bit much.  If this were the first chunk of sky to hit us on the head this year, I'd agree that you'd have a point

...however...We've watched these klutzes swerve all over the map this session... You KNOW how I feel about Impeachment (a bad idea) BUT watching Shumlin do the love dance with the impeachment folks and then, at the last minute, pass the buck  to Symington was...well, it was embarrasing. 

Up until now, I've scratched my head, bit back at the backbitting far left, and trusted that Shumlin and Symington knew what they were doing.

But they've lost me on this one.

We've watched our party shilly shally on the funding issue on this bill all session, and now, once again, they are backing off....oh well, they say: "We'll fix it in NEXT year".

<em>REALLY?</em>  Do we have your word on that? 

And if so...what's your word worth these days?

Your point about strategy does not negate my point about the necessity to STAND AND FIGHT.

It IS a strategic decision to run away just as it is to stand and make a brave fight of it...but, yes, it can be both a cowardly and a strategic move at the same time. 

I would submit this proposition: If a strategy is both cowardly AND a failure, then  it is the party's lack of bravery that will be remembered, it is the cowardice that counts.

(If Washington had not won the Revolution, for example, we would still be cursing him for abandoning New York in 1776.) 

By your own admission, this IS a bad strategy...and so I ask you, in the end, what separates a bad strategy which will all but certainly fail from cowardice....

 ...nothing but SPIN, my friend. Nothing but spin.

Rather I suggest that we who are loyal Democrats get our heads UP out of the Sand and start suggesting, STRONGLY, to our leadership that they do the same.  And then, let's nail the colours to the mast and see what happens.

How's THAT for a strategy?

 

---The victors called the revolution a triumph of liberty; but now and then liberty, in the slogans of the strong, means freedom from restraint in the exploitation of the weak.

--Will Durant, "The Story of Civilization: Caesar & Christ"

---

by: goDLC @ Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 12:57:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

yer not gettin off that easy (0.00 / 0)

I spend a good 2/3rds of my blogging talking about the need to stand up for something rather than capitulate. That retreating is a sign of weakness and it breeds weakness. Etc etc etc. But in your restatement of that principle, you avoided my main point: that there's a big difference between the funding mechanism and the program. As it stands, the policies within are just as intact as they were yesterday. using the funding mechanism as a bargaining chip is simply not the same as putting the policies on the table. It just isn't, unless you're just looking for excuses to bash these folks. It's not the same thing to discuss shifting school funding to the income tax, as it is talking about cutting teachers. At the end of the day, I couldnt care less where the money comes from (unless its more regressive taxation), I just want the policies in the bill implemented. The real problem with it is that it was a bad play that now endangers the policy. Makes it vulnerable. I expect them fully to cave on policy in July. But it makes no sense to chastise them for doing so, and so dramatically, before they've actually done it.

undercaffeinated

---

by: odum @ Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 13:35:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

One of the things I respect you for ... (0.00 / 0)

(although I don't necessarily agree with you on the TACTICS you choose- I am not, after all "goDLC" for nothing)... is that you do believe in fighting...which is why I'm flummoxed at your stance on this one.

I'm not looking for an excuse to "bash these folks" and in fact usually have done quite the opposite...

...but the way this bill was funded WAS a big part of it's attraction to me,  and I think others.  I think it could have been sold.

I thought the idea of making VY pay as much in taxes as the wind power people was an act of great political theater in many ways...it said: no Republican favoritism for big business over small proprietors; and it also said that not only were we going to establish something, but that we WERE going to find a way to pay for it.  (The Gov's plan, of course, enriches his banker friends). 

Now, we've got a great idea, and no way to pay for it.  We've lost the bill (we lost that when Speaker Symington gave into Republican pressure not to move the session), AND we've lost the chance to make this a Phyrric Victory for the Governor- he might have defeated the bill, but he would have done so at the cost of appearing "soft" on catastrophic climate change, and having shown his favoritism for Big Out-of-State Business as opposed to Small Vermont-Based Business.  

That opportunity, the chance to make Douglas pay so dearly for victory that it would sting as much  as defeat, has been lost.

I also can't agree with you about passing a bill with no funding source...that is a weak , weak, pathetic thing to do.   Without the money, the bill is just a policy statement, a plank for the party platform; it is, in short, nothing but hot air...if we (Democrats) can't figure out how to pay for what we want, we are doing nothing but daydreaming...

Not to mention handing Douglas a great line like: " "To say we'll figure out later how to pay for it is fiscally irresponsible."  (If giving him an excuse to deliver that line has any strategic value, Odum, I'll eat my keyboard!)

Finally, you write: "But it makes no sense to chastise them for doing so, and so dramatically, before they've actually done it" 

Gosh, if not now, and within the "family" then ...when?  After July 11th, I'll be even more correct...but it will also be too late.  Perhaps, even at this late date, they may, if they hear it from their friends and allies, realize that they've surrendered too much and gained too little.

 

---The victors called the revolution a triumph of liberty; but now and then liberty, in the slogans of the strong, means freedom from restraint in the exploitation of the weak.

--Will Durant, "The Story of Civilization: Caesar & Christ"

---

by: goDLC @ Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 14:35:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

flummoxed? (0.00 / 0)

Don't be flummoxed. I'm being consistent, I promise.

There are "agree to disagre" points in your posts, but a couple of characterizations that I have to challenge. First, from your post up a ways, is the notion that I'm saying "when your friends shoot themselves in the foot, its not nice to kick them in the arse." I'm not sure where you get that from me. I do it all the time. My point is that you are taking them to task for destroying the climate change bill. The fact is that the bill is intact, so its unfair to beat them up for destroying something tha's not destroyed. That's not to say that I don't think they've set themselves up to have the bill destroyed. They now have no breathing room. But they should be beat up for destroying the bill WHEN they do it, not before. That's just basic logic - and fairness. What we can beat them up for is setting up a situation whereby the bill is more vulnerable to destruction, and be prepared to appropriately criticize if it comes to that. It hasn't yet.

You say the way the bill was funded was a big part of its content to you. I can see that - and its what I suspected from your diary, I feel similarly, but the truth is that this was conceived first and foremost as a climate change/energy bill. The VY tax was a late coming add on. And the basic fundamentals of the bill are far, far more important. Even if you prefer the VY tax, you have to concede that that it was never fundamental to the policy goals being promoted.

FInally, the passing of a bill without funding - happens all the time, and while its not a great thing, we shouldnt arbitrarily pick this bill to storm the bastille on that particular isssue on, unless we really want to kill it. Which is exactly why the GOP is bringing it up now - they who nationally are the kings of unfunded mandates and off-budget nonsense - because they want to kill the bill.

Remember - this is about calling a bluff. The fact is that Douglas is a global warming denier, so he'll use any excuse he can to bag this thing.

Now Shumlin tells me this really was about calling this bluff, and that there is no intention of giving an inch on policy in the session. I hope that's true, and it would be refreshing. But I dont think there were many in the bill creation and promotion process that consider the funding to be part of the true thrust of the bill. I didn't, which is why "the sky is falling" rhetoric around this move doesn't work for me.

But you should never judge a bill by DOuglas's soundbites against it, lest we go down the dangerous road of cutting arguments ourselves.

undercaffeinated

---

by: odum @ Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 16:45:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agree to Disagree? (0.00 / 0)

Odum,

Soon, perhaps, we can agree to disagree, and move on to other problems. Right now, I'm still angry...I feel like the party needs more sand in it's craw...and I'd like to try and convince others...if, as you say,"Shumlin tells me this really was about calling this bluff," and Shumlin plans to go to the matt on this after giving Jim Doug a chance to play nice, then it is all the more important to let the legislature know that MANY people support this bill...AS IS.

Hence, the fighting rhetoric should be stiffened...this is not the time to hold back.

The fact is that the bill is intact, so its unfair to beat them up for destroying something that's not destroyed. That's not to say that I don't think they've set themselves up to have the bill destroyed.

This paragraph is contradictory.  Either the "bill is intact" OR, "they've set themselves up to have the bill destroyed"...

...if the latter statement is true, then the former statement is true only in the narrowest sense (ie: the bill is intact NOW, but 12 DAYS from now it will NOT be intact).

If the bill is lost, as your second statement implies...then I guess I'm not going to bother waiting until July 12th to complain....I'm going to do it now.

(One thing we DO seem to agree on is that, through their action, Dem Leaders have hurt themselves, us, and the bill.  I suppose my problem is, IF that is true, I don't understand what the logic is behind your request that I wait to hold the leadership accountable for bad judgement. Please explain.)

I think one outcome of this ill considered chess move (If that's what it was) is that, by withdrawing the Tax on Vermont Yankee, the Democrats have made it look like the Republicans and the Chamber of Commerce Folks were right all along...that this WAS an unfair tax and that Democrats (and by extension their Global Warming Ideas) DO represent a danger to the business community. 

I know it's hogwash, YOU know it's hogwash, but we've yet to prove to the electorate that it's hogwash.

The is only one point is the only one on which I may "agree to disagree" - but only after I've had my say:

Finally, the passing of a bill without funding - happens all the time, and while its not a great thing, we shouldn't arbitrarily pick this bill to storm the Bastille on that particular issue on, unless we really want to kill it.

First, one reason I'm a "DLC" Democrat is that I believe that the Reagan/Norquist agenda has been largely successful.  It was their goal to make Government "small enough to drown in the bathtub".  This they did by running the government into debt during the Reagan years...leaving Bill Clinton no choice but to act as an Eisenhower Republican if we were to have any hope of a government which could afford more ambitious social goals. This struggle, of course, is only just starting.

Democrats, then, have a responsibility to ensure funding  for their projects if they are going to regain power on behalf of the Government Of the People, By the People and For the People.  Unfunded Mandates just don't cut it with me.

There is the additional (and ironic) point to be made that Republicans have managed to inflict the grave and intentional damage they have done BECAUSE they have the reputation of being money savvy.

We Democrats, on the other hand, have a reputation for the profligate spending of other people's money on projects with great goals but dubious chances of success.

That is why, ESPECIALLY when we are talking about a global warming bill, an area where Democrats are particularly vulnerable to charges of "starry eyed idealism" - we MUST have the funding source securely in place. 

This bill without funding (and as far as I'm concerned ANY bill without funding) is like a car without an engine...it may still physically exist...but for all practical purposes...it's dead.

I eagerly await your rebuttal, sir!

PS-- I hope you realize that nothing would make me happier than to be proven wrong about this one.

---The victors called the revolution a triumph of liberty; but now and then liberty, in the slogans of the strong, means freedom from restraint in the exploitation of the weak.

--Will Durant, "The Story of Civilization: Caesar & Christ"

---

by: goDLC @ Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 17:35:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

rebuttal eagerly awaited (0.00 / 0)

This paragraph is contradictory.  Either the "bill is intact" OR, "they've set themselves up to have the bill destroyed"...

How so? You're certainly not speaking literally. How can something be set up to be destroyed if it's already destroyed? That's contradictory by definition.

In terms of policy - again, which is what the bill is about - it's still intact. That's simply a fact.

...if the latter statement is true, then the former statement is true only in the narrowest sense (ie: the bill is intact NOW, but 12 DAYS from now it will NOT be intact).

The narrowest sense is still a sense. The ball game isnt over in the ninth inning when you're 5 runs down. It just looks bad.

Frankly, this depends on the minds of Shumlin and Symington. If they really want a bill passed.... well, we know how that goes. They show room to negotiate, Douglas doesn't budge, they whine about how Douglas isn't playing by the Queensbury rules, Douglas chuckles and digs in harder, they cave and try to pass it off as a fair compromise, Douglas claims victory, the media rolls their eyes laughingly at the Dem caucus, the Democratic base roils with rage, Dem fundraisers are held where they all pat themselves on the back for having to put up with the silly Democratic rabble that isn't smart enough to get it.

What will be different is if they don't just want A bill, they want THIS bill, and there are already noises from some of the bill's prime movers that they will accept no substitutes. We'll see. God knows we all need to see some lines in the sand drawn somewhere.

This bill without funding (and as far as I'm concerned ANY bill without funding) is like a car without an engine...it may still physically exist...but for all practical purposes...it's dead.

Hmmm...

Exactly what governments have you been living under for the last few decades? We are the champions of unfunded policies in this country.

And anyways, most laws dont have a dedicated funding source. They have to go through the sausage grinder that is appropriations and joint fiscal. A dedicated funding scheme is the exception, rather than the rule. Again, that's just a fact, I aint makin it up.

I think the fear of looking like big spenders is one of the things that paralyzes us. If we show results, that gets us votes. We've seen with the rise of the Republicans that as an electoral argument, spending/deficits/funding complaints are no more than political football arguments used interchangably by either side to virtually no practical electoral effect.

At the end of the day, this is an important bill for its content, not because it woul;dve taxed Vermont Yankee. And at the end of the day, we still have a battle for an override on the merits ahead of us, not on a business argument that plays right into GOP hands.

Again, I just wish they'd changed the playing field when it would've done more good, instead of two weeks before the big game.

undercaffeinated

---

by: odum @ Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 20:44:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Errrgh... (0.00 / 0)

The VT Yankee tax was a bold , good move. It made the appealing content even MORE appealing. There's no getting away from the fact that this was a big puss out on the Dems behalf. I'm pissed but not a bit surprised. I'll say it again... Symington needs to go.

You can read more of JD Ryan at five before chaos. But why would you want to?

---

by: JDRyan @ Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 22:18:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

this is a repeat... (0.00 / 0)

...of what I said in the other thread, but it bears repeating.

What's finally dawning on me is that the strategic flaw of the VY tax is that, to many on the left, this funding scheme became more important than the content of the bill itself as conceived. The promotion of renewables, the expansion of Efficiency Vermont were the truly groundbreaking aspects that got all the attention. But to many on the left, the funding element (which came later) was what was important to them, when conceptually, it was simply a modular attachment that fit the bill at the time.

I'm more interested in the bill's stated purpose and the goals as conceived and promoted, which is why I'm having a hard time realizing that to many, enthusiasm for the bill seemed to ride entirely on a part that seems to me to be secondary at most.

undercaffeinated

---

by: odum @ Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 22:41:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The funding was important...the bill WAS a package (0.00 / 0)

1. Yes...the funding was important.  I am, as you might suspect, no uber-greenie ( "on the left"?...me?...goDLC?) ...but Catastrophic Climate Change is a FACT and we MUST deal with it.

2. This bill went further than that. It recognized (which Shumlin has been saying all along) is that there is a great ECONOMIC opportunity here.

3. It also recognized that the hope for Vermont's future lays, not in the wooing of big out of state firms, but in the fostering of small innovative Vermont Based Businesses...a couple of dozen new firms, each supporting a few young engineers, computer folks, web designers, etc. would go a long way to helping us keep our young people here in the state, as we must do.

4. By identifying a source of funding, it recognized the most BASIC unspoken truth about America.  WE ARE BROKE

Sub-points: 

A...not only Broke, we are drowning in debt.  One day, perhaps sooner rather than later, those markers will be called in by the rest of the world. When that happens, and we cannot pay the trillions we owe, well...as my economic friend said: It's a good thing we beefed up the military.

B. Being Broke SUCKS...being broke means: No money for health care. No money for job retraining. No money for education. No money for police.  No money for regulators to patrol the stock exchange or the banks.  Etc. Etc.

C. Until we solve the "Broke" problem, we can't do anything else...Reagan (by leaving us the bill)  beat us, the New Deal, The Great Society, the working class, the middle class, the Democrats, America even worse than we can possibly yet imagine...(That, by the way, IS the government I've been living under, Odum...the one we need to fix.)

5. Therefore, to me, anyway, it is VERY Important that this bill, any bill, has a funding source- for again, without funding it is a non-starter. 

6.This funding source had some problems, it is true. They were not problems of justice or equity. Quite the opposite. 

However, the public has been conditioned to think of the Democrats as a party that steals money from hard working honest rich people -  by pulling the VY option off the table, the Democrats all but seemed to be admitting that this was true.  AND IT WASN'T (a few Ross Perot-style graphs and a tour of the Rotary Clubs around the state could have helped make the point to the business community, a radio spot or two, an advertorial in the papers, we could have totally changed opinion on this)  ... that really fries me!

7. All in all, then, I have a hard time divorcing the stated goals from the funding mechanism...here in blog-land, we "state goals" all day and into the night...but to what end?  The money is where the rubber meets the road, as they say, and once that's gone, we are really just having a jam session at taxpayer's expense....in my humble opinion.

---The victors called the revolution a triumph of liberty; but now and then liberty, in the slogans of the strong, means freedom from restraint in the exploitation of the weak.

--Will Durant, "The Story of Civilization: Caesar & Christ"

---

by: goDLC @ Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 06:29:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

but youve got to admit... (0.00 / 0)

...that the funding source was a late-comer to the bill, and that many of us were pushing just as hard for it before the funding source was settled on.

From that perspective, things just haven't changed that much.

undercaffeinated

---

by: odum @ Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 06:53:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]