Dubie not picked for FAA post

October 24, 2007
 

By Louis Porter Vermont Press Bureau

    MONTPELIER – Vermont Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie will not become the head of the Federal Aviation Administration, a post he had been in the running for.

Acting FAA administrator Bobby Sturgell, a former pilot for United Airlines, will be nominated by President George W. Bush instead, according to Dubie and news reports

Not that we were expecting him to get the job around here, but this means that the Democratic candidate, whoever it winds up being, will be challenging an incumbent, not an open seat. 

I'm listening to the story on VPR right now and Dubie is talking about airport congestion, saying that the free market has not worked.

Maybe we're seeing a clue about why he didn't get the job. 

The message: don't count on shopping our way to environment.

From Carl Etnier's blog:

If the 100+ citizens gathered by the Department of Public Service at the Montpelier Elks Club last Thursday had their way, the state would shut down Vermont Yankee, invest heavily in in-state hydro, and landscape the ridgelines with wind turbines in view of participants’ homes.

The meeting was the third of five public workshops in a series called (for some reason) “Vermont’s Energy Future.” The workshops are actually about electricity, just one of the many forms of energy used in Vermont. Transportation and heating, which also represent large (and increasingly pricey) chunks of the state’s energy budget, were ignored. The workshops are part of the public engagement process the legislature directed the Department to go through to help develop a good policy response to the scheduled shut-down of Vermont Yankee in 2012 and the expiration of the state’s utilities’ very favorable, long-term contracts with Hydro Quebec over the period 2012-2015.

Yesterday in another thread I posted a brief mention of John Campbell's record, referring to him as “anti-flag-burning resolution conservative”.

Well, people are definitely reading. I had a long conversation with John at lunch time, and I think it's fair to fill in the gaps of my comment with a more complete version of what happened with the flag resolution.

This is from my conversation with John, although it squares with my recollection of the controversy. It was the 2002 legislative session and John Campbell was a new senator from Windsor County. The R's, led by Julius Canns, had been pushing an anti-flag-burning resolution as part of a nationwide campaign by right-wingers across the country.

In an effort to deflect this push and to take the flag issue off the table as a campaign issue, Campbell and other senators sponsored J.R.S. 9, to protect the American flag. Campbell was the lead sponsor, although he was not the only sponsor. It included the following language:

That the General Assembly expresses its respect, love and admiration for our United States Flag, and be it further

RESOLVED: That the General Assembly expresses its condemnation of all acts of flag desecration, and similar displays of disrespect for the United States Flag, and be it further

RESOLVED: That the General Assembly respectfully urges the Congress of the United States to take whatever legislative action it deems necessary and appropriate to honor and safeguard the United States Flag, and be it further

 Eventually the resolution passed after conference committee, although in slightly different form. The resolution was amended by its supporters to express more devotion to true American values than the original resolution:

Whereas, these principles include the protection of individual freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, including free speech, free press, peaceable assembly, and petitions for the redress of grievances, now therefore be it

     Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives:

That the General Assembly expresses its respect and admiration for our United States Flag, and be it further

Resolved:  That the General Assembly expresses its condemnation of all acts of flag desecration, and similar displays of disrespect for the United States Flag, and be it further

Resolved:  That the General Assembly urges the Congress of the United States to ensure that proper respect and treatment will always be afforded to the United States Flag, and that the Congress explore all avenues available,  which may include a constitutional amendment, a statutory change and a public education program, to protect the United States Flag from physical desecration,

 In one way I think this new language is worse than the original, since it specifically supports any action the Congress deems necessary to protect the flag, up to and including amending the Constitution. On the other hand, the new resolution does express Vermont's support for the freedoms enunciated in the First Amendment, 

including free speech, free press, peaceable assembly, and petitions for the redress of grievances, 

(How you support free speech by suppressing it is beyond me, but I wasn't the one writing the resolution.)

I still disagree with this. As a matter of principle, I don't think we can go around suppressing speech, even if it's symbolic speech like flag-burning. As a matter of strategy, I also think it makes us weaker, rather than stronger, to play into the Republicans' hands with moves like this.

On the other hand, the strategem worked. We haven't heard a peep from the anti-flag-burners in the State House since 2002, which is a good thing.

Also, by the time the resolution was adopted it had gained all the Democratic Senators as sponsors, including such liberal heroes as Jean Ankeney, Cheryl Rivers, and Janet Munt. Although Campbell was the lead sponsor, I don't think most of us would refer to the whole Democratic caucus as “anti-flag-burning resolution conservative”.

I'm not sure if John Campbell is going to run for governor, and I don't think he knows yet. It's a big challenge with no guarantee of success. On the other hand, whoever winds up being the candidate, it will be someone who stood up, took a chance, and put a lot of work into it, and we'll owe that person our support this year at least for doing it.

One more thing. This diary isn't really a bio, but you can search for legislation Campbell has sponsored by following this link and fillling his name in.

Yesterday I put up a post about the people in New Hampshire who were just arrested after holing up in their compound in New Hampshire to avoid going to prison after they were convicted of tax fraud.

 Now it turns out that we have people like that on this side of the river, too. I just came across a decision from a tax appeal to the Washington Superior Court earlier this year. In this appeal the taxpayers were arguing that they had no income, because the only definition of income is “corporate gain”, and since they are not a corporation, they have no income.

Appellants argue that federal income is “corporate gain,” and therefore excludes personal income for services, such as those performed by Appellant James Henry in his work as a contractor. Appellant James Henry is not a corporation, they reason, so he cannot have corporate gain, and so he cannot have taxable income “under the laws of the
United States.” Appellants rely on Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), which addresses a somewhat different legal issue. When taken out of context, the statements Appellants use appear to have a meaning that supports Appellants’ position, but this court has reviewed the applicable law on point.

As you might think, the Superior Court rejects this argument, finding that the law defining income is broad enough to encompass everything they get, including the payments they receive as building contractors.

This doesn't look like a case where people are getting sent to prison, but look around–the loonies are out there. 

CONCORD, N.H. — After months of monitoring convicted tax-evaders Ed and Elaine Brown and their fortress-like home, all U.S. marshals needed to get past the booby traps was a little patience. And an invitation.

In the end, the couple who vowed to resist violently if authorities tried to arrest them put out a welcome mat instead, inviting what they thought was a group of supporters to their home in Plainfield in west-central New Hampshire.

This story has gotten a bit of attention in Vermont, but it's worth talking about it a little more because this variety of tax cheat is more than just a novelty. Their key characteristics include rejection of the federal power to collect taxes, leading to a more general rejection of the power of the federal government; right-wing politics; idiot legal arguments in support of their claims; and the use of violence or the threat of violence, and various fraudulent legal mechanisms, to harass the government officials who are trying to enforce the law.

And, where one of them is holed up, others, like white supremacist Randy Weaver, are likely to turn up. 

So what's so bad about them? I would say a couple of things. First, their legal claims are utterly baseless, and every time one of their claims about the illegality of taxes is raised it is conclusively demolished. (For example, you may hear them arguing that, based on the letter to the taxpayer in every year's Form 1040 tax booklet that the IRS depends on the voluntary compliance of the American taxpayer, that taxes are “voluntary”, or that the court that sentenced them was illegitimate because the flag in the courtroom had a fringe on it, which means that the court was sitting as a court or maritime law. For more examples, take a look at this site on “Idiot Legal Arguments” )

The kicker is that people buy this. Look at the newspaper message boards and you'll see dozens of letters parroting their bogus arguments. It's partly because people don't like to pay taxes, but I think it's also because these arguments appeal to people's naturaly skepticism or hostility to experts, and they see this as one more example of a situation in which the experts are wrong.

 Second, it's part of a package, so when you buy their anti-tax message you get their anti-government, racist, fundamentalist Christian (or some bizarro Aryan church) ideology.

 Third, they kill people. Randy Weaver or his followers killed an ATF agent. Other right-wing militia people killed radio personality Alan Berg.

So as I say, this arrest is good news. The tax evaders were arrested, nobody was hurt, and we score one point for the rule of law. 

Just a quick note to let people know about a new blog called Welcome Campground. It's about the environment, environmental politics, and the life of an unusually aware and thoughtful college student in Missoula, Montana.

 Oh yeah, and if he looks familiar, that's my son Adam. 

Just a quick note to let people know about a new blog I learned about last night. It discusses the environment, environmental politics, and the life of an unusually aware and thoughtful college student in Missoula, Montana.

 Oh yeah, and it's my son's blog. Go over there and check it out.

Douglas stands behind the president

October 5, 2007
 

By Louis Porter Vermont Press Bureau

    MONTPELIER – When it comes to President Bush, Gov. James Douglas remains a steadfast supporter, despite policy disagreements.

Douglas has recently criticized the president for several recent decisions by his administration that may cost Vermont money, and Douglas knows that Bush does not have much support in Vermont. But he defended Bush at his weekly press conference Thursday.