The American people are angry.  They are angry that they are being forced to live through the worst recession in our lifetimes – with sky-high unemployment, with millions of people losing their homes and their life savings.  They are angry that they will not have a decent retirement, that they can’t afford to send their children to college, that they can’t afford health insurance and that, in some cases, they can’t even buy the food they need to adequately feed their families.  

They are angry because they know that this recession was not caused by the middle class and working families of this country. It was not caused by the teachers, firefighters and police officers and their unions who are under attack all over the country. It was not caused by construction workers, factory workers, nurses or childcare workers.  

This recession was caused by the greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior on Wall Street.  And, what makes people furious is that Wall Street still has not learned its lessons.  Instead of investing in the job-creating productive economy providing affordable loans to small and medium-size businesses, the CEOs of the largest financial institutions in this country have created the largest gambling casino in the history of the world.

Four years ago, after spending billions of dollars to successfully fight for the deregulation of Wall Street, the CEOs of the big banks – JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and the others – went on a losing streak.  The enormous bets they made on worthless, complex, and exotic financial instruments went bad, and they stuck the American people with the bill.

Wall Street received the largest taxpayer bailout in the history of the world.  But it was not just the $700 billion that Congress approved through the TARP program.  As a result of an independent audit that I requested in the Dodd-Frank bill by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided a jaw-dropping $16 trillion in virtually zero-interest loans to every major financial institution in this country, large corporations, foreign central banks throughout the world, and some of the wealthiest people in this country.

And, instead of using this money to provide affordable loans to small businesses, instead of putting this money back into the job-creating productive economy, what have they done?  They have gone back to their days of running the largest gambling casino in the world.  In other words, they have learned nothing.

The American people are angry because they see the great middle class of this country collapsing, poverty increasing and the gap between the very rich and everyone else grow wider.  They are angry because they see this great country, which so many of our veterans fought for and died for, becoming an oligarchy – a nation where our economic and political life are controlled by a handful of billionaire families.  

In the United States today, we have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income since the 1920s.  Today, the wealthiest 400 individuals own more wealth than the bottom half of America – 150 million people.  

Today, the six heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune own more wealth than the bottom 30 percent.

Today, the top 1 percent own 40 percent of all wealth, while the bottom 60 percent owns less than 2 percent.  Incredibly, the bottom 40 percent of all Americans own just 0.3 percent of the wealth of the country.

According to a new study from the Federal Reserve, median net worth for middle class families dropped by nearly 40 percent from 2007 to 2010.  That’s the equivalent of wiping out 18 years of savings for the average middle class family.

The distribution of income is even worse.  If you can believe it, the last study on this subject showed that in 2010, 93 percent of all new income created from the previous year went to the top one percent, while the bottom 99 percent of people had the privilege of enjoying the remaining 7 percent. In other words, the rich are getting much richer while almost everyone else is falling behind.

Not only is this inequality of wealth and income morally grotesque, it is bad economic policy.  If working families are deeply in debt, and have little or no income to spend on goods and services, how can we expand the economy and create the millions of jobs we desperately need?  There is a limit as to how many yachts, mansions, limos and fancy jewelry the super-rich can buy.  We need to put income into the hands of working families.    

A lot of my friends in the Senate talk a whole lot about our $15.8 trillion national debt and our $1.3 trillion deficit.  In fact, deficit reduction is a very serious issue and will be one of the major issues of this campaign.  Unfortunately, many of my colleagues forget to discuss how we got into this deficit situation in the first place, and how we went from a healthy surplus under President Clinton to record-breaking deficits under Bush.  

When we talk about the national debt and the deficit, let us never forget that the current deficit was primarily caused by Bush’s unpaid-for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.   Imagine that!  President Bush and his deficit hawks forgot to pay for two wars which will end up costing us trillions of dollars.  It just plain slipped their minds.  On top of that, for the first time in American history Bush and his Republican friends decided, during a war, to give out huge tax breaks – including massive benefits for millionaires and billionaires.  Even more importantly, the deficit is the result of a major decline in federal tax revenue because of the high unemployment and business losses that we are experiencing as a result of this recession – caused by the greed and recklessness of Wall Street.  Revenue as a percentage of GDP, at 15.2%, is the lowest in more than 60 years.

Despite the causes of the deficit, our Republican (and some Democratic) friends have decided that the best way forward toward deficit reduction is to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, food stamps and virtually every other programs of importance to low and moderate income families.  We must not allow that to happen.  

If we are serious about dealing with the deficit and creating jobs in America, the wealthy are going to have to start paying their fair share of taxes.  We also have to end the massive tax loopholes and subsidies that exist for major corporations.  (In that regard, Rep. Keith Ellison from Minnesota and I recently introduced legislation that would end all tax breaks and subsidies for the fossil fuel industry).  At a time when the United States now spends more money on defense than the rest of the world combined, we also have to cut back on military spending.  

Yes, we should deal with the deficit.  But not on the backs of the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor!  

Most importantly, when we talk about what’s happening in America, we have to address the unemployment crisis in this country which now finds 23 million Americans without jobs or who are under-employed.  And we know how to do that.  

We know that the fastest way to create decent-paying jobs is rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure (roads, bridges, rail, airports, water systems, wastewater plants, deteriorating schools, etc.)  We also know that we can create a great deal of employment by transforming our energy system away from foreign oil and coal and into energy efficiency and such sustainable energies as wind, solar, geo-thermal, bio-mass and other clean technologies.  We also know that, as our country fights fierce global competition, it is absurd to be laying-off educators and making college unaffordable.

While we continue to do everything we can during the next six months to defeat Republican right-wing extremism, it is also important that we never lose sight of the progressive vision that we are fighting for. If we don’t know where we want to go, it will be impossible to get there. Some of the issues that I intend to raise are the following:

Not only must we resist cuts in Social Security, we must lift the cap on taxing higher incomes so that Social Security will be strong for the next 75 years.

Not only must we oppose cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, we must see health care as a right of all and continue the fight for a Medicare for All Single Payer health care system.

Not only must we oppose placing the burden of deficit reduction on the backs of working families, we must demand a progressive tax system in which the wealthy and large corporations start paying their fair share of taxes.

Not only must we oppose cuts in unemployment compensation, we must fight for a jobs program that creates the many millions of jobs our country desperately needs.

Not only must we fight to end disastrous unfettered free trade agreements with China, Mexico, and other low wage countries, we must fight to fundamentally re-write our trade agreements so that American products, not jobs, are our number one export.

And, not only must we vigorously oppose the war against women, we must fight to end all forms of discrimination and prejudice in this country.

The struggle we are engaged in right now is of pivotal importance for this country. Whether we win or lose will determine the future of America. That struggle is not just for our lives, but more importantly it is for our children and our grandchildren.

Despair is not an option. I know people get angry, I know they get frustrated, I know they get disgusted. But we don’t have the right to give up and turn our backs on our children and grandchildren.

Our job is to simply bring to fruition what the overwhelming majority of the American people want. They want an economy that works for the middle class and working families and not just for the rich. They want everybody in this country to have health care as a right. They want to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They want to move away from these gross inequalities in income and wealth.

We have the people behind us. They have the money. And at the end of the day, the people will be stronger than the money.

One of my least favorite things about left/liberal politics is the tendency to wage self-destructive internal battles. I’ve got two examples today. First, VPIRG firing Cassandra Gekas when she decided to run for Lieutenant Governor; second, the hostility (by some) toward a new deep-pocketed advocacy group working in favor of single-payer healthcare.

Gekas gets the ziggy. This story from Paul Heintz, the newly-minted Fair Game columnist for Seven Days. (Andy Bromage has been promoted to News Editor.) Gekas was VPIRG’s health care advocate when she made a last-minute decision to run for Lite Gov.

The move, apparently, also came as a surprise to her employer. When she informed VPIRG executive director Paul Burns of her plans to run for office, Gekas says she was fired on the spot. “He just said, ‘Collect your things, leave immediately, and don’t come back,'” Gekas recounts.

Now, in addition to launching a statewide campaign, the 30-year-old Montpelier resident needs a new job so she can make her student-loan, car and rent payments.

Gekas could have handled the situation better. She didn’t tell Burns about her intentions until the day of the filing deadline. I realize her candidacy was a sudden thing, but she should have tried to notify Burns earlier.  

However, to fire her on the spot seems awfully harsh — particularly for an organization that promotes social justice. Giving her an unpaid leave, with some sort of severance deal, would seem more appropriate. I won’t tell anyone else what to do, but I’ll remember this the next time I get a fundraising call from VPIRG.

SEIU launches Vermont advocacy group.  Today’s Rutland Herald/Times Argus (paywalled, available here if you subscribe) has the story of a large national labor union setting up a 501c4 group in support of single-payer health care in Vermont. The Service Employees International Union says Vermont is on the cutting edge of health care reform, and it wants to ensure that Vermont stays there, providing an example for others to follow.

SEIU’s group, “Vermont Leads,” will benefit from the union’s deep pockets and connections to liberal donors across the country. But not everyone is happy about its entry.  

Sen. Anthony Pollina, a Progressive Party stalwart and early proponent of the single-payer concept, said Vermont Leads could trigger a big-money ad war that turns Vermonters off to health care reform.

The good Senator is looking a gift horse in the mouth. I don’t think SEIU, all by its lonesome, is going to trigger an HCR ad war. Citizens United took care of that. We’re likely to see big-money ad wars on HCR no matter what, and I’m glad to see that we’ve got at least one major organization on the good guys’ side.

There’s also an intra-labor aspect to this. The Vermont AFL-CIO is lukewarm about SEIU’s entry, because the two unions are both trying to organize home-care workers in Vermont. (AFL-CIO through its subsidiary, AFSCME.) One AFL-CIO official, Traven Leyshon, fears that the formation of Vermont Leads is an attempt “to curry political favor with Governor Shumlin,” rather than a sincere effort to bolster health care reform.

As far as I’m concerned, AFL-CIO seems more concerned about turf battles than major political issues. And as SEIU’s Matt McDonald points out, “there is absolutely nothing within the powers of this governor to advantage SEIU over AFSCME.”

In this case, I agree with Dr. Deb Richter of Vermont for Single Payer:

“The point is that people who tend to benefit from single-payer don’t have billions of dollars in their pockets,” Richter said. “We’re lucky to have this union recognize that if one state gets single-payer, then it’s likely to spread and be beneficial to the whole country.”

I called it here on GMD, two years ago, when we first learned of the potential F-35 location in Vermont.  I said that Burlington sounds like exactly the wrong place to locate such a facility.  

Playing off of a VPR quote from Lt. Col. Chris Caputo that was intended to downplay the potential sound impact of the jets on the region but mentioned the possibility of “variables,” I had this observation:

…That got me to thinking about the “variables.”  I’m no scientist, but it occurs to me that the topography, geology and other factors, which are specific to the region over which the F-35’s are to be deployed, might have a critical relationship to how the decibel level might play out in that region.  

So I had a look at the general land features of Edwards Air Force Base which yielded the more benign test results favored by Caputo.  That Air Force Base is located on the edge of a great salt desert; hardly similar to the land features surrounding Burlington.  Then, too, neither Airforce base is in the civilian center of the busiest city of the state.

Now, it seems that the recommendation of Burlington as a “preferred alternative” location for the siting may at last be destined for greater scrutiny.

Roseanne Greco of the South Burlington City Council, herself a retired Air Force Col., says it is as plain as the nose on your face.  She says it is obvious that “grave mistakes” were made somehow in the scoring process that identified the city as being environmentally suitable to host the jets.  The environmental suitability of the location was apparently the one scoring factor that put South Burlington at the top of the Air Force’s list of potential sites.

Ms. Greco, who bravely persists at spitting in the wind,  points out how obviously absurd that finding was.  Pointing to the fact that local opposition to the the F-35 siting is running fairly high, she suggests that it may be time to examine the scoring process more closely.

All we’re asking is ‘show us the data.’

‘Sounds like a pretty reasonable request.

What: Press conference on Taser use in Vermont

When: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Where: Cedar Creek Room, Vermont State House, State Street, Montpelier, Vermont

Advisory:

Advocates to Call for Taser Moratorium

Mental health and civil rights advocates will hold a press conference Wednesday, June 27, 2012, at 10:30 a.m. in the Cedar Creek Room of the Statehouse in Montpelier. The topic is Taser use in Vermont.

The coalition of groups and individuals will propose a moratorium on Taser use in the state until comprehensive, updated statewide standards of use are developed and training on the standards is implemented and until all officers have also received specialized training in dealing with persons suffering from a mental health crisis.

This press conference is being held a week to the day of the Tasering of Macadam Mason by Vermont State Police with death resulting.

If you are concerned about Taser use within Vermont and find yourself agreeing in principle with the moratorium on Taser use being called for by mental health as well as civil rights advocates:

If you are in the Montpelier area this morning (Wednesday, June 27th) and are able to join us in order to show support by providing a presence of concerned advocates, activists, professionals as well as members of the general public who are taking a stand along with those making the call for such, please consider doing so.

It’s been a year and a half since Smilin’ Jim Douglas last graced the corner office. But there are still plenty of, ahem, traces… leavings, if you prefer… effluvia, perhaps… of his time as alpha male of the Vermont political dog park. We’ve got a couple of good ones right here: a defeat in the Vermont Yankee case that can be blamed, in part, on Our Dear Ex-Leader; and a former Douglas henchman now tainting the landscape to our south.

First, Yankee. The state of Vermont suffered another courtroom defeat today, as a federal appeals court threw out a challenge to VY’s license renewal by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The state had challenged the validity of VY’s water permit; the NRC had argued that the state had failed to raise the water-permit issue in a timely manner.

But here’s the good part, the Douglas dookie:

The court found that after the NRC’s judicial arm, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), ruled on Entergy’s application to renew the license in 2008, the state “sat silent for two and one-half years, raising their objection only after the Commission issued the license renewal in March 2011,” the NRC said.

Well, of course the state didn’t object earlier. For almost all of that time, it was being run by staunchly pro-VY Jim Douglas. Consider this his parting gift to Entergy — he ran out the clock on one of Vermont’s possible avenues for blocking VY’s license renewal.

After the jump: another stinkin’ lump of Douglas legacy.

Second, the recent foofaraw over the Edward M. Kennedy Institute’s offer to host a debate in the senatorial race between incumbent Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Elizabeth Warren. As you may recall, the Brown camp demanded that Vicki Kennedy, Ted’s widow and Board chair of the Institute, agree not to endorse any candidate in the race. Anytime. This entire year. Yep, give up her First Amendment rights. She refused; the debate, at least for now, is off.

The Brownies claimed that the debate’s fairness would be questionable if Kennedy later endorsed Warren. Funny thing: two years ago, when Brown was facing Martha Coakley, the Kennedy Institutre hosted a debate. Brown had no objection.

So what changed between 2010 and now? Well, for one thing, Brown is in a tight race with a skilled debater, and his campaign seems intent on limiting the number and visibility of debates as much as possible.

For another, Brown’s campaign manager this year is one Jim Barnett, the young Republican Karl Rove wannabe and former Jim Douglas hatchet man. A thorough review of Barnett’s wrecking-ball career can be found at Huffington Post; we’ll just mention that he is credited for bringing a no-holds-barred, unrelentingly partisan (and often bitterly personal) style to the once genteel world of Vermont politics.  

When you look back at Barnett’s history working for Jim Douglas, it’s obvious that the Kennedy Institute melodrama — and the patently unreasonable demand on Vicki Kennedy — bear the distinctive fingerprints of Jim Barnett. The guy who did Jim Douglas’ dirty work, while the Governor floated serenely above the fray, ensconced in a cocoon of plausible deniability.  

Thanks, Governor.

Supposedly, police are trained in a “use of force continuum” for determining the level of force required to bring a person under control.

The following is the recommended escalation procedure, from the National Institute of Justice, for use by police departments in the US.

Officer Presence – No force is used.

Considered the best way to resolve a situation.

The mere presence of a law enforcement officer works to deter crime or diffuse a situation.

Officers’ attitudes are professional and nonthreatening.

Verbalization – Force is not-physical

Officers issue calm, nonthreatening commands, such as “Let me see your identification and registration.”

Officers may increase their volume and shorten commands in an attempt to gain compliance. Short commands might include “Stop,” or “Don’t move.”

Empty-Hand Control – Officers use bodily force to gain control of a situation.

Soft technique. Officers use grabs, holds and joint locks to restrain an individual.

Hard technique. Officers use punches and kicks to restrain an individual.

Less-Lethal Methods – Officers use less-lethal technologies to gain control of a situation.

(See Deciding When and How to Use Less-Lethal Devices.)



Blunt impact. Officers may use a baton or projectile to immobilize a combative person.

Chemical. Officers may use chemical sprays or projectiles embedded with chemicals to restrain an individual (e.g., pepper spray).

Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs). Officers may use CEDs to immobilize an individual. CEDs discharge a high-voltage, low-amperage jolt of electricity at a distance.

Lethal Force – Officers use lethal weapons to gain control of a situation.

Should only be used if a suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or another individual.

Officers use deadly weapons such as firearms to stop an individual’s actions.

Unfortunately, according to the State Police press release regarding the tasing-to-death of an unarmed, suicidal person, the officer in question skipped the empty-hand methods altogether, nor did he attempt to use old-fashioned “less lethal” methods, such as blunt force.

“The Trooper noticed that Mr. Mason was unarmed, unarmed,  therefore he lowered his weapon and drew his taser.  The Trooper ordered Mr. Mason on the ground and Mr. Mason lowered to a squatting position, the Trooper continued to tell  Mr. Mason to get on his stomach, at which time Mr. Mason stood up and moved toward the Trooper with a closed fist yelling aggressively at the Trooper.  …  The Trooper continued with verbal commands for Mr. Mason to get on the ground, and after several failed attempts for Mr. Mason to comply, the Trooper deployed his taser, striking Mr. Mason in the chest.   Mr. Mason went to the ground and the Trooper immediately rendered first aid as he observed Mr. Mason was unresponsive.  The Trooper administered CPR and continued so until Rescue personnel took over the care of Mr. Mason and transported him via ambulanced to Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, NH, where he was pronounced dead at the hospital. ”

This scenario of instant escalation to tasers is becoming all-too-common in Vermont and elsewhere.

In 2008, the VT Attorney General’s investigation of back-to-back taser incidents in Brattleboro, resulted in the AG calling on the police in VT to implement escalation of force policies and training.

The history of taser use is not a pretty one. For more stories and information about tasers in Vermont, you may want to peruse some of the past GMD coverage:

Police use taser to subdue man experiencing seizures

Police using tasers “frequently”

Brattleboro Cops Use Taser on Handcuffed Protesters

Sorrell on tasers: “The police blew it.”

VSP wants 260 Tasers

Brian Dubie Says Stun Guns Are Nonlethal

Valley News floods the zone on the Taser story

Get Ready for the Whitewash

What is the purpose of a Taser?

And Don’t You Scream or Make a Shout

If you see a login box for sitemeter, just click cancel.

Sitemeter keeps the count of GMD’s pageviews. In addition, some of our advertisers may use sitemeter to get a count of how many people are seeing their ads.

Unfortunately, sometimes sitemeter glitches, and shows the login box to all site viewers, not just the person in charge of that particular feature. We’re working to track down the cause. If it’s something we can fix, we’ll do so ASAP. If it’s in sitemeter’s hands, we may turn off the service until it’s resolved.

Sorry for any inconvenience!

I don’t buy the political hay some are making over Cabot’s recent logo change.  I say this as someone who is neither a fan of Agri-Mark’s waste disposal practices in the Cabot area; nor of Bill Sorrell,  who seems to be unsubstantially criticized in this case.  

Even Governor Shumlin threw a few elbows on behalf of the “wronged” cheesemaker; but suggesting that the Vermont brand needs Agri-Mark/Cabot has the whole formula ass-backwards, and conveys the impression that the governor cares more about big business than little ones.

Agri-Mark/Cabot is to be complimented for proactively changing its logo to more truthfully reflect the origins of its products.  Perhaps recognizing that, inevitably, the growth of the brand will take it even further from its Vermont sourcing practices, the company did not wait to be told.

Because of its size and national reputation, many voices seem to be saying that Agri-Mark/Cabot should not be held to the same standard as Vermont Butter & Cheese and other award-winning regional brands.  In fact, some are arguing that the 75% Vermont sourced milk standard should be reduced or eliminated entirely.   This raises the obvious question of what  would be acceptable as the benchmark for “Vermont” branded dairy products?  Would 60% be a better number?  Or 50%?  Should Cabot butter, which contains not a dram of Vermont milk, proudly proclaim a mythical Vermont connection?

Sooner or later, given the trajectory of Cabot, even a lowered standard will become unsupportable as the enterprise grows far beyond the capability of its regional suppliers, perhaps sourcing milk from California or processing it in plants in Wisconsin.  We hope for the best for our regional entrepreneurs; but at a certain point, they may no longer be legitimately said to produce strictly “Vermont” products.

I believe there is nothing to prevent Cabot from producing a “Vermont” branded cheddar, for instance; and certifiably sourcing the milk for that single product exclusively from Vermont.

So, why have a standard at all? We didn’t for the longest time.  But it became apparent that our Vermont entrepreneurs were being competitively handicapped by unscrupulous companies that built their own successes on the Vermont brand while sourcing ingredients from cheaper and potentially lower-quality out-of-state producers.  The result threatened a degradation of the valuable brand that our farmers and local entrepreneurs have so carefully nurtured with their own investment over the decades in personal toil for quality control.

It was those same farmers and entrepreneurs who asked their citizen legislature to protect the valuable Vermont brand that they have built.  Surely, even those Vermont farmers who are associated with Agri-Mark/Cabot can appreciate this concern.

The name “Cabot” is, in itself, an ongoing reminder of the Vermont history behind the brand.  That seems sufficient, given that (according to their own website) the controlling cooperative was created in Delaware, is headquartered in Massachusetts, and sources milk from all over New England.  Let the Vermont brand continue to shine, symbolizing the small-scale, responsible husbandry and premium quality that distinguishes the state and it’s unique products.

( – promoted by jvwalt)

Today a woman with severe mental illness died tragically by lighting herself on fire at a convenience store gas pump.

Kasey Morgan, the store manager, immediately shut off the pump and ran to the scene where she tried to save the woman’s life with a hand-held fire extinguisher.  Two customers tried, too.

Ms Morgan’s actions exemplify the quick thinking and raw courage that is needed in a crisis.  The woman in flames was beyond saving, but her rescuers could not know this, and without prompt action,  this grisly situation could have ended in an explosion, with additional lives lost.  

Kasey and companions, our thoughts are with you tonight

This is a little old, but attention must be paid.

Remember last week, when VT Democratic Party chair Jake Perkinson criticized Randy Brock and the VTGOP for inviting Maine Governor (and staunch tea-partier) Paul LePage to Vermont for a Brock fundraiser? Remember how VTGOP chair Jack Lindley got all huffy in response, accusing the Democratic “flamethrowers” and “name callers” of engaging in personal attacks against LePage?

When, in fact, the Dems had attacked LePage purely on policy grounds. Not a personal attack at all.

Lindley closed his screed with “And  even if they don’t like [LePage’s] ideas, the least they could do is treat this man with the same civility that our side demonstrated during President Obama’s recent visit to Vermont.”

Okay, one lesson in civility from the VTGOP, coming right up.  

Let’s take a look at civility, Jack Lindley style. This is, verbatim, the VTGOP news release, dated March 28, regarding the Presidential visit.

“It’s a huge deal,” Vermont Democratic Party Chairman Jake Perkinson, said of the president’s visit.

“Yes, it’s a huge deal,” said Vermont GOP Chair Jack Lindley. “It’s a huge deal for Vermont taxpayers, who are still reeling from the cost of the worst flooding in the past 100 years; Vermonters who are still reeling from the cost of Obamacare and the skyrocketing cost of gasoline and heating oil. And for Vermonters who are also going to be faced with a projected 18% increase in the cost of health care under the Governor’s plan for the health care exchange and an additional rate increase in their electric bill from the Governor’s proposed renewable energy bill.”

Said Lindley, “I had hoped the President would take time to meet some of those suffering as a result of his policies. Unfortunately, he’ll be spending most of his time raising money. And according to WCAX, it appears he’ll be sticking Vermont taxpayers with the tab for state and local police and traffic detail. WCAX reports that ‘police officers are expected to be stationed at every intersection along the route – a special detail that’s going to require dozens of officers from surrounding towns.’ And South Burlington Police Chief Trevor Whipple says he expects the cost to be ‘community borne.’ ”

“The President says he expects to raise and spend one billion on his reelection campaign,” said Lindley. “The least he could do is reimburse Vermont’s taxpayers for the cost of his fundraising visit, rather than ask the people of cash strapped Vermont to subsidize the cost of his campaign. Let us hope that our esteemed Governor, who is still having trouble balancing the budget, will see fit to speak up on behalf of Vermont’s taxpayers and ask the President for reimbursement.”

These words are taken directly from the Vermont Republican Party’s website. (You’ll have to scroll down; it’s the fifth item on the VTGOP “News” page, and the items can’t be selected individually. Cheesy web design.)

So Jack Lindley is a hypocrite. And a liar — about civility, and also about that billion-dollar Obama war chest. No one in the Obama campaign — much less the President himself — has ever said such a thing.

Civility, my Aunt Fanny.