Energy was in the air at yesterday's meting of the Vermont Democratic Committee. Both declared candidates for Lt. Gov. spoke, and they both had something to say about energy issues facing Vermont.

Tom Costello, recalling his ten years of service in the Vermont House of Representatives, talked about confronting the issue of electric industry restructuring in the 1990's. As Costello describes it (not inaccurately), restructuring was an idea of some Wall Street investors to extract more money out of the previously regulated electric industry, and Costello talks proudly of his role in blocking the restructuring effort after it passed the Senate. Incredible as it seems now, the putative “white knight”, slated to come into Vermont, buy up our retail electric companies, and put Vermont's electric industry on a stable footing was a company that started life as a natural gas trading company down in Texas. That's right: Enron.We avoided retail competetion in Vermont, even when big commercial and industrial customers, through an astroturf group called the Vermont Electric Consumers Coalition, were pushing hard for it. Thanks for helping to block that, Tom.

Nate Freeman was also talking about energy, and he briefly touched on  an idea that could make a lot of sense: a Vermont department of energy. Where does Vermont take a comprehensive look at electricity, home heating, and transportation energy uses? Freeman's idea would enable Vermont to do this. Given the future of energy costs, and the utter failure of the Douglas administration in this area, this is a welcome proposal.

After centuries of reporting temperatures based on thermometer readings in the affected location, the Vermont Department of Weather has announced a new method of reporting. Taking their lead from state regulations on radiation levels at nuclear power plants, the Weather Department is applying the same reasoning to temperatures. Instead of the outdoor temperature, temperatures will be reported based on the body temperature of a person standing at the site.

The human body usually maintains a constant temperature of 98.6 degrees regardless of the weather, he said. “When we are exposed to 80-degree temperatures, our bodies do not turn to 80 degrees. When we are exposed to 120 degrees in the desert we are not affected by that.”

Consequently, in summer weather it is misleading to report temperatures as high as 120 degrees when a person standing on the site would maintain a body temperature of 98.6 degrees.

Similarly, in the winter, the effects of human metabolism and insulated clothing allows the human body to maintain a temperature of 98.6. Thus, while in recent years Vermonters have shuddered at reports of temperatures dropping to 10 degrees, 0 degrees, or even below zero, this winter the official Vermont temperature will hover at a balmy 98.6.

Federal weather officials at NOAA have not commented on this new reporting method, but state officials believe it will have several beneficial effects. For one thing, given the expected high cost of heating oil this winter, this will make it easier for landlords to maintain apartments at the state-mandated 65 degrees. Vermont's public utilities, who are faced with restrictions on disconnections when temperatures drop to sub-freezing levels, will not lose this all-important collection mechanism. And State and local road and highway departments, who have been hard-pressed by road salt costs in recent years, can leave their salt trucks parked as long as the 98.6 degree temperatures prevail.

And what are the implications for Vermont's only nuclear power plant? “Once again, we are pleased that our leadership has been recognized by the Douglas Adminstration,” said plant spokesman Waylon Smithers.

At the Montpelier parade earlier this month I was talking to a local, very liberal, Democrat, and he started giving me a hard time about the posts on GMD. He said if you take off a few days and then read a bunch of GMD posts at one time, you'll get the impression that the reason we're here is to attack and weaken Democrats, which will have the inevitable effect of strengthening Republicans. I disagreed, but I can see his point. Some of the debate we are having here reflects, although in a cruder and more destructive form, the debate that has been going on in the rest of the country.

Yesterday's Salon is a good illustration of this debate. Glenn Greenwald has a piece arguing that we should start disciplining conservative, Blue Dog, Democrats. They don't support the party's values, they cave in to Bush, they actually help Bush's illegal activities.

Here's part of his analysis of the reason why we can't get any progressive action out of the Congress:

That is precisely what has happened over the past two years. It is why a functional right-wing majority has dominated the House notwithstanding the change of party control — and the change in direction — that American voters thought they were mandating in 2006. As progressive activist Matt Stoller put it, “Blue Dogs are the swing voting block in the House, they are self-described conservatives, and they are perfectly willing to use their status on every action considered by the House.” The more the Democratic leadership accommodates the Blue Dog caucus — the more their power relies upon expanding their numbers through the increase of Blue Dog seats — the less relevant will be the question of which party controls Congress.

According to Greenwald, this will happen as long as these conservative D's are allowed to stay in office and pretend to be Democrats

The counterpoint of this argument is illustrated by the companion Salon piece by Ed Kilgore who argues that we shouldn't decide what to do about them until Bush has been replaced by Obama, when conditions on the ground in Congress will be very different from what they are now. He makes a couple of points. First, in a very short time, Bush won't be president anymore, so whether they stand up to Bush is going to be less of an issue. Second, if you want to punish a deviant party member you'd better have the intellectual, political, and financial wherewithal to make it stick, otherwise you're just wasting everybody's time, especially your own.

This is the same kind of debate we've had in Vermont for years.

Remember when Howard Dean was a conservative DINO, the days of “I've  soured on Howard”? There were a lot of real liberals and progressive who wanted to challenge Dean, but the outcome wasn't a primary challenge to his candidacy for governor, but the formation of a new party. Similarly, just during this past biennium we had two Democrats vote with Douglas on a major veto override, Jon Anderson and Ron Allard, and they're both facing primary challenges.

I think this is healthy. The reason we have primaries is to make decisions within the political partie, and to hold the members of our own political party accountable when they turn against us. We don't know yet how those primaries will come out, but they do give Democrats who disagree with the choices of their elected representatives to challenge them, and potentially get rid of them.

It's also consistent with what I think we're trying to do at Green Mountain Daily–promoting more and better Democrats. To a certain extent my friend at the parade was right, and I'm fine with that. If Democrats are being too conservative, or aren't standing up enough to Bush and Douglas, I want us to be out there calling them on it. If there are some Democrats we want to encourage, and others we want to discourage, you'll know about it here.

What I don't think we're about here is taking positions that the Democratic Party is irredeemably corrupt and warlike, and that there is no difference between the two parties. That's what makes the debate, as I said at the top, cruder and more destructive in Vermont.

You can run on a platform of “Democrats suck”, but maybe you should be a bit less surprised when Democrats don't flock to support you. And you should definitely be less surprised when you split the vote and help elect more Republicans, like our esteemed Lite Gov.

Let's have the debate about where we should be going, but try to remember that we're living in the real world, and in most cases voters have two choices. If they're not voting for a Democrat they're electing a Republican, everywhere but in a handful of legislative districts in the state. We have a strong majority in the House, and an even stronger majority in the Senate, so if you want to take on a particularly objectionable Democrat, first by doing a primary challenge, I'd like to see that. But I don't think it's productive to spend our time here, especially when we know it's just not true, that there is no difference between the two parties.

The report is in, and the outcome was never in doubt: Bush lackeys Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson illegally based Department of Justice hiring decisions for career positions on the political positions of the candidates. No surprise, but the details are pretty shocking.

Here's what the law says:

It is the policy of the Department of Justice to seek to
eliminate discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status,
political affiliation, age, or physical or mental handicap in
employment within the Department and to assure equal
employment opportunity for all employees and applicants for
employment.

And here are some of the questions that Monical Goodling asked when she was conducting interviews:

Tell us about your political philosophy. There are different
groups of conservatives, by way of example: Social
Conservative, Fiscal Conservative, Law & Order Republican.
[W]hat is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to
serve him?
Aside from the President, give us an example of someone
currently or recently in public service who you admire.
“Why are you a Republican?”

Anything at all troubling there?

What about the fact that she blocked a new hire, effectively ending a lawyer's career with the Department of Justice, because she thought she was a lesbian?

Now Gonzalez claims that he never knew that Goodling was using political tests to make her decisions. Wouldn't you think it might occur to him when he stopped getting recommendations to hire people from real law schools like Harvard, Yale, and Michigan, and started getting recommendations to hire people from places like Regent Law School , which is where Goodling went? 

You hear about heads of corporations getting prosecuted for treating the company as their own personal piggy bank. What we have here is even worse: the Republicans using the hiring power of the federal government to corrupt the Justice Department and mold it to their political preferences. As I've observed before, these people simply have no conception that government exists for any reason other than to serve the political interests of themselves and their political allies. 

So is it official yet? Is this the most corrupt administration in history?

That's right, when Douglas rolled out his plan to address the heating fuel crisis facing low-income Vermonters this year, one of their ideas was to hold canning workshops.

They've got to be kidding, right? And for the next flood season, we're going to hold kayak building clinics?

Boy Wonder Neale Lunderville made one unquestionably accurate statement in the press conference yesterday:  “This is just a nibble,” incoming Secretary of Administration Neale Lunderville said.

He also reassures us that each of these little nibbles together will add up to an effective solution to the problem, but I see no reason to believe that.

The Douglas administration has a record. For years they've opposed Efficiency Vermont, opposed the expansion of Efficiency Vermont's efforts to whole-house energy savings, and opposed innovative approaches to energy costs. They were caught sleeping on the job when their first energy plan was due, and when they did submit it to the Legislature they were basically told to take it back across the street and do the job right. And, as we've seen recently, they're opposing efforts to hold Vermont Yankee accountable for their obligation to operate safely.

And now that we're facing a real energy crisis they come up empty, except for the kind of ineffective plans, like telling people to head into the woods to cut their own firewood, that even they admit won't help meet this winter's heating needs.

While Douglas's Republican friends in the Senate are blocking increased LIHEAP funding (McCain didn't show up to vote) Douglas continues to oppose spending Vermont funds to help address this crucial need.

Of course, Douglas is running, as much as anything else, on the idea that the worst thing any government can do is raise taxes, ever. As we've seen, closing the capital gains loophole is only one of a number of creative ideas that would generate tens of millions of dollars in new tax revenues. It's beyond time to pretend that we don't need to do it. 

So we know that McBush's big selling point is that he has a lot of experience in foreign policy and knows a lot about it, right?

Here we have another example of what he knows. I know all about linguistic competence vs. linguistic performance. Still, when the guy consistently gets significant points wrong, pretty much every time he opens his mouth, shouldn't it make us wonder if he has the first idea what he's talking about?

On the other hand, the greenhorn, Obama, has been saying for months that we should be getting out if Iraq in about sixteen months after he takes office.

You know who agrees with him? Iraq. 

So if the young guy knows what he's talking about, and the people we're supposedly trying to help agree with him, and the old guy doesn't have a clue, maybe we're safer with the young guy, huh? 

Now that the Secretary of State has posted the petitioned candidates, we are seeing what a good year this should be for the Democrats. A quick scan of the list shows that there are something like 25 more Democratic than Republican House candidates, and a similarly lopsided balance for the Senate. (One Republican candidate for six Chittenden County Senate seats, for one example.)

One example is in Barre Town, where for the first time in years we have two legitimate candidates for the House of Representatives. Take a look at what they have to say. 

July 22, 2008-
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: JP Isabelle, 802-999-7849
Isabelle.jp@gmail.com

Barre Town– John Pizzo, DC., and J. Guy Isabelle announced on Tuesday that they are entering the race to represent Barre Town in the Vermont State House.  In a unique twist to their candidacies, they plan to limit campaign spending and are working to set up a fund that will provide fuel and food assistance for Barre Towners in need this winter. 

In the spirit of former Vermont Governor and Senator George Aiken, Pizzo and Isabelle plan to spend as little as possible on their race.  In Aiken’s 1968 race for US Senate, his final campaign after an illustrious political career, he spent only $17.09. 

“We want to honor the memory of Senator Aiken by limiting our campaign spending to represent Barre Town in the legislature,” said Pizzo.  “Sen. Aiken knew that politics was about helping your friends and neighbors, not who could spend the most money.  We can’t justify spending large amounts of money on lawn signs and parade floats when our neighbors are enduring hard economic times. Guy and I are going to work hard without spending exorbitant amounts of money”.

“Our campaign is about people and policy, not politics,” said Isabelle.  “At a time when Vermonters are having trouble paying their bills, we want to do our part, even before we get to Montpelier.  Sen. Aiken worked with people of all political stripes to do what was best for Vermonters.  John and I will model our campaign and our service in the legislature after him”.

Pizzo and Isabelle plan to hit the ground running after their announcement.  They hope to meet with Barre Town businesses and community groups to hear what issues are important to them.  The two candidates will also begin a vigorous door knocking campaign in neighborhoods across Barre Town. 

“We want to hear from as many people as possible,” Pizzo said.  “We encourage everyone in Barre Town to contact us to discuss the issues”.

Candidate Bios:

John Pizzo has lived in Barre Town for over 25 years and has owned and operated a private chiropractor practice during that time.  He is a graduate of SUNY Buffalo and received his DC from the New York Chiropractic College.  He was appointed to the VT Board of Chiropractic Examiners by Gov. Kunin in 1986 and served for 13 years, seven of them as the chairman.  As a member of the board, Pizzo lead the effort to pass a scope of practice bill for chiropractors in 1992 and, in 1999, helped to write and enact into law a landmark law requiring insurance coverage of chiropractic services.  In 1992, he was named the Vermont Chiropractor of the Year.  He is a member of the National Board of Chiropractor Examiners test design committee and taught for four years at Community College of Vermont.  He currently serves on the Spaulding High School Board, where he was first elected in 2004 and re-elected in 2007.  He serves on the Negotiation Committee and the Policy and Curriculum Committee.  He is the volunteer physician for the state champion Spaulding High School football team.  He and his wife Lynda have two children and one grandchild.

J. Guy Isabelle has lived in Barre Town for over 50 years.  He received his BA from Johnson State College and was the first in his family to graduate from college.  He is the 58 student of long-time JSC professor and Washington county state senator Bill Doyle to run for office.  Isabelle is currently the director of the RSVP for Central Vermont and the Northeast Kingdom, as well as the director of the statewide Senior Companion Program.  He is also a member of the Governor’s Commission on National and Community Service, representing Vermont at various service oriented conferences around the country.  He served a combined 15 years on the Barre Town Elementary School Board and the Spaulding High School Board, with several years as Chairman or Vice-Chairman.  In 2000, he was named the recipient of the Wendell Pelkey Award by the Barre Town Selectboard for outstanding community service.  He has coached youth sports in Barre for over 20 years, has been a justice of the peace for over 15 years, served on the local board of civil authority, and has volunteered in numerous capacities on various community boards.  A British car enthusiast, he can be seen on weekends working in his garage or tending to his numerous flower and vegetable gardens. He has been married to his wife Rita, who is a nurse, for 29 years and they have two grown children.

A message to the legislative leadership: Don't do it!

Douglas has now joined Dubie in calling for a special legislative session to pass bills that even he admits would not have prevented the tragedy of Brooke Bennett's murder. Still, he is calling for a one-day special session to rubber stamp a series of his pet bills that the Legislature has already considered and rejected. 

This call is a transparent piece of demagoguery, and our Democratic leadership in the House and Senate should reject it.

Let's take civil commitment as one example. I served on the committee appointed by the Legislature to consider civil commitment, a process whereby a convicted sex offender would be committed to some kind of treatment facility after the completion of his sentence. We met for months, took testimony from many experts, and closely examined the experience of other states where civil commitment has been adopted, before concluding that it was a bad idea. There is no evidence that it works, virtually no offenders who are sentenced to civil commitment receive actual treatment, and it winds up being just a way to lock them up and throw away the key. And it's also really expensive. As a result, civil commitment is a way for the government to look tough, but it diverts money from efforts, like special investigative units, that actually work.

Here's what we said in our report:

The committee finds that sex offender civil commitment laws are well-intentioned, but are not the best use of Vermont’s resources for protecting the public from potentially dangerous sex offenders. The annual costs of such programs range from an estimated $46,500 in South Carolina to $125,000 in California per offender, with an average state expenditure of about $100,000 per offender. True costs are difficult to determine because some states that report costs for civil commitment include the capital, evaluation, and legal costs, while others do not. The committee is concerned that such a program in Vermont would be costly and divert scarce mental health resources from other mental health programs and patients to a relatively small number of sex offenders.

. . .

In addition to the general fiscal concerns, the committee finds that implementing a civil commitment program in Vermont would serve further to burden our struggling state mental health services.  . . .  Any substantial addition to mental health services, such as civil commitment of sex offenders, would likely result in a diversion of funds from other important mental health programs. The committee believes this would not be in the best interests of our mental health system or most Vermonters.

The committee made the following recommendation:

Recommendation
The state should not pursue civil commitment of sex offenders at this time, but should invest resources at earlier stages in the investigation, prosecution, sentencing, and treatment of offenders, as proposed elsewhere in this report, to reduce the number of unsupervised high risk offenders in the community.

What purpose would be served by returning for a one-day session? Only two: either the Legislature would capitulate to Douglas's calls for more ineffective legislation, giving him a win to campaign on, or they would hand Douglas another stick to beat them with for failing to cave. His shameless appearance at this little girl's funeral was bad enough. Why give him another chance to broadcast his demagogic tactics across the state?

Legislative leaders, just say no to a special legislative session! 

The Burlington Free Press continues to cover the Vermont Yankee cooling tower story, but here's an interesting point.

 The company reported a leak Friday in a pipe in one of the cooling towers. Spokesman Rob Williams said Saturday that the second cooling tower, which collapsed last year, also showed damage.

Williams didn't mention damage to the second cooling tower to a reporter Friday, though that information was in a preliminary report produced by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Now you might find this hard to believe, but there is actually a code of ethics for PR people. It includes the following proposition:

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION

To build trust with the public by revealing all information needed for responsible decision making.

Guidelines

A member shall:

• Be honest and accurate in all communications.

• Act promptly to correct erroneous communications for which the member is responsible.

One specific example given is lying by omission.

Now, if a PR person knows that there is damage to two cooling towers, and discloses to the public that there is damage to only one of them, has this principle been violated?

UPDATED–For people who don't have an advanced degree in counting funny. 

You may have caught Tax Commissioner Tom Pelham on VPR Friday. He was being interviewed about this wekend’s sales tax holiday, and he was asked about the impact on the state budget, and whether we can really afford it. For one thing, it turns out that the state is actually going to have to make payments to the eight towns that have local options sales taxes. Thus, not only is the state forgoing tax revenues, we are sending checks, out of tax revenues we aren’t getting, to make up the taxes the towns are missing. So the next time you're talking to your friends who live in Burlington, South Burlington, or Williston, tell them to thank you for your contribution to their town budget.

In this discussion, Pelham says that the accepted cost estimate of this tax holiday is $2 million. When you look at how the calculated this figure, however, you have to question it.

Pelham  looked at last years receipts from the sales tax during the third quarter.  He took the total amount and divided it by the number of days in the quarter.  He then considered the cost to be this daily average times two. 

 
Also, buried in the interview was this line: “The State of Vermont is in very good fiscal health.”

 
You heard that right. We’re laying off employees, we’re cutting hundreds of jobs, we’re making people who want Catamount health care wait because we’re not filling those positions, and what’s the state of the Vermont budget?

Let me repeat that: “The State of Vermont is in very good fiscal health.”

Hey, do you think maybe it's time for a governor who will actually do something to help the Vermont economy?