Vermont lawmakers conducted a high-profile grilling of FairPoint honchos, demanding answers about the abject failure of this corporate little-engine-that-couldn’t that swooped in to take over Verizon’s internet and telephone services, over the concerns voiced by Unions (and others). At this point, of course, the stories about the many problems are inescapable – all of which extend from the inability to make FairPoint’s existing systems integrate with the established Verizon ones (after all, its the same staffers and the same systems here on the ground that were working just fine before… it aint the locals’ fault).

Of course today was largely a dog and pony show for the press and public. The Public Service Board is hardly going to de-certify FairPoint to operate in Vermont, as nobody knows exactly what that would even mean. Politicians just wanted to tell FairPoint executives that they really, really want things to improve, and were looking for some reassurance that they will, and that FairPoint isn’t about to slip into bankruptcy, which would also take us into unknown territory.

And yet, despite the tepid reassurances to the contrary, bankruptcy is exactly where FairPoint is going – and soon. A quick glance at what that might mean for customers and local workers after the flip…

Stock marketeers can read the tea leaves. FairPoint’s stock is in the crapper. Valued at below a dollar, they may end up dropped from the New York Stock Exchange. The situation is simply not sustainable. Word is (and I don’t have links for this) that they have approached their investors for wiggle room – either more money, or the conversion of some debts to stock, etc – but haven’t gotten very far.

This doesn’t signal bankruptcy in and of itself, but insiders do believe Chapter 11 is on the way. Chapter 11 does not mean liquidation, it means reorganization. Debts and obligations are put on hold while a plan for recovery is put into place. That plan must meet certain criteria and be approved by creditors, as well as the court, otherwise liquidation could end up on the table. All this means that day to day operations should not be affected, but don’t expect service problems to get much better during this period.

Everything can be on the table for reorganizing the business, including (under Chapter 11, Subchapter 1, Section 1113 of the bankruptcy code) collective bargaining agreements.

If a company petitions under Section 1113, the court has 30 days to rule, and they could rule virtually any way they want. Unions are going to be at a disadvantage in this process (aren’t they always?) as the secured creditors (such as banks) will be the big dogs in the reorganization and will be major drivers in the process. The Unions will likely try to negotiate with FairPoint to avoid the 1113 process which could get ugly for them – particularly in an unfriendly bankruptcy court.

About 80% of the 640 FairPoint employees in Vermont are Union members – either the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers or the Communications Workers of America. These folks are not the people responsible for this mess, of course, and were in fact the very ones trying to tell everyone that this was a bad idea in the first place.

And unlike the banks that have invested in FairPoint and will have the most influence in the reorganization process, nobody in Washington is standing by to bail them out.

Without question, workers in Vermont and across New England will have targets on their heads in this process. FairPoint will grab the best lawyers, make sure the court will be one unfriendly to labor, and will try to get away with what they can at the expense of the Unions.

What do the Unions have going for them in this process? What they always do – they are the people who actually make it all work. You can’t “reorganize” a broken company, and if they push the already-stressed workforce on the ground, things could well break.

And then nobody gets anything.

Let’s Not Kid Ourselves: What ACORN Staffers Did When Two Conservative Activists Showed Up At Their Offices Posing As a Prostitute and a Pimp Was Incredibly Stupid — and the Agency is Long Overdue for a Major Housecleaning — But Make No Mistake: The Activists’ Video Expose is Part of a Years-Long Right-Wing Campaign to Destroy ACORN — and Was Likely Conducted Illegally

(Posted 5:00 a.m. EDT Thursday, September 24, 2009)

==================

GUEST COMMENTARY

==================

By JOHN WELLINGTON ENNIS

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), an umbrella organization of community groups that serves poor people in major cities across the country through housing, legal advocacy, family services and higher wages, has lost all federal funding, after decades of working for low-income, disadvantaged Americans.

That the House of Representatives has moved swiftly on anything is stunning in and of itself. More stunning, this is in response to a single independent report by conservative activists, with no follow-up investigation, no hearings — not even being provided a copy of the full, unedited videotapes shot by conservative activists James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles at ACORN offices in New York, Baltimore and Washington.

This is serious stuff here. This is not a game of gotcha, of cheap political points, of practical jokes – not when this is money that helps in many real ways in impoverished communities around our country.

====================

ACTIVIST BEHIND EXPOSE ADMITS POLITICAL MOTIVE

It is vital to assess how this backlash was accepted so quickly in light of videos that were from someone whose films are funded by conservative backers, videos that misrepresented ACORN through editing and not disclosing other failed attempts at their desired response, and may well have been dubbed over, if O’Keefe would dare to release the unedited tapes in their real context to prove otherwise.

A significant reason that this ACORN backlash has moved through Congress like Montezuma’s Revenge is that this particular hidden camera stunt had the ring of “child prostitution” in it, which most politicians of either party would run from rather than dispute its irrelevance. “Anyone defending ACORN is for child prostitution” is an immediate fallacious meme. It’s not like we’re talking about the Catholic Church here, which still gets federal funding.

Noteworthy is that there have not been any previous allegations between child prostitution and ACORN. In this weekend’s Los Angeles Times, O’Keefe himself asserts that this ruse had  nothing to do with prostitution, importing underage sex workers, or tax help for starting up a business:

“Politicians are getting elected single-handedly due to this organization,” he said. “No one was holding this organization accountable. No one in the media is putting pressure on them. We wanted to do a stunt and see what we could find.”

That’s what this is really about: the elections, and the threat that has been hyped tirelessly that ACORN is in some way stealing your vote.

Before I digress into the long campaign to smear ACORN because of its successful voter registration, I don’t want to be accused to changing the subject to the elections. O’Keefe clearly stated that is what these stunts were about from the beginning.

There is much to dispute in O’Keefe’s quote. There is no evidence whatsoever that politicians are getting elected single-handedly by ACORN, and it is a wild exaggeration. Many claims of voter fraud are made, few instances ever occur.

What has been distorted is that these allegations surround voter registrations, not actual votes, and that ACORN has regularly flagged forms that were incomplete, duplicate, or unverifiable. By law, anyone collecting voter registration forms has to turn in all that are used, even if they know the forms will not be processed.

Far-fetched is the idea that no one in the media has been putting pressure on ACORN. That O’Keefe would even think ACORN could elect politicians single-handedly is because of Fox News’ rampant coverage and conflation of ACORN conspiracies and allegations, to the extent that John McCain worked it into his stump speech by the end of the 2008 presidential election.

RIGHT-WING ANTI-ACORN CAMPAIGN TIED TO U.S. ATTORNEY FIRINGS

The red herring of voter fraud as an excuse to deny others the right to vote is a well-worn claim. Voter suppression, specifically using the fear of “voter fraud” to advance voter suppression, is a topic I have explored and documented in-depth in my documentary “Free For All!” which you can see online for free right now.  I also produced a video about ACORN with Video the Vote focusing on the fraud of voter fraud.

David Iglesias, a Republican U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, investigated allegations of voter fraud throughout the state at the urging of Republican leaders, and when he found no evidence and would not prosecute falsely, he was fired, as asserted by Iglesias in his testimony before Congress and e-mails recently declassified from former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove.

But again, I don’t want to be accused of dodging the issue — I am just looking to rebut the persistent falsehood which directly affected this kid’s motivation to punk a community organization into losing millions of dollars to help the poor.

O’Keefe is comparable to the FBI informant who brought down the Bronx terrorist plot — only that there would not have been any actual plot were it not for this FBI informant actively recruiting mentally challenged Muslims from mosques for this plot, which apparently involved entrapping people who were dumb enough to listen to him.

O’Keefe could well have actually attempted to show something about ACORN’s voting registration controversies — like speaking to registrants who admitted falsifying voter registration forms, or followed up on who registered and who voted, or even interview ACORN directly. But none of those would have involved a minister’s daughter dressing slutty, so you can’t really blame him.

O’KEEFE A MASTER MANIPULATOR

So it came to pass that in this effort to dispute voter registration that Giles and O’Keefe conceived of the worst sounding scandal they could invoke, and traveled the country to ACORN offices across the country to find someone to take their time to humor them in the improv game of “Yes, And.”

And they eventually found some clueless ACORN employees, people far too eager to offer good customer service than employ any common sense. A couple of workers comply with O’Keefe’s outlandish inquiry for underage brothels in dispensing tax advice.

The well-publicized clips are shocking enough, and have been exploited as much as any couple of minutes of video can be. Glenn Beck taunted other networks for not covering it. Even Jon Stewart bunted on it, as if his guest interview were Sistah Souljah.  As a potent testament to Stewart’s “Most Trusted Newsman” gatekeeper status, the House the next day voted to cut all federal funding for ACORN.

It is worth noting here that what transpired on O’Keefe’s videotape were conversations about hypothetical situations-not actual prostitution, no actual crime, and not proof of an agency-wide policy or program involving prostitution or illegal immigrants. In fact, O’Keefe’s experiment proves this — that several other ACORN offices would not be ensnared by their absurd scenario, and turned away these provocateurs. One office in Philadelphia filed a police report because they were alarmed by the pair.

O’KEEFE APPARENTLY VIOLATED MARYLAND STATE LAW ON SURREPTITIOUS RECORDING . . .

Ironically, the only thing illegal in some of these tapes is that O’Keefe was filming illegally at ACORN’s Baltimore office. States like California and Maryland have strict consent laws about surreptitious recording, which is why the news and entertainment industries have long figured out workarounds for hidden cameras. (Hint: Las Vegas.)

As the right-wing crankosphere raves over how the media didn’t uncover this, it is worth pointing out that not only are the tactics against the standard of journalism, the lack of disclosure and misrepresentation pushes this expose well out of the range of journalism and in to the realm of entrapment.

As it was, O’Keefe had to misrepresent a conversation where a woman stated up front that their inquiry was illegal, but played along because she figured it was a gag. Another misrepresentation by Fox News was the breathless uproar about a woman who joked that she had killed her husband — Well, after it was established that her husband was alive, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and others kept repeating the ridiculous claim for another day, demanding an investigation, since they obviously didn’t have the resources as a major “news” network to confirm that this guy was alive.

. . . AND PULLED A RACIALLY-MOTIVATED SCAM ON PLANNED PARENTHOOD

Nor is this O’Keefe’s first foray into being the Tucker Max of conservative hacks. He pulled a stunt on Planned Parenthood entrapping receptionists and donation representatives into conversations where he said he wanted to kill off black people, while his compatriot Lila Rose called and claimed to be underage to see if the clinics would report statutory rape.

(Lila Rose just recently called for abortions to be held in public squares to create the mass gross-out that would therefore make them all illegal).

In a detailed response from ACORN’s chief executive, Bertha Lewis, and its executive director, Steven Kest :

“O’Keefe has a sordid history of preying on receptionists and other front-line service workers for respected organizations. In 2008, he pulled a similar stunt on Planned Parenthood when he and another female colleague secretly recorded phone conversations with staff who handle fundraising calls at a few of the organization’s affiliates.

“During the calls, O’Keefe pretended to be interested in setting up funds for low-income women in need of health care. Once the conversation hit a comfortable stride, O’Keefe would change his tune and explain, in explicit language, that his real intent was to target women of color in an effort to control minority populations. The audio recordings were edited in an attempt to make it appear that Planned Parenthood was complicit in accepting donations for racist purposes.

“O’Keefe’s intent then, as it is now, was to entrap an organization whose mission he is ideologically opposed to, and masquerade his efforts as investigative journalism rather than the propaganda videos they are.”

OTHER RACIALLY-CHARGED AND SEXIST STUNTS BY O’KEEFE

And in college, O’Keefe showed women their place with his video wit, as reported by Media Matters:

As a Rutgers University undergraduate, O’Keefe videotaped a classmate distributing to a Women in Culture and Society lecture a handout that emphasized that a “good wife always knows her place.”

And most tastefully of all, O’Keefe drove around posing as a Publisher’s Clearinghouse van offering big checks to people — nearly all of them black — only to taunt them that the money is what was going to bank bailouts.

Do not-so-subtly racist or sexist stunts count in courts of law? Shouldn’t there be a requirement that they at least be funny, besides mean for the sake of mean?

Is this same adolescent accountability accepted by defense contractors, when Blackwater and its owner Eric Prince are implicated in murder?  He just keeps getting contracts.

Representative Darrel Issa (R-California) sent out a letter bragging of cutting ACORN’s money for all of us, then asked us to give him money. Issa’s hometown of San Diego has had political scandals that have led to actual convictions, not simply recordings of speculative conversations. Isn’t it time to slash San Diego’s federal funding? All of this is not to get off subject, though. Whatever angry conservatives want to insist the subject is.

It is natural for many to shirk away from defending ACORN in light of this footage. But this particular exchange is not just cherry-picked — it was planted, nurtured, and harvested, the latest attempt to take down an organization that empowers the numbers that vote Republicans out of office.

(John Wellington Ennis is a filmmaker whose most recent documentary, “Free For All!” was hailed by critic Roger Ebert as “engrossing, even enraging.” His production company, Shoot First Inc., in Beverly Hills, specializes in unscripted entertainment, such as documentaries, reality TV, comedy, and live music. He blogs at johnennis.tv. This commentary first appeared at ThePublicRecord.org.)

# # #

Guest Commentary Copyright 2009, The Public Record. Re-posted by permission.

The ‘Skeeter Bites Report Copyright 2009, Skeeter Sanders. All rights reserved.

• A rose, by any other name… “A Community Resource Network” (ACoRN) based out of Lebanon NH is a nonprofit HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C support organization. Apparently there is another organization that uses that acronym. And that other organization has been getting bad national press. What are the odds?

  Anyway, ACoRN (with the little “o”) is apparently getting grief from people confusing them with ACORN, and would like people to know that they are in no way connected.

• A belated shout out to Steve Benen, Vermont blogger extraordinaire, for being such a rock star. Take that Dobbs.
• Wow. Totten writes this and this. Colby writes this and this. Then Totten writes this (at the bottom). Man, that was fast.
• Speaking of Totten, today’s piece on all things Senatorial indicates that longtime Vermont Labor stalwart Ralph Montefusco might run for State Senate. Personally, I’d love to see that happen. Run Ralph, run!
• Speaking of Seven Days, Lauren Ober cracks me up.
• Yeah, that’ll work. In case you haven’t yet read on the sidebar, perennial Liberty Union 50th place candidate Boots Wardinski is boldly volunteering to save the Progressive Party from… er… David Zuckerman. For a preview of how well that’s gonna go over, click here.
• Speaking of the Zuckster, I don’t usually point people to official-institutional blogs like the Prog Blog, but the Burlington Representative has initiated a conversation over there about his consideration of a run on the Dem Primary ballot for Lite Guv. Interesting reading.
• Every now and then Mark Johnson emails me to let me know of something I missed on his show that I should hear or that might inform discussion on the site, as I usually dont have the opportunity to stream it. Or so I thought. I think the real reason I “forget” is those god-awful commercials for Montpelier coffee shop Capitol Grounds. Uhhhhhh… it haunts my dreams…..

[Cross-posted (obviously) at Broadsides.org]

While Vermont’s current Lieutenant Governor, Brian Dubie, dithers to and fro about his re-election plans and other oft-mentioned possible candidates like Rep. David Zuckerman put out political feelers by asking questions about themselves in the third-person (i.e. “What should David Zuckerman do?”), Newbury’s Boots Wardinski is cutting to the chase: He’s in. Period.

But wait. There is one wrinkle.

In an exclusive phone call with Broadsides.org, Wardinski announced that he’d be seeking the office of Vermont’s number two job in the Progressive Party’s primary in September 2010.

“I know what I want. I know where I stand. And I know how to use first-person pronouns, as in: I’m running for lieutenant governor of Vermont in the Progressive Party’s primary because I firmly believe in alternative parties and my stand on the issues.”

When asked for specifics, Wardinski rattled off a list of political stands that included the immediate shutdown of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, universal health care coverage for all Vermonters in a publicly-funded system, a halt to public employee layoffs, and an immediate withdrawal of all Vermont service members currently fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and “who the hell knows where else.”

“See, being specific isn’t hard,” declared Wardinski. “I just wish my opponents would do the same by stopping their media games and starting a substantive debate on the issues. If Brian Dubie and David Zuckerman don’t know what to do, they should step aside and let those who believe in what they’re doing – and thinking – lead.”

Wardinski is a horse logger, landscaper, farmer, maple sugar maker, and political activist in Vermont, where he’s lived for nearly thirty years. He currently serves as the president of the Capital City Farmers’ Market in Montpelier, the founding co-director of Horse Loggers for Peace in an undisclosed location, and a member of Veterans for Peace.

Wardinski has been arrested on numerous occasions in acts of civil disobedience, including actions against continued funding of the Iraq War (before it was popular), against the use of genetic-modified organisms (GMO’s), and against military recruitment of Vermont’s citizens.

Political observers may wonder why Wardinski is entering the Progressive Party’s primary after being a key historical figure – along with Bernie Sanders — in Vermont’s Liberty Union Party. The answer, according to Wardinski, is simple:

“I truly believe in alternatives – many alternatives! – to the two-party duopoly that has a stranglehold on our state and national political system. And when I saw that the Progressive Party’s Zuckerman was beginning his game of footsie with the Democrats, I knew someone had to step up and demonstrate that those alternatives have to be celebrated, not co-opted. Unlike Zuckerman, I believe what I say about the two-party hegemony that has led to wars, a lack of health care, and the gross inequality between the rich and poor.”

Wardinski is referring, of course, to the reports being circulated by Zuckerman himself that he is considering a complete abandonment of his previously held positions regarding alternative parties by entering the lt. governor’s race as a Democrat.

“Zuckerman’s basically issuing one, big ‘nevermind’ to his constituents,” said Wardinski. “I guess that’s what it takes to be a Democrat or Republican. You know, just like Obama was going to ‘stop the wars.’ Nevermind, indeed.”

Broadsides attempted to contact uber-Vermont political commentators Eric Davis and Garrison Nelson for a comment on Wardinski’s announcement but we were informed that they “were napping.” [Editor’s note: Poor fellas, they must be tired from trying to make the bland seem so relevant for all these years.]

Wardinski promised to be making an announcement about his campaign staff in the very near future. Stay tuned.

It was a shock when I was flipping through Tuesday’s Free Press looking for the comics and the crossword puzzle and stumbled over a photo of someone I knew who was in his 40s on the obit page.

In the last couple of years Tom Belrose worked with VPIRG, the Vermont Democratic Party, and Vermont Freedom to Marry. I met him when he became the VDP field organizer for Franklin County and worked with him often over the election season from August to November last year. I pointed him at Vermont Freedom to Marry when he was looking for a job last spring, and he became the Franklin-Lamoille Field Organizer working to get marriage equality through the legislature and enough support for representatives to vote to override the governor’s veto. He was a persistent and dogged worker, nearly always cheerful, always trying to help.

The car accident in which he died was a head-on collision on narrow two-lane road near the Montgomery-Belvidere town lines, and Tom was pronounced dead at the scene (he drove an old Jetta, I think, pre-airbag). The other driver is still in the hospital, with ‘non-life-threatening injuries.’

He bought me a beer a couple of weeks ago at our Franklin County “First Friday” liberal bar gathering, which is the last time I saw him. When I last talked to him on the phone, he was worrying about whether Franklin County employers were not calling him back because of the Freedom to Marry work on his resume – which, as a straight man, he did because he believed in social justice for everyone.

He also smoked like a chimney, greeted nearly everyone with “How we doin’ today?”, was perpetually running behind schedule, and was wont to make erroneous declarations of ‘fact’ on some subjects, although if presented with actual facts would admit he might not know as much as he thought he did.

And he was a good guy with a good heart and a dedication to spending what turned out to be 44 years making this corner of the world a better place to live in.

His wake and funeral are Friday Sept. 25 in Swanton at the Kidder Funeral Home, with visiting hours starting at 1 pm immediately followed at 3 pm with funeral services and interment.

Hug your families, call your friends: we never know when our time is up.

His family has requested that in lieu of flowers, those who wish to commemorate Tom’s life donate to a college fund for his daughter, Leah Michelle Belrose, c/o Michelle Hubbell, P.O. Box 71, Johnson, VT 05656. 

“We continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements (in the West Bank),” [President Obama] said in a maiden speech to the 192-member body.

(Continued Israeli settlements in West Bank not legitimate: Obama, Raw Story, 09/23/09)

(cross-posted from Integralpsychosis.com)

I have two separate but equally effective proposals to make that will drastically and surely make Vermont a much, much better place for all of us.  OK, not for all of us, ’cause there are a handful of people that gain from the backwards, nonsensical world that Governor Douglas and his corporate stooges have built and continue to weasel us towards.  These status-quo capitalists, as many of us are now familiar, have a simple program of claiming corporate greed and profiteering as “freedom” and simultaneously decrying the collective action of the people to take care of ourselves- for ourselves as well as our most vulnerable and downtrodden neighbors- as anti-freedom, socialistic (which somehow means “bad”) coming-of-the-anti-christ evil.  But for the vast majority of us, these two suggestions would be net positives.  As a result of my first proposal, farming on the scale that fits the Vermont landscape and social climate (i.e., relatively “small scale” farming, at least as compared to the big ag of the Midwest and California) would be a sustainable enterprise, as far and the financial field of view is concerned.  Dairy farms would no longer be servants to out of control processing conglomerates who make record profits while the farms who supply their milk fold or file for bankruptcy at the steady pace of ‘taps’ on the funeral drum.  As a result of my second proposal, the social services and safety net which takes care of our most needy friends and family, which as well provides and nurtures a great many of the finer aspects of life in Vermont which we’ve come to enjoy (not to mention the ordinary aspects of life, like going to the DMV), would be not only saved from the pillaging efforts of the Douglas Administration, but would possibly even thrive and grow to be better, more efficient, and more outstanding.

My first suggestion is for the diary farmers of Vermont to dump obscene quantities of milk into Lake champlain.  Seriously.  French dairy farmers, facing conditions quite similar to Vermont dairy farmers, recently decided to dump obscene amounts of milk into a well-known, public and touristy waterway, and not only did their action garner international attention (I read about it in the Times-Argus) but I’d be willing to bet that it helps lead to a resolution of their grievance.  Elsewhere in France, as well as in the Netherlands and Germany, dairy farmers have been on strike- refusing to deliver their milk- in protest of the low amount they’re being paid (bellow the cost of production) and while some have chosen to collectively dump their milk (cows have to be milked, whether you’re on strike or not) in high-profile places, others still throughout Europe have been donating their milk to neighbors and the needy, while yet others have taken the direct action of raiding grocery stores and giving their product away free to shoppers.

And I promise that if Vermont’s dairy farmers did the same, their woes (and ours, in fact) would be largely over.

OK, these actions won’t end all of society’s ills.  But between mega-conglomerate producers like Dean Foods and the political elites who must put the best face of “taking care of the little guy” forward in order to keep their jobs, to the myriad of economic interests wrapped-up in not only dairy farming but agriculture in general, I assure you that the powers that be will act quickly to ensure that Vermont dairy farmers get whatever it is they demand in order to stop dumping (or giving away for free) their milk.  This will greatly effect the rest of us (who don’t milk cows for a living): for starters, the continued existence of dairy farmers throughout Vermont ensures the survival of open space and preservation of our majestic hillsides and valleys.  The environment (and “environmentalists”, who I guess are defined as people who like having a clean, healthy place to live) would obviously benefit as the micro-ecological zones of Vermont would continue to allow for an abundance of wildlife both big and small to flourish free of the cancer of mindless development.  This, of course, effects our incredibly important (like it or not) (and I don’t) tourist industry and the billions of dollars which we live off because people from somewhere else want to see our wilderness and farm-scapes and rolling hills, etc.  Which, of course, keeps many of us employed in restaurants and hotels, and ski resorts and building condos, etc, etc.  Plus, the rest of the Vermont farming community (who aren’t in the traditional dairy business) would be expected to be inspired, excited by the power of the diary farmer’s victory and perhaps even begin taking collective action for their needs and conditions- suddenly the whole State could be in an uproar about food security and availability and affordability and sustainability!  It would be Scott Nearing’s goddamn utopia around here!

A bit more seriously though, the economic as well as social interests in Vermont which would not be willing to stand for such bad PR- to say nothing of the heated political climate- would act quickly to ensure, in whatever way they can, that our dairy farmers get paid a fair, livable wage for their milk.  Everyone, except for the processing conglomerates and the political hacks like Douglas who support their free-market hubaloo, would win.

My second proposal is for the State employees to go on strike.  Immediately.  Wildcat if necessary (a “wildcat strike”, if you don’t know, is a strike either by workers who don’t have a recognized union, or who individually or as a group chose to go on strike without perhaps the formalistic, legalized steps typically required for unions to go on strike).  I’m very serious here.  If you or your mate or one of your friends or family members work for the State of Vermont, please either consider or talk to them about considering going on strike as soon as humanly possible.  Obviously, if just one or two or ten people do it, not much is gonna happen except you’re quite likely to lose your job.  But if dozens, if hundreds or even more of you (they) do it, I’m certain big things would happen.  And I mean good big things.

Douglas and his worldview want to dismantle as much of the State’s services as possible, to leave the welfare of society out to bid to corporate interests that do a shitty job and which hoard obscene amounts of money into the pockets of their bosses and shareholders.  Listen, I don’t prefer that the State be our savior or our nanny- far, far from it actually- but the State is, at the least- a far more progressive entity than private, capitalist enterprise.  While private corporations are by definition the exploitation of most by and for the profit of the few, the liberal democratic State is, at the very least, an entity intended to bring about the betterment and survival of the collective whole.  The State has no CEO’s to pay, and no profit margin to push.  It seeks only the efficiant delivery of the services demanded of it by the public.

Personally, I would prefer to see neither the private corporation nor the State, but that’s for a different discussion.

In the meantime, the State of Vermont exists for what should be very basic reasons: namely, to provide for the collective good of all of ourselves.  When I’m down and need help I hope that society is there for me, and when I’m not, I hope that my success can provide for the help of someone else who may be down and in need.

And it is the workers of the State, from DMV clerks to IT specialists to Tax Department receptionists and welfare case workers and Health Department inspectors to do just that.  And if none of them (you) showed up for work tomorrow or next Monday, and even if you returned to work Tuesday (though better yet if you didn’t) you would immediately demonstrate the massively disproportionate amount of power that you hold over the Governor or any other politician or political entity which is looking to take your job.

Douglas is insisting on layoffs- so give it to him.  Let him, and the Vermont GOP and the Legislature and the powers that be and the political elite all see what life is like when every single State office, every single State phone, is dead.  No one at the desk, no one answering the phone.  No one processing the application.  If that’s the direction their “free market” ideology wants to take them, let it.  Let everyone in Vermont know the difference between you showing up to work- or having a job to even show up to!- and not.  Every politician from North Hero to Marlboro will be running in front of a camera to declare they’re on your side and want to ensure the security of your job.

And it’s that simple.  Farmers: dump your milk.  State workers: go on strike.  Both of these things, now.  And Vermont will continue to be a place of strong, rural agricultural traditions where our food is from here and our farmers are the anchors of our communities and their open lands provide for the economic as well and ecological and spiritual (for lack of a better word) fulfillment of ourselves and our neighbors; and Vermont will continue to be a place of increasing good will and social strength amongst peoples who come together for their own individual prosperity as well as that of their neighbors and community, especially the sick, the elderly, the disabled, the down-on-their-luck.

Here come the state job cuts – again. Needlessly.

The State Employees Union has been twisting itself into pretzels to find alternatives to cuts, coming up with creative ideas to spread the pain among members. VSEA came to the table offering 4 furlough days, 3 unpaid holidays and use to medical plan surpluses to plug the $7.4 million hole. Putting the lie to Douglas’s claim that the Union refused to look at longer term cost savings, the VSEA even offered to eliminate the dental plan, wellness program and tuition reimbursements for more than $5 million in savings for the next 2 fiscal years. These proposals actually exceeded Joint Fiscal’s “workforce reduction” goals. This is astonishing compromise.

But Jim Douglas is doing what he always does. Digging in on a predetermined, ideological agenda (slash jobs, quash the union, erode government services with an eye towards killing them off entirely), refusing to give an inch as his “opponents” (no, he does not look at anybody else as a “negotiating partner”) meet him 50, 60, 70% of the way. He sticks to his agenda and takes to the press to denounce how unreasonable the other side was and how intractable they were, forcing him to do what he always intended to do from the outset.

It’s sleazy. Dishonorable. Especially when dealing with real peoples’ lives. Apparently to Jim Douglas, state workers’ humanity begins and ends with their Union cards.

I’ve received a couple responses on this. One of them solid, another – good, but a bit concerning.  

From the combined press release out of the Speaker’s and Senate President Pro Tem’s offices:

We are gravely concerned that the impending layoffs of up to 300 state employees could have a devastating effect on state services. We will work with the Union and the Administration to lessen the impact that these layoffs could have on Vermonters.

“Lessen(ing) the impact” sounds dangerously close to rolling over, given that the new law requires Joint Fiscal to sign off on large scale job cuts. This game’s not over – or at least it shouldn’t be.

From a few miles up the road, the Racine campaign had this to say:

Putting more people in the unemployment line cannot help our economy, and cutting services when Vermonters need them most makes absolutely no sense. State employees were willing to make sacrifices, but the governor failed to negotiate a settlement which means more Vermont workers will be out on the street.

Let’s be clear. If the Administration wanted a deal, they could have had one. They kept changing the rules. It didn’t have to be this way.

And it doesn’t have to – yet.

UPDATE: Dan Barlow is all over this story like white on rice in today’s Times Argus.

Money quotes include:

“That is not what we would recommend,” Moulton-Powden said, when asked about Salmon’s idea. “We think that is too deep of a cut.”

AND:

When asked if he believes that an average Vermonter could live off of $300 a week, Salmon said “no.” But he quickly added that unemployment checks should not be seen as a form of income, but a “lifeline to the next job.”

If you’ve ever been unemployed, you know it’s no picnic. You lose your health insurance, you lose a reason to get up and get out in the morning, and, most of all, you lose most of your income. In Vermont, unemployment benefits, to oversimplify just a little, are 50% of your previous wages, up to a maximum of $425.00 a week. Obviously you can see that if you lost a job that paid you $850, $900, or even $1,000 a week, and suddenly you have to survive on $425, you’re in big trouble. Like trying to figure out whether to pay the house payment or the car payment trouble.

This afternoon Tom Salmon, who, at a minimum, has internalized the values of his new party masters, attended the summer study committee meeting  to evaluate mechanisms to improve the stability of Vermont’s unemployment trust fund, and he talked about benefit levels.

Although he didn’t testify, on his way out he said that not right now, but maybe in a year or so, it might be a good idea to save money by cutting the maximum unemployment benefit from $425 a week down to, oh, $300 a week.*

$300 a week to pay your rent, buy all your groceries, keep your utilities on, keep your car on the road, buy clothes for the kids. $300 a week.

I wasn’t there, but I’m told this didn’t go over that well even among the Republicans on the committee.

Is this the new convert, holier than the Pope phenomenon we’re seeing, or has he just lost it?

It’s almost getting to the point where we have to hope he does run for statewide office, isn’t it?

Oh yeah, one other thing. When every other state employee paid more than  $60,000 was taking a pay cut, Salmon was the only one who didn’t, right?  

*CORRECTION: GMD had earlier heard that Salmon had testified at the hearing. The diary has been corrected to reflect that his statement was not in the context of formal testimony to the committee.

Skeeter Sanders has had quite a bit of success posting on DailyKos and has recently started posting here at Green Mountain Daily. He’s been publishing The ‘Skeeter Bites Report since the end of ’05 and central VTers may also know him as the DJ of The Quiet Storm on 91.1 WGDR-FM.

We taped the day after Obama’s health care address, so we both had Joe Wilson on the brain. This clip begins as Skeeter is finishing up enumerated other less publicized instances of Republican boorishness during the presentation to both Houses. Then the discussion broadens:

I found Skeeter’s referencing of 1964 particularly fascinating, perhaps since I had just finished reading Rick Perlstein’s Nixonland.  The book traces both Nixon and the Republican Party’s journey from the political graveyard in 1964 to Nixon’s 1972 landslide. The undoing of the liberal consensus in the intervening years was in part stoked by larger events (Vietnam, urban riots) but Nixon had a large role in orchestrating a politics of division that remains today. Perlstein argues that Nixonland (Southern Strategy, the appeals to emotional and cultural discontents, the politics of resentment) defined the blue state/red state divide that became a cultural shorthand in this decade.

A prerequisite for the flipping of a liberal consensus to decades of a Republican White House (with interludes for Southern Democratic centrists) was the ideologically purifying campaign of Goldwater in 1964. What at the time was political suicide– a hard tack to the right during a liberal era– ended up creating just the contrasts necessary to capitalize on the collapse of that liberal era.

So at the risk of forwarding tortured historical analogies, is the present Republican public hissy fit a kind of purifying ritual that will reap them rewards in the future? Or are we witnessing something quite different, a wholesale shrinkage of a party that will have no claim to vast swaths of the electorate save religious regional voters?

Further, ideological purification as a prescription for a party out of power does not seem to ever be followed by the Democrats. The Democratic Party has not embraced its left flank in my lifetime although many a progressive has insisted that the key to success is to rhetorically and legislatively practice class politics and win the great majority of Americans who are not members of the overclass. When Rove was delusionally declaring a permanent Republican majority in 2004, it was a moment like 1964, where it appeared that the party out of power had been reduced to irrelevancy. The Democrats did not take that moment as a signal to ideologically purify; rather they enlarged the electorate and placed their bets with a biracial conciliator, a man who frequently evoked the other President from Illinois tasked with reuniting and healing a nation. They chose someone who is gifted in minimizing, as opposed to highlighting, contrasts.

But perhaps Perlstein’s formulation is for an era that has ended. He wrote Nixonland in 2008 and perhaps the election of Obama signalled that “there are no red states there are no blue states” anymore. Maybe the present ideological purification, this hard tack to the right we are witnessing as Republican madness, will result in further marginalization.  

Skeeter pointed out that when Bush lost his own party around immigration reform, it should have been an early warning sign of the extremism to follow. What we are seeing is an exorcism of Bush– with the party base refashioning itself hypocritically as deficit hawk America firsters. Maybe what we are witnessing this time is not the ideological purification of 1964, but the complete inability to compute the reality of a black President, resulting in a mass psychological breakdown.