…and persuades this fence-sitter to finally join them.
Up to now, I’ve not been on the Progressive’s mailing list; but when Cindy Weed told me that Governor Shumlin was going to put in an appearance at the State Committee meeting, I decided this was one I didn’t want to miss.
Sunday afternoon, at the Unitarian Universalist Church in Rutland, Martha Abbott set a cordial tone for the meeting by observing that,
” If the Democratic Legislature takes on our issues and fights for them, we win.”
The agenda opened with an economic primer by Jeff Thompson of the Political Economy Research Institute, who explained the factual evidence that economic stimuli, not budget cuts are the key to turning the economy around.
Said Thompson, lack of demand, not Government spending, is the primary down-driver of the recession. Despite the low cost of borrowing, business investment declined in the recession and still lags, while the savings rate has climbed higher, but only among high income earners. Ordinary folks aren’t spending as they once were; but they also aren’t saving because they can barely cover the essentials.
The answer on the state level, says Thompson, is not to cut taxes, because to do so would also necessitate a cut in public investment and therefore, jobs. He points out that, on average, Vermont has not managed to preserve as many public sector jobs as other states have; and that these job losses not only represent an extension of the jobless cycle, but also real impacts on public health, safety and education.
Mr. Thompson reminded us that historically, we’ve seen much higher taxes on upper income households in the not so distant past, and that there is absolutely no evidence supporting the assertion that slightly raising taxes on those households would cause the rich to flee the state.
Finally, he believes that not tapping into the rainy day funds for the short-term relief and stimulus they could provide represents “fiscal mismanagement.”
This presentation was followed by a legislative summary; then a break and organizational business, ending as Governor Shumlin took the podium.
The Governor’s words predictably tracked his stump speech, carefully steering away from any points of contention. This speech was immediately followed by audience questions read by Martha Abbott from cards that had been collected earlier.
In retrospect, I think it would have been a more authentic interface with the governor if he had dispensed with the stump speech and simply entertained questions informally posed from the modest-sized audience.
Some attendees expressed frustration with the format, and a number of questions went unasked in the brief amount of time that was allowed.
Despite an inhibiting format, the issue of Governor Shumlin’s reluctance to raise taxes on the wealthiest Vermonters came up repeatedly in the Q and A’s; as did the harmfulness of public sector cuts.
Had the governor attended Mr. Thompson’s earlier presentation, he might have framed his responses differently. As it was, his answers sounded a little insubstantial in light of the contradicting evidence that had just been rather exhaustively presented to us.
“We must agree to disagree,”
was Mr. Shumlin’s final answer when caught in the conundrum.
As the governor stepped down and prepared to leave, I caught up with him and once again posed the question I have raised repeatedly since March: “Why did you re-appoint Dan Luneau to the District 6 Environmental Commission?”
Once again, the governor demurred that
“we must agree to disagree.”
I pointed out that I had provided a very good reason why Mr. Luneau should not be re-appointed and he had provided none for why he should. The visibly exasperated governor replied that Mr. Luneau is his friend and that he trusts Mr. Luneau.
After a few parting words about how he might expect challenges in future Act 250 proceedings concerning Exit 20 of I-89, where Mr. Luneau’s family business is positioned to benefit from surrounding development, I rather heatedly broke off the conversation.
Before I left the building, I located Morgan Daybell. He had asked me much earlier to organize for the Progressives in St. Albans and I had said I wasn’t sure I was ready to do that. Now, I think I am.
I’m not sorry I helped elect Governor Shumlin, but I now realize it will take more than the progressive wing of the Democratic Party to hold his feet to the fire.
Really amounts to nothing more than “please shut up while I screw up” when coming from an elected leader who claims to want to do the right thing.
If documented facts can’t interfere with or change his or her strategy, then things will not go well. It’s reminiscent of Sir Change-a-Lot in the White House and his predilection for claiming to be a progressive change agent, while in reality bending over backwards to perpetuate an unsustainable status quo.
Thank you for the report from the meeting, Sue, it’s very helpful to have concrete examples like this when otherwise savvy friends make the bland claim that they think the governor is doing “a good job.” When he’s not, they need to know — and they need to know what the consequences will be of his missteps, particularly when he makes them in spite of being offered knowledge that should make him reconsider.
So even in the face of direct questioning from his ostensible allies, he still persists with protecting his rich friends. Awesome.
Well, I’m sticking with my new party, in the hopes of perhaps correcting its course a bit. But I damn well am not enthusiastic with certain folks at the top of the ticket and aim to keep on their asses.
I had to leave early (before the Governor arrived) and was wondering how it went.
The refusal of Gov. Shumlin to acknowledge the facts that higher tax rates on the wealthy do not cause an exodus or reduce/eliminate hiring is puzzling at best and demoralizing at worst. The questions on effective tax policy should be put to the Governor at every press conference or interview. It’s not a question of fairness (i.e. they’re rich, let’s tax them), rather it’s a question of effectiveness and the value of labor. Warren Buffet’s op ed in the NY Times gets to this point extremely clearly. You’d think when Buffet speaks, Shumlin would listen. But I have this suspicion that the only people Shumlin (and Obama) listen to are the Village Idiots who think copying destruction Republican economic philosophies is the way to stay in power.
Wow! The people of Vermont elected a man, who calls himself a Democrat, but who thinks the governorship is about himself and his friends, not about the people of Vermont. His friends are those who contribute money to his election and to whom he will give what they want. This governor is like his predecessor, a political prostitute. As soon Douglas could, after taking office, April 9, 2003, he appointed Daniel Luneau chairman of the District 6 Environment Commission. Like the current gov., Douglas could have, should have and would have known that
Daniel Luneau had a significant interest when he announced that Wal*Mart was coming to St. Albans. Douglas reappointed Luneau Chair of The District 6 Commission on April 10. 2007.
With regard to Dan Luneau, the only favorable thing that can be said about him is that he did not perjure himself when he said under oath that he had no conflict of interest. He didn’t. His mind was made up in favor of his interests, not those of the people. He needed no evidence about the Wal*Mart store. Luneau knew on which side his bread was buttered. He had, since he filed ANR application No. 6F0396R5 on 05/01/95, been investing in land and a new automobile dealership building. That building, a significant investment, is located on the highest ground near the Wal*Mart site where all the people who would patronize the growth to develop around the store could see his business. Using Google Earth, the distances from the dealership building to the entrance of the proposed store are 0.38 visual miles and 0.68 miles by the shortest roadway path between the entrances of the two businesses.
The following are quotes from a 6 May 2007 article in the Burlington Free Press.
Daniel Luneau was sitting as Chair of the District #6 Environment Commission on that date and on June 26, 2007 when he stated under oath that he had no conflict of interest at the beginning of the District 6 hearings concerning the store. He voted for the store.
He may not have had a personal conflict of interest but he sure as hell had a conflict of interest from the public’s point of view.
It sure seems that if one has the wealth to contribute substantially to the election of a governor in Vermont, one can have whatever one wants. The governorship of Vermont is not about ethics and the interests of the public. It is about friendship and money.
Personally, I hope this issue destroys the careers of Shumlin, Luneau and everyone involved in the corruption of permitting the Wal*Mart store in St. Albans.