Kevin O'Connor gets it right

well said (4.00 / 3)

a topic of considerable importance; kudos to Kevin O'Connor

re. rankings and self-congratulation: to say (for example) that VT is ranked high on poverty (comparatively low rates) is to ignore the scary truth; that is, after 45 years of the (failed) War on Poverty, the rates are only marginally better; so what do we gain by comparing VT to states that are even worse? we have a permanent underclass that remains largely invisible (and votes at low rates and doesn't contribute to campaigns)

on a related note, when will policy makers embrace alternative approaches to the problem? while income support and various subsidies are critical in the short-term, they do not (cannot) create wealth for low-income families; for example, Section 8 housing vouchers help but renting doesn't allow families to build equity; on the other hand, the land trust shared equity model is a huge success (see the excellent report "Lands In Trust: Homes That Last" at http://www.champlainhousingtru...

again, will the Dem primary and the general election be an occasion for honest debate about actually solving problems or a fight about the size of government?

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 15:29:56 PM UTC

Bursting bubbles of illusion! (0.00 / 0)

I heartily agree that Kevin O'Connor, brother of Kate (I believe), deserves recognition for juxtaposing the issue of hunger in Vermont against other rankings extolling our state.  Quite frankly, I am a little tired of us folks in Vermont trumpeting these ratings of how wonderful we are; to me, it is a little bit of a chorus of "How Great We Art."  Please, a little honest humility is overdue.

Ever since the 1930's, Vermont has made a conscious decision to market itself as an idyll that the rest of the nation should look to as some place apart and special.  Yes, I can enumerate many positive aspects of our home; but as the USDA report points out, all is not well.  To those who have not read it, Joe Sherman's book Fast Lane on a Dirt Road: A Contemporary History of Vermont is worth reading; for those who have read it, it deserves a rereading.  He points out that life in Vermont for many was not so idyllic;  for instance, if I remember correctly, Vermont had the highest percentage of men rejected from military service during WW II because of health problems.  Kevin O'Connor's piece reminds us of problems that persist and should be addressed.

It would be good if our next statewide election could address issues such as this, but I doubt that conversation will take place.  Alas, it is too easy to emphasize our "exceptionalism" and gloss over deeper issues that will fester the longer we ignore them.

---

by: Bruce Post @ Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 16:04:26 PM UTC

yes (0.00 / 0)

Joe Sherman's book Fast Lane on a Dirt Road: A Contemporary History of Vermont

a really, really enjoyable read.

"GMD's once proud libertarian-socialist"

---

by: wdh3 @ Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 23:17:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The scolding tone serves no purpose (2.00 / 1)

You paint an image of people wandering across the state beating their chests about how "great" we are.  Funny, I never quite run into those people...neither in private life nor when running our local school board.  That said, if our poverty rates are lower than everyone else's, it is not cause for rending clothes and tearing hair.  

The key questions are:

1. Are there steps we can take to reduce the levels further?
2. What are the dynamics of those steps? (How will people react)
3. Will the final equilibrium result be better for all Vermonters?
4. What is the minimum reasonable poverty rate?  We can set up laws, regulations, give-aways, charities, rehab centers, assisted living facilities, etc., spending literally hundreds of millions if we wanted to...but would that keep some people from being unlucky, foolish, addicted, etc?
5. How do you rate this spending against other desires you can find on this blog on almost every post?  (Just closing down VT Yankee would cost us more than it would if we tripled the # of rehab centers and ALFs).

Like good schools, our relatively low poverty rates were achieved by hard work, good systems, and dedicated people...they have to continue this work and we need to support them.  But I reject the implication that this is somehow bad news, merely because the result is not "perfect".

---

by: Tom C @ Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 17:15:46 PM UTC

"The scolding tone serves no purpose" (0.00 / 0)

To whom is this comment directed?

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 17:33:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

1. Are there steps we can take to reduce the levels further? (4.00 / 4)

I wish we had the luxury of looking at the hunger problem in that frame.  

Unfortunately, as Kevin O'Connor points obvious, we are not reducing the problem further. The hunger problem is growing and its impact is causing greater hardship and significantly greater burdens, generally, on the State of Vermont as a whole.

The comment (reducing further) underscores the problem emphasized by Odum and several other commenters in response to the O'Connor piece. We have worsening poverty and Vermont falling farther and farther behind Europe, Canada and other competitors in the global economy. We are falling behind - regardless how we stack up to Mississippi - when it comes to health care, child hunger and poverty, and general educational preparedness.  Also, we have let huge swaths of our infrastructure (Energy production!) fall badly behind as well.

We do not have the luxury of "reducing levels further" when it comes to regressive social/economic/health indicators.  We first need to level off our decline and then figure out how to dig ourselves out of an extremely deep hole.

2. What are the dynamics of those steps? (How will people react)

People will hate having a better quality of life, I'm sure.

3. Will the final equilibrium result be better for all Vermonters?

Huh?  

4. What is the minimum reasonable poverty rate?  We can set up laws, regulations, give-aways, charities, rehab centers, assisted living facilities, etc., spending literally hundreds of millions if we wanted to...but would that keep some people from being unlucky, foolish, addicted, etc?

Look, over there, an addict!  Holy shit, better shut down government and waste our fucking time obsessing on a pointless anecdote while working class families don't have health care, job security or the resources to compete in a global economy.

Setting aside all the right-wing dog-whistling stinking up that comment (addicts, give-aways, foolish people etc.), do we ignore problems because policies that might help someone who is "unlucky" would be an unintended negative consequence? That's bullshit.

5. How do you rate this spending against other desires you can find on this blog on almost every post?  (Just closing down VT Yankee would cost us more than it would if we tripled the # of rehab centers and ALFs).

"This spending?" What spending?  Spending is (likely) a fractional aspect of multiple policy modalities available.  

"VT Yankee" vs. "rehab centers and ALFs" - again, WTF?  What sort of disjointed zero sum kaleidoscope does someone need to look through to see a relationship like that?  How'bout we consider that
A. strip mining Camel's Hump would be more cost effective than
B. airlifting heritage salmon into Lake Champlain! (Or a rehab center for junkie salmon hooked on mercury?)
Get real.    

Vermont Yankee is a huge & looming deferred tax on our future, and it's a massive addict's tax on us today. Vermont has a junkie's reliance on the false promises of nuclear power and our addiction to those false promises, and the deferred liabilities that come with it, keeps us in a doped-up energy haze. That addiction to the false promises of Entergy's nuclear future renders us too lazy and stupid to get up and go to work on the cheaper, cleaner and economically rewarding alternative energy that is available right here and right now. Axing Vermont Yankee means an opportunity to develop alternative sources that create both jobs and exports. But you need to stop sucking on that crack pipe of a crumbling cooling tower to get there.

sláinte,
cl

-- Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

---

by: Caoimhin Laochdha @ Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 18:50:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Alabama state motto... (2.00 / 2)

Thank Gawd for Mississippi.  They usually beat 'em in football, and squeak by them in the SAT rankings.  "We're Number 47!"

Good to remind us that we need to be comparing ourselves with civilized nations, not third-world hellholes like Mississippi.

Don't forget there is going to be a huge future industry in decommissioning nuclear power plants, Vermonters could get on that train early.  Yankee's for shit safety/maintenance record of late is a great argument that the future is now.

---

by: Undamned Yankee @ Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 21:38:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If we resort to comparing our (3.60 / 5)

economic and social health with the situation in our biblically unreconstructed semi-autonomous tribal regions, we are effectively conceding that this is a race to the bottom. Or at least a race to stay out of the bottom, wherever that may be.

sláinte,
cl

-- Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

---

by: Caoimhin Laochdha @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 00:10:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ah, the soothing rhetoric of engagement (0.00 / 0)

I see that my comments were not understood by you.  I'll try, while awaiting a flight, to make myself clearer, if possible.

It is arrant nonsense to choose a single goal (like "reducing poverty") and consider it apart from all the other goals our government should pursue.  You could spend all the money we can collect in taxes and still have poor, unhealthy people in the state...and not have decent roads, schools, or get any progress in replacing the power plant that you call a "looming tax on our future".  

The money to do this is coming out of the pockets of all Vermonters, and corporations who do business here.  It is delusional to think your electric bill will be cheaper if you shut down VT Yankee today.  My point was that you could spend money on safer power, or on reducing poverty...but you can't spend the same money twice.

How do you recommend leaders make actual policy decisions?  The basic questions I laid out are the heart of any policy choice:  

What "future" are you looking to achieve?
Will what you're proposing work to solve the problem?  
Will it harm something else?  
How will the affected people react? ("policy dynamics")
When the dust settles, will all the people be better off, or will we have an equilibrium where you've taken from some and given to others ("What is the new equilibrium")?  
And finally, what are we NOT doing that we could be doing if we weren't doing this?

I hope this is clearer.  My original post was in reaction to the notion that we should do more to improve a situation which is relatively good...when there are so many situations where the marginal investment might be more helpful.

PS - Please, PLEASE don't hit me with "Europe, Canada, blah blah blah"  We don't live there, and comparing our socio-demographic realities with theirs is totally unfair.  Besides, their current stability and social safety net is an artifact of first our bloodshed in WWII and then our $$$ to rebuild their societies.  We then protected them against Russia for 40 years.  It's pretty easy to pay for hospitals if you don't need an army.  As we slowly pull out of this role in the next 20 years, and their demographics begin to look more like ours with increased immigration, we will be able to learn more from their experiences.

---

by: Tom C @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 01:16:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stability and social safety net (4.00 / 4)

PLEASE don't hit me with "Europe, Canada, blah blah blah"  We don't live there, and comparing our socio-demographic realities with theirs is totally unfair.  Besides, their current stability and social safety net is an artifact of first our bloodshed in WWII and then our $$$ to rebuild their societies.  We then protected them against Russia for 40 years.  It's pretty easy to pay for hospitals if you don't need an army.  As we slowly pull out of this role in the next 20 years, and their demographics begin to look more like ours with increased immigration, we will be able to learn more from their experiences.

Oh boy.  The U.S. pays for an entire continent's "stability and social safety net" but the U.S. can't implement the same thing here with the same resources?  We can't even compare our situation with the advanced quality of life in the EU and for which we are ostensibly (or is that ostentatiously) responsible?  

Did you really mean to say this? The U.S. is rich and powerful enough to give economic security to a continent with a GDP almost 40% bigger than our own, but we're too stupid or incompetent to give ourselves the same economic advantages?

It's OK for us to pay for the social and economic advancement of an entire contingent with a larger population and bigger GDP than our own, but let's be timid about comparing ourselves to that continent? ("comparing our socio-demographic realities with theirs is totally unfair"). Why is that unfair?  If we paid for their prosperity and the quality of life enjoyed in Europe and Canada with our "bloodshed" and our "Army," then why can't we even ASK why our Army doesn't let us enjoy the same quality of life here? If we can do it for them, why is it "unfair" to discuss what we have to do to create the same advantages for Americans that we apparently created for half a billion other people?  

There is a large swath of people in the U.S. who can handle questions such as "The policies of other advanced economies provide for the education and health care of a productive work force and healthy society, what can we do to repeat the success of those countries?" An even larger swath can learn from the answers.

BTW, I am so sick of the bullshit American exceptionalism crap about how we saved Europe during WWII and every good thing that happened on that continent for that last half century is directly traceable to Anthony McAuliffe saying "Nuts" at the Battle of the Bulge.  Particularly when it comes to countries such as France.  The fact is, were it not for France stepping in to help us defeat the British, who knows when or if the U.S. would have come into existance.  For all we know, we could ALL be Canada right now were it not for France's help in turning the Revolutionary War into a colonial victory.  

What the U.S. did in WWII might have been a return favor.  But is was hardly responsible for the courageous decisions that the EU made in the 70s/80s/90s that the U.S. was far too timid to do itself.  If U.S. voters and politicians had half the guts and foresight of the European leaders who implemented the EU's economic policies over the past 40 years, we wouldn't be in the vicious downward economic spiral that's been crippling us this entire decade or have a broken health care and educational system that is unaffordable by any measure -- or not even have a transportation & energy policy for that matter.

Don't compare us to Europe or Canada? Baloney.  We should ONLY compare ourselves to competitors who will help us be better.  I'd rather shoot higher than spend my life duct taping the same intractable problems.

sláinte,
cl

-- Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

---

by: Caoimhin Laochdha @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 02:14:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

sadly (4.00 / 2)

you have made several leaps not supported by the comments made

no one said eradicating poverty is or should be our "single goal"

you said we "could spend all the money we can collect in taxes and still have poor, unhealthy people in the state...and not have decent roads, schools, or get any progress in replacing the power plant that you call a "looming tax on our future"

this is based on what? your intimate knowledge of the cost-effectiveness of how the state currently spends money and for what purposes? that no more effective alternatives exist to solve problems? or raise money?

if you have such knowledge, why are you not sharing it with us?

you said

What "future" are you looking to achieve?
a DEEP reduction in the number of working families that cannot meet their basic needs

Will what you're proposing work to solve the problem?
I mentioned one solution that has worked extremely well (or did you miss that?)

Will it harm something else?  
please define "harm"; do you mean will it require a larger short-term contribution from the wealthy? do you understand that the "harm" inflicted on the poor is much greater than their material suffering? will the "harm" change the vacation plans of the wealthy? do you understand that turning poor people into middle class families (who will spend virtually all of their income)  will be good for an economy based on consumption (while the wealthy invest primarily outside outside VT)

How will the affected people react? ("policy dynamics")
oh, I don't know, I guess the (formerly) poor will be pretty satisfied; and you may not believe it but the wealthy will feel better too

When the dust settles, will all the people be better off, or will we have an equilibrium where you've taken from some and given to others ("What is the new equilibrium")?  
we already "take from some and [give] to others" - we just don't make any headway; this issue is not about "all the people"; it's about the huge number of people with no hope for a better future (think about it - seriously; how do you think it feels to be a hard working parent who has good reason to think that her kids may never achieve the American dream?; please put a price on that); and what is "better off" after all? is it a good thing that income inequality is as skewed as it's been since the Depression? top marginal tax rates used to be 70% and the economy grew like crazy; now it's half that and more and more people are suffering; so tell me about equilibrium; why should we want to perpetuate a system with such inequities?

And finally, what are we NOT doing that we could be doing if we weren't doing this?
you're still assuming we can only do one thing at a time; or that solutions will require massive new infusions of cash rather than reallocating existing expenditures for alternatives that make better use of the money

you said your "original post was in reaction to the notion that we should do more to improve a situation which is relatively good"

relatively good? by whose account? with respect, shame on you; your lack of compassion is breathtaking

Caoimhin covered the rest nicely so I won't go there

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 03:11:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry, I was traveling on business, it was hard to respond (0.00 / 0)

There are clearly some fundamental differences in our approach to prioritizing government expenditures.  I don't rule out raising more revenue to do more things; but the dynamics of this are simply not what you assert...those affected by tax increases rarely, if ever, "feel good about it".  Therefore, I tend to see a relatively steady pot of money, and the claims on this money are much deeper than the pot.

So, when I read an article that says

1. Relative to the rest of the United States (not just Mississippi) we have lower poverty rates;

2. We should not be satisfied with this as the rate is still too high (in absolute terms and compared to what many here claim are analogous societies); and

3. We should raise taxes on the rich to attack this problem

my policy instinct is to wonder if increased expenditures will deliver the same marginal benefits; if the raise in tax rates will truly deliver the revenue hoped for (since people can leave the state); if there are other problems where we are not doing terribly well where this increase in revenue might be better spent.

This musing seems to have made one of my repliers quite angry and you at least exasperated...but how do you know what I have compassion for and what I don't?  You claim that we could do "more than one thing", as if I were unaware that the state has hundreds, if not thousands, of projects.  But at some point you have to choose, sir...you can't just huff about my heartlessness (of which you have no direct knowledge whatsoever).  For example, the state is reducing funding for special education residential placements...pulling retirement funding from state workers...delaying bridge repairs...you get the point, I hope.  Politics is about choosing.  I choose to attack the worst problems, from my point of view of course, first.  Using the statistics cited, I simply didn't see your first choice as wise compared to other issues, and if I were going to raise more revenue I would choose other ways to spend it.

---

by: Tom C @ Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 02:42:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

strange (0.00 / 0)

that you would effectively triage poverty aside in the name of other problems; heartless or not, I suspect you haven't thought it through as a purely instrumental nvestment

imagine a 50% reduction in poverty; do you have any idea how much money that would save taxpayers?

poverty is much more than acute material deprivation; the effects linger throughout a person's life (no shortage of research on educational outcomes, reduced lifetime earnings, likelihood of criminal behavior, bad health outcomes, etc.; all of these are preventable and would save enormous sums of money

your concern about marginal benefits is reasonable but that doesn't argue for diverting the money; rather it challenges the efficacy of existing anti-poverty programs; for the most part, they are income support and do not help build wealth (a much longer conversation)

in the end, your comments remind me of Henry Kissinger's remarks about how some countries must be sacrificed in order to save others (again, the triage defense); these are human beings we're talking about - and many are children; one out of eight kids < 18 are in poverty in VT; almost a quarter in Essex County, and one out of five in Orleans County)

I'm not willing to accept these numbers

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 13:39:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The VT Yankee thing is so irritating (0.00 / 0)

There is a burgeoning alt energy industry in the state that could more than replace anything provided by Yankee, but that has been badly hampered by many decades of policy that virtually deluges subsidies into fossil and nuclear energy, while ... trickling ... subsidies into wind, solar, and other safer, less polluting sources.

We could be creating a good number of serious, good-paying jobs for people working in the hardest-hit economic sector (the building industry, and all its associated trades) by fostering the installation of alt energy and energy efficiency. The legislature did a great job with the feed-in tariff, which is probably the only reason the alt energy industry hasn't already failed in the state. So what are we doing? We're on the verge of lazily keeping a dilapidated, out-of-date plant running, with the goal of kicking the [clean-up cost] can down the road to our kids, while largely ignoring the job creation aspects of improving our electrical grid while offsetting electrical generation from centralized plants. The combination of efficiency and alt energy generation can obviate not only Yankee, but a good chunk of the coal-generated (can you say climate change?) power we use, while putting good people back to work, and thus reducing hunger.

They're not going to be happy with us....

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 21:16:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Costs of closing Yankee? (1.00 / 4)

"(Just closing down VT Yankee would cost us more than it would if we tripled the # of rehab centers and ALFs)."

You make a number of assumptions in your comments, but this one stands out. How do you know what it will cost to shut down Yankee? The answer, of course, is that no one knows, as Entergy has refused to negotiate new contracts unless/until it is re-licensed (and Douglas supports Entergy's position). The current spot-market price isn't a reliable comparison, and neither are the current contract rates (which are a lot more reasonable now than they were when the contracts were entered into - and a lot lower than new contract prices would be). You also have to factor in the growing impact of renewable energy sources, which will be substantial during the 20 years of a hypothetical license renewal for Yankee - not only directly on rates, but indirectly on Vermont's economy through the growth of clean-energy industries.

You wouldn't know this if you look only to GMD for your political news and info, but all five candidates for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination - meeting together for the first time - addressed the issue of closing Yankee (among other issues) at the candidates forum sponsored by the Vermont League of Conservation Voters last Thursday in Burlington. (I guess Odum was too preoccupied with Tom Salmon's ongoing implosion to notice.) Whatever, you can watch the entire forum here:

http://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/programs/evening-gubernatorial-candidates

If you'd rather see it on the TeeVee, I'm pretty sure the video will be available to all the PEG access centers in the state on the VMX system sometime next week.

---

by: Bokweb @ Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 20:06:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

WTF!? (4.00 / 1)

(I guess Odum was too preoccupied with Tom Salmon's ongoing implosion to notice

Jeebus, what the hell's your problem? Talk about gratuitous dickery.

I have a full time job and two other very part time jobs - plus I have to squeeze in time to be a parent. This blog stuff is a hobby.

You think I'm not personally covering all the news? Get off your ass and post a diary yourself. Who knows, if it's marginally literate, I - or one of the other front pagers - might promote it to the front page. Frankly, GMD depends on people doing that.

Good god, between the complaints about my personally mentioning the last candidate forum, vs. your weird BS about my personally not mentioning the latest one, I think we've met our asshole quota for the month.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 20:33:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

GMD (0.00 / 0)

Although I have also recently been the target of Mr. Odum's dislike for one of my posts, I have to say that I greatly appreciate this blog and the effort expended by Odum and others to make it available.  I learn a lot from it and it gives me an opportunity to share my thoughts (sometimes well received, sometimes not).

Not everything is covered here.  Its done by volunteers who do not have a responsibility to blog about everything. Mr/s Bokweb apparently doesn't appreciate this fact.

I suppose I should try again to get traction for a diary.

PJ

---

by: Peter Joes @ Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 22:04:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

ha! (0.00 / 0)

Oh yeah. I had to go back and look. I suppose I could've delivered a simple "harumph" at the time.

But thanks very much for the kind words.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 22:18:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Care to share? (4.00 / 1)

You wouldn't know this if you look only to GMD for your political news and info, but all five candidates for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination - meeting together for the first time - addressed the issue of closing Yankee (among other issues) at the candidates forum sponsored by the Vermont League of Conservation Voters last Thursday in Burlington. (I guess Odum was too preoccupied with Tom Salmon's ongoing implosion to notice.) Whatever, you can [use the address below to find it]:

So would it kill you to post your thoughts on what the candidate said?

Perhaps you would condescend to contribute your own analysis or post any insight you might have regarding the candidates' stance on Entergy's ongoing and pending liabilities to Vermont and Vermont rate and taxpayers? Regardless of what Tom Salmon might be doing, I assure you, it will be appreciated. Particularly by the less fortunate among us who only look to GMD for their political news and info.

If anyone would like to see the video of the event, the link is here.

[FWIW - if you did post a "five candidates on Entergy" type piece, I am quite sure it would be appreciated.]

sláinte,
cl

-- Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

---

by: Caoimhin Laochdha @ Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 21:10:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stenography not the point (0.00 / 0)

No, I won't "condescend" to serve as stenographer of who said what at the forum - nor did I expect that from bloggers here. Unlike the Randolph event, this one was widely covered by the print and electronic media, and not only can you see the entire thing at Channel 17's web site, vtdigger has video clips as well.

There were no great surprises in what was said, but there may have been developments in who gained ground and who lost it with the serious political funders who were there, and among other elected officials and leaders of environmental organizations who attended. Then again, maybe not. That's the kind of insight that's gleaned by someone who knows the candidates as well as the other players, and who can talk to people and knowledgeably assess how it all played out.

In short, that's the kind of political analysis that GMD is known for, and it's what I hoped to see following the first major event of the campaign. After all the analysis of the Democratic candidates and their probable chances that has appeared at GMD in recent months, I was a little surprised, frankly, that this didn't attract any interest from the political activists here. But, hey, there's a long way to go in this campaign.

---

by: Bokweb @ Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 23:55:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So, why don't you post an analysis of the event? (4.00 / 2)

Obviously you were there and feel strongly about its significance, so why don't you post?  GMD is not a monolith but the sum of many people's voluntary contributions.  

---

by: Sue Prent @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 00:08:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

S - L - O - W - L - Y - - N - O - W (4.00 / 2)

I won't "condescend" to serve as stenographer of who said what at the forum

No need to.   If you listened to the candidates as badly as you read the comment above, it wouldn't be worth shit anyway.  I said: perhaps you could "contribute your own analysis or post any insight" you had on the topic.  

You seemed to indicate that the five candidates made points about the long-term costs associated with closure and moving forward to sustainable energy, which apparently made an impression on you although it is hard to tell.

The next comment, however, tells us that you are interested in "developments in who gained ground and who lost it with the serious political funders who were there, and among other elected officials and leaders of environmental organizations who attended." No surprise you didn't hear any of that here - at least not at this point in the year before the election year.

I think most of us are far more concerned with the policy (The Wonk & Governance) aspect of this than the "funders" and who "gained ground" (The Horse Race).  The latter is important, but until the agenda is front and center, the Horse Race is hardly the most relevant aspect of the Vermont Yankee issue.  Let's be real, Entergy Corp/Yankee is one of the biggest economic and environmental problems confronting the five Democratic candidates and the one who is "fortunate" enough to land the problem as Governor. Just like it was one of the most critical environmental and economic disasters that the Dubie/Douglas administration ignored for eight years. Counting his first race in 2000 for Lt. Governor against Doug Racine, Entergy/Yankee is an issue Dubie has ignored for a decade really.

sláinte,
cl

-- Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

---

by: Caoimhin Laochdha @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 00:43:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

closing Yankee (0.00 / 0)

Considering that the big 5 have all come out against re-licensing, I'm half expecting the arrival of number 6 - - someone who still has an open mind on this issue.  Why?

Lets see - the five will split the anti-Yankee vote and number six will get all the keep Yankee votes.

I know - - there are other issues.  On the other hand we haven't heard much yet about the differences between the five.

PJ

---

by: Peter Joes @ Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 21:55:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Vote for #6! (4.00 / 4)

(some of you will get this joke :-) )

Musician, Web Designer, Photographer

---

by: JulieWaters @ Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 23:05:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't be unmutual! (4.00 / 1)

---

by: Sue Prent @ Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 23:53:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who's side are you on? (4.00 / 1)

Or would that be telling?

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 01:37:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

but if cast your ballot for #6 (0.00 / 0)

which candidate - which one - really gets the vote?

The guy on the poster?

sláinte,
cl

-- Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

---

by: Caoimhin Laochdha @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 02:18:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Did anyone else notice (0.00 / 0)

That when the Bush administration crated its "keep 'em scared" alert list, the administration always went to "Orange Alert" whenever the news was turning against them? I immediately pictured Rover bubbling up to the surface, prepared to subsume us, and return us to the Village.

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 22:08:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Meanwhile, socialist health care costs half as much, leaving more money on the table for food. (3.50 / 2)

The cost of our sickness system makes it harder to feed people.  

The cost of our legal system does, too. Look at the time spent crafting a 2000 page health care bill, carefully designed to not solve the problem.  If it passes, legal wrangling over what it means will delay reform even more.  

In hard times, it's a good idea to cut what you don't need, and can't afford.  

Our for profit sickess system and legal system are not cost effective.  It would be better to cut them back mercilessly, and use the savings to feed people, and encourage us to improve our health even more, and to govern ourselves better.  

We aren't going to escape our current problems without daring to take from those who take without giving back.  The sense of entitlement of the right is breathtaking. (Have you kept up with the Joseph Bruno trial?) But, they spend their PR money much more effectively than the left.  

Fundamental change, that gets at the causes of our problems, from war to economics to health and hunger, will only come from people at the bottom, and we need to reach them, not patronize them with rosy statistical scenarios.  

A sense of evangelism among the left would make a world of difference. If nobody shouts the truth, the right wing noise machine will continue to win.

We can govern ourselves better than they govern us!

---

by: govt4all @ Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 22:05:20 PM UTC

I'm with you (4.00 / 1)

for the most part but I'm unclear about your critique of the "legal system"

can you be more specific?
your only example was the "time spent crafting a 2000 page health care bill"; that's not the "legal system" per se, but the legislative process (corrupted by industry lobbyists)

the legal system has many flaws but how do you propose to "cut it"? the poor need legal aid lawyers and the Defender General; plaintiffs need lawyers to fight insurance companies; people need lawyers to fight manufacturers who market harmful products; we need lawyers to fight complacent (and complicit) bureaucracies that don't enforce environmental laws; and so on

help me out here

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 22:20:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The size of the health care bill is related to the size of the legal industry (0.00 / 0)

In a 2K page bill, there's that many more chances for legal wrangling.  And, the poor lose out because of the delays, but the rich can wait it out.  

In tort law, our system is self expanding. Lawyers for the defendant get paid by the hour, so they aren't anxious to end a case. Lawyers for the plaintiff get a share of the judgement, so they want to maximize damages.  

Thus, a slow, ponderous system, indifferent to suffering, generates maximum revenue for the legal industry. And, that's what we have.

In regulating unacceptable behavior, our system allows people to buy exceptions that won't work in the general case. Those exceptions are then plugged by additional laws, which require even more lawyers to interpret.

The way to combat both these problems is to bring the legal system out it the open, and give us more control of it.  I think all judicial proceedings should be on television, so people see what's going on. I would like to see juries of a statistically significant size, so jury manipulation would be harder for lawyers.

I also think that judges who are lawyers have a conflict of interest, in that they make decisions that increase the size and power of their profession. Judicial activism goes back a long way, though the right likes to pretend it started with the Warren court.  Decisions from Dred Scott to corporate free speech were power grabs by the judicial branch, and we to take that power back, and exercise it ourselves.  

It won't be cheap to fix our legal system, but it will be cheaper than what we have now.

Justice is not easy, as human nature tries hard to escape consequences, but as we all bear the cost of injustice in the long run, we might as well make the mistakes ourselves, rather than giving lawyers so much incentive to profit from injustice.  

We can govern ourselves better than they govern us!

---

by: govt4all @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 21:06:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My understanding of the bill (4.00 / 1)

At least based on the 100 or so pages I read, is that its size is due to all of the places it has to cross-reference existing laws.

Since it will effect thousands of existing laws regarding doctors, hospitals, nursing homes patient safety, patient privacy, medicaid, medicare, social security, etc., etc.,  etc., it simply can't be done in a couple of pages.

Yes, the complexity makes it much easier for those with less-than-pure intent to mess with its content, but the moment single-payer (aka Medicare for all) was taken off the table, the option to write a simple bill was eliminated.

That's an issue with the legislative process and corrupt legislators who eliminated the simple solution before the process started, not a problem with the legal system (courts, judges, juries, prosecutors and defense lawyers have not come into play ... yet).

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 21:31:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The point I was trying to make ... (4.00 / 1)

was that our medical care will depend on lawyers' interpretations of those 2k pages, and not what doctors think is best, and least of all what we think would be best for us.

Lawyers' influence will continue to determined in part by the wealth backing them, which distorts the whole perspective of the judiciary.

You're right about single payer. That's why it was never really on the table.  The judiciary had a big influence in corrupting our legislators, by inventing corporate free speech out of thin air.

Our judiciary has established a state religion, variously called greed, avarice, money, mammon.  

We can govern ourselves better than they govern us!

---

by: govt4all @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 22:07:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Speaking from experience in the civil court system ... (0.00 / 0)

I'd say govt4all has it right.

I'm not going to beat up on lawyers. If we're to have a system governed by laws and not spur of the moment emotions, then we need folks well versed in the words, application and history of law.

BUT ...

It has been made opaque and unwieldy for the huge majority of us, and we're the ones making the most use of the legal system.

Think what a difference merely dropping archaic Greek from our legal jargon would make? I've got a thousand page dictionary of legal terms (including some lengthy definitions, references and examples)!

But don't blame just the legal community for this weird language ... also blame the law writers. The meaning of words can vary in great difference from any dictionary sense. For example you can be charged with DUI and held responsible for an accident if you have even a trace of THC (marijuana's active ingrediant) metabolites in your system ... regardless whether you were actually under the influence of not.

But here's a rub: if the law makers weren't specific about what they meant in a certain word or phrase, we'd have lawyers arguing over which dictionary and which definition to use.

No easy solutions here. I think three things would bring our legal system home to all of us: 1) Drop the dead languages, 2) Make it mandatory that all court proceedings (with exceptions, but of course) can be publicly televised, and 3) Give juries the chance to be fact checkers by providing juries with the means to do so.

Our legal system right now is very much based upon pay to play ... and that's direct violation of Vermont's constitution:

Every person within this state ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which one may receive in person, property or character; every person ought to obtain right and justice, freely, and without being obliged to purchase it; completely and without any denial; promptly and without delay; conformability to the laws.

Chapter 1, Article 4

It's over at http://ramabahama.net ... only it's still under construction (but so is the rest of my life)

---

by: Rama Schneider @ Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 12:22:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As you say, Three things, but a different order and emphasis (0.00 / 0)

My order would be
1) televise - it's a change that could happen quickly.
2) more power for the people, less power for judges and lawyers - guaranteed to be an uphill struggle to achieve
3) simplify, not just language, but the sheer volume of law favors those with money as well - won't happen until the first two are done.  

We can govern ourselves better than they govern us!

---

by: govt4all @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 19:48:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

poverty (4.00 / 1)

Kudos to Kevin O'Connor as well.  I only had time to skim the article.  Dire poverty in Vermont is not difficult to find.  Just head out beyond the cities or the ski towns and it is all over the state -- rusty trailer parks, towns with half their houses falling in (saw a town like this in the Kingdom), towns where "incest is best" and the guys are in jail or on parole and the girls pregnant at 15.  God, you can see it in places like Barre or at the unemployment or social service offices, where the parade of misery is never-ending.

There are two Vermonts.  One is the Norman Rockwell kind of small villages nestled in the mountains or quaint ski towns.  But the other is starving, mired in dire poverty, where you go to a family reunion to pick up a date, and people are starving.

America the beautiful loves this, though, since starving people make great sources of cheap labor.  

When you wake up each morning look around you.  It might be the last time you get to do it.  

---

by: Watercloset @ Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 22:40:43 PM UTC

Being from St. Johnsbury (4.00 / 5)

I can definitely attest to the existence of these two Vermonts you speak of. Dirt poor communities and a filthy rich couple of families running the real show. Then certain newspapers... feed them right-wing porn and exacerbate the whole process.

Agitate.Liberate.Create.

---

by: vtmarkvt @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 02:09:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

O'Connor gets it right (1.00 / 1)

The answer to our economic problem is this:  We must methodically manage an orderly reduction in our standard of living.  We have lived beyond our means, and while there are ways to ameliorate this reduction - which I will touch on later - let me explain to you just how sobering events really are.

A September 2008 Harvard Business Review article showed that "in 1980, the total value of global financial assets was roughly equal to world gross domestic product (GDP)."  In 2007, these same financial assets increased to 356% of world GDP; most of the increase from private and government debt.  According to Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf, "the ratio of U.S. public and private debt to GDP reached 358% in the third quarter of 2008."  The previous all-time high of 300% was reached in 1933, during the Great Depression.  Most of this debt is private, reaching nearly 300% of GDP in 2007.  U.S. household debt service (as a percent of disposable income) is at its highest level since the Great Depression.

What are the implications of these numbers?  Simply put, there is not enough money - by consumers, businesses or governments - to back up all this debt.  Many parts of Europe and Asia are witnessing social unrest, as the implications of this financial reality takes hold.

We are not in the midst of a recession, which is part of a normal "business cycle," we are closer to a depression.  Households and businesses are deleveraging, meaning they are attempting to reduce this debt.  This "deleveraging process" can occur in four ways:  the sale of assets; consuming less and saving more; restructuring of debt; or bankruptcy (where we'll see enormous increases).   This "deleveraging process," in turn, is aiding deflation, meaning that prices will generally fall.  Slack demand and the "bursting of the bubble" from inflated asset prices - due to the easy credit policies of the past - are also fueling this deflation.

As our Federal Reserve Bank fights both deflation and the bailout of our banking, corporate (think GM), commercial real estate and residential mortgage markets, they do so - literally - by printing money and issuing more debt.  As other central banks around the world follow suit, we'll find ourselves in a spiral of currency devaluations and competition in the credit markets on our roughly $10 trillion of U.S. taxpayer bailout programs now going on.  Interest rates will rise.

The Vermont Business Round Table recently hosted a forum by the Concord Coalition, a "non-partisan, grassroots organization advocating generationally responsible fiscal policy."  Among the disturbing trends presented in their presentation was this: an $82.6 trillion Medicare and Social Security cash deficit.  This cash deficit begins in seven short years and ominously grows with our aging, baby-boom generation.

David Coates, a member of the VBRT and retired KPMG partner recently released an analysis of Vermont's rising "mandatory expenditures."  It shows approximately $2 billion in unfunded liabilities from Vermont state employee and teacher retirement and healthcare liabilities.

Nearly two years ago, as founder of Vermonters for Economic Health (www.vteh.org), our organization began a series of "Town Meeting Forums" to educate and alert our legislators and the public on these financial matters.  VEH identified another $3 billion in unfunded liabilities, for a total of $5 billion in Vermont unfunded liabilities.

A society cannot consume and not produce.  During this decade, Vermont government and education spending rose roughly 70%, while Vermont private-sector job growth rose 0%.  Growing the economy and creating jobs are the best ways to ameliorate the impact on inevitable cuts in government, education and ultimately our standard of living.

Not only are meaningful regulatory, government, education and tax reforms needed in Vermont, but a reform of culture is needed;  a culture that can find its roots in Vermont's 1778 motto of "Freedom and Unity;" a culture that values the human sprit's thirst for freedom, whether that freedom is in the form of the individual, property owner or entrepreneur.

---

by: Tom Licata @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 15:51:31 PM UTC

hey Mr. Wizard (4.00 / 4)

you forgot a few things

total VT AGI rose 38% from 2001 to 2007
AGI for the those earning more than $500k rose 164%

the top marginal rate used to be 70% for the feds; it's now about half that and top earners pay only 5.4% of income for VT personal income taxes

and (in part because of the regressive property tax) middle-income VT'ers pay a higher % of income for all taxes than the top 1%

so before you try to tell us that we've lived beyond our means, you should think again about how our "means" have been reduced by Reagan / Bush tax cuts for the wealthy

oh yeah, and how are all those families already living on the edge going to reduce their standard of living?

as for the Social Security deficit, everyone knows that can be resolved by lifting the absurd cap on SS taxes that is a boon to the wealthy; but you would have working people take reductions in SS instead; such a compassionate guy

the unfunded liabilities in the retirement funds are not unique to VT and can be addressed without cutting benefits (health care reform anyone?)

as for consuming without producing, perhaps you should ask yourself about the loss of millions of good jobs in the name of free trade; and the part of our national debt that goes to China for the goods we used to produce here; and the trade deficit for oil when we should have weaned ourself 35 years ago; and so on

it's kind of creepy that guys like you complain about current conditions when the policies you've supported for decades have put us in this position

BTW - that zero job growth you mentioned happened even though the state has spent hundreds of millions on economic development programs; are you suggesting they should be cut too? or does corporate welfare get a pass?

as for our "thirst for freedom", how about our thirst for justice? I'm sure the working poor will appreciate the "freedom" that comes from reduced gov't. assistance thanks to your recipe

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 18:36:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Doug, that was magnificently expressed! (4.00 / 3)

These guys can argue six ways 'til Sunday but the simple reality is that something like the top 5% of the population is getting much richer while the bottom half is sliding into poverty.  The wealthy may be able to rationalize the situation to themselves, and place the blame on the rest of us; but in the final analysis we know what we see all around us and what we ourselves are experiencing. From where I sit, we are looking more and more like a third-world country all the time. Sooner or later, people will look up from their small-man woes in unified recognition of the greater injustice. That, my friend, is a day that even I don't look forward to!

---

by: Sue Prent @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 19:14:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can I have some stale mayo on this (3.80 / 5)

Extra-SPAM sandwich?

OK, how about THIS Spam

and Yummier Kingdom SPAM

How about SNALBANS Dairy Spam

Even some Between-the-cracks green mold hairy SPAM

---

by: Pschauk Paughpette @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 20:06:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks, PP! (0.00 / 0)

No point in wasting breath on this one!

---

by: Sue Prent @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 21:13:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

kingdom (0.00 / 0)

Yep, but those newspapers are fed by the rich families that make their fortunes off of those dirt poor communities by keeping them dirt poor.  It is the law of the land -- in Vermont and every other state.  The legislators and the governor want to keep things that way as well, as the hands that feed them and allow them to get more nice things than they need want this poverty to keep the wages low so their profits are high.  

I did a lot of driving around the kingdom last year.  I've seen American poverty before, from Harlem to Indian Reservations, butI was startled at the extent of it in the kingdom. It was sad.  

When you wake up each morning look around you.  It might be the last time you get to do it.  

---

by: Watercloset @ Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 08:15:39 AM UTC

Heh (0.00 / 0)

It should be plain to anyone with half a brain that the explosion of state "ratings" and "top ten" lists are often not designed to further discussion, so much as short circuit it.

In an ironic twist, my son attended a "lecture" at a kids' program at MIT last weekend titled: "49 Reasons Why California is Better than Your State."

They took one good feature from each state, then discussed a "better" parallel from CA. The whole point of the lecture was to show the students how statistical information and subjective data could be combined to create fallacious arguments.

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 22:05:16 PM UTC

filthy (0.00 / 0)

That's what America is: dirt poor run by the filthy rich, even in vermont and that is just how Douglas likes it.  

When you wake up each morning look around you.  It might be the last time you get to do it.  

---

by: Watercloset @ Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 06:49:40 AM UTC