Douglas was practically sputtering with hackneyed, anti-Democrat talking points on VPR last night at the news that – after urging from the left going all the way back to the Brigham decision – Gaye Symington and other leading Democrats were actually considering an income tax to fund education. The words that cause the sputtering? Symington (from VPR – emphasis added):

“I think when you're looking at a proposal that eliminates the statewide property tax and with it the confusion of the CLA and has the potential to more clearly connect what Vermonters pay in school taxes to what they spend per pupil, I think there's a lot to be gained by making this change.”

Republicans sounded apoplectic, but all Douglas had to fall back on was an insulting generalized, anti-Dem attack:

“I don't think anyone believes that the architects of Act 60 are going to simply transfer liability from one tax to another.

And Rep. Joyce Errecart (R-Shelburne) went for the other canard: fear –

I think it would be just devastating to Vermont's economy

It's GOP orthodoxy to oppose income-based taxes, even though it represents a common sense approach to most people. Republicans believe they stifle economic growth more than other taxes, such as property taxes, sales taxes, etc. The truth is, of course, its clearly easier to make an income tax progressive and based on the ability to pay – which makes it more difficult for Republicans to eke out rhetorical advantage in debates and protect their upper income constituency.

The conversation is an important one to have, though, not just as a matter of good policy, but for the positioning it provides for the 2008 elections – as well as the long-term psychology of Democratic lawmakers (more on all this below the fold)…

First, consider what is being discussed. From the Times Argus:

The proposal being considered by members of the House Ways and Means Committee would only change “homestead” property taxes on primary residences. Other land, houses owned by nonresidents and business property, would continue to be taxed under the property tax system.

That leaves several thorny issues to be worked out before the proposal would be considered by the full House Ways and Means Committee or the General Assembly at large.

One is a mechanism to prevent renters from paying taxes on their income in addition to covering property taxes on their homes through rent. Renters could conceivably get a credit for rent they pay or be exempt from the income tax, said Rep. Shap Smith, D-Morrisville, chair of the subcommittee.

The important principle is that education taxes should be based on people's ability to pay them, Smith said. “People do not believe the property tax does that,” he said. “People are sitting on land that has an immense amount of value but their incomes haven't changed.”

Smith is no wild-eyed lefty, and his support is indicitive of the wide range of support the proposal could have. Even more so is the support from Republicans such as Rep. Bud Otterman (R-Topsham) from VPR again:

It more nearly is assessed on the basis of ability to pay than any of our other taxes. I would say I don't think property tax is based on ability to pay. In fact, I think it's quite regressive, especially in the lower income brackets

Obviously. And it's nice to see that some Republicans aren't so mired in GOP hegemony to see that. Douglas's response to Otterman is to treat him as he treats Democrats – by belittling him as a dupe or a Democratic stooge, in order to reframe the debate where he is more comfortable (from the Times Argus):

“This is a Democrat majority and a Democrat idea,” insisted Jason Gibbs, spokesman for Douglas. “Unfortunately, they have co-opted” any Republicans who support the idea, Gibbs said.

Policy aside, this proposal has tremendous potential to reframe what Douglas has made the cornerstone of his rhetoric in a way that favors Democrats. Dems get mired in convoluted explanations of convoluted policies so often, it's become routine. What is often absurd is that the convoluted policies often serve to rhetorically or bureaucratically circle the more obvious, simple answers. For years, proponents of decoupling statewide education funding from the often financially arbitrary and regressive property tax have been assured that, with all the income sensitivity provisions, the statewide property tax already had many of the qualities of an income tax, so why change?

Of course that also begs the question, why not?

I think the reason for that has been in large part some bad psychology on the part of Democrats. We have allowed ourselves to be beat up so long and so relentlessly by the GOP and the media on fiscal issues, that many Dems (especially self-dubbed moderates) have internalized that criticism. They feel drawn to progressive policies and lean towards a general Keynesian economic perspective, but when they get into positions of power, they doubt themselves.

I think there is some sort of hegemonic, media-driven neurosis that says the closer you are to laissez-faire economics, the more of a grown-up you are. Dems who have internalized this nonsense are easily cowed when they start creeping towards economic progressivism by a few “tut-tuts” from the pundits or from Republicans. They craft convoluted ways to get to many of the same places that straightforward policies would get you to more quickly, efficiently, and more reasonably because they feel comfortable hiding in the minutaea of complex policies. They can then reinforce this pattern by patting themselves on the back for being the only people expert enough to truly understand the policies.

Poppycock (or bullshit if you prefer).

It has always seemed to me that the reason we haven't had this discussion sooner, is it hits this very wall of liberal self-loathing. It also explains why so many discussions like this have to seemingly be validated by the agreement of at least some Republicans, such as Otterman. As far as the media is concerned, that makes it “Grown up” to talk about. Unfortunately, many Democrats feel the same way.

It also explains why ideas like this can often come from Republicans like Otterman, as they're not clouding their perspective with self-loathing.

But here we are, the discussion is on the table – put there squarely by head Democratic wonk Gaye Symington herself. This is a very, very good sign.

Hopefully they'll throw into it with both feet. If they're simply dipping their toes in to test the water, they'll snap them back at the tried-and-true castigations of the Governor, rather than look less than grown up.

If they take the plunge, though, they'll quickly find that saying “eliminate the statewide property tax” and “tax only those that can afford it based on how much money they make” are a lot more resonant on the stump than trying to explain the nuances of convoluted tax policy (or worse, not even trying and instead simply saying “trust me”).

And its that prospect that's got the Governor apoplectic.

Per today’s Rutland Herald:

Following the lead of Washington state, Vermont will develop a high-security license with radio frequency ID chips and other security features that can be scanned at the border. The license will cost more than a standard driver’s license, but will be considerably cheaper than a passport, according to Douglas spokesman Jason Gibbs.

Per Yahoo’s Tech News:

Vermont plans to develop an enhanced driver’s license for residents who volunteer to use it. The enhanced driver’s license will be slightly more expensive than a standard Vermont state driver’s license and will require proof of citizenship, identity, and residence, according to DHS. It will also contain security features similar to a U.S. passport, which uses RFID.

This looks very benign on the surface, but let’s talk about this for a second, because RFID is something that may or may not be familiar to y’all.  RFID is, as the article notes, “Radio Frequency” identification.

What does “Radio Frequency Identification” mean?

It means that there’s a chip in your driver’s license which can be tracked by anyone with the right technology.  It means that you can be tailed, tracked and followed without ever knowing about it.  It’s like your Driver’s license has a built in Lojack and most of us won’t even know it’s there.

Where did this plan come from?  Did anyone in the legislature have an opportunity to weigh in on it, or is this just a unilateral decision on the part of Douglas to help lead Vermont into an end run against the bill of rights?

Per The Brattleboro Reformer:

BRATTLEBORO — Structural problems in one of the banks of cooling fans at Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant forced operators to dial back on the facility’s power output.

Though the cause for the failure of one of the plant’s 22 cooling towers has not yet been determined, said a spokesman for the power plant, he assured the public that shutting down 11 of the fans doesn’t affect safety.

Yes, because who could we possibly trust to assess the safety of a nuclear powerplant, if not that plant’s spokesman?

I'm sorry to have to say it, but it's true.

Milbank nails Leahy.

[The White House has] stalled or ignored Leahy's requests as his committee looks into the wiretapping program and the travails of Gonzales. They have calculated — accurately so far — that the Dynamic Duo of Leahy and Schumer would deliver harsh words but no punishment of consequence.

“The time is up. The time is up,” Leahy announced yesterday. “We've waited long enough.”

But what would Leahy do about it? The first questioner riddled Batman with this.

“The full Judiciary Committee will have to sit down and determine whether to seek contempt from the full Senate,” said the noncommittal action hero.

Does that mean he would seek a contempt-of-Congress citation? “What I want to do is get the response to these things,” Leahy demurred.

Rebecca Carr of Cox News tried again to pin him down, but Leahy continued to escape. “What we have to find out is what happened here,” he answered.

How about withholding money from the administration? “Let's take it step by step,” he proposed.

Holy incrementalism, Batman!

Weak, weak, weak. Weak tea.

The best spin that can be put on this — and the spin Leahy would no doubt put on it — is that the Senator was careful, even cagey, and displayed a statesmanlike refusal to tip his hand.

The rest of the world saw this: He's got nothin'.

I understand, of course, that Leahy wants — needs — to proceed with caution. But then why not just do that? Why not issue your non-statement from Vermont? Why fly to DC to say you have to fly home and then fly back again when your colleagues get into town, then meet with them and decide what to do?

The White House spin machine even sent out signals yesterday that August 20th was never supposed to be any kind of deadline. Leahy showed up to insist that it was.

And a deadline for what? Apparently for him to hold a press conference to announce that he would have to wait until September to confer with his colleagues about what to actually do about the White House missing the “deadline.”

Which in the real world means September was the deadline. And yesterday's performance did nothing but reinforce the appearance of a Congress unwilling to stand up for itself.

It may well be that Leahy has the resolve to move forward with contempt charges. And why wouldn't he? It's risk free. The “administration” has already said point blank that this Department of Justice will not prosecute such charges. But he couldn't say so, because he knows he can't count his chickens before they're hatched. And when your “chickens” are people like Arlen Specter, it's probably quite wise not to count them for anything. Specter collapses so often, I wouldn't even feel comfortable counting him as an egg, quite frankly.

So yes, it's a difficult line to walk. But when you know how squishy your troops are, you've got to include that in your calculus. Don't set deadlines you can't enforce, and for God's sake, don't have press conferences to announce you can't enforce them. Although to be honest, a presser to announce that would have at least been more concrete than the thin gruel we got yesterday. At least it would have been definitive on something.

I got into it last week with a couple Obama supporters, one of whom had an interesting criticism of GMD. It's a variation on one I've heard a lot – that is, that we're so negative at GMD. My response is that we're not a cheerleading site as a whole, and that the success of the blogosphere has been twofold (in my opinion, and to reduce it to the simplest possible terms): one – that we turn out support (votes, money, volunteers) for our candidates to win elections (largely by working around the traditional media to bring information that would otherwise be ignored or belittled front and center for discussion and dissemination), and two – that we act as a gauntlet by which our candidates are made better.

It's the second one that brings out the so-termed “negativity.” The political blog movement has placed high expectations on our candidates in terms of issues, candor, strategy and style. In the process of acting and speaking on those expectations, we squeeze out some, but make the others stronger. I think the reality of the last national election is not simply that more voters turned out to do more work for candidates, it's that many of the candidates themselves were a notch or two better than we've become used to seeing – and I give a lot of credit for that to the national blogs and their impact on the process.

It's also true that blogs are all about subjective biases. This is “What I Believe” writ large, and as such there is no requirement that we give every candidate equal time. Still, out of curiosity, I went back and searched for every time a GMD front pager has made a reference to one of the “big three” in the Presidential race, and categorized those references as “positive,” “negative” or “bland” (by which I mean it was matter of fact, and without characterization – implied or otherwise). References that defended the candidate from attacks – or which cast a political attack as a bogus “hit job” were dubbed positive (even if they were crude, as kestrel's “Why I Love Hillary” diaries were). Here was the breakdown:

Obama— Positive: 12, Negative: 15, Bland: 11 (Total: 38)
Clinton— Positive: 3, Negative: 12, Bland: 5 (Total: 20)
Edwards— Positive: 4, Negative: 1, Bland: 5 (Total: 10)

Is that the spread you'd expect? It's clear that Obama gets the most digital ink, as he has more Positves, Negatives AND “Blands” than the other two combined. Edwards is the only one with more “blands” than anything else, which is interesting. Hillary has a 4-1 Negative-to-Positive ratio, and Obama has the most even spread overall. Gravel, Dodd, Biden, Richardson, and Kucinich have all been mentioned, but so rarely its hard to create a real spread (and they're all over the map in terms of positive/negative).

What do folks think (and what are the implications if Clinton pulls this out and gets the nomination)?

Obama to call for the lifting of sanctions on Cuba. It does seem like Obama has been finding some nerve lately. This bodes well for his campaign, and for the whole field of debate.

Following up on Jack's diary about the refusal of the Anti-Defamation League to recognize the Armenian Genocide so as not to enflame political relations between Turkey and Israel – it seems the New England Director of the ADL (rightfully) broke with the National office on the matter – and was promptly fired for doing so. The ADL's defense of itself has been poorly considered, and prominent members of its New England board have already resigned in the face of anger and sadness from many in the Massachusetts Jewish community. Still no national press on this, though – only the Boston Globe seems to be following the story.

Are the Netroots getting impatient with Senator Leahy? This front page diary at dKos is very ho-hum about our senior Senator's most recent deadline for subpoenas information and its apparent two week grace period. Speaking of Leahy, I've put up a poll as to whether or not readers think he deserves credit for Rove's abandoning the ship, as Watercloset suggests. UPDATE: Kagro X registers his frustration as well at dKos.

Is Brian Dubie sucking up to Bill O'Reilly? That's what O'Reilly claims, and the Democrats are all over it. Can't appease a bully that way, Dubes – it only makes 'em get worse.

Belated congratulations to Dem consultant and political usual suspect Matt Levin on his wedding last week. (With his family in town, if you were in the Montpelier area last week and thought you saw Rep. Sander Levin or Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, you may not have been imagining things).

Rep. Avis Gervais is my rep. She's a very conservative Catholic Democrat in a conservative, Republican-dominated district. The Republicans don't run candidates against her because they wouldn't win if they did.

(I unexpectedly ended up back on Martha's Vineyard this weekend, but I had a chance to get in a quick diary…)

Even casual readers have probably gathered that the Gubernatorial race is stressing me out. The old election calendar in Vermont, which says you can kick it around the first part of the election year and not come out as a candidate until April or May, is a ticket to utter and complete failure for so many reasons. At the top of that list is that, to be taken seriously by the Press Corps who loooooove Jim Douglas, you have to come into the traditional election period already with a big head of steam (read: money, enthusiasm, poll numbers and momentum) which requires an early start (like, NOW) to a serious ground game. But the lack of a candidate has created a vacuum. Shumlin and others have tried to fill the vacuum with Republican Senator Vince Illuzzi. Given that the A-listers on the political bench refuse to consider taking on Douglas, I've been trying to fill the vacuum from completely off the bench with our international superstar, Bill McKibben.

But the other option is to look deeper onto the bench, which could open up more potential names (none of them well known across the state, but that doesn't seem to be an option, frankly. Whoever goes for is going to have to make themselves known to the state before the traditional beginning of the campaign season – next summer – to have a chance). Among those names are Democratic women, who many feel would be a more ideal foil to Jim Douglas's condescending campaign stylings.

Click after the fold for some possible female candidates from deeper on the Dem bench. Feel free to add your own thoughts or candidates in the discussion, and take a minute to fill out the poll of who you think might be a viable candidate…

The first place to look is on the list of Senators, given that they come with a bigger geographic constituency. Those Senators that have to struggle to get in every time are probably not the safest bets. This would leave off Sara Kittell of Franklin County, and unfortunately Susan Bartlett of Lamoille, who is one of the sharpest and most skilled legislators we have. Neither would necessarily deliver their own county to the Dems, however, and would face a strong likelihood of being replaced by an R, so I hesitate to encourage either to consider such a promotion.

Then there are some safe Senators who likely own their seats who don't seem to have the fire in the belly for such a run. Ann Cummings of Washington County seems to fit right where she is. Ginny Lyons of Chittenden also, even though she is one of the most reliable progressive voices. Then there is Hinda Miller, who very likely was on a statewide trajectory until she hit a wall in the form of Bob Kiss and the Burlington mayoral race.

Jane Kitchel of Caledonia County has a solid resume for the position, but hasn't held her seat in the swing county long enough to seem solid – and again, her departure would likely turn the seat back into the red column.

For a few others who haven't held the positions for long, the story might be different. Jeanette White of Windham County holds a seat that would not turn over to GOP hands. White is well liked by the liberal base but doesn't immediately strike one as the sort that is looking beyond her county's borders. Fellow Senators Alice Nitka (D-Windsor) – and particularly Claire Ayer (D-Addison). Nitka is relatively quiet, but served several terms as a state Representative from a swing, gold-town dominated district before moving up to Senator. In that position, she had to stay friendly with a variety of constituencies – including ski resorts, frustrated antiAct 60 types, and the hunter/sportsmen crowd that she is still tight with. Ideologically, that's put her on shaky ground with many issues near and dear to the left, but she has shown unquestionable ability to make cross-ideological friends. Not necessarily a real go-get 'em type, though.

Claire Ayer, on the other hand, is a different story. Ayer was on the edge of a leadership position in the Senate caucus before Campbell and Shumlin worked out their deal, and likely stands to move up if Shumlin faces a mutiny after the next biennium. Ayer is highly charismatic, has been a solid legislator, and gets in front of many issues near and dear to the base. She is also very sharp and well-liked by many and of all the 'B' listers on the bench is one with some of the clearest 'A' list potential. Coming from solidly Democratic performing Addison County, Ayer could make a difficult statewide run without leaving the seat in jeopardy (as Nitka probably could as well).

Moving on from the Senate, the House doesn't yield the obvious options. There are some potential rising stars there, but for the most part, the Representatives seem very much a part of their districts, and in most cases it's hard to imagine them campaigning beyond them, or having any interest in doing so. Even Majority Leader Carolyn Partridge (D-Windham) who is a talented legislator, politically seems very Windham-4. Janet Ancel also has the resume, but it's still a controversial resume after her time at the tax department that she needs to develop more in the legislature. This is not to say that some of them wouldn't be great Governors (I would love to see a Mitzi Johnson administration…), but I'm just not seeing it.

One exception might be Johanna Leddy Donovan of Burlington who has certainly put in the legislative time, has developed the credentials, and as such could deliver Burlington and much of Chittenden County. Sue Minter of Waterbury is another who has all the right stuff as far as smarts and charisma and communication skills and is someone who should be considered a rising star – but likely hasn't put in the time in the electoral world to justify such a jump as truly viable.

Another name from way off the bench who recently popped up in the context of the Vermont Obama fundraiser is Jane Watson Stetson. Stetson has been a Democratic regular for a long time, and is one of the go-to funders for Democratic candidates. Campaign finance laws being what they are (or rather, what they aren't) the wealthy, charismatic and socially active/conscious Stetson could jump start a dark horse campaign with her own money and connections, and if she sold herself correctly to the public could potentially work up a head of steam and interest between now and next summer. Obviously, she hasn't got the experience and comes with no constituency – as opposed to the other names who have a constituency but would have a devil of a time raising the money. The question is, which handicap is more limiting – and that's a tougher question to answer than it may seem at first glance.

So there are a few names to jumpstart the conversation. Any others? Below is a vote-as-many-times-as-you-want poll as to who you might consider a viable candidate for the top post.

 Loading ...

Jose Padilla, center, is escorted to a waiting police vechicle by federal marshals in this Jan. 5, 2006, file photo. He has been on trial in Miami for most of this year, charged with conspiring with al Qaeda to detonate a “dirty bomb” in the United States. Photo by J. Pat Carter, AP

On Thurday August 16 2007 A federal jury convicted Jose Padilla of three counts of conspiracy in a trial that was the culmination of five years of a criminal proceeding that is among the most shameful in the history of the United States justice system.

I am not an apologist for Jose Padilla, I belong to no “Free Jose” organizations nor am I a member of any “Jose Padilla defense funds,” although maybe I should have been, maybe we all should have been because when they throw away the keys to Padilla’s cell we will also throw away any pretense to being a nation of laws, a nation that respects human rights, we will throw away a large measure of what once made us a great and civilized nation.

I am also not a terrorist, nor am I a member of any terrorist organization and that declaration alone, in the modern, mandatory, cocoon of fear within which we are now required to live by governmental decree, is probably enough to have a tap placed on my phone and a couple of guys who look like the Blues Brothers parked in front of my house at odd hours. After all, if I have nothing to hide, why would I bring it up. Under the new Department of Justice rule book I must be indictable for something.

Jose Padilla was arrested over five years ago in May of 2002, picked up in Chicago after returning  from Europe and allegedly carrying over 10 grand in cash. He was held for  about a month as a material witness before Attorney General John Ashcroft delayed a trip to Moscow in order to announce that the US had discovered a plot to explode “dirty bombs” inside the country. Padilla was branded as the “Dirty Bomber” and George Bush declared him to be an illegal enemy combatant.

Padilla was a small time criminal, a US citizen born in Brooklyn, he had lived in Chicago and been a member of a street gang known as the Maniac Latin Disciples. He had been in prison at least once for aggravated assault after a gang member died as a result of fight in which he was involved. While in prison Padilla converted to Islam under the tutelage of someone who is reported to have preached a non violent, mainstream version of the religion. He attended mosques in Florida for years with one of the men who was convicted with him.

Padilla was probably a bad actor, I have seen nothing in his resume that would lead me to hire him as a youth counselor, but was he a terrorist? Who knows? That is the problem.

Had the government arrested him and presented it’s evidence in a court of law, as is done every day, in conspiracies great and small in every city in this country, had Padilla been afforded the guarantees of the constitution of the nation of which he was a citizen, we might have learned the truth.

Now we probably never will, because what the government did was search for shortcuts, the law was inconvenient, due process, criminal procedure, rights of the accused, all that stuff was an impediment to the speedy production of positive results in their war on terror public relations campaign, which followed on the heels of 9/11 and continues unabated to this day.

Padilla was shipped off to a Naval brig in Charleston to spend the next three and one half years in total isolation, held in constant darkness, or constant light, under extremes of temperature, subjected to physical and psychological “enhanced interrogation methods,” the Bush administration’s Orwellian euphemism for torture. And the government got nothing. Nothing.

When all was said and done, after more than three years of criminal treatment, the government, faced with the likelihood that the courts were about to require them to put up or shut up, finally indicted Padilla on the three conspiracy charges of which, last week, he was ultimately convicted.

Padilla was never charged with being a member of al Queada, he was never charged with being a dirty bomber, he was not indicted on nor was he ever charged with any what was alleged at the beginning of this exercise in injustice over three years before.

Our current Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales last week called the conviction of Jose Padilla and his co-conspirators ” a significant victory in our efforts to fight the threat posed by terrorists and their supporters.”

If holding an American citizen or anyone else, for years, years, in military custody, without charging him with a crime, subjecting him to torture during the entire period, and then failing to indict or convict him of anything close to what they originally alleged is “a significant victory” then it helps me to understand their constant claims of significant progress in Iraq or in the “War on Terror.”

Make no mistake, this was no victory. This was a failure of our system of justice deliberately brought about by an executive department and two Attorneys General who had, and have, nothing but, disdain, in fact, utter contempt for the American system of justice and for due process of law.

I’m not bleeding for Jose Padilla here, I doubt if Jose even knows who he is at this point.

By accounts  that I have read he has been driven insane by the circumstances of his confinement. It is reported that as part of the process of breaking him down he was forced to sign documents with the name “John Doe.” One of their goals was to relieve him of his personal identity, they succeeded, all too well.

The government on Thursday convicted “John Doe” of three counts of conspiring to participate in terrorist acts. They can do the same to me, more importantly, they can do the same to you.

They have spared no expense of time, energy and money over the last six years. they have gone to great lengths in establishing shortcuts that enable them to investigate, arrest, imprison and torture any one they want, at any time and for any reason.

To this government, this Cheney/Bush administration, this criminal enterprise that is destroying America one liberty at a time, we are all, each and every one of us “John Doe.”

Bob Higgins

Worldwide Sawdust

Related Story
Window Into a Terror Suspect’s Isolation

An excerpt:

“I don’t want to make it sound like Fair Haven’s completely archaic, but they had to shut down the gay/straight alliance at our high school because there were so many threats,” Holden says.

That happened just before his freshman year. He wanted to revive it, but others were reluctant.

“Even the teacher who was running it got threats. Coming out shouldn’t be as difficult as it is. Gay news on TV and in newspapers is all about the struggle. There are happy sides to being gay. Some people actually get ‘happily ever after’ or as close as you can get. I think there are a lot of people who could use a story like this.”

Even so, Holden’s five-word explanation of “I just like helping people” may not seem reason enough for an introvert to speak out so publicly. And so you ask one more time about his motivation that freshman year.

From
Gay teen says state isn’t always so civil, Rutland Herald, 8/19/2007

Vermont’s got a reputation for being pro-gay; we did Civil Unions back when they were uncool, and we’ve got a reputation for being a lefty state, but it’s really a lot more complicated than that.  There are major lefty elements here, but they intersect with reactionary wingnut elements in strange and bizarre ways.  Don’t get me wrong: I love Vermont, but a lot of nasty homophobic stuff came out during the civil unions meetings and there were some real prejudices unveiled during that time and even for the next couple years later.

Anyway, I posted the above excerpt (and it’s worth reading the whole article) because I think it reflects what a lot of us go through, regardless of when and where we come out.