Sen. Sally Fox, public advocate extraordinaire, has died after a two-year battle with lung cancer.

According to reports on Vt Digger, House Speaker Shap Smith made the announcement Friday to a shocked chamber of legislators, many of whom had been her colleagues during her seven terms in the House. She was in the middle of her second term in the Senate. According to the story in the Free Press (limited free access) Senate President Pro-tem John Campbell called her “courageous and passionate in fighting for people who couldn’t fight for themselves.”

I met Sally Fox a few times, and was inspired and impressed. Hers was clearly a public service life, dedicated to speaking up for those with less access to power. She was kind and smart and did terrific work. She will be missed by thousands of people, some of whom might not ever have known who she was or what she did to make their lives better.

Our hearts and thoughts go out to her husband and children and to all those who must find a way to carry on without her voice, her compassion, her presence to make justice real in this world.

I have some thoughts regarding Governor Shumlin’s State of the State Address, Opioid Edition. But before I get to that, I wanted to point out the most interesting response to the speech. It came from Lt. Gov. Phil Scott, putative moderate. And it sounded… well… extremely Republican.

I agree wholeheartedly with the Governor that drug abuse – and prevention, enforcement, treatment and recovery – is a critical issue in our state that we must address.  

Nothing wrong so far. Standard boilerplate response. But then:

The Governor also mentioned that creating jobs and opportunity is the best prevention. I completely agree, but I’m concerned that there was no mention of a plan or strategy on that front. Since being elected to public office, I’ve been talking about the need to grow the economy, creating an environment that is conducive to growth, and making it easier for people to do business in Vermont. I’m concerned that we have created a lot of uncertainty on a number of issues – health care, property tax increases, employer mandates and other government regulations – some of which are making it harder, not easier, to do business in Vermont. I want to once again challenge every legislator and the Governor to think about their decisions on each and every piece of legislation this session through this lens: How will it impact business and economic growth in Vermont?

Well now. That sounds like something you’d hear from Randy Brock or Angry Jack Lindley, not from the guy who’s supposedly moving his party toward the center. In fact, it’s beginning to look like Phil Scott is moving away from the center and toward the anti-tax, anti-government wing of the VTGOP.

More than that, it’s the kind of rhetoric that comes from the national GOP: the answer to every social issue is lowering taxes and lightening regulation. Is this the same Phil Scott who argues that the national party’s extreme positions have no place in Vermont politics?

I can see why Scott, having assumed a measure of leadership responsibility, may feel obligated to more strongly represent his party’s position. But it’s certainly at odds with the vision of Everybody’s Buddy creating a kinder, gentler VTGOP. If anything, the influence is going the other way.

As GMD's resident New Jersey exile (Could I really be the only one? Here in Vermont that seems unlikely.) I continue to follow with great interest the exploits of Governor Tony Soprano Chris Christie.

 I've already posted about his little Fort Lee traffic scam, and that's turning out to be the gift that keeps on giving.

My question tonight, and I'll just throw it out for discussion, is this:

Will either the scandal, or his transparent lies about having nothing to do with it:

(a) have an adverse effect on his presidential prospects, or 

(b) he never had any shot at getting through the Republican primaries anyway? 

 And question 2: regardless of your answer to question 1, how much fun are you having seeing this guy get exposed for the bully he is?

The following is not based on inside sources or secret documents; it’s just me, interpreting current events and connecting a bunch of dots that appear to be related. Take it for what it’s worth.

As lawmakers reconvene in Montpelier, our political media fill themselves with coverage of Governor Shumlin’s Very Big Day and the opening rounds of legislative action. Meanwhile, the real important stuff has been happening elsewhere, without any bright lights, cameras or microphones. What might that be?

The Governor (and other top Dems) carrying out a grand strategy to permanently co-opt the political center, thus marginalizing the Republican Party on the right, and the Progs and liberal Dems on the left. Whether or not there’s an actual deal or just an unspoken accord, it looks like this: Business interests and mainstream conservatives allow Shumlin to pursue single-payer health care, and in return, he steers a centrist course on other issues — keeping a lid on the (small-P) progressive aspirations of the left.

I have a bunch of items to get to, but I’ll start with the unspoken but very obvious dance between Shumlin and our buddy Bruce Lisman. Three unmistakable signs:

1. Shumlin’s apparent 180-degree spinaroonie on ethics reform. Peter “Mr. Microphone” Hirschfeld’s initial report for VPR included the following passage:

Gov. Peter Shumlin voluntarily disclosed the kind of information being sought by Lisman and Gilbert during his first two gubernatorial campaigns. He says he supports the move to make the disclosures mandatory.

“It’s just important for the public to know, when you’re going to be the chief executive of the state or frankly be involved in making laws for a state what assets you have and what conflicts you might have,” the governor said.

Emphasis mine. I don’t think Hirschfeld realized it, but he got something of a scoop there. Until now, Shumlin’s been an opponent of ethics reform, especially in the case of state legislators. (In case the highlighted quote above wasn’t clear enough, Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz now reports that Shumlin would require financial disclosure for “all elected officials serving in Montpelier.” Now, let’s spin the clock back to November 2012:

Gov. Peter Shumlin, a Democrat, who frequently talks about his commitment to transparency, says the voluntary disclosure system works well for statewide candidates, and it wouldn’t be “fair” to require lawmakers to disclose financial information.

And back in 2009, Shumlin told then-ink-stained wretch Peter Hirschfeld that “Vermont has proven immune to the kind of seedy lawmaking that might make financial disclosure laws necessary in other states.”

Hmm. Looks like the Governor has changed his tune. In fact, he’s now singing harmony on Bruce Lisman’s favorite song.  

2. The curious incident of the dog in the night-time. In this case, the dog that didn’t bark is Bruce Lisman.

He’s all in favor of transparency and accountability, right? He’s big on government efficiency, right? And what’s been the number-one issue of the last several months regarding transparency, accountability, and efficiency? The troubled rollout of Vermont Health Connect. Republicans have been all over Shumlin’s case on this, and they plan to continue as long as they possibly can.

Well, as far as I can tell, Lisman hasn’t uttered a single word about VHC. Curious, isn’t it?

3. Lisman’s latest opinion piece, praising the Governor for his “focus on jobs and prosperity.” And, naturally, trying to hog all the credit for anyone who talks about economic growth — “it’s been our focus for the past two years.” Yeah, Bruce, and before you came along, nobody had ever thought of the issue before. Insufferable.

But the point is, Lisman praising the Governor. Remember the expensive and unavoidable launch phase of Campaign for Vermont, and its ceaseless railing against the powers in Montpelier? Well, now Lisman is making nice. Granted, he does it in the context of pushing his own agenda; but it’s a stark change in tone.

I don’t think this means Bruce Lisman is a rising star. What I do think is that he’s politically useful to Shumlin: Lisman spends his money pushing a centrist agenda, and thus provides a counterweight to the braying dead-enders in the VTGOP as well as the liberals who want to use the Dems’ political power to shift Vermont substantially leftward.

All right, so there’s my case for A Secret Love between Gov. Shumlin and Vermont’s own Wall Street baron. Now, on to other exhibits in my case for a top-down centrist freeze.

— Previously cited in this space, the Governor’s fundraising prowess among Republicans and business leaders, as documented last month by Mr. Heintz. Including the quid pro quo as overtly stated by Barre Mayor (and Shumlin donor) Thom Lauzon: “We don’t want to see broad-based taxes increased. The Governor has probably led that charge as well as any other governor has.”

It’d be instructive, not to mention a public service, if some political reporter who actually draws a salary would take the time to examine Brian Dubie’s 2010 donor list and compare it with the 2012 lists for Shumlin and Randy Brock. I bet a lot of folks crossed over, and I bet that’s the primary reason that Brock’s fundraising efforts tanked so badly.

— The apparent closed-door deal on campaign finance law, which will immediately benefit Governor Shumlin, and will in the future benefit any candidate occupying the political center. As first reported by, oh God, Paul Heintz again, the emerging bill “is so watered down that the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, which has spent years fighting for such a bill, has already vowed to oppose it.”  

The bill would double the ceiling on donations to a single statewide candidate from individuals, corporations and PACs from $2,000 to $4,000. There’s only one guy who has a significant number of maxed-out donors under the current law, and that’s Peter Shumlin. If this bill passes, his overwhelming financial advantage will grow even larger.

— Finally, some old news, but freshly pertinent in this context. While there are more than a few fire-breathers in the Dem and Prog caucuses, the House and Senate leadership is reliably moderate. Shap Smith is a self-described moderate, and John Campbell obviously is. Indeed, I suspect that the main reason Campbell is still Senate President Pro Tem in spite of his disastrous 2012 session is that he keeps a lid on any potential lefty outbreaks under the Golden Dome. Not for nothing have I called him “Shumlin’s doorstop.”

And don’t forget that the 2012 challenge to his leadership, in the person of Sen. Ann Cummings, quickly dissolved after initially being seen as a huge threat to Campbell. I suspect some arms got twisted there.

Conclusion, finally. It looks to me like the Governor and his allies are moving to cement the Dems’ control of the center — which means cementing relationships (and forging compromises) with centrist Republicans, business groups, and deep-pocketed donors who are fiscally conservative but socially moderate.

This may be a sound political strategy; if it works, the Republicans will be marginalized for a long, long time. But it’s a disappointment to people like me who see Republican Governors like Rick Snyder, John Kasich, Tom Corbett, Scott Walker, and (until recently) Bob McDonnell resolutely push their states rightward, while we Vermonters settle for health care reform and not much else.

Health care reform’s a big deal, to be sure. And if Shumlin does manage to get us to single-payer, his administration will have been an overall success and his legacy will be assured. But it’s hard not to wish for more, given the Dems’ political dominance. And the party’s elected leaders are choosing to follow the safe road.  

For those just joining us, last week I had a bit of sport at the Governor’s expense: I dared to point out that his spiffy new anti-poverty council was saddled with the unfortunate acronym POOP. (Pathways Out Of Poverty.)

Well, it looks like the administration has seen the shit hitting the fan (sorry) and quickly sidestepped the spray. According to GMD commenter Ernesto, posted yesterday:

Sat in on Human Resources committee this afternoon. I believe the excrescent acronym to which you referred the other day has been hurriedly amended to MFOOP — Moving Families Out Of Poverty. The power of the virtual pen leaves its indelible mark and moves on..

.

Okay, so they’ve shifted from a scatological acronym to a silly one. (It still, unfortunately, echoes the conservative talking point that the sole purpose for anti-poverty programs is to eliminate poverty. Which is quite impossible, especially in these times of drastic wealth maldistribution.)

Anyway, pardon me if I toot (sorry again) my own horn.

Man, once the poop jokes start, it’s really hard to stop.  

I was pleased to read that Democratic Speaker Shap Smith is supporting a bill  designed to give the private public a greater voice before the public service board.

Heretofore, small advocacy groups who wished to have a place at the table, but did not have the personal resources of their corporate challengers, had to rely on the pockets of organizations like AARP to represent them, en masse.

In an era when the individual’s opportunity to gain relevance in the process has grown steadily smaller, while the corporate megaphone has grown exponentially louder, we can only hope that this signals a change in direction that will not be effectively negated by the increased opportunity to stuff candidate’s pockets with “wish money.”  Sometimes, the schizophrenia of our Legislature really gives one pause!

Over the past decade or two, one of the most popular campaign platforms of the Republicans, has been a promise to “reform” the permit process, which we came to understand means limiting the opportunity for those annoying citizens to participate and potentially throw a monkey wrench in the well-greased wheels along the fast track to commercial development.  Even our Democratic governor appears to have fallen under the spell of the Republican argument; because, as the mantra goes, only continual “growth” is good.  

Nevermind the restraining concept of sustainability; it’s become the fashion to pay it lip-service while rationalizing policy that is anything-but.

Citizen participation that slows the process may be annoying to the big players, but it is, after all, one of the main reasons why Vermont did not suffer as greatly in the recent real estate bubble collapse as did other states.

Please give us more of the same, Mr. Speaker.  

Since my last post had the unfortunate side-effect of giving my colleague Sue Prent a sad, here’s a little something to bring cheer to the heart of any St. Albans Democrat.

Ah, here comes our old frenemy Dustin “Dustbin” Degree, former Jim Douglas fartcatcher and one-term Republican State Representative, to enlighten us all on the status of Vermont politics by way of a commentary posted on VTDigger. Hint: Everything is terrible, and it’s all the Democrats’ fault.

This week, the Legislature sits and as it has since 2009, the Democratic supermajority will once again control every single aspect of the legislative process.

Hey, Dustbin: ya don’t like it, WIN SOME ELECTIONS.

…the supermajority will impose its will on Vermonters with little desire for compromise or acknowledgment of those who, often vehemently, disagree.

Yes, the legislative supermajority elected by a supermajority of voters will conduct its business without compromising with a party that’s fallen into a black hole of political irrelevance due to its own disorganization and rabid conservatism.

Damn voters, anyway. Ingrates! They reject the wisdom of Our Greatest Living Citizen:

For eight years, the Douglas administration warned of the consequences of rising taxes, increased spending and burdensome developmental permitting.

And after eight years, the voters were fed up with the Douglas administration’s constant hectoring and lack of new ideas or coherent policy.  

Doomster Dustbin goes on to cite carefully selected employment numbers purporting to show how our state is going straight to hell in a Democratic handbasket. He then concludes that “the Democrats’ experiment in single party rule has failed,” which makes it sound like the Dems seized power in a coup rather than prevailing in a series of free and fair elections. In part because of their appeal to voters, and in part because of the Republicans’ lack of appeal.

I realize you’re too young to remember it, Dustbin, but about the time you were pooping your Pampers (b. 1985 per Wikipedia), Vermont was a solidly Republican state. Maybe instead of castigating the Democrats for daring to beat your party, you should look in the mirror and ask, “How did we manage to blow it so badly? And what can we do to reconnect with the voters?”

In the absence of such an honest reappraisal of, by, I can understand why you so energetically present this disaster-porn of a prediction — why you seem so eager for economic catastrophe. Your only hope for regaining power is for Vermont to go so far off the rails that your self-marginalized party will start to look like a reasonable option.

Finally, a couple more howlers from Dustbin’s conclusion:

We must demand that the allegiance of our senators and representatives lies with the people, and not the praise or preference of party leadership.

Uh, er, are you talking about “the people” who knowingly and enthusiastically elected all those damn Democrats? I guess in your fantasy world, those elections somehow didn’t count (ACORN?), and our elected representatives are somehow out of touch with the very people who’ve repeatedly endorsed their policies through multiple election cycles.

And we must restore the sacred concepts of cooperation and compromise to our legislative process.

In other words, the Democrats should voluntarily relinquish their freely-won political mandate; instead, they should water down their policies to mollify the 30-35% conservative dead-enders.

Just like the Republicans have done in places where they have the majority, eh, Dustbin? Florida, Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio? Would you hold up Paul LePage or Rick Perry or Jan Brewer as models of “cooperation and compromise”?

I guess you’d reject the words of George W. Bush after his extremely narrow (and disputed) 2004 victory, when he said “I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.”

Well, Mr. Bush had earned a mere fraction of the political capital accumulated by the Vermont Democratic Party. Can you blame the Dems if they want to spend a little of it?

Well, a reasonable person couldn’t. But Dustin Degree can.  

(​originally included within a blog post on the subject matter posted to Vermont Watch, here; as well as since cross-posted to iBrattleboro, here)

For the sake of full disclosure: Morgan W. Brown is a newly appointed member of the Vermont Council on Homelessness, however the opinions expressed within this particular commentary are solely his own and represent none other.

What people living in poverty truly need most is real political power.

​This means, as well as begins with, being allowed to speak for and represent themselves as well as have ample opportunities afforded in order to meaningfully participate in any policy making and other decisions made about them at various levels, whether political or otherwise, and, either as individuals or as a group.

What people living in poverty do not need any more of is having others speak and making decisions for them, most especially not those who have their own or an organization’s agenda and interests at stake.

Regrettably, Governor Peter Shumlin’s newly established “Pathways Out of Poverty” initiative falls seriously short of what is in fact required and, additionally, has all the appearances of merely being a new version of the same old thing and not much else.

This is yet another well-meaning initiative and council that, as usual, has more to do with funding programs as well as aiding certain political agendas and interests than it has to do with helping people most in need.

Rather than being “pathways out of poverty” as is purported, this will likely only lead to additional dead ends and could be just another setup for failure, ironically, of which the person living in poverty will typically be found to blame.

Unless and until people living in poverty have a real and meaningful say about any and all policy as well as programs intended to help them out of poverty, nothing will ever truly change, no matter how much funding is found and dedicated to the effort.

Only real political power in the hands of people living in poverty will ever make a difference and create lasting change.

Anything else is a poor substitute. Nothing else should be acceptable. Those in power and authority should know better. As those of my peers within the disAbility community are fond of saying: Nothing about us, without us!

Morgan W. Brown

Montpelier

Sunday, January 5, 2014

For the sake of full disclosure: Morgan W. Brown is a newly appointed member of the Vermont Council on Homelessness, however the opinions expressed within the above commentary are solely his own and represent none other.

Well, I don’t know if that’s what they’ll call it — probably not — but Our Governor is the clear and obvious winner in a backdoor maneuver to fast-track a new campaign finance bill. And I mean extremely fast track.

I know, the Legislature isn’t even in session yet. But, per Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz, the fix is in.

One of the Vermont legislature’s first acts upon reconvening this week may be to vastly increase the amount of money in state politics.

After failing to reach compromise last spring over competing campaign finance bills, House and Senate negotiators narrowed their differences during the legislative off-season and are scheduled to sign off on a final bill Tuesday morning. Both houses could pass the new version by the end of the week and send it to Gov. Peter Shumlin.

The campaign finance reform issue was an embarrassing flameout in 2013. It began with broad tripartisan support, and ended with the State Senate going into a Four Corners offense and running out the clock with nothing accomplished.

And, during the long recess, it appears as though the Long Knives came out and gutted the legislation of anything meaningful whatsoever.

At present, candidates for statewide office can raise $2000 per two-year election cycle from any individual or corporation. That would double to $4000 if the current draft is passed.

Political action committees that donate directly to candidates would be able to raise up to $4000 from any individual or corporation, up from $2000. And political parties would be able to raise $10,000 from such entities, also up from $2000.

… The new $10,000 party limit is actually far higher than either of the two versions passed last spring by the House and Senate. The House had proposed limiting contributions to parties to $5000, while the Senate had proposed $3000.

The spending limits wouldn’t do much for the vast majority of candidates. But it should vastly increase the size of gubernatorial war-chests. Well, one war-chest in particular, since Peter Shumlin is the only guy who’s been maxing out a whole lot of donors. (Incuding quite a few Republicans, as Heintz has previously reported.)  

This bill would make it even harder for anyone — Republican, Progressive, Independent, Lismaniac — to mount an effective challenge to Shumlin, who goes into this campaign with something like a million bucks in the bank.

Of course, that advantage depends on Shumlin’s — or successor Democrats’ — ability to appeal to Vermont’s monied class. Which tilts the balance toward “moderate” stances on, oh, stuff like tax reform. If that seems like a stretch, recall the words of Barre’s Republican Mayor, Thom Lauzon, who maxed-out his (current) donation limit at a November fundraiser for Shumlin:

“It was all Republicans!” jokes Lauzon, who says he and his wife, Karen, donated $2000. “Certainly with Republicans, one of our issues is we don’t want to see broad-based taxes increased. The governor’s probably led that charge as well as any other governor has.”

OTOH, the (so far hypothetical) person who’d lose the most under the new campaign finance scheme is Your Next Progressive Candidate for Governor, who’d have an even harder time competing with a well-funded Democrat (or Republican, if or when the VTGOP regains its bearings).

So, there you have it: the Peter Shumlin Bailout (and Screw The Progs) Act of 2014.  

Shap is sheepish about legalization. Two years ago at Town Meeting about this and he said (paraphrasing): “We’ll set up a panel to study decriminalization for a year, and look at their findings in the session after that.”

Well, Shap, you are now two years behind the curve.  Two states have legalized it, several other have demcrimmed.  Please, Shap, come join us in the 21st Century and legalize MJ this term!

Vermont’s number 2 cash crop – or is it #1 now? – is MJ, and the state is getting none of that action.  And the state is LOSING money by persecuting MJ users & growers.

Colorado made $1M on it’s first day of legal pot!  Why, oh why, doesn’t Shap want in on that action?