Not much can be added to tag along with this chart that shows so dramatically who the winners and losers have been in the recovery to date. The chart is an analysis of recent IRS data by economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty illustrates directions in US incomes after the Great Recession and the Great Depression. Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and tax code expert David Clay Johnson suggests this shows plenty about our tax and economic policy direction.

The 1934 economic rebound was widely shared, with strong income gains for the vast majority, the bottom 90 percent.In 2010, we saw the opposite as the vast majority lost ground.

National income gained overall in 2010, but all of the gains were among the top 10 percent.

Even within those 15.6 million households, the gains were extraordinarily concentrated among the super-rich, the top one percent of the top one percent.

Just 15,600 super-rich households pocketed an astonishing 37 percent of the entire national gain.

The different results in 1934 and 2010 show how a major shift in federal policy hurts the vast majority and benefits the super-rich.

For years, Congressional Republicans have sought to eliminate government subsidies for Amtrak. Wasteful! Unnecessary! Harrumph! Let it die if it can’t pay its own way!

This year, the Republican majority passed a highway bill that would strip out all funding for mass transit. Wasteful! Unnecessary! Harrumph!

But there’s one kind of mass transit the Republicans don’t mind subsidizing at all: the air travel system. “Airports inherently lose money,” an airport manager once told me. Kinda like Amtrak? And local transit agencies? Huh.

Huge quantities of public money are poured into our air travel system every year.  Some of it supports essential service. But a lot of it benefits business passengers and “general aviation,” i.e. private planes.  

Yep, public transit for the rich. Now that deserves a subsidy! Not like those dirty buses, trains, and subways.

After the jump, a case in point: Lebanon, NH.

The Lebanon Municipal Airport is in the news again. The Airport’s been losing money for years, and things aren’t looking up. So city and airport officials have called an “Airport Summit” for Tuesday, March 20.

Last year, the airport brought in $728,000 in revenues. Expenses totaled just under $1 million, leaving a deficit of $270,000. Almost 33%. But when you factor in hefty federal subsidies, the airport’s numbers look a lot worse than that.

Lebanon Airport offers passenger service through Cape Air: four daily flights to Boston and two to New York City. Those are small planes, and the average one is less than half full. For providing this service, Cape Air gets a big fat government check through a program called “Essential Air Service” — $2.3 million in 2009.  The vast majority of Lebanon’s passengers were business travelers; most civilians prefer to use Manchester or Burlington, where flights are more frequent, destinations more numerous, and tickets far cheaper.

Without that EAS funding, Cape Air would almost certainly pull out of Lebanon Airport. That, in turn, would have a domino effect on the Airport’s traffic and revenue numbers, and on its other big source of government money: the Airport Improvement Program, or AIP.  

Lebanon gets about a million dollars a year from AIP. (Not included in its budget, because AIP can only be spent on improvement projects, not general operations.) It would lose that money if passenger loads fall below a certain limit. Even with Cape Air’s massively subsidized service, the Airport is in danger of suffering an 85% cut in AIP funds. And if Cape Air were to pull out entirely, the AIP money would disappear. Without AIP, the airport’s facilities would deteriorate in short order.

Its own manager says that if Lebanon Airport lost passenger service, its deficit would increase by about $400,000 a year. That would be catastrophic for a facility that many in Lebanon are already tired of underwriting with their own tax money.  

(Also, it must be noted, the Airport sits on a piece of extremely valuable real estate: on a plateau just above the busy Route 120 shopping strip, with an incredible view of the Connecticut River Valley. If Lebanon shut the airport and sold the land, it’s get a windfall profit and a sustained addition to its tax base.)

The EAS money is supposedly intended to support passenger travel at rural airports that would lose service if left to the tender mercies of the free market. (EAS was established after airlines were deregulated in 1978, because the carriers were fleeing small and medium-sized airports.) But in truth, certainly at Lebanon, the money’s real purpose is to make airports more attractive for general aviation.

There are places where it makes sense to subsidize travel. Places where the next-nearest airport is hours away. But Lebanon is a 90-minutes drive from two airports with much better passenger service, and a little over two hours away from Boston. You can make the drive in less time than it takes a passenger plane to take off, fly, and land. There’s already bus service linking Lebanon to Manchester and Boston, which could be significantly beefed up with a relatively tiny federal subsidy.

But this isn’t really about passengers. It’s about subsidizing business passengers (who are also subsidized by tax deductions for business travel), and it’s especially about maintaining facilities for private and corporate planes.

The federal government is considering a user fee of up to $100 for private planes. The revenues would much more fairly and directly pay for the costs of general aviation. But pilots and plane owners are up in arms. Private planes, especially corporate planes, are job creators, after all! Promoting business activity, boosting the economy.

That’s the kind of welfare Republicans can believe in.

Look, I’m not necessarily saying we should eliminate all the subsidies for aviation. There are arguments to be made for the system. I’m just pointing out a big and obvious inconsistency. In reality, there is no form of transportation that can fully pay its own costs. If we can afford to underwrite business travel through massive subsidy programs, we can spend an equivalent amount of money on trains, buses and subways.

And if we can’t do that, then we shouldn’t spend government funds on air travel for the One Percent.  

The push is on to get a Cerificate of Public Good from the Public Service Board before there is a ruling on the appeal of Vermont Yankee/Entergy vs. the State of Vermont, and, in the interim, to block the PSB from acting to close the plant on schedule.   Entergy’s pulling out all the stops to court flagging public support for continued operation.

I don’t know if other local papers carried it, but last night the Messenger boasted a full-page ad from Vermont Yankee telling us why, on the one-year anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear disaster,  we shouldn’t give the safety of VY another thought because they are on the case!

Was this deliberately timed to distract the public from that elephant in the corner, the plant’s poor prognosis for reliability, so that the conversation visibly revolves around an issue over which the State has no jurisdiction? Maybe that’s giving them more credit than they are due.

In any case, as Stardust alerted us several days ago, that old black magic “reliability” recently reared its ugly head again when a system failure forced a down-scaling of service.

Now that we have a better idea of what was involved, we thought it was time to revisit the incident on GMD’s front page.  VTdigger yesterday reported on the technical issue, involving a key component, that forced Vermont Yankee to begin operating at reduced capacity.  Explaining that the role of the condenser is to act somewhat like a radiator, Digger reports that its functionality was compromised in the following way:

Last November, during a planned refueling outage, plant workers applied a protective coating – an epoxy or plastic – to the tubing in the condenser… At the beginning of February, nuclear engineers at the plant discovered that the the thermal heat exchange efficiency of the condenser was greatly reduced. Last week, the plant had to lower its power production by 50 percent because back pressure was building up in the condenser.

Apparently, the coating applied to extend the life of the condenser, which dates to the plant’s start-up 40 years ago, compromised the “efficiency” of the system.  In this case “efficiency” refers to its ability to operate without a pressure build-up.

…And in the very competitive category of “I Told You So,” the winner is…Arnie Gundersen.  

When asked in his 2003 testimony to the Public Service Board to name

a component likely to have an adverse effect on reliability under extended power uprate conditions

Mr. Gundersen responded that the condenser was likely to present exactly the scenario of improper repair and subsequent failure that has now occurred.

Gundersen, of Fairewinds Associates, now predicts that this thermal issue is likely to worsen in summer:

when the water temperature of the Connecticut River rises from springtime temperatures of 50 degrees to 70 degrees.

The upshot is that further power reductions will be likely so long as the plant continues to operate with the affected condenser in the system.

Sounds like a reliability issue to me.

On a different front, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is challenging the NRC to explain how they could go ahead and extend the Vermont Yankee operating license within just days of the unprecedented disaster at Fukushima which involved reactors of exactly the same generation as the one at Vermont Yankee.

Sanders, who, a year ago called for a moratorium on relicensing aging nuclear power plants in the U.S. until there had been an opportunity to draw lessons from the Fukushima chain of collapse, today chastised the agency for its unwillingness to alter its relicensing initiatives, and the federal government as a whole for policy that heavily subsidizes the nuclear industry and does not respect the right of a state like Vermont to phase out aging nuclear facilities in favor of sustainable energy built on other platforms.

“In my state there is a strong feeling that we want to go forward with energy efficiency and sustainable energy. I believe that we have that right. I believe that every other state in the country has that right,” Sanders said. “If we want to move to sustainable energy and not maintain an aging, trouble-plagued nuclear power plant, I think we should be allowed to do that.”

Hey GI, you got cigarettes, candy?

Come on GI, I got sister.

What the fuck was that?

Some kid from Italy I think.

Italy.  Fuckin’ Italy!

Yeah.

Like in A Walk In The Sun

Fightin’ the Battle of Tibet.

Never saw that one.

Shithole country.

I wouldn’t mind fightin’

the Battle of Tibet.

I heard the LT went off again.

Did you hear about last night?

Yeah.  He shot some old man

who was just walkin’ down the road.

The LT’s pushin’ for the good ole Section 8.

Ain’t gonna happen.

He’s an officer.

That stuff’s for us nobodies.

Well, there’s a bird colonel

come down this morning.

I think he’s here

to look all of us over.

Hey GI, you got gum, C-rats?

Get lost kid.

You goddamn German brat.

Yeah, I remember.

Fuckin’ Aachen!

Fuckin’ Krauts!

I lost my watch there.

So, how long ya think

we’re gonna sit here?

I don’t know.

Depends on Colonel Hotshit.

I don’t mind.

I can sit.

Yeah.  Hey, butt me.

You’re fuckin’ worse

than those little bastards

back at Seoul.

Fuckin’ Korea!

You said it.

Tibet will be better though.

Why?

All that kama sutra pussy.

Or whatever they call it.

Hey GI, you want to buy sticks?

Got Big O Chinese tobacco too.

Like GI say, heap good shit!

Get lost.  But here. (points rifle)

Leave all that heap good shit

on the ground there.

Fuck Shit!  GI, you a fucker!

Now beat it!

Fuckin’ gook slope shits.

And here we are tryin’

to help them hold on

to their fuckin’ country.

Fuckin’ Nam!

Hey you two!

Get off your asses!

We’re movin’ out North.

Hope it’s fuckin’ Tibet.

Yeah.

Fuckin’ Afghanistan!

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.

So the inexplicably popular IslamoSocialist Sen. Bernie Sanders is up for re-election this year, and the Republicans are looking for their David to take on this Goliath. Last week, it seemed like they’d found their man. But maybe not. Vermont Press Bureau:

Windsor Republican John MacGovern announced his bid against Sanders earlier this month. But his launch got a decidedly tepid response from GOP leaders, who hinted that a name-brand Republican might be waiting in the wings.

So they aren’t satisfied with a former Massachusetts State Representative and two-time losing candidate for Vermont State Senate who’s spent the last decade sponging off rich Dartmouth alumni with his bogus nonprofit The Hanover Institute.

Where have all the good men gone and where are all the gods ?

Where’s the street-wise Hercules to fight the rising odds ?

Isn’t there a white knight upon a fiery steed ?

Late at night I toss and I turn and I dream of what I need

Ever-louder rumblings about the emergence of another Republican challenger to Bernie Sanders have centered on one man: Kevin Dorn.

I  need a hero, I’m holding out for a hero ’till the morning light

He’s gotta be sure and it’s gotta be soon

And he’s gotta be larger than life, larger than life

Yes, the Man of Our Conservative Dreams, our Champion, our Hero: Kevin Dorn!

Kevin Dorn???

Yep, Kevin Dorn.

Er, ahem, you know, Secretary of Commerce under Jim Douglas? And before that, a lobbyist for the Home Builders and the Realtors?

Yeah, that guy.

We talked to Dorn today, and he confirmed he’s pondering a foray into electoral politics.

He won’t say right now whether he’s eying the U.S. Senate, a statewide office, or perhaps a seat in the Vermont Legislature.

I think Bonnie Tyler just walked offstage.

Kevin freakin’ Dorn.

Is this the Vermont GOP’s idea of “a name-brand Republican”? Sheesh. Much as I’d like to see the Republican Party become the Washington Generals of politics, that’s just sad.

Nothing against Kevin Dorn. I’m sure, in his own way, he’s a competent, accomplished guy. But y’know, it’s hard to see how Kevin Dorn is any bigger a name than John MacGovern, who has run multiple political campaigns and even won a few of ’em. And who has a whole bunch of rich Dartmouth alumni bankrolling his phony nonprofit, and might be able to dupe them into bankrolling a Senate candidacy.

The only real advantage Dorn has over MacGovern is that, in the minds of the VTGOP, he’s “one of us.” MacGovern is an interloper from the Upper Valley who’s done most of his work across the Connecticut, in Hanover. Dorn is our guy, a Douglas Administration insider and, according to the VPB, “a very close friend” of Brian Dubie. Yeah, that’s the stuff.

Now, in a big-picture sense, there ain’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two. Both are auditioning for a lead role — not in “David vs. Goliath,” but in “Bambi vs. Godzilla.”

But it says something about the cluelessness of today’s Vermont Republicans that they’d view Kevin Dorn as a big name. And it says something about the state of the party, that their only choices for U.S. Senate might be John MacGovern or Kevin Dorn.  

When I was little there was a “company” dessert, consisting of lumps of meringue adrift on a sea of custard.  It was fancifully named “Floating Island,” and belonged to the confectionary  landscape that included “Baked Alaska” and “Rocky Road.” But this isn’t about dessert.

As a great continent of potentially hot garbage travels slowly across the Pacific toward points west on the America shores, we have a little time to ready ourselves for delivery of the motherload.  

The leading edge of floating debris from the tsunami that swept Japan just about a year ago is expected to begin making landfall in Hawaii any day now, and NOAA’s Marine Debris Program wants to know when, and what, it turns up.

It is estimated that roughly twenty tons of the stuff is headed east, and the entire delivery phase may take a couple of years.

Some  of the debris seems likely to be swept into a giant slow-moving circle,  heading back toward the Hawaiian Islands and then cycling round for a second delivery on the mainland. Computer animation of this effect calls to mind the eddies of water in a flushing toilet.  

Some of it may even ultimately reach the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch,” that doughty landmark of our addiction to plastic that festers and chokes a vast reach of the South Pacific.

NOAA dismisses the possibility that the floating debris field may be carrying radioactive waste to American shores, reassuring denizens of Oregon and California that most of the debris was launched and resolutely moving away before the nuclear accidents began to unfold; but the behavior of floating materials, even in NOAA’s simulations, raises the specter that some material may have been “re-delivered” at Fukushima, only to be contaminated in the aftermath on the radioactive shores before washing once again out to sea.  

NOAA seems to be the first to admit that they don’t really know much about the path of the debris.

… there is still a large amount of uncertainty over exactly what is still floating, where it’s located, where it will go, and when it will arrive

They don’t even know how much of it will actually make it to points along the West Coast, observing cheerfully that much of it may sink to the bottom of the ocean during its journey.  Their prognosis of low radioactivity in the debris field relies rather heavily on the beneficent ability of the ocean to dilute all the badness away.

In fact, NOAA’s FAQ page has a rather odd way of allaying fears (emphasis mine):

Why isn’t this considered an emergency yet?

It’s hard to take emergency actions when there’s so little information about what we’re responding to – remember: it’s possible that most of the debris will break up, sink, or get caught up in existing garbage patches. We’re working on creating contingency plans that will address scenarios ranging from no debris to high levels of debris.

If I were a tuna or a whale I might find that of damn little comfort.

Hey everyone,

I know many of you have already had this invitation passed on in some variety, but I wanted to extend it to the whole Green Mountain Daily community. Tomorrow (Thursday) evening in Essex Junction, Rep. Kesha Ram and I are hosting a reception for Students for a New American Politics, the political action committee where I currently serve as Executive Director. I’d love to get the chance to see some of you all in person while I am still in state.

While I’ve talked about SNAP briefly with some of you, I wanted to take a little time to talk about to explain exactly what it is that I’ve been putting all my political energy into for now just over a year, and why now is the time to invest in shaping the direction of our party – if you’ll join me below the fold.

There are major problems with the ways that we engage young people in politics. Campaigns depend on them – young people knock on doors, they work jobs the make up for what they lack in pay with ridiculously long hours. It’s not all bad work though – the people who get into the game when they’re young are more likely to stick with it. They become the activists, organizers, even politicians themselves of the next generation.

If that’s the reality we live in – and my experience both here in Vermont and elsewhere in the country as I’ve travelled with SNAP tells me that it is – then it is not just in our interests, but it’s our responsibility to make sure that those young people reflect the same diversity of our movement.

Unfortunately, campaigns aren’t always the most meritocratic organizations. I was fortunate enough to find people that trusted me when I was way too young to be working on campaigns – but I think I’m an exception rather than the rule – usually it takes connections to get your foot in the door, and even if you have an opportunity, you can only take it if you have the financial security to work full time for almost nothing.

At SNAP, we care about electing progressive leaders to Congress. We’re proud to have helped great candidates win in some of the closest races in the country – Al Franken, Tom Periello, and Joe Courtney by less than 100 votes in 2006. But we also want to make sure that we are making a last impact on the future of the Democratic Party. That is why we spend our money through our fellowship program.

Rather than make donations to our candidates, we pay college students to work as full time field organizers on their campaigns for 10-12 weeks during the spring, summer, or fall. Our fellows are incredible campus organizers who have never gotten the door opened for them into professional politics, and the 55 fellows who have came through our program have now gone on to tremendous success as professional campaign staff, local government officials, union organizers, and professional advocates and activists.

We’ve found such great success with the program that this year we plan to fun 40 fellowships. We’ve received hundreds of applications for these positions, and have had to make incredibly difficult choices about hiring our organizers, but the people we have are truly some of the best the nation has to offer. 70% of our applicants attend state universities, and a similar number are eligible for federal financial aide. They each have incredible stories of how they got their start in politics, and it is those stories and more that I hope to share with some of you tomorrow evening.

The event will run from 8-9:30pm at my house (9 Wilkinson Drive, Essex Junction), though of course if you have other time constraints you are free to arrive and exit as you please. I’m just tremendously excited to share these stories with the people that helped give me my start, because there is nothing that makes me feel better about our politics today than being able to give the same opportunity I was granted to another wave of incredibly talented young people. Our program offers a unique opportunity, and it excites me that the best organizers in country aren’t just getting opportunities to work in politics, they are getting those opportunities solely on incredibly progressive campaigns, working for people who will be actual leaders in Washington.

Please don’t hesitate to bother me with questions!

Today I spent an hour monitoring the local ad breaks in the Rush Limbaugh Show, to see what local businesses were supporting his misogyny. And what I heard made me feel pretty good: there was an obvious dearth of actual local advertising.  

I was listening on WSNO, 1450 AM in central Vermont, roughly between 12:40 and 1:40 pm. A decent sample size.

The tally:

— 6 local paid spots

— 7 national ads*

— 4 public service announcements (unpaid)

— 5 station promos (unpaid)

— 3 bits of station content (unpaid; weather, community calendar)

*Syndicated programs are often bartered: You get our shows for free, you agree to carry our spots. The stations put those ads in open slots, wherever they haven’t managed to sell the time to local advertisers. These spots are usually offloaded into non-peak hours; their appearance in Limbaugh is not a good sign for him.

Rush Limbaugh is the highest-rated conservative talker, and he’s supposed to be a profit center for local stations. And yet, WSNO only managed to sell six slots out of 25. That’s a really bad ratio. It’s strong evidence that a lot of local advertisers are steering clear of Rush, even though there’s been no public groundswell on the local level.

So you probably want to know: who’s still sponsoring Rush?

Answers after the jump…  

There was only one local advertiser with multiple spots in that hour of Limbaugh: Bruce Lisman’s Campaign for Vermont, with two.

Bruce, Bruce, Bruce, I’m disappointed. I thought you were nonpartisan!

Surely, if you seek to build a broad coalition of support for your “common sense” ideas, the last thing you’d want to do is associate your cause with Rush Limbaugh. I’m sure I speak for all of us at GMD when I say, please reconsider your support for Rush. It’s only harming your credibility as a nonpartisan entity.

Snort.

The other local advertisers were three car dealerships — Walker Volkswagen, Town and Country Honda, and Formula Nissan — and Westview Meadows, a retirement community in Montpelier. The dealerships buy huge amounts of advertising on just about every local radio station in the area, and probably made a big “Run of Schedule” buy on WSNO — meaning their ads run throughout the day, not on any particular show. Retirement home, there’s Rush’s core demographic in a nutshell.

I’ll also mention that many of those national advertisers were not… shall we say… from the best of families. They included a “natural” weight-loss supplement, the Lifelock identity-security pitch, an ambulance-chasing lawyer trolling for mesothelioma patients, and an investment firm trying to get people to invest their IRAs in gold. (They’re going to hell.)

All in all, a very weak showing for the King of Conservative Talk.  If this randomly-selected hour is any indication, Rush Limbaugh may be in even more trouble than we thought.

If you want to monitor your local station while minimizing your exposure to Rush, his local breaks occur at roughly the same times every hour, approximately :18-20, :30-34, :45-46. :54-56, and :58-06 (mostly news, but also local spots). Simplest thing is to listen during those eight minutes, or perhaps from :54-06 if you can stand two minutes of Rush.

VT stations that carry Rush: WVMT (620 AM) in Burlington, WSNO (1450 AM) in Barre, and WSYB (1380 AM) in Rutland. Also NH-based AM 1490 in the Upper Valley.

The Progressive Party in Burlington wants to move two neighborhoods into different districts – not because there is any need to move them, but because two Progressive candidates want to run for a seat in one district. To restate: the proposal is to move two neighborhoods so two Progressives won’t have to run against each another for one seat.

Ok, they don’t say it exactly like that, but from all appearances, that’s what they’re trying to accomplish. There are many ways to accomplish redistricting without moving whole neighborhoods. As a matter of fact, there are ways that do so while adhering more closely to state law (more on that below).

The basic “strategy” appears to be to attempt to get two Progressives into the State House by redrawing districts to bump two of the most progressive Democrats out of the State House.

Um . . .

More below the fold.

:: First: The Obvious Problem

There’s a difference between good strategy and bad strategy. A strategy that injures your allies while strengthening your opponents should probably be set aside if there are other options. The Progressive Party in Vermont has a bizarre history of playing redistricting Russian roulette . . . and losing.

If the Progressives’ goal is to make the legislature more progressive, then why do they keep teaming up with Republicans to make it easier for Republicans to win? Why don’t they team up with Democrats on redistricting to make it harder for Republicans to win? I know, the hypothesis is that making it harder for Democrats makes it easier for Progressives, but that hasn’t really worked out very well, thus far. When a hypothesis is tested and fails, it’s usually because the hypothesis is wrong and it’s time to find a new one.

The people of our state are clearly worse off with “conservative” policies, and better off with more progressive policies. Yes, from the perspective of the Progressive Party, we’re not as much better off with Democrats as we would be with Progressives. But why a total crap-shoot? Why play enabler for “worse off,” when there’s a “better off” solution? There are real people who get hurt by those “worse off” policies. It doesn’t seem like the risk is worthwhile.

:: Second: The Statutory Problem

The Vermont Redistricting Law [17 VSA 1906b(c)] requires the Board of Civil Authority to use the following considerations:

(1) preservation of existing political subdivision lines;

(2) recognition and maintenance of patterns of geography, social interaction, trade, political ties and common interests;

(3) use of compact and contiguous territory;

(4) incumbencies.

The proposed redistricting appears to largely ignore (1) and (4).

:: Third: The Transparency Problem

The group appointed to the subcommittee by Mayor Kiss has kind of forgotten to ask a good chunk of the people affected by the proposed new districts whether they want to move.

Committee member Emma Mulvaney-Stanak, a city councilor, posted a request for feedback in the Front Porch Forum email list-serve for the Roosevelt Park neighborhood (one of the two getting bumped). She did NOT post the request in the forum for Lakeview Terrace residents. Word has it that folks in the Lakeview Terrace neighborhood are not supportive of the proposed change.

In addition, by listing only the “pros” of the proposed move, the resulting feedback may be slanted toward the outcome she’s hoping for:

. . . we have an opportunity to keep the district line the same in the I.A.A. neighborhood or try a different option. The working committee for the city council, for which I serve on, has considered an alternative which would pull the I.A.A. neighborhood back into the Old North End and into the 3-3 District (currently represents most of the Old North End). And would put the streets along North Ave on the western side of the Old North End into the 3-3 District. This would include Crowley Streets, Lakeview Street, Front St and some of the small streets around Battery Park. It seems more logical to include a part of the O.N.E. that are physically connected by a road (North Ave) and are also already somewhat use to being connected to the New North End because some streets are in 3-2 already over there (Ward St for example) and also by city wards (Ward 7 covers Lakeview). Plus students on that side of the O.N.E. already use the middle school in the N.N.E. versus the students in the eastern side (I.A.A. neighborhood) who go to Edmunds.

:: Fourth: The “Representativeness” Problem

Seven of the fifteen members of the Board of Civil Authority are Democrats. But the subcommittee has only 1 Democrat (Ed Adrian) out of its 5 members. The other subcommittee members are: Bob Kiss (Prog), Emma Mulvaney-Stanak (Prog), Karen Paul (Independent), Paul Decelles (Republican).

So from a committee that’s 1/2 Democrats, Kiss created a subcommittee that’s 2/5 Prog, 1/5 independent, 1/5 republican, and 1/5 democrat.

The lone Democrat has made several proposals, all of which have been voted down, including one that adheres more closely to the law than any of the others, thus far.

:: Fifth: The Pissing Off Your Legislators Problem

In response to all this, 7 Burlington State Representatives have registered their displeasure. Two key quotes:

“The maps in the plan that you have presented to us substantially alter the districts of Chittenden 3-1, Chittenden 3-2, and Chittenden 3-3 in a manner that we cannot support.

…

We understand the difficulty of the task before you, and realize that tough decisions have to be made, However, we cannot support the maps as presented. We urge you to please reconsider Councilor Adrian’s proposal (Democratic Plan C).”

Signatories are: Bill Aswad, Chittenden 3-1; Jean O’Sullivan, Chittenden 3-2; Jason Lorber, Chittenden 3-3; Jill Krowinski, Chittenden 3-3; Kesha Ram, Chittenden 3-14; Johannah Donovan, Chittenden 3-5; and Suzi Wizowaty, Chittenden 3-1.

:: Summary

All-in-all, it appears that redistricting in Burlington has been handled badly. Here’s hoping a sensible solution, with better communication emerges soon, though with Kiss at the helm of the subcommittee…  

(It’s 3 a.m., I have insomnia, and I’m feeling uncharitable. Release the Kraken!!!)

___________________________________________

Hear ye, hear ye! Big news from the Vermont gubernatorial campaign! Randy Brock is about to do something! Or so he says!

The glad tidings from Thatcher Moats at the Vermont Press Bureau. Quotes from VPB, snark from Yours Truly.  

Sen. Randy Brock, the Franklin County Republican who will try to take the governor’s office this fall, said he spent Town Meeting Day week gearing up for his election bid, raising money and putting his campaign infrastructure in place.

“Wups, it’s March already, and the Leg is off this week. Guess I better do somethin’.”

This week, Brock said, he will announce the main consulting firms he is hiring for the gubernatorial race, which will provide the backbone of his campaign.

The chattering class is rapt. (Darcie Johnston.) Who will Brock hire? (Darcie Johnston.) What big names, what giants of modern politics, will he enlist? (Darcie Johnston, Darcie Johnston.)

After the jump: Yeah, more snark.  

Brock said he will rely more on specialists in media, polling and policy from outside firms while trying to be lighter on paid staff.

This strategy will allow his campaign to “let people do what they do well,” Brock said on Tuesday.

Oooh, he’s privatizing his campaign! How 21st Century Neocon of him.

Not to mention cheap. Guess he won’t be paying any health insurance premiums or Workers’ Comp.

W-2’s or 1099’s? You make the call.

The firms Brock intends to announce this week will form a major part of his campaign, he said, but additional resources will continue to be added.

“It will be a substantial part of it, yes, but it will not be all of it,” he said.

“Oh God, I hope I can raise some more money.”

Brock held three house party fundraisers as the Legislature took its week-long, mid-session break, the candidate said. Brock wouldn’t say how much money he raised.

There’s a good sign.

“I will simply say our fundraising is on target,” Brock said.

Aim for the stars, and perhaps you’ll reach the sky. Aim for the ground, you’ll probably hit it.

Brock said he also held an event at the DoubleTree hotel in South Burlington on Saturday that raised money, but was more focused on bringing together “some of the key people” – ranging from policy advisers to students with an interest in grassroots organizing – who will chart the path to victory.

“A real motley crew, that was; we passed the hat and got $6.27. Managed to get some frat boys signed on to my ‘grassroots organizing’ team, once they had enough beer in ’em.”