Green Mountain Daily and Rolling Stone magazine announced at a joint press conference today that GMD founder and front-pager John Odum has signed on as the new drummer for the band Phish.

John “Breaking” Odum and groupie Ms. Snarkie Galore

Spokesbloggers for GMD said that the announcement did not come as a surprise, that they had been expecting something along these lines ever since the recent unearthing of certain photographic evidence of Odum’s passion for the drums, and the lifestyle of being a major rock drumming superstar.

“When you can sport a mullet that sweet-looking, there’s just no keeping you from your true calling.” said GMD’s GreenVTster, himself a recovering 80’s punk rocker. “We all knew it was just a matter of time once we saw how JO could roll in that environment.”

GMD scribe and former Blondie backup singer Maggie Gundersen also had an inkling about the move. “You could just tell he had the chops, even in his writing it came through.”

Caoimhin Laochdha, who migrated to GMD after a short but notable career as a body double in a series of  Violent Femmes videos, said he could always see a certain rock and roll swagger in Odum’s walk as he approached political figures with notebook or tape recorder in hand.

In adding Odum to their lineup, Phish follows the lead of bands that have used two drummers, like the Dead and the Allman Brothers. In their own Phish fashion though, the band also announced that they’ll occasionally move to a two bass player lineup, keeping Mike Gordon and adding JO. “We concluded that the rhythm section could really use more bottom, and the extra bass was just what we had in mind,” a Phish spokesman observed. “That, and more cowbell, of course.”

In a separate presser with CNBC later in the day, Odum also unveiled a major sponsorship deal with Milwaukee’s Best Beer. Stocks were up in the beverages sector on the news.

For the past few years, there has been a pronounced absence of vision from the Democratic leadership and candidates in our state. This past week, there was a refreshing change to that trend as Shap Smith and Peter Shumlin took the initiative and announced their agenda for the remainder of the legislative session.

Unfortunately from a political perspective, their package of proposals is in danger of being reduced to only gay marriage in the perception of the voters.

Headlines ran with the gay marriage story after this press conference. For example, this article in the Times Argus mentions the other proposals in the 22nd and last paragraph, as an afterthought.

Other legislative priorities outlined by Shumlin and Smith on Thursday included a job creations bill, a $125 million transportation bonding proposal, a green energy bill, campaign finance reform, same-day voter registration and a bill forcing the owners of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant to full fund its decommissioning bill.

Please don’t misunderstand me, I think pushing for gay marriage now is a good and right move, absolutely, but it shouldn’t be the only issue that Dems are seen as leading on. Already there is a “poll” questioning the wisdom of having gay marriage so high on the priority list, when the reality is that it is part of a comprehensive range of programs including economic actions.

Democratic candidates, and savvy Democratic political leaders need to be a better job, a FAR better job, in making the case that they are a better alternative to lead this state. Leading on civil rights issues like gay marriage is one aspect of the leadership we need, but we won’t win elections without showing that we can lead this state in all areas of concern. The most frustrating thing about having Douglas as VT’s governor is that there are such fundamental differences between what he believes and what the majority of Vermonters believe in an array of policy areas such as education, spending priorities, protecting the environment, economic opportunity, etc., etc, and explaining the differentiation between Dem candidates and Douglas is central to a winning campaign cycle. The proposal by Smith and Shumlin is a decent step in the right direction, but I fear that they will not reap the benefits of it unless we can expand the dialogue to include the other worthy proposals included in their announcement.

The VT press has reduced the Democratic initiatives to a single issue for the sake of publicity, and simplicity. Almost all of the headlines across the media spectrum in our state described the press conference mainly as a gay marriage proposal. We are going to have to push back to fill in the rest of story for Vermonters to hear about how we will deal with the economy, the state budget, and building a new economic base in this state.

Do any folks here have more details on the rest of the plan? I would love to hear more details about the job creations bill, green energy bill, and campaign finance reform especially.

Elections DO have consequences!!

It’s nice to be back on the map…

—————————-

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

____________________________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                       March 6, 2009

Building on Thursday’s White House Forum on Health Care Reform, President Obama Announces Series of Regional White House Forums to be Held Across Country

California, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina and Vermont to host regional forums to continue discussion about bringing down health care costs, expanding coverage for all Americans

WASHINGTON, DC – Building on Thursday’s White House Forum on Health Care Reform, President Obama announced a series of Regional White House Forums on Health Reform that will bring the conversation about health care reform directly to communities across the country. In keeping with the Obama administration’s commitment to a transparent, accountable government, the forums will be an opportunity for Americans from all over the country to voice their concerns and ideas about reforming our health care system.

“Health care reform is a fiscal imperative,” President Obama said. “Skyrocketing health care costs are draining our federal budget, undermining our long-term economic prosperity and devastating American families. The time for reform is now and these regional forums are some of the key first steps toward breaking the stalemate we have been stuck in for far too long. The forums will bring together diverse groups of people all over the country who have a stake in reforming our health care system and ask them to put forward their best ideas about how we bring down costs and expand coverage for American families.”

The Regional White House Forums on Health Care Reform will be hosted by the states’ Governors and will include participants ranging from doctors to patients to providers to policy experts. They will be open conversations with everyday Americans, local, state and federal elected officials – both Democrat and Republican — and senior Obama administration officials. The events will begin with a video recorded by the President, a summary of the findings from the Health Care Community Discussions that took place in December, and an overview of the discussion that took place at the White House Forum on Health Reform.

The meetings in California, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina and Vermont will take place in March and early April. Further logistical information about the forums is forthcoming.

More from MyDD:

Barack Obama carried all of the five states chosen for these forums, but two of them have Republican governors (Vermont and California). Does the White House have reason to believe that Jim Douglas and Arnold Schwarzenegger will generally support the president’s health care reform agenda?

Per an email that you may have gotten this morning, Ian Carleton is resigning as state chair:

After three rich and exciting years of serving as Chair of the Vermont Democratic Party, it is time for me to move on. As of this Saturday, I wish to resign from my position as State Chair. Our able Vice Chair Judy Bevans, with whom I have already discussed this decision, has graciously agreed to serve as acting Chair until such time as the Party wishes to hold a special election for Chair (see Article XX of the VDP Bylaws), or until this November when the Party is statutorily required to undergo complete reorganization.

I’ve heard a lot of discussion about the state organization, its effectiveness and its vision. Can anyone here shed any further light on how things are running at the state level and how well it’s working?

I honestly don’t have a good handle on it, all I would say is that the state-wide campaigns seem to be rather lacking in inspiration or vision in some cases, which of course should not necessarily be blamed on the state party.

The most concerning trend I have seen is that the state party has seemed to rely on an attitude of expectation that all Dems will march in line, contribute and work hard for our candidates. Now, that’s not totally unreasonable, but when it’s the only justification you’re offering, it can be less than inspirational.

There are strong cases to be made for the Democratic platform and vision in Vermont, but I’m not seeing that case being made. Candidates who can illuminate that vision for voters would be one way to go, but there also seems to be an opportunity to inspire more on a party level. Grassroots outreach seems to be limited to asking for donations, not actively engaging and empowering people on the local level, nor does it seem to reach out to expand the party base very effectively.

As good democrats we should always keep our eyes open to opportunities to engage in selecting leaders and setting new visions. Is this an opportunity for needed change?

Just got this email announcing that Spaulding will continue as Treasurer and will not run for Governor in 2010:

Dear Friends,

I would like to thank all of you who have encouraged me to run for Governor next year.  Your kind words, confidence, and support are deeply appreciated.  After a good deal of consideration, conversation, and introspection, I have decided to forgo a campaign for Governor in 2010 and instead focus intently on fulfilling my responsibilities as Vermont’s State Treasurer.

Many of you know how enthusiastic I am about serving as State Treasurer.  In these difficult economic times my job is both challenging and rewarding.  I can serve Vermonters best at this time by paying close attention to the financial affairs of our State with as few distractions as possible.

Vermont is in need of strong and creative leadership in the Governor’s office.  I am confident we will have one or more very strong Democratic candidates who understand what it takes to run a successful campaign and who can provide the kind of leadership we need to realize the potential of this great state and her people.

It is not too soon for serious candidates to be putting the foundation of a campaign in place.  Grassroots organizing, raising money and developing a plan takes time.  I encourage you to evaluate those who have expressed interest in running for Governor, get involved in a campaign early and be prepared to unify behind our eventual party candidate.

If you would like to find out more about the work we are doing in the Office of the State Treasurer, please visit our Web site at www.vermonttreasurer.gov.

With best regards,

Jeb Spaulding

I hope this is not a sign of back room deals, it would be great to have a vibrant primary where a true progressive would have an opportunity to rally the base.

Here’s a sampling of some of the more noteworthy items that have streamed into my rss blog feeds lately:

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee

The PCCC is a new PAC dedicated to helping bold progressive candidates run first-class campaigns and win.

It is led by former MoveOn staff, union organizers, top staff from Darcy Burner and Tom Perriello’s 2008 House campaigns, and the co-inventor of RSS and Reddit.

Vermont News Guy (Jon Margolis)

Margolis was the national political correspondent for the Chicago Tribune and is an adjunct professor of political science at the University of Vermont. I first saw him recently on VT This Week and he blew me away. As you may have read here on GMD, he has a new blog about VT politics that is a must read.

He’s a straight shooter:

The Democrats, then, are starting out a lot earlier and with many more possible candidates than they did two years ago, when at first nobody would run, and then finally nobody did run, though in this case nobody was also known as Gaye Symington. No reflection on her character or intelligence; she was just one of the worst statewide candidates ever. Not just in Vermont ever, either. In the whole country ever.

…

And digs where we would:

This crop looks better, though it’s hard to say which one would be strongest or how the field would shape up. Spaulding seems to be, in his own words “slightly more centrist” than the others, perhaps meaning he’d be most likely to win the general election if he could win the primary, in which liberal voters dominate.

But Racine indicated that he, too would try to appeal to centrist voters.

“I lost my race in the middle,” he said. “There are a lot of folks out there sort of in the middle.”

more below…

I’m sure many of you read The Prog Blog, even if some aren’t eager to admit it! C’mon, we can admit that they often say exactly what we wish our folks would say, and what we secretly hope they really mean even though they never say it quite exactly. Ya know?

Sometimes they just nail the argument on the head, like this post detailing the impact of Douglas’s proposals:

Douglas’s Proposed Tax Increase by Martha Abbott

The following examples illustrate the effect that repeal of Act 60 and Act 68 would have on four average Vermont households:  All four are couples who have household incomes from $46,500 to $81,700 and whose homes are assessed from $200,000 – $258,000, 2 in urban towns and two in rural towns.

A couple with a household income of $81,700 in Burl owning a $258,000 house would rise by $860 (1% of household income)

A couple with a household income of $46,500 in Lincoln owning a $200,000 house would rise by $2047 (4.4% of household income)

A couple with a household income of $75,800 in Richmond, owning a $218,000 house would rise by $1,319   (1.7%)

A couple with a household income of $52,000 in Winooski owning $220,000 house would rise by $1297 (2.5%)

The Left Coaster is where I go when I want to feel like a moderate. Or maybe a conservative. If I post there, it’s usually to blast someone who has just insulted me or anyone who would possibly be so Neanderthal as to take an extremely stupid position like mine, like saying that we should wait to see what Obama actually does in office instead of starting an impeachment hearing based on rumors of moderate appointees.

It’s fun!

They do have some good thoughts mixed in though, and the …ummm, challenging environment leads in some cases to well-supported arguments:

What Kind of Stimulus Projects Should Be Considered?

My favorite program would be to fund Green Jobs to insulate, repair and make more energy efficient homes for people in our cities, our rural communities and our suburbs. Not only would this provide jobs for lots of people, it would be a great boon for those citizens who are struggling to pay their bills. As California has shown, programs that produce energy efficiency pay off for decades and make it easier for us to address global warming.

Joseph Stiglitz also thinks there could be a lot more bang-for-the-buck if the focus was just making sure states didn’t have to layoff personnel or shutdown their programs. After all, it’s in the middle of recessions that public services become more important.

Matthew Yglesias is one of those young, opinionated, liberal, uppity bloggers that the right loves to hate. I picture him as a recent college grad with time on his hands and nothing better to do with it than all the reading, research and blogging that I would do if I didn’t have to, you know, take care of kids and work for a living and all that.

In The Costs of Ideological Correctness, he points out the lengths that politicians will go to to avoid the health care plan that makes the most sense:

…the Commonwealth Fund has a write-up of some Lewin Group analyses of different congressional health care bills.

(coverage chart)

Pete Stark’s bill, the most left-wing of the lot (it’s sort of a “Medicare for many more” proposal) covers the most people.

And here’s their impact on health care costs:

(savings chart)

Stark’s is the best again. And yet there’s no chance whatsoever that we’ll actually do this because his plan, though the most practical, is also the most left-wing. Far too left-wing for the United States of America.

I would be remiss, and disrespecting my blogging name if I did not give a shout out to Jim Rice on his election to baseball’s Hall of Fame. Congratulations to you, Jim Ed!

Rice came to Boston in that transformational year of 1975. He had almost the same numbers as the other historic rookie next to him on Fenway’s lawn that year; Fred Lynn, but by virtue of a bit of an edge in batting average and a superior glove, Lynn went on to be the only player ever to win the Rookie of the Year and the Most Valuable Player awards in the same season. An all-time “what if” is the question of how the Sox would have done in the greatest world series ever if Rice had not had his hand broken by a pitch that September and missed the playoffs.

(bottom of the inning below)

Rice was an African-American from South Carolina, and must have found Boston in the 70’s… interesting from a social perspective. He famously refused to engage in the usual banter with sportswriters, and his hostility has been seen as a possible reason for him making the Hall only in the 15th and last year of eligibility.

Rice also came into a better light over the years though as revelations of steroid use came out, and the relatively low numbers of hitters of the deader era before that were put in new perspective. Statistically, Rice is a debatable selection, but certainly not an outlier. But in the context of his era, to me he is a solid choice.

It’s in non-statistical terms that his best case can be made though. Anyone who followed the Sox, or baseball in general, from 1975 to the late 80’s recognized that #14, Jim Ed Rice, was truly an offensive force with game-changing abilities. To be so feared a hitter for such an extended period of time is definitely worthy of the Hall, imo.

Jim Douglas used his inaugural address to launch his 2010 campaign and call for a series of uncharacteristically bold measures for the state. Because he understands the need to have a coherent message that carries from his term into his campaigns, he has chosen to highlight a number of issues to raise his profile for whatever office he seeks next cycle. Looks like he has outdone himself, unfortunately, and that we have a lot of work to do.

Like the movie Vantage Point where an event was seen differently by four bystanders, Douglas’s speech will have a different reception in different camps.

People who are familiar with the true consequences of these proposals read them like this:

-Freezing contributions by the state and business to per pupil spending in public schools despite the rising costs of mandates and uncontrollable costs like health care, adding to the burden of local taxpayers

-Cutting the range of health care benefits offered to Medicaid patients

-Paving the way for increased development for cronies by relaxing permitting measures

But that’s not how many Vermonters will read them…

Experience shows that Douglas’s carefully crafted message, with favorable presentation by the media, will likely resonate with many Vermonters.

As mentioned elsewhere, the press will be of no help, and voters, even in Vermont, have been indoctrinated for ages to see the business perspective in a favorable light. Unfortunately for those of us who are not in favor of these proposals, this is how much of the public will perceive these measures:

-Freeze school spending and lower my property taxes, yeay!!! College funding will be increased too and that was surely needed, right?

-At least we won’t drop people from Medicaid

-About time we cut out some of that red tape in the permit process! I know there’s a lot of it because I keep hearing people complain!

So how will the Dems respond? How will they counter these ideas without it being sold to the voters as this:

-We don’t care about your property taxes

-We want to give Medicaid patients an overly plush package of benefits

-We will defend wasteful government bureaucracy to the death!

This has always been the challenge of beating Jim Douglas, and recent meetings and conversations have reminded me that campaign organizers don’t always understand the public perception as well needed to win elections. A successful candidate doesn’t just need a better campaign manager, or better tactics, or to declare earlier, or to raise early money that is like yeast, they need to be able to stand toe-to-toe with Douglas’s rhetoric and smack it down, hard.

-School spending: YES Indeed! We ARE concerned about local property tax burdens, that’s why we are reforming health care / increasing federal funding of mandates / shifting the funding to a more equitable tax system!

-Medicaid funding : Every Vermonter should have access to health care, not just certain segments like Medicaid, and it should be decent coverage with a focus on preventative care and wellness.

-We want to make sure that the permitting process is as efficient as possible, AND that it meets the goals of protecting our environment and lifestyle that the majority of Vermonters share. Fortunately, it is and it does! Here are the facts, and isn’t it interesting that some are telling you otherwise?

Douglas has elevated his game in this inaugural address, in my opinion. He has struck a resonant chord of topical issues, and leveraged the general economic fear and concern masterfully. He’s taken the initiative and tried to put Dems in a reactive mode.

I thought Dick McCormack had the right idea, he was quoted in one of the articles as saying, “It has always been up to the Legislature whether or not the Legislature dominates or Douglas dominates. The legislative leadership has chosen in the past to work with the governor and, unfortunately, working with the governor has kind of boiled down to giving the governor his way.”

The Legislature, which is now effectively the Democrats, will need to regain the initiative on these issues and find a way to dominate, or at least drive, the political agenda. I hope there will be a speaker, candidate or some leader who is up to the task.

I heard the editor of Vermont Business Magazine ask that question on VT this Week. Interesting times we live in, eh?  

That got some thoughts swirling around my addled brain about a number of somewhat  related issues; the bailouts, stimulus, Jeb’s roads plan, Keynes, NAFTA, health care reform and did my economics professor go on to become the mayor of Barre?

I’ve always been a bit of an economics geek and love to look at things from a macro perspective, ever since Econ classes with Peter Anthony at Castleton (same guy?), and there are a few underlying macro things that need to be considered in the context of these economic issues we’re facing today. So I’m going to lay out my macro thoughts for some context along with my personal economic advice for the benefit of the incoming Treasury Secretary and our state government.

I’ll tease with the specifics of my advice:

-Federal bailouts should always be tied to direct government oversight of the companies’ operations.

-Vermont should be an incubator for Obama’s energy plans as well as health care.

-The Vermont stimulus/jobs plan should happen, but it should be focused on energy efficiency and internet connectivity.

more…

Over the past generation or so, capitalism has been successfully promoted by the right as the essence of American greatness. But capitalism alone is not what has driven the US to real economic growth. Real growth should be measured not in terms of the Dow or even GDP, but generally in terms of the American dream of having the opportunity of working hard and improving your lot in life, and handing your kids a better future. Real growth actually hasn’t happened for a generation, despite what the capitalism promoters tell us, because it turns out that we were all improving our lives solely on borrowed (credit) or fleeting (home equity) wealth. (And to answer the question on VT this Week, that’s why we’re not going to spend as much on gifts this year, despite our paycheck staying the same. It’s not just psychological.)

Capitalism should not be abandoned. But it does work best for our country only when coupled intelligently with regulations that foster competition. The engine of fair competition fueled by the aspirations of American workers and small business owners can produce system-wide benefits for all and a better standard of living for each successive generation, but only if the proper regulations are in place to channel the energy in a beneficial direction. I don’t mean Soviet economic planning, simply a fair set of ground rules that equalize the playing field, provide transparency to educate consumers, keep barriers to entering markets at a minimum, and prohibit non-competitive advantages like monopolies. You have to keep the power balance at a point where the actual competition can happen to drive innovation and efficiency.

So in the long term, and looking back over the failings of the government leading up to this crisis, the regulation we need and needed is/was not to have government run businesses, but to set smart competitive boundaries which will channel their drive into improving the overall markets, not just enrich the few at the top. For example, congress did not necessarily need to ban derivatives or subprime mortgages, but it should have regulated the amount of capital backing needed to guarantee these markets.

In some of the bailouts in the short term though, I think we need to look at things very differently. The justification for these rescue funds is essentially that the company is so big and such an integral part of our economy that it serves some vital public good. So far though, the bailouts have been fed into the existing system that is not focused on public good but company and shareholder profits and growth. It seems clear that as is they are bound to fail. CEO’s are not going to have a sudden epiphany and start running their companies for the betterment of mankind. If we give GM billions because we want to protect jobs, what’s to prevent them from cutting jobs anyways to better their bottom line? The motivations are simply not aligned with the funding. So in the case of bailouts particularly, it seems clear to me that we do need government to take actually control of businesses.

How about converting some GM factories to making solar panels? Or IBM if they get into layoffs?

That brings us to Vermont… I like the general tone of Spaulding’s proposal and I support the gas tax with prices so low, but better roads will not improve our economy much over the long haul. The rural electrification and federal highway programs of the past helped because they resulted in a new platform for productivity. Roads are not the answer now though; internet connectivity and alternative energy technology are. Bringing the internet highway to every corner of VT will boost our economy and provide a strong return on investment. Funding weatherization and solar panels for VT homeowners would be as effective as a direct cash stimulus to the people who need it most, would provide jobs, and would have a the added benefit of energizing the energy technology sector in our state. Get Sen. Leahy and Gov. Douglas to work together to tie this plan to an Obama energy initiative to help with funding and we’d really be cooking with gas!

Or solar power, I should say.

Robb wrote:

there seems to be a lacking of discussion on how Symington may be/is or will be better than Douglass or Pollina, the dialogue is a constant attack on Pollina.

So glad you asked.

Let’s take a substantial proposal from each one of them and compare.

For Symington, I like her idea to basically “front” the funds to homeowners to improve the energy efficiency of their homes, and then repay it through an amount tacked on to their utility bills, which will be lower due to the improvements. The most substantial proposal I can remember recently from Gov Dougless (besides that one to improve VTers’ health through McDonald’s Playspaces) was to sell the lottery to Lehman. I heard Pollina on the radio this morning saying that his idea for a VT credit card was the most discussed issue he’s ever had.

These 3 proposals offer a good perspective on the 3 candidates. Douglass wants to offer as many opportunities for private business to profit as he possibly can. Whether he actually believes this will ultimately help the other 95% of us or not is beside the point as this approach has now been pretty thoroughly exposed. Bad idea, bad ideology, Vermont needs to get rid of him and move in another direction as quickly as possible.

Symington’s idea is effective and elegant, imo. Little long term impact to the state budget, with high returns on investment in reduced energy costs, reduced use to lower the need for power plants of any kind, and good for the environment. A nerdy, intelligent, politically-workable idea.

Pollina’s credit card plan is to get VT banks to offer CC’s that have both a lower interest rate and also generate “frequent-flyer” type rewards that will be diverted to a fund used to support local agricultural and renewable energy projects. This is a gimmicky, impractical idea. Like we need more credit cards, right? And how exactly does this happen? Banks just decide to lower interest rates and offer cash back??? Pollina asks “Pretty please”? If this could be done, why not just set up “Vermont gas stations” that will offer gas at lower prices AND give drivers free oil changes?! We could still have the cute credit cards. How about “VT Bars” while we’re at it and feature discounted Long Trail or Switchback? This sounds more like something from the Onion than a serious policy proposal.

Pollina has been very eloquent about the problems facing Vermonters but has not shown any ability to address them seriously. Symington on the other hand, may lack some campaigning skills, but has offered intelligent ideas. I think she’d make a very good state executive. Douglas wants to continue the failed economic policies that got us into this mess.

 Loading ...