(One of Julie Waters’ many, many contributions to GMD was her amazing nature photography — a wonderful palate-cleanser after our usual diet of politics and lefty snark. This diary, from last November, includes a good sampling of her work. Enjoy. – promoted by jvwalt)
Here are some photos of birds from my feeders in the last few weeks. Most were expected. One was a big surprise. Can you guess which one?
Recently, Lamoille and Washington County Democratic Committees passed resolutions (without dissent) urging the unnamed elected officials (by which was meant the Democratic Shumlin administration rather than, you know, Justices of the Peace…) to back off its public war with the Vermont State Employees Union over its double-time grievance for 80-some employees displaced by Irene, and instead simply allow the grievance process to run its course without the media sideshow. Supporters of these resolutions included an agenda item for a similar resolution to be voted on by the full State Committee at its scheduled meeting today.
New VDP Chair Jake Perkinson, however, had other ideas, and did not allow the resolution to come to a vote (on questionable procedural grounds). He also refused to allow for a 2/3rds vote to overturn his ruling.
Here’s an account via email from someone in attendance (with identifying pieces redacted, emphasis added):
There were 6-10 union members sporting VSEA t-shirts who came to see what would happen.
The agenda was rearranged (on a motion from a Washington County delegate) so [VDP Chair] Jake [Perkinson] couldn’t drag out the meeting to “run out of time” before the resolution could be considered. So Peter Burgess (Lamoille County chair) brought up the Lamoille resolution and Jake ruled it out of order. He said that not all the delegates had received a copy as required by the bylaws 5 days before the meeting. Burgess insisted he had sent out the resolution to all the addresses on the list supplied by the VDP, so if there were errors, it wasn’t his problem.
Article 23 of the VDP bylaws gives the chair total discretion on ruling resolutions out of order. [At the time tht article was adopted, members were] assured, repeatedly, that any action/decision/ruling of the chair could be overturned (according to Roberts Rules) by a 2/3 vote of members present.
Jake insisted that because the issue at hand was not a question of parliamentary law, Roberts Rules did not trump the bylaws, and his ruling would stand.
Bill Sander (Lamoille County delegate and former county chair) asked for a show of hands of delegates present who received a copy of the resolution (most, maybe 7/8ths), and then of those who had not received a copy (a handful, less than 10).
Various people kept trying to address the (bogus) issue of notification (would the non-notified waive objection if given a chance to review the resolution now? Was one proposal).
[Someone else] said, “Look, folks, the real issue here is not about notification. It’s that Jake has received his marching orders. The powers that be have decided they don’t want this resolution considered. So just let the numbers thing go.”
There was more back and forth including several statements about what a sad day it was for the Democratic Party that a resolution supporting labor could not even be brought up for a vote ([VSEA Interim Director and VDP Executive Committee Member] Conor [Casey] made one, many agreed).
When Jake ruled against more discussion, the Lamoille delegation stood up and walked out, as did the union members who are also members of the state committee.
… A little while later, Jake had called a break while the committee waited for Senator Bernie to arrive. E.D. Jesse Bragg came out to remind folks that there needed to be a quorum to endorse Bernie. Bernie arrived soon after, and a couple of union guys gave him the bullet point of the resolution smackdown. The delegates and the union folks all returned to the hall hear Bernie’s speech about the Fed investigation … Sanders was unanimously endorsed.
Then the meeting was adjourned.
… I cruised by [the post-meeting fundraiser] and there were at least 12-15 people (not counting committee members sympathetic to the VSEA) in the parking lot of the Old Labor Hall waving signs. One said something about “Tyrant Shumlin”; another was against “big wind.”
Does it strike anyone else as funny that The Republican Governor’s Association is acting all bent-out-of-shape over whose PAC violations deserve more attention from the Attorney General, theirs or that of the Democratic Governor’s Association?
This is what we’ve come to. In the surreal world where money equals free-speech, only codified and strengthened by the Citizens United decision, we must endure countless squabbles like this.
Most Americans (and I say this with well-acknowleged statistics to rely upon) barely have a pot to piss in. If they have one, they are most likely on the lookout for the repo man.
Free-speech? If you only get what you can pay for, the majority of Americans have far less than their fair share.
So what gives with all the RGA snivelling about victimization?
(Repub. Gov.’s Assoc. lawyer, Chris) Roy said the GOP group believes it is the victim of selective prosecution by the state Attorney General’s Office on the donation issue. Both the Republican Governors Association and the Democratic Governors Association collect money nationwide the same way, but he said only the GOP group has been targeted for violating the state’s donation limit.
Assistant Attny. General Megan J. Schafritz doesn’t think so:
“We don’t feel there is any evidence of bias or disparate treatment,” she said. She noted the Attorney General’s Office earlier in 2010 had chosen not to pursue a campaign finance complaint about the GOP group after concluding there was insufficient evident to support the claim.
And there is the small fact that the RGA outspent the DGA, more than two-to-one on that particular campaign cycle; so it’s hard to weep real tears of sympathy.
It’s hard to weep real tears for either side. We’re talking hundreds-of-thousands, even millions of dollars in the case of the Republican Governor’s Association, scattered to the four winds in order to exert outside influence on Vermont’s domestic elections.
How much of a “job creator” was that expenditure, I wonder? I’d wager, not much, considering the sectors that are suffering right now.
I suppose it could be regarded as a make-work project for the AGO, but a whole lot of social service providers would probably much rather see that money spent to relieve the suffering of their clients.
Unless we gird ourselves to eliminate private funding from election campaigns, we can look forward to a future in which our pay-to-play democracy begins to look more and more likeTerry Gilliam’s “Brazil,” and less and less like Frank Capra’s “Mr. Smth Goes to Washington.”
So Peter, you respond to criticism of your signing a “bipartisan” letter to the Super Catfood Committee by saying you are trying to “engage” them on the important issues they're dealing with. Um, this really isn't engagement. The letter is as non-specific and non-engaging as my sending you a letter saying:
We need you to be a good Congressman. There are a variety of things you need to do, and should do all you can. Kthxbai.
All you've done is waste some good Congressional stationery whilst reaffirming the worst possible aspects of this manufactured debate, to the exclusion of the more immediately important jobs crisis. The justifications you present are less compelling than you and your staff clearly think:
1) Those of us concerned about ensuring economic security and maintaining vital human services programs need to step into the fray as the committee seeks consensus.
Indeed, we should step into the fray. Do that not by restating generalities but by staking out some ground, like…
For example, rather than cutting Medicare benefits, we should be urging the committee to adopt reforms that will make Medicare sustainable for current recipients and future generations. We should empower the federal government to negotiate with big pharmaceutical companies over the price of Medicare prescription drugs. Right now, due to a deal the Tom Delay Congress struck with Pharma, the federal government is explicitly forbidden from using its bulk purchasing power to get a better deal for seniors and taxpayers. Doing so would save $160 billion over the next 10 years. We should also root out widespread Medicare fraud by assigning a U.S. attorney to every congressional district to stop unscrupulous actors in the health care industry from taking advantage of seniors to illegally line their pockets. Finally, we should adopt a more sustainable provider payment system pioneered by Vermont that rewards health care providers for good health outcomes rather than for the number procedures they can perform.
This sounds great! Then sign a letter that says that, not one that says everything–which, you know, includes Rep Paul Ryan's plan to gut Medicare, Rep Ron Paul's fantasy of eliminating Social Security, Sen Jeff Sessions' modest proposal to “rein in” food stamps, etc–should be on the table.
2) The letter calls for the committee to take a balanced approach that includes sacrifice from those who can most afford it.
I'm squinting very, very hard, yet I can't seem to see anywhere in the letter that indicates sacrifice should come from those can most afford it. Is that some classified stuff written with invisible ink on your fancy paper?
And let's talk about “balance” for just a moment. Would that be anything like the 83% spending cuts vs 17% revenue increases that the GOP rejected because it wasn't exactly the 85:15 they proposed? Or the 60:40 ratio of Democrats to Republicans who indicate some possibility of making burgers out of their own sacred cows? That strikes me as the very definition of imbalanced.
40 Republicans signed this letter in the face of rabid Tea Party opposition. That is a gutsy move that I hope will lead to far less pressure to slash vital human services programs.
Don't speak of anybody beholden to the Tea Party as gutsy until somebody actually says on the floor that the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthiest should expire, and votes accordingly (amongst other things). Even then, I'm not sure I would call it gutsy to do what is the objectively right thing that also just so happens to had the support of most Americans in 2010 and still has majority support in 2011.
3) A failure of the Super Committee to reach agreement by November 23 will trigger automatic and indiscriminate across-the-board cuts in the very programs we have fought to create and fund over the years, including education, child care, child nutrition, health care, and the environment. That is an unacceptable outcome.
I'm fairly certain there is nothing “automatic” about the process. And of course, the whole deficit thing is a red herring anyway. Jobs are job one, so you're simply continuing the charade by joining this chorus.
Look, I get you have to work with these people, cast votes that look weird to us outside the sausage-making process, do stuff behind the scenes, etc. I get that things look simpler to your constituents than it looks to you at times. What you need to get is that you send very loud signals to us when you sign such letters. What we need from you is a loud, unequivocal signal that you will not be party to any “balance” or “consensus” amongst your elite colleagues that threaten 99% of your voters.
khxbai,
ntodd
PS–Reminder for constituents: emails aren't great, but can allow you to provide details that would be hard to communicate over the phone. Calls are slightly better outreach because they require a little more direct personal engagement, but get filtered by staff quite a bit. Letters tend to be the best of the three remote contact methods, but still fairly passive.
Not sure this rises to need for occupation, but how about in-person lobbying of staff to get a phonecall with the Congressman and/or a meeting with Peter when Congress is in recess? For starters, anyway. The more skin we have the game, the more likely he'll understand our concerns and act appropriately.
( – promoted by odum)
I noted with interest the views of Green Mountain Daily contributors regarding a letter I recently signed to the so-called congressional Super Committee, which is charged with getting the federal debt under control. I signed this letter because I am working hard to preserve vital human service programs and rebuild our struggling economy.
Specifically, I signed it for three reasons:
1) Those of us concerned about ensuring economic security and maintaining vital human services programs need to step into the fray as the committee seeks consensus. A failure to do so will lead to decisions made about the future of Medicare and other important programs without progressive voices offering alternatives. My view is one shared by Nancy Pelosi and other leading progressive voices in Congress like Peter DeFazio, Emmanuel Cleaver, and Jared Polis.
For example, rather than cutting Medicare benefits, we should be urging the committee to adopt reforms that will make Medicare sustainable for current recipients and future generations. We should empower the federal government to negotiate with big pharmaceutical companies over the price of Medicare prescription drugs. Right now, due to a deal the Tom Delay Congress struck with Pharma, the federal government is explicitly forbidden from using its bulk purchasing power to get a better deal for seniors and taxpayers. Doing so would save $160 billion over the next 10 years. We should also root out widespread Medicare fraud by assigning a U.S. attorney to every congressional district to stop unscrupulous actors in the health care industry from taking advantage of seniors to illegally line their pockets. Finally, we should adopt a more sustainable provider payment system pioneered by Vermont that rewards health care providers for good health outcomes rather than for the number procedures they can perform.
2) The letter calls for the committee to take a balanced approach that includes sacrifice from those who can most afford it. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would save $4 trillion over ten years. Freeing themselves from the handcuffs of the Grover Norquist anti-tax pledge, 40 Republicans signed this letter in the face of rabid Tea Party opposition. That is a gutsy move that I hope will lead to far less pressure to slash vital human services programs.
3) A failure of the Super Committee to reach agreement by November 23 will trigger automatic and indiscriminate across-the-board cuts in the very programs we have fought to create and fund over the years, including education, child care, child nutrition, health care, and the environment. That is an unacceptable outcome.
While I can't predict the outcome of this debate, I am certain of two things: 1) the debt problem facing this country is real and a threat to the job security and prosperity of every American, and 2) as Vermont's sole representative in the House, it is my job in this debate to try to preserve programs important to vulnerable Vermonters, ensure that those who can afford to contribute to a solution do so, and create good jobs for working Americans.
Peter Welch
Is Scott Brown afraid of Elizabeth Warren? He should be.
Sure, we know all about Scott Brown. He defeated perhaps the weakest candidate for U.S. Senate since Jack McMullen, who ran for Senator from Vermont from his vacation home and lost the Republican primary to Fred Tuttle, a man with such a thick Vermont accent that they needed to run subtitles even when he appeared on the radio, but Brown was the beneficiary of an even worse candidate. That was, of course, Martha “What do you expect me to do, stand outside Fenway Park and ask people to vote for me?” Coakley.
Scott Brown has all the qualifications for Senate–he’s posed naked in a magazine and he owns a pickup truck–but he may find Warren a bit more of a challenge.
At the beginning it was tempting to see her as merely an academic, or, as the latest dirty word in the Republicans’ vocabulary, a technocrat. She is showing us, though, that she has the goods to get out there and campaign.
Exhibit A is the video of her talking about the nature of wealth and success in this country. It was great reading the transcript, but it’s phenomenal when you see it.
Then we also saw pictures of her recent volunteer rally. Very impressive that she was able to motivate such a big crowd of volunteers.
https://motherjones.com/files/…
Finally, just last night, she had to contend with a deranged heckler from the Tea Party who called her a “socialist whore”.
Her response:
She also added: “I’m not angry with him, but he didn’t come up with the idea that his biggest problem was Occupy Wall Street. There’s someone else pre-packaging that poison – and that’s who makes me angry.”
As I say, she can handle herself, and I think she’s a problem for Naked Scott.
Wow. You’ve gotta see this. Licensing a “God wants me to beat up the queer kid” culture. Via TPM:
The bill lays out what exactly constitutes bullying, but in one key part it says that the legislation does not prohibit First Amendment rights, and “does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil’s parent or guardian.”
…”I am ashamed that this could be Michigan’s bill on anti-bullying when in fact it is a ‘bullying is OK in Michigan law,'” Kevin Eppling, the father of the bill’s namesake, said in a letter.
So, the Democrats are having their annual fundraiser (directly following the state committee meeting to elect officers for the next 2 years), called the “Autumn Harvest” in Barre on November 5.
The event, to be held this Saturday beginning at 5 p.m. at the Old Labor Hall on Granite St. in Barre, is reportedly featuring both Peters – Welch and Shumlin – among other elected guests, including Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Patrick Leahy, and all the statewide office holders, Vermont House Speaker Shap Smith, and Vermont Senate President pro tem John Campbell.
One wonders:
Given Peter Shumlin’s / Jeb Spaulding’s obvious and publicly expressed disdain for Vermont union workers, and Peter Welch’s obvious disdain for anyone among the lower echelons of the 99 percent, I would imagine that quite a few people, perhaps even some from the “Occupy” movement, might show up to express some opinions at this gathering.
One wonders.
Imagine …
In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. ~ Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)
The American people are quite competent to judge a political party that works both sides of the street. ~ FDR, Boston, Nov. 4, 1944
I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. ~ Paul Wellstone, later quoted without attribution [ironic mode on] by Howard Dean
(A note on this – this is a good, important diary. It does call on Welch to be defeated next election. Many of us at GMD – myself included – are not inclined to go there, so it should not be considered any kind of GMD “anti-endorsement,” but it’s a critical topic and Welch should be criticized. – promoted by odum)
Peter Welch’s name appeared in an interesting list this AM – the list of what’s being called the “Stupendously Stupid Sixty” in other places.
What’s the list about? It’s a list of Congresspeople who plan to vote for austerity measures – cutting social security, medicare, medicaid, research funding and other measures that will further destroy the fabric of our society.
He has signed on to a letter to the new Cat Food commission telling them he’ll go along with the pain the commission plans to impose on the rest of us, so they can avoid the risk of losing a few campaign contributions from greedy, avaricious billionaires who refuse to pay their fair share.
Welch should be ashamed. His lack of backbone should not be rewarded with another term.
Call his office now, and let him know: no more austerity for the working people of Vermont and the nation. We’ve had enough.
Vermont Office
• 30 Main Street • Third Floor, Suite 350 • Burlington, VT 05401 • Phone: (802) 652-2450 or (888) 605-7270
Washington D.C. Office
• 1404 Longworth House Office Building • Washington, DC 20515 • Phone: (202) 225-4115 •
Below is the list of signatories to the letter preemptively telling Cat Food Commission II that it’s A-OK to screw working, retired, and disabled Americans. Note the name I’ve bolded and italicized near the very end of the list:
Robert E. Andrews (N.J.)
John Barrow (Ga.)
Timothy Bishop (N.Y.)
Dan Boren (Okla.)
Leonard Boswell (Iowa)
Dennis Cardoza (Calif.)
John Carney (Del.)
Kathy Castor (Fla.)
Ben Chandler (Ky.)
Emanuel Cleaver II (Mo.)
Gerry Connolly (Va.)
Jim Cooper (Tenn.)
Jim Costa (Calif.)
Henry Cuellar (Texas)
Danny K. Davis (Ill.)
Peter DeFazio (Ore.)
Diana DeGette (Colo.)
Norm Dicks (Wash.)
Chaka Fattah (Pa.)
John Garamendi (Calif.)
Brian Higgins (N.Y.)
Jim Himes (Conn.)
Steny Hoyer (Md.)
Dale Kildee (Mich.)
Ron Kind (Wis.)
Rick Larsen (Wash.)
John Larson (Conn.)
Daniel Lipinski (Ill.)
David Loebsack (Iowa)
Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.)
Jim Matheson (Utah)
Mike McIntyre (N.C.)
Gregory Meeks (N.Y.)
James Moran (Va.)
William Owens (N.Y.)
Bill Pascrell (N.J.)
Ed Perlmutter (Colo.)
Gary Peters (Mich.)
Collin Peterson (Minn.)
Chellie Pingree (Maine)
Jared Polis (Colo.)
David Price (N.C.)
Mike Quigley (Ill.)
Nick Rahall (W.Va.)
Mike Ross (Ark.)
Steven Rothman (N.J.)
Dutch Ruppersberger (Md.)
Adam Schiff (Calif.)
Kurt Schrader (Ore.)
Allyson Schwartz (Pa.)
Terri Sewell (Ala.)
Heath Shuler (N.C.)
Adam Smith (Wash.)
Mike Thompson (Calif.)
Niki Tsongas (Mass.)
Peter Visclosky (Ind.)
Tim Walz (Minn.)
Mel Watt (N.C.)
Peter Welch (Vt.)
John Yarmuth (Ky.)
( – promoted by odum)
As a result of the greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior on Wall Street, the American people have experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Millions of Americans, through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs, homes, life savings, and ability to send their kids to college. Small businesses have been unable to get the credit they need to expand their businesses, and credit is still extremely tight. Wages as a share of national income are now at the lowest level since the Great Depression, and the number of Americans living in poverty is at an all-time high.
Meanwhile, when small-business owners were being turned down for loans at private banks and millions of Americans were being kicked out of their homes, the Federal Reserve provided the largest taxpayer-financed bailout in the history of the world to Wall Street and too-big-to-fail institutions, with virtually no strings attached.
Over two years ago, I asked Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, a few simple questions that I thought the American people had a right to know: Who got money through the Fed bailout? How much did they receive? What were the terms of this assistance?
Incredibly, the chairman of the Fed refused to answer these fundamental questions about how trillions of taxpayer dollars were being spent.
The American people are finally getting answers to these questions thanks to an amendment I included in the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill which required the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit and investigate conflicts of interest at the Fed. Those answers raise grave questions about the Federal Reserve and how it operates — and whose interests it serves.
As a result of these GAO reports, we learned that the Federal Reserve provided a jaw-dropping $16 trillion in total financial assistance to every major financial institution in the country as well as a number of corporations, wealthy individuals and central banks throughout the world.
The GAO also revealed that many of the people who serve as directors of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks come from the exact same financial institutions that the Fed is in charge of regulating. Further, the GAO found that at least 18 current and former Fed board members were affiliated with banks and companies that received emergency loans from the Federal Reserve during the financial crisis. In other words, the people “regulating” the banks were the exact same people who were being “regulated.” Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse!
The emergency response from the Fed appears to have created two systems of government in America: one for Wall Street, and another for everyone else. While the rich and powerful were “too big to fail” and were given an endless supply of cheap credit, ordinary Americans, by the tens of millions, were allowed to fail. They lost their homes. They lost their jobs. They lost their life savings. And, they lost their hope for the future. This is not what American democracy is supposed to look like. It is time for change at the Fed — real change.
Among the GAO’s key findings is that the Fed lacks a comprehensive system to deal with conflicts of interest, despite the serious potential for abuse. In fact, according to the GAO, the Fed actually provided conflict of interest waivers to employees and private contractors so they could keep investments in the same financial institutions and corporations that were given emergency loans.
The GAO has detailed instance after instance of top executives of corporations and financial institutions using their influence as Federal Reserve directors to financially benefit their firms, and, in at least one instance, themselves.
For example, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase served on the New York Fed’s board of directors at the same time that his bank received more than $390 billion in financial assistance from the Fed. Moreover, JP Morgan Chase served as one of the clearing banks for the Fed’s emergency lending programs.
Getting this type of disclosure was not easy. Wall Street and the Federal Reserve fought it every step of the way. But, as difficult as it was to lift the veil of secrecy at the Fed, it will be even harder to reform the Fed so that it serves the needs of all Americans, and not just Wall Street. But, that is exactly what we have to do.
To get this process started, I have asked some of the leading economists in this country to serve on an advisory committee to provide Congress with legislative options to reform the Federal Reserve.
Here are some of the questions that I have asked this advisory committee to explore:
1. How can we structurally reform the Fed to make our nation’s central bank a more democratic institution responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans, end conflicts of interest, and increase transparency? What are the best practices that central banks in other countries have developed that we can learn from? Compared with central banks in Europe, Canada, and Australia, the GAO found that the Federal Reserve does not do a good job in disclosing potential conflicts of interest and other essential elements of transparency.
2. At a time when 16.5 percent of our people are unemployed or under-employed, how can we strengthen the Federal Reserve’s full-employment mandate and ensure that the Fed conducts monetary policy to achieve maximum employment? When Wall Street was on the verge of collapse, the Federal Reserve acted with a fierce sense of urgency to save the financial system. We need the Fed to act with the same boldness to combat the unemployment crisis.
3. The Federal Reserve has a responsibility to ensure the safety and soundness of financial institutions and to contain systemic risks in financial markets. Given that the top six financial institutions in the country now have assets equivalent to 65 percent of our GDP, more than $9 trillion, is there any reason why this extraordinary concentration of ownership should not be broken up? Should a bank that is “too big to fail” be allowed to exist?
4. The Federal Reserve has the responsibility to protect the credit rights of consumers. At a time when credit card issuers are charging millions of Americans interest rates between 25 percent or more, should policy options be established to ensure that the Federal Reserve and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau protect consumers against predatory lending, usury, and exorbitant fees in the financial services industry?
5. At a time when the dream of homeownership has turned into the nightmare of foreclosure for too many Americans, what role should the Federal Reserve be playing in providing relief to homeowners who are underwater on their mortgages, combating the foreclosure crisis, and making housing more affordable?
6. At a time when the United States has the most inequitable distribution of wealth and income of any major country, and the greatest gap between the very rich and everyone else since 1928, what policies can be established at the Federal Reserve which reduces income and wealth inequality in the U.S?
Given the growth of the Occupy Wall Street movement and given the concerns of millions of Americans about Wall Street, we now have a unique opportunity to make significant changes to one of the most powerful and secretive agencies of the federal government. One thing is abundantly clear: Americans deserve a Federal Reserve that works for them, not just the CEOs on Wall Street.
