Let's look ahead to just how the H.520 fight could play out in the coming weeks. As I've said, the big mistake of the announcement was twofold; one, that it let many of the supporters feel left out in the cold scratching their heads (and greenvtster is mistaken, only in that leadership had up to that moment, very much been in coordination with the base on this), and two; that the timing was premature and gave the appearence of capitulation, and therefore – weakness (and you never want to show weakness at a time like this).

Still, it was a strategic move, and if you still doubt that – consider how this could now play out.

Leadership holds the veto vote and comes up short. They then do what they've suggested; vote to suspend the rules and modify the bill, putting off the funding schema until January. This bill – a new bill – passes with a simple majority.

Then we go through it again – the new bill goes back to the Governor's desk where he can sign it, veto it, or allow it to become law without his signature. WIthout the funding scheme, the pressure will be a lot greater than it was before -especially since his “unfunded mandate” and “bureaucracy” excuses are so thin, they're falling completely flat.

But let's say the Governor vetoes it again. The Dem leadership then has the option – even the responsibility – of calling another override session. When? Check your calendar, folks, we're talking September again, when we can have all hands on deck – and with a bill that, in theory, many of the opponents have indicated they'll support. With all its policy provisions intact. And the whole thing keeps the issue alive and active in the public debate leading up closer to the election season.

The problem is we've become conditioned to see every move of the leadership as a failure (and the anti-Dem crowd gleefully exploits that), and in this case – at least in the big picture – it's just too early to tell.

Okay, it's been a week. The ad should be gone soon. By tomorrow. Yeek, how embarassing.

Again, I promise to may more attention to what I'm approving next time. At a glance, I just thought it was some groovy herbal thing. HA!

As you've likely heard by now, Senator Leahy has subpoenad documents from the President and Vice President's offices. As you probably have also heard, the decider and the fourth branch of government have, predictably, pretty much repeated Cheney's oft quoted admonition to our senior Senator delivered in the Senate Halls some time back. Leahy has since responded:

This White House cannot have it both ways.  They cannot stonewall congressional investigations by refusing to provide documents and witnesses, while claiming nothing improper occurred.

“Increasingly, the President and Vice President feel they are above the law — in America no one is above law.”

From a moral standpoint, perhaps. From a legal or procedural standpoint, perhaps not.

First off, they can say whatever they want. We're well past the point where it's realistic to believe that anyone in the White House thinks that anyone in the public puts any credence in what the say anymore. I doubt even the 20-some percent of lingering die-hard supporters in the polls actually believe him, they just support his “whatever-it-takes” approach to their shared agenda.

As far as being above the law, well, that just depends, doesn't it? Are we talking academically or practically? The fact is that these are legislative subpoenas that may or may not be endorsed by a judge. When it comes to subpoenaing the Executive Branch, a supposedly co-equal branch of Government, the court's involvement is likely to look different. It's easy to imagine if the matter goes before this Supreme Court (with its unrestrained Bushite judicial activism), the court is likely to say “forget it.” They'll likely tell the Legislature that they won't support a non-Judicial subpoena over a claim of executive privilege, and if the Legislature wants to force action, they have their two Constitutional options: the pursestrings, and of course, impeachment.

(With impeachment “off the table,” that frees up the Executive quite a bit, eh?)

All this reminds us that, when the rubber hits the road, much of the functioning of our government depends on an honor system. With Bush and Cheney willfully scrapping both the “system” and “honor,” it creates more than a little quandary for the Legislative Branch, now struggling for some semblance of relevence.

(Okay, I've acccepted this is more than a one diary issue). A long time ago there were two bills; a renewable energy bill and a building efficiency bill. Over a wild and wacky session, these bills joined together into what came to be known as the global warming bill. Advocates in each chamber joined together on the new hybrid bill, whose efficiency element was going to cost a little money. To fill this gap, there was first the fuels surcharge – which got (thankfully) dumped as being too regressive. After fits and starts, and in the 11th hour, came the new funding source; the legendary tax that primarily targeted Vermont Yankee.

So advocates moved forward, re-energized. What they didn't realize was that the old bill was gone, and what was in its place was more complicated. By appending the Yankee tax, they tapped into a surprisingly deep and wide resevoir of frustration and energy from the many on the left who have felt that VY has been given a sweetheart deal at the expense of Vermoners' environment and safety. As such, what had been a global warming bill to some was now a Vermont Yankee bill to others (and to some it was equally both).

Fast forward to the mistake in timing that was this week's decision to put the funding source back on the table (instead of holding that card until the veto session) in order to call Douglas's thin bluff at taking the issue seriously. The truth is that no matter when they would've pulled this card, the reaction on the left would have been similarly angry/frustrated/confused.

As a proponent of the global warming bill from early on, I've always looked at it AS a “global warming” bill, and have only just come to understand that many saw it otherwise. To those that saw it as a VY bill, this move is utter capitulation (and I'm not talking about the predatory Greens with their own anti-Dem agenda, such as Colby-boy), leaving those of us more firmly in the global warming camp wondering why people are talking as though the bill has been compromised. But with the narrative on the Dem leadership that's in full circulation; that they run away from controversy and cave upon meeting conflict, it's the capitulation argument that rings true for people.

A lot of lessons here. The big one is that Legislative Leadership should get out more and listen more (as should I, frankly). If they (we) had, they might have realized what they were really doing in plugging into the simmering, untended political lesion that is Vermont Yankee. It's clear that the VY tax couldn't be added as casually and modularly as one might add a sales tax increase, and that reality is just now dawning on those in leadership, as well as folks like me.

The other lesson is that Dem leadership better not give an inch on the global warming elements of the bill in the upcoming veto override session. I'm told both the House and Senate intend to hold firm this time. If they know what's good for them, they'll stick to that.

The AP is reporting that Governor Douglas, Senator Shumlin, and House Natural Resources Chair Representative Robert Dostis are scheduled to meet tomorrow to discuss the global warming bill and the upcoming July veto-override session. Right on the heels of that announcement comes this from the Senate Prez-Pro-Tem’s office:

The leadership of the Vermont House and Senate today announced that in light of Governor Douglas’s veto of H.520 and his objection to the source of funding for the bill, Senator Shumlin and Speaker Symington will propose a suspension of the rules during the veto override session on July 11 to consider the same bill with the funding for an all fuels efficiency utility removed. Since the legislation vetoed by the governor stipulates that funding for the all fuels efficiency utility will be needed starting in 2009, this proposal would allow the legislature to consider how to fund the utility when it reconvenes in January.  In the meantime, the planning process for the utility, as well as other key provisions in H. 520, will be enacted

This announcement is one of two things; either another example of our legislative leadership running to move the goalposts and compromise before negotiations have even begun… OR… a(n attempt at a) savvy move to put the Governor on the defensive, and put the media focus of tomorrow's meeting squarely on the content of the bill and not the “dreaded” funding scheme vis-a-vis Vermont Yankee.

My money's on the latter, but its risky. Still, the papers and internet are replete with conservatives claiming that they'd be all for this bill with a different funding scheme. This calls their bluff, and leaves them nowhere to hide if they really are global warming deniers. It also puts the BS to the GOP nonsense line that the bill is all about “getting” Vermont Yankee.

Unfortunately, it also leaves the Dems nowhere to go in a July compromise, but to take actual policy content out of the bill. It’s a good ploy, but the risk seems perhaps disproportionate and the timing dangerously off. We’ll see. The content of the full press release is below the fold, along with a poll as to whether or not you think this is a wise strategic move…

Legislative Leaders Propose Modification to H. 520

The leadership of the Vermont House and Senate today announced that in light of Governor Douglas¹s veto of H.520 and his objection to the source of funding for the bill, Senator Shumlin and Speaker Symington will propose a suspension of the rules during the veto override session on July 11 to consider the same bill with the funding for an all fuels efficiency utility removed. Since the legislation vetoed by the governor stipulates that funding for the all fuels efficiency utility will be needed starting in 2009, this proposal would allow the legislature to consider how to fund the utility when it reconvenes in January.  In the meantime, the planning process for the utility, as well as other key provisions in H. 520, will be enacted as stipulated by the bill.  Senator Shumlin and Representative Robert Dostis, Chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, are meeting with Governor Douglas tomorrow to inform him of this proposal.
 
“This bill represents an extraordinary opportunity to save Vermonters money and create jobs while addressing global climate change, and we owe it to  Vermonters to make it law,² said Senator Shumlin. ³We have always said that to have a real impact, this bill needs funding, and we still believe that. We also believe that the provisions of this bill are too important not to pass right now, and that when the legislature reconvenes in January, we can work on the funding source.  We continue to feel strongly that the source of funding in this bill ‹ an adjustment to the property tax handout for Entergy that would still give them the same preferential tax treatment as other electric generators like wind ‹ is fair and just.  While we¹re disappointed that the governor disagrees, that is a conversation we can resume next year.”
 
Chairman Dostis added, “My committee, along with the Senate Natural Resources Committee, worked hard on this legislation, and we produced a great bill. We have heard from opponents about their objections to the funding source, and while we don¹t come to the same conclusion, we believe there is too much good in this bill for it not to become law.  From incentives for renewable energy generation to the expansion of net metering and the creation of a model energy efficiency utility, this bill is important in addressing rising energy costs and promoting Vermont's energy independence. We look forward to hearing the governor¹s response and working with our legislative colleagues to get this bill passed.”

 Loading ...

I was in a hurry this morning, and at a glance I thought I was just approving an ad for herbal supplements… which I guess the below ad is, but…wellll…

Anyway, there doesn't seem to be any way to un-approve it. Sorry about that. Won't happen again. I denied an ad from a Fox News talking head pitching their latest anti-liberal screed, and this would've been the second ad I would've denied. Next time I'll pay more attention.

The Vermont media continue to fawn over Gov. Douglas's trip to China. The trip – which shouldn't have registered a blip on most Vermonters radar screen, is a picture-perfect PR success, no doubt crafted by his staff of a gazillion, taxpayer-funded spinmeisters, who had the sense to pad it with high-profile tag-alongs – including Mark Johnson himself, guaranteeing mega-coverage during and after the event for the benefit of his key electoral demographic.

Even the Holy See of unrestricted corporate growth, Forbes magazine, weighed in with some rah-rahs:

Vermont Gov. James Douglas, a Republican Party survivor in one of the country's most liberal states, made a decent push for constituents this week, diverting his attention from Vermont's No. 1 international trading partner Canada to try to nudge the Green Mountain State toward the center of China's international business radar.

The truth is, China's relationship with American corporations is a very big deal these days, and the Governor could have used the opportunity to stand up for the basic workplace protections the Chinese have moved towards implementing (see below the fold):

China is planning to adopt a new law that seeks to crack down on sweatshops and protect workers’ rights by giving labor unions real power for the first time since it introduced market forces in the 1980’s.

The proposed law is being debated after Wal-Mart Stores, the world’s biggest retailer, was forced to accept unions in its Chinese outlets.

State-controlled unions here have not wielded much power in the past, but after years of reports of worker abuse, the government seems determined to give its union new powers to negotiate worker contracts, safety protection and workplace ground rules.

Oh, but, something tells me he's not inclined to feel that way… let's see, why would I think that…?

Hoping to head off some of the rules, representatives of some American companies are waging an intense lobbying campaign to persuade the Chinese government to revise or abandon the proposed law.

The skirmish has pitted the American Chamber of Commerce — which represents corporations including Dell, Ford, General Electric, Microsoft and Nike — against labor activists and the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, the Communist Party’s official union organization.

The workers’ advocates say that the proposed labor rules — and more important, enforcement powers — are long overdue, and they accuse the American businesses of favoring a system that has led to widespread labor abuse.

On Friday, Global Labor Strategies, a group that supports labor rights policies, is expected to release a report in New York and Boston denouncing American corporations for opposing legislation that would give Chinese workers stronger rights.

“You have big corporations opposing basically modest reforms,” said Tim Costello, an official of the group and a longtime labor union advocate. “This flies in the face of the idea that globalization and corporations will raise standards around the world.”

…oh yeah, that was it.

So a great – even obvious question at his next press conference would be something to the effect of “Governor, since you're positioning yourself as a player in international commerce with the Chinese, do you support their attempts to increase worker protections and clamp down on sweatshops, or are you on the side of these big American corporations who profit from such abuses and are fighting tooth-and-nail to keep such opportunities for human exploitation available?”

But don't hold your breath.

No doubt Douglas would rather wax dumbfounded about why on Earth the Chinese would trouble their pretty heads over such nonsense as pollution and global warming (from Forbes again):

(Douglas:) “For whatever reason, they seem focused on pollution reduction, greenhouse gas emission control and energy conservation.”

“For whatever reason” indeed.

Okay, so perhaps that was a bit… superlative.

But David Waldman, aka Kagro X (aka David-DC for those who may remember Bernie's campaign blog last year) was in fact on C-Span's Washington Journal this morning. He and Redstate blogger Robert Bluey had a cordial round of questions and calls for about 45 minutes.

Kags is a busy man, being a Daily Kos front pager, as well as writing for The Next Hurrah and elsewhere. Nobody out there is better, though, and as a former hill staffer and Hotline contributor, he has a unique gift for parsing through procedural (and psuedo-procedural) gobledegook.

And that ability has been on display for Vermonters through the impeachment half-victory activists achieved during the legislative session. Kagro was possibly the most surgically scathing critic of the Vermont House and Senate leadership during that period, and I suspect we haven't heard from him since 'cuz he's a bit put off at how it went down, with a non-603 compliant Senate resolution and no resolution in the House. Can't say I blame him, but hopefully he will grace us again with his skewering blogfare before too long.

In the meantime, Kagro X fans can of course catch his wisdom on dKos, or you can click here to view his C-Span appearence (click on the 6-24-07 program, he pops up about 46 minutes into it, where he is labeled “David Walden”). I did parse out his assessment of how Dems handled the recent Iraq funding battle as an mp3 here. Give a listen!

Nice work Kagro. Now I'm off to craft an email bomb to send you for not finding an excuse to drop GMD's URL out there for national TV (I tellya, what am I payin' you for?).

Jim Douglas hardly tries to conceal his snarky streak anymore. Freyne has a quote where Douglas lets his contempt for concerns about climate change shine through:

“I’ve said many times that Vermont has such a small imprint on the surface of the planet that we can do as much as possible and still not save a single polar bear or make any significant impact on global warming,” said Vermont's Republican CEO.

“But China can have an impact because of the environmental challenges the environmental officials we’ve met with recognize and need to deal with. I would hope that Vermonters who have a serious interest in climate change would devote their time and energy to places like China

Great. Let China deal with it. So Douglas doesn't have to trouble his beautiful mind with it all.

Looking for the perfect gift for Dan DeWalt this summer? Click here.

Shad 2, Vermont Yankee 1. A judge has again ruled that Vermont Yankee can't dump its water discharge into the Connecticut River (potentially harming fish) after receiving permission from the Douglas Administration to do so.

Citizen activists continue to work with Burlington police on the issue of racial profiling. It sounds like the police have been receptive so far after some incidents. If you don't think we need to be on the lookout for racism in oh-so-enlightened Vermont, here's some news for you: in 2006, there were two chapters of the Ku Klux Klan operating in the state, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (hat tip to Rowley).

Speaking of haters, are authorities getting involved with the threats received by Rep. Bill Lippert (D-Hinesburg) thanks to Bill O'Reilly? This site and other Vermont sites have received hits from law enforcement via a Google search for “bill lippert fag”.  It's not the norm for people in law enforcement to use department computers for personal use, so this is likely a sign of some sort of official inquiry or investigation. Book 'em Dano, I sez.

The failure of the Immigration Bill (notwithstanding its gradual and uncertain prospects at resurrection) in Washington has been cast as a victory of the far-right immigrant bashers, hiding behind their paper-thin justifications of crusading against “lawbreakers.” I have little doubt that among the most vociferous members of this crowd, Howard Dean had it right in his reference to “racist hysteria.”

But who else voted to uphold the filibuster against the bill more than a week back?

Senator Bernie Sanders – and Bernie’s actions bear discussion for two reasons; both to highlight problems of the bill which was also a priority of President Bush’s, and also to beg the question of precisely who our elected officials represent and who they don’t. More beneath the fold.

The Immigration Bill of course, would have – among other things – provided what opponents are calling amnesty; that is, a vehicle whereby current illegals can get a limited visa to stay and work legally after paying a fine of several hundred dollars – or opt to pay even more and get on the path to citizenship by way of their native countries. Obviously lost in the shuffle are the huge numbers of truly poor illegals who can’t possibly afford even a few hundred dollars, and the problem of reaching many of them to explain the program.

Nevertheless, the very idea is anathema to the right wing for all the usual reasons.

But Bernie is not the only member of the Senate Democratic caucus to oppose it. Voting with him against cloture were a handful of other Democrats, such as Barbara Boxer of California. Bernie’s objection is a Labor-based one; that this guest worker program amounts to an endorsed and fully facilitated rush of cheap labor that would undermine workers in this country. From Bernie’s floor statement in support of an amendment that mitigated some of the bill’s less desirable qualities:

Mr. President, one of the businesses supporting this bill is Wal-Mart. Oh, they don?t go out and say this directly. They let special interest groups like the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition do their dirty work for them.

Mr. President, is there a shortage of Americans willing to work at Wal-Mart? Well, let?s see. Two years ago, when Wal-Mart announced the opening of a new store in Oakland, California, guess how many people showed-up for a job? 11,000, Mr. President. 11,000 people in Oakland filled out applications for about 400 jobs at Wal-Mart just two years ago.

In other words, there is no shortage of labor when it comes to Wal-Mart, the largest employer in America, a company I might add, that just a few years ago was paying its clerks a poverty-level wage of $8.23 an hour.

But, you might say, that was two years ago, ancient history. Well, guess again.

In January of 2006, it happened again. When Wal-Mart announced the opening of a store in Evergreen Park just outside of Chicago, 24,500 applied for 325 jobs at this store.

And, Wal-Mart says that there is a labor shortage. Give me a break.

So, we know who supports an expansion in low-skilled visas and what their motivations are.

The bill is more than troubled, it’s not even good, frankly. Remember, the President likes it, after all. But it does (or did) represent some opportunity for struggling and often impoverished illegal immigrants in this country, which is why it did draw the often grudging support of many immigrant rights advocates.

And it’s no accident that many in the business community supported it – particularly the high-tech sector, which has loudly complained for some time of the dearth of highly-skilled techies in the US and the need to import some as easily as possible. Bernie rightly went after that myth and earned (once again) the ire of corporate America:

Compete America, a coalition of U.S. tech companies, in response to the Sanders Amendment, wrote: “The Sanders Amendment will accelerate outsourcing and undermine U.S. economic growth. This ill-conceived measure is flatly anticompetitive and is a clear attempt to gut the H-1B visa program and will make it much harder for U.S. businesses to support the Senate bill? American companies should not be penalized for hiring top talent, especially those who are graduates of U.S. universities.”

Sanders made the case convincingly that major high-tech companies that are laying off workers by the thousands should hardly complain that they need to import more to fill a shortage.

And yet, there’s still the plight of those on the bottom of the American workforce. The ones that people like Jim Douglas have no problem with exploiting within the market machinery. What about them? The following quote of Bernie’s from a letter to the LA Times suggests where his focus is:

The great economic crisis facing the United States is the shrinking of the middle class and the loss of millions of good-paying jobs. In my view, we must do everything that we can to reverse that trend and make sure that, to as great a degree as possible, good-paying professional jobs in this country are filled by Americans, not by people brought in from other countries by corporate interests.

It’s a Hobson’s Choice to be sure. To support a bill that could help millions of those in the greatest need, vs possibly harming one’s constituents.

Or is it even more complicated than that?

It’s time that our elected officials who represent areas (like Vermont) where illegal immigration is not only a part of our culture, but has become an indispensible part of our economy, to recognize that these illegals became every bit their constituents the moment the crossed into the state and got a job, as any one else in the state. They are part of the Vermont economy, culture, and community, and are therefore part of our Washington delegation’s responsibility. They may not be able to vote, they may not be paying income taxes, but neither are my kids and nobody would suggest that they are not part of our Senators’ purview. These people (and they are “people,” not simply “illegals”) are not only a constituency of Senator Sanders, they are a constituency in serious need of help.

Given the implications and collateral damage this bill would have caused, I cannot fault Bernie for working against it. It probably needs to die. But in doing so, he (and other progressives that opposed it) have taken on a special moral responsibility to place the welfare of illegal immigrants at the top of their priority list. They don’t like the bill, fine – understandable, even.

Now give us an alternative.