I just noticed Freyne beat me to this, but it’s still worth pointing out. This is from today’s Sunday Herald/Argus editorial:

An important decision awaits Gov. James Douglas now that the Legislature has completed its work this year: whether to veto the energy bill that includes a tax on power generation at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.

Douglas should sign the bill.

Sounds good, yes? But it follows on the heels of this from two weeks ago:

efforts to make companies more responsible corporate citizens must be undertaken with fairness in mind, which suggests a thoughtful policymaking process.

Action on climate change is long overdue. If Gov. James Douglas had been leading the way on the issue, then the Legislature might not have felt compelled to rush its program into existence. But that is no excuse for creating a program with a dubious funding source.

Clearly, the editors would like us to accept a parsing of the language that would do the Boston Legal team proud; that they can be all for the bill (in a blandly clinical, one-shot way) but still object to the funding mechanism (in a more, shall we say, vehement way on multiple occasions – going as far as taking the playground-scuffle step of calling Shumlin’s original proposal a “score-settling tax”).

But it doesn’t work that way.

Collectively, the Argus and the Herald make up a tremendously influential and consequential chunk of the Vermont media, and as such, they get to lead the way in informing debate. The fact is, when the bill went through, they quickly came out with a couple editorials, slamming the bill in no uncertain terms. In doing so, they set the goalposts, and crafted what has become the “conventional wisdom” among both the opponents of the bill, as well as those casual news watchers who have only followed it peripherally, but now feel that the sophisticated, intellectual viewpoint is that handed to them in the papers.

And an odd conventional wisdom it is. It says that if a tax doesn’t directly, precisely relate to an expenditure, it is “bad policy.” Since the bill is designed to shape the energy paradigm in Vermont, you’d think that a tax on an energy producer would fit that criterion. But apparently using either a nuclear waste tax, a windfall profits tax, a property tax, or an energy production tax that would also be levied on wind (all notions bandied about, with the final one actually making the cut and deemed marginally more acceptable to the editors) on the energy industry providing a third of our electrical power is not related enough to a bill focusing on energy conservation and renewables promotion.

To editorial, the only funding scheme acceptable was the much maligned heating fuel tax. Once again, editors show they are in the enviable position of not suffering the death of a thousand cuts that those in the middle and working classes do. It’s a yearly ritual in my house to consider which bills we will be late on in order to pay for those final one or two deliveries of oil to heat the family home. No big deal to the editors, though – even if there’s an obvious corporate citizen equally related to the energy field who can easily afford it and make for a more progessive target of taxation.

Apparently, you can only tax Vermont Yankee for a bill that would perhqaps move the nuclear waste. Under this logic, tobacco taxes going to health programs would be out the door.

And the General Fund? The sales taxes, income taxes, etc that collectively fund every other functioning of government? Well, I suppose paying the Governor’s salary is “bad public policy.” Even gas taxes going to the transportation fund would seem inadequate. Again – not even the same industrial category. Perhaps if the gas taxes were going for oil drilling…

For whatever reason, the Herald and Argus targetted this bill with unusual scorn. Proponents are doing a good job bouncing back, and the news that Vermont has more per capita nuclear waste than any other state is a nice sign that they aren’t going to be willing to play ropa dope.

But the fact is, despite their nice, groovy sounding liberal editorial today – if this bill goes down, it’ll be a defeat largely owned by the editors of the Rutland Herald and Times Argus.

I’m a liberal. That means I have no problem with regulation as a policy tool (well, neither do conservatives, they just want to regulate culturally rather than for purposes of social functionality… but I digress). But regulation by definition is based on an artificial power differential created to serve the interests of public administration. And truthfully, power differentials in general make me queasy.

As such, I hold to a simple regulatory ethic when I evaluate policy proposals or administrative functions. Basically, you regulate logistical matters (the housing density to infrastructure capacity scheme, or somesuch) and “bad” behavior (which I’ll define as behavior which can harm others – that covers environmental regulations, public health regulations such as second hand smoke issues, stopping people from beating other people up, etc).

But regulating “good” behavior? Why the hell would we want to do that?

What’s got me riled up is the cover article of this week’s Seven Days which examines the regulation “regime” around street performers in Burlington’s Church Street marketplace. Again, I can see the need for logistical regulation – how many prformers at a time, and such – but it’s clear that Burlington’s marketplace masters have gone way, way beyond that, and it burns me up (more below the fold).

Quick back story – yesterday I was walking to grab some lunch in Montpelier’s downtown. On the way, I heard a saxophone echoing between the buildings on State Street. The music was very skillfully rendered and brought an immediate smile to my face. As I walked over the river, I saw the young woman who was playing get up from her seat on the sidewalk and pack up to leave. I was delighted to see that several people had dropped tips into her sax case (which gave my faith in human nature a little boost) and took a minute to appreciate springtime in a place that tends to attract – and generally embrace – street performers of many stripes (although, as a musician myself, I do admit to being partial to the musicians).

To my surprise today at lunch, I notice that same saxaphone player gracing the cover of the new Seven Days. I enthusiastically grab a copy and sit down to read the article… although the cover blerb is giving me a creeping feeling of what to expect inside.

The artist herself is identified as 18 year-old Zoe Christiansen (who can be heard playing the clarinet, her other instrument of choice, on the Seven days website here). She is precisely the type and caliber of Church Street street talent that so impressed my wife and me when we moved to Vermont so many years ago, and always played a big role in our enthusiasm for making the drive up to Burlington on sunny weekend days.

But in the true spirit of fixing something that wasn’t broke, Burlington has a different regulatory regime in place than they did 12 years ago. One that goes beyond regulating logistics and into regulating individual good behavior (which I certainly consider performing in the community – and in the process enhancing that community –  without an admission fee to be).

In other words, rather than being celebrated, Ms. Christiansen has been banned:

The Church Street Marketplace has a “three strikes and you’re out” policy regarding complaints for performers who have, or are working toward, an annual license. According to the official rules and regulations, annual licenses are granted provided that “at least five daily/weekend licenses have been previously obtained, and no documented complaints have been filed during the five separate performing dates.”

Christiansen’s initial infraction – for excessive volume – came while she was performing on her first day permit. She was given a second day permit but was told a complaint had been filed against her; she was not told by whom.

So by whose authority has Christiansen been “banned?”

“They” are the Church Street Marketplace District Commission, a department of the City of Burlington whose primary function is to ensure that the Marketplace is a clean, safe public center. From maintenance to granting permits, Redmond and his staff handle virtually every aspect of Marketplace operations. Collectively, they are the “man behind the curtain.”

It’s actually a glass door, and the CSM office behind it is where the permit gauntlet begins – with the audition.

You read that right – an audition. To perform, you must audition for a handful of bureaucrats and meet with their approval (and presumably, their personal tastes). A little departure from the romantic notion of the traveling troubadour spontaneously sitting down to make his or her bus fare to the next stop, eh?

It’s important to note that strret musicians were originally envisioned as an integral part of the Church Street Marketplace, but as reporter Dan Bolles informs us, they seem to be seen now as a nuisance at worst, and just a piece of the decor at best:

Buried in the official regulations regarding Church Street performers – just a few paragraphs after the line stating that a street performer’s license “is not an employment contract” – lies a telling contradiction: “The right to act as a street entertainer on the Marketplace is a privilege.” While the language of that sentence is confusing, the message is clear: The Church Street Marketplace views street performance not as a right of free expression but rather, as [CSM Executive Director] Redmond puts it, as an “amenity.”

It’s an irony not lost on Zoe Christiansen. “Park benches are amenities,” she counters.

And who’s complaining about her?

On Monday, May 7, she went to the CSM office to obtain her third day permit. She was told the staff were too busy, and that they might be able to accommodate her later in the afternoon. So Christiansen decided to play on Cherry Street, hoping to siphon some listeners from the Marketplace. While she was physically off Church Street, her sound traveled there, to the displeasure of cart vendor Paul Buschner.

The 46-year-old proprietor of Amazing Kettle Corn typically sets up shop on Church just south of Cherry. Buschner describes Christiansen as a “rule breaker,” who has “only her own interests in mind.” He cites several occasions when he’s witnessed her riding her bicycle on the Marketplace – another no-no. He further claims the clarinetist was “just sitting, playing scales.” Though Buschner normally prefers to speak with offending buskers personally, on this occasion he asked Burlington Police to investigate.

Two officers notified Christiansen that she needed a city permit to play outside the CSM District, defined by the edge of the brick walkway that lines the Marketplace. The incident was reported to the CSM office, which later that afternoon informed her she would not be granted another day permit or considered for an annual license.

“Scales?” Please. Go back and click the audio link again, and keep in mind that this woman performs for a living. Scales wont pay the rent.

So what’s his problem with the “rule breaker?” Apparently according to some, Church Street isn’t a public area, it’s not part of the Burlington community, it exists only for the storeowners and their personal comfort zone takes precedence over everything and anything else. Yet another symptom of our cultural insistence on putting the value of commerce, the market and the successful marketeers so high, it reflexively trumps all else.

Let’s be clear; if a performer is belligerant and is harassing or threatening people – especially if they’re doing it under the pretense of performing, I have no problem with regulations to prevent that. But this is clearly not the case here, and what gives them away is the arbitrary and capricious regulatory regime:

Accordionist David Symons, 29, disagrees. “I don’t have a problem with issuing permits, necessarily, but the standards [the CSM] sets are totally arbitrary. They have these regulations, but they’re enforced selectively.” Symons adds that the CSM “has this attitude that we’re somehow employees, which we’re not.”

Christiansen was also informed by several members of the CSM staff that her attire was “inappropriate,” and that she should reconsider her look.

CSM Executive Director Ron Redmond, 51, conceded there is no mention of apparel, appropriate or otherwise, in the street performer regulations, but he added that CSM staff often make suggestions to performers in an effort to abet their success.

Christiansen was disturbed by CSM’s mother-hen approach. “I was wearing shorts that were kind of . . . short, I guess. But I also was wearing a dress that covered the shorts, down to the middle of my thigh, and a vest over that,” she explains. “I didn’t feel I was scandalously dressed, but I guess [the CSM] disagreed.” Furthermore, Christiansen points out, “There is nothing in the rules about attire and, frankly, who the hell are they to tell me what I can wear?”

To the one or two whiners such as Buschner, I say suck it up. You’re doing business in the most lucrative piece of real estate in the state, and its precisely because of the culture and setting that these performers are an integral part of that it is so lucrative (and BTW – there is no way to play a saxophone quietly). If you don’t like it, open up shop somewhere else. I’m sure there are plenty of folks waiting in line to fill your vacancy.

To the appointed judge/jury/talent executioners (and their bosses/enablers in City Hall), find a new hobby. As far as I’m concerned, from what’s in this article, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

If you’d like to let the appropriate folks know that you’re ashamed of them as well, here’s some contact info:

Ron Redmond, CSM Executive Director
(802) 865-7254
rredmond@verizon.net

Bob Kiss, Mayor
(802) 865-7272
(I couldn’t find an email, but here’s a link to an online feedback form)

… and maybe if you’re on Church Street and you have an urge for Kettle Corn, you might want to consider an alternative.

Smarting from his steady loss in viewership (and in the face of Keith Olbermann’s steady rise in viewership), Bill O’Reilly continues his never-ending quest for Democrats to demonize in the hopes of throwing more gasoline on his dwindling flame… and once again, he’s turned to li’l ol’ Vermont, his favorite state. From the Freeps: A film crew from Fox TV’s O’Reilly Factor caused a stir at the Statehouse this morning as legislators were gathering for the last day of the legislative session. The crew approached Rep. Bill Lippert, D-Hinesburg, as he sat in the cafeteria eating breakfast before 9 a.m. Legislators described the crew as aggressively asking questions about sex offender legislation, accusing Lippert of supporting child sex offenders.

“They take the mic and stick it in his face,” said Sen. Richard Sears, D-Bennington, who was across the room. “He was ambushed.”

Sounds like quite a scene, from Hallenbeck’s description, with other Legislators moving in to support/shield Lippert and subsequent calls for some sort of official legislative statement or action on the matter. Big hat tip to B_VT for drawing this to my attention.

Question for the day: There are plenty of Vermont legislators that could draw this sort of ire, and yet O’Falafel (and his local buddy, frequent Factor guest Paul Beaudry of WDEV’s “True North Radio”) for some reason seem to fixate on Lippert… hmmmm, now why would that be? Anyone on the right have an answer? Bueller…?

Bigotry is so transparent…

They’re still at it under the golden dome in Montpelier, and despite my comments in the diary just below this, the potential is there for this to spill into early next week (although I doubt it will).

Legislators are reportedly at loggerheads over the Transportation bill. With the passage of the energy bill and the other lingering pieces, transportation is the budget item that has the whole process stuck between the Douglas Administration – which is only concerned about the statewide (a la state highway and such) issues – and legislators who are pushing for a range of local projects.

Interestingly, Sen. Dick Mazza, Democrat of Grand Isle (and Colchester), is reportedly playing the role of Douglas’ point man in the fight, which again begs the question as to why there always seems to be a self-described Democrat on call to help Douglas roll over the Dem caucus?

Sigh. We’ve got a lot of work to do…

Looks like the Legislature will wrap up tomorrow from what I’ve heard. I suppose that could change, but I doubt it.

Congratulations to GMD’s Jack McCullough, who was recently elected Chair of the Washington County Democratic Committee. Jack replaces Allison Sultan who was a terrific chair and a good friend, who is moving to the DC area with her family. Go get ’em Jack.

And congratulations to Philip Baruth, who was the victor in our little silly sidebar poll of last week that asked which… er… “out of the political mainstream” candidate for Governor GMD readers would prefer. Philip edged out Ben, Jerry, and Whoopi Goldberg for the win. No word on whether or not any of them called him to concede as yet.

If you haven’t heard yet, the AP is losing Ross Sneyd to VPR. Good for VPR I suppose, but it kinda sucks for the rest of us. Sure I had fun poking at the guy sometimes, but he was definitely one of the good ones. AP really seemed to disrespect him, though, so you can’t blame him for ditching them.

Douglas is threatening to veto the Climate Change Bill. This one might bite him in the butt, although its unlikely the Dems could override him.

Any bets on who the behind-the-scenes-bigshot whose name “acting” Public Service Commissioner David O’Brien was using to try and threaten Sen. John Campbell was (Campbell called him a “bully”)? I have a pretty good guess (well, it seems like it could only be one person, actually… but I have a limited perspective), but I’m looking for corroboration. Stay tuned…

Pity the poor national Republicans. Sometimes it seem the only thing they have going for them of late (electorally speaking) is that they all run against Democrats – although with the 50-state strategy in play, even that’s less of a leg up than it used to be. The poor souls have realized at some level that appearing captive to evangelical theocrats may not be such a good thing in regards to maintaining the White House. In the past, the strength of the odd synergy between the theocrat right, the neocon right and the laissez-faire right has consisted of the theocrats rallying their armies of voters while the neocons and l-f wings use their considerable skill in spin and messaging to reassure average folk that the theocrats’ values are simply their values. That all this stuff about a lurking neo-fascism is all liberal anti-Christian scare talk.

And so the spin is always about the family. And the “freedom” to worship. They successfully cram all their anti-Constitutional policies into thes comfortable, warm, and oh-so-vague blankets and the middle-of-the-road, none-too-checked-in “swing” crowd snuggle in under them all cozied up.

But things are changing…. (more below the fold)

First with the Supreme Court decision on intact-extraction-and-dilation abortion, which scraps all precedent by giving federal and state governments carte blanche to completely outlaw a medical procedure if it conflicts with the legislative majority’s religious dogma. And the theocrats are probably falling all over themselves to ban abortion by systematically outlawing all its individual methods.

What this all means is that abortion will be front and center in the elections next year – and most of that swing voter set remain solidly pro-choice. Having this argument will inevitably cause more of them to pay extra attention.

But msnbc may have blown the lid open even further when, during last week’s first GOP presidential debate, the following happened:

From NBC’s Carrie Dann and Mark Murray
We just replayed the tape to answer the question some of you asked: Which candidates raised their hands when Chris Matthews asked them if they don’t believe in evolution?

Three did: Brownback, Huckabee, and Tancredo.

That’s right – a third of the Republican candidates for president announced, without hesitation, their rejection of any science that may conflict with their absolutist, take-no-prisoners, dark ages dogma. Bear in mind, we’re supposed to be long past this, generally speaking. Gone are the days where the Catholic Church would imprison the likes of Galileo for… well… for being a scientist and practicing his discipline honestly. In fact, the Church has apologized for that treatment and now easily accepts that modern cosmology and biology (if you’re the theistic type) can simply serve as windows into the mechanisms of creation. And it has, despite arguments on the fringe to the contrary, been a surprisingly easy fit.

But as we all know, there has been a resurgence of those who practice selective literalism when reading their holy scripture. The committed culture warriors who are looking for a political jihad either because their dominion theology/radical “endtimes” doctrine calls for it, or they’re simply fueling their enthusiasm for their faith with a political movement instead of the tried-and-true revival meetings. These folks are so powerful in the GOP now that they can field three candidates for President.

That would be good news enough for Dems. It shows that the theocrats are not content to be camouflaged by the Republican intelligentsia anymore, which will make the pitch to the swing voters that much more problematic. Still, if you give people just a few weeks, they’ll forget anything – especially if we’re talking about something this early when no one but the hardcore junkies are paying attention anyway.

Fortunately, it seems the theocrats may not let us forget. You see, they were actively pissed off that only three candidates raised their hands. Mitt Romney has particularly peeved them. From Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network:

I have now asked the Romney campaign specifically if he believes in Darwin’s theory of Evolution or does he take the Creationist view? The answer above suggests that he may believe in both. I’m not saying he does. I’m just saying I’m a tad bit confused by the answer.

Here’s the key point. The majority of Born Again Evangelicals take the Creationist viewpoint. Some Evangelicals already have concerns about Romney’s Mormon faith. He needs support from Evangelicals to win. That’s why this issue is an important one that needs to be cleared up. I don’t think this is an issue that Romney can avoid.

Ever since the Scopes Monkey Trial, Evolution has been the litmus issue on whether or not you’re rational about your religion, or you’re a pitchfork waving, our-way-or-a-jail-cell, anti-science dark-ager. A Galileo-era throwback. As a question of public policy, it presses primal buttons in people and is looked at by many as the line of demarkation between scary zealots and the most expansive possible definition of “mainstream.”

If this retro-religious pressure on and from the GOP is maintained – and covered by the media (a big “if” indeed) – and the election really does come down to an election between the anti-choice, creationist, crusader crowd vs everyone else, then this game is already done.

The Vermont Legislature has put on an… odd… display to say the least. They’ve set up a dynamic not unlike the one I faced in my High School biology class. At the beginning of the year the students were all told if our grades were higher on the standardized test at the end of the school year than they otherwise would’ve been, that the higher grade would go on the report card for the class. Naturally, after hearing that, I did nothing for the whole year and studied like hell in the last week to walk away with a B for the year, based only on my test performance.

The Vermont legislature has all its eggs in this final week’s basket as well. A good performance on the budget, the education issue and the energy bill will, if not leave them with a stellar grade, at least have the potential to shed them of the “do nothing” label that swings over them like a guillotine and leave them with a passing grade, if barely.

Even if these final bills go really, really well, lefties are bound to be left with a bad taste in their mouths. The impeachment issue (and more significantly the colossol blundering of the handling of the issue, even going back into the last session), the astounding failure of courage on the death with dignity bill, the snail’s pace of the IRV bill; all these things leave the Democratic base feeling taken for granted and disrespected. Rep. Michael Fisher’s victory on the Iraq resolution was the exception to this paradigm, but in retrospect, given the lack of formal support from the caucus and the now well-known clawing and scratching Fisher had to engage in to get his day on the floor (including his agreement to refrain from sponsoring the Impeachment bill, which he had done last session – although he did vote for it, of course), even this victory feels hollow and tokenistic; as if it was supposed to serve as the one and only bone thrown to the left in order to placate us on every other policy issue. And nothing would be more patronizing, if that is the case.

So there’s still a lot of anger and frustration. The dismissals have all felt rather patronizing, and as such, easily personalized. And cracks are showing in the Dem caucus as well. Among Democrats, Symington was in a clear minority on impeachment – even her own leadership team voted for the measure. In the Senate, members of the Dem caucus look to be in open rebellion against Shumlin’s impulsive, unpredictable style.

The point is that nobody is feeling too thrilled about things. And as difficult as it may be for those of us feeling particularly burned to admit, we all do share one very important thing in common:

It is in all of our best interests for this Democratic supermajority to be effective and successful.

How to make that happen and pull it out in a big way for the next biennium is going to be challenging. On the leadership side, Symington and Shumlin are both going to have to lose their respective manifestations of their unfortunate lack of respect for their base. Shumlin needs to learn he can’t simply shine us on, while Symington needs to accept the fact that adults do not like to be chastised and dismissed like children. Obviously there is more that unites the leadership and the base than divides them, but you wouldn’t necessarily know that from the last few months.

And the fact is that, as leaders, S & S bear extra responsibility for making this relationship work. Sure there are screamers on the left who simply want to tear down and have no interest in cooperation, but by refusing to lead with respect for their base, the caucus leaders inadvertently create a leader/power vacuum – and nature abhors a vacuum.

The uneven power dynamic may be about to shift a bit though, with the primary date likely to be moved back into August. This will create a new dynamic on the ground, whereby there will be enough time between the primary and the general elections for the winner of a contested party nomination to have time to make a proper go of it against a Republican challenger. This may well embolden many in the grassroots to consider primary challenges against Dem incumbents who are too conservative for their districts. If such a scenario starts to play out in several districts and is apparent early enough in the year, liberal Democrats will be in a much better position to make demands in the Legislature collectively and individually, as a good third of the Democratic caucus are fairly conservative, and a good half again of them are perhaps more conservative than many in their home districts.

My own pollyanna-esque feeling is that next biennium will have to be better. Last session, the Legislature spun its wheels a bit in the first biennium as well. Still, its reassuring to know that one of the final actions of this biennium may be to make the power of the ballot box that much more effective for next year.

Okay, we’ve all heard the numbers about how many more people are checked into American Idol voting than actually voting in the political process. We’ve also all bemoaned the rise of reality shows and their effect on our collective psyche.

Well maybe it’s time to stop whining, embrace it, accept it, and make it work for Democracy. But instead of looking to American Idol, let’s retrofit Survivor into our political process.

Credit where credit is due: my friend Allison Sultan blurted out this idea, and the two of us went on to flesh it out. It goes like this:

We’ve got our two partisan tribes, yes? There are a zillion Democrats and another zillion Republicans running for President. Let’s embrace the fact that most folks are more motivated by who they’re against rather than who or what they’re for. Instead of debates, each Party should give their candidates a task a month, like – tour a factory, or kiss two dozen babies. Then every month they have TV specials where we review how they did. Then, at the end of the show, we have a 1-800 number everybody in America can call, and we vote out the one we don’t like. Clean. Simple. And so satisfying. Good bye Biden. Better luck next time Huckabee. Maybe you can go on Larry King to talk about your experience.

Ten months later, our process of elimination leaves us with two candidates. We can then have a final episode and vote one more off the island (island o’ politics, that is), or maybe we could even mix it up and put them through some sort of Fear Factor schtick. Climb in the tank with the snakes, Barack! Down a whole glass of pureed grasshoppers, Fred!

I know I’d set my Tivo for that.

And the great American experiment rolls on…

Those of you who know me know that, for personal reasons, I don’t touch environmental issues. I really shouldn’t go there, especially given that I’ve just never been a party line kind of guy. But I just can’t stand it. Especially after reading SPS’ diary today. SPS, you’re great and I always appreciate your POV, but, well… I just couldn’t agree less.

The Vermont Legislature’s climate change bill is in trouble. BIG trouble. Every corporate lobbyist in the state is trying to scuttle it, and if that’s not enough to tell us all that we need to get off our butts and call our legislators NOW, let me try some explanation.

First; the bill has a LOT of good stuff. Incentives for renewables. Firm goals. And of course, the expansion of efficiency programs into heating fuels. Now I’m as frustrated with this Legislature as the next lefty, but that’s no reason to sit in the corner muttering to ourselves. And sure, maybe this shouldn’t be Vermont’s first priority, but dammit – as we said with impeachment, these people CAN walk and chew gum at the same time. Okay, maybe global warming shouldn’t be the top priority, but if you really think it’s not a priority at all, then you’re a moron living with a bag over your head. This energy/sustainability/climate stuff is becoming life and death. We should take it that seriously.

But there’s suddenly unexpected resistance from random batches of Democrats, and this is not acceptable (continued below the fold).

I’m not privy to what the conversations are, but the close vote in the Senate could simply be a backlash against Shumlin’s wildly egoistic leadership style this session. If that’s it, and it’s essentially personal, the response is easy: Get over it. NOW.

What’s more complicated though is what SPS was talking about; that is, the resistance to the funding mechanism (the windfall profits tax on Vermont Yankee). I would remind folks that this needs funding, number one. That’s just a fact of life – and that the original funding was going to come exclusively from a tax on heating oil itself which was, quite frankly, a heels-dug-in stance from some who seemed patronizingly unmoved by concerns of up-front regressive taxation on a life-or-death utility such as heat regardless of concerns about whether or not some people had the money up front. That idea died an ugly death, and I for one popped the champagne.

But the idea of taxing Vermont Yankee is bringing Dems from out of left field to boost their pro-business bona fides. Treasurer Jeb Spaulding, of all people (who I like and respect a lot) has even decided to weigh in on the issue, presumably as a chance to grab the Dem pro-business crown.

Let me be absolutely clear: This issue is so straightforward, so clear cut, so easy, that if you can’t support this tax, you really don’t buy into the idea that businesses should be taxed at ALL. Period. If this one bugs you, you won’t find one that doesn’t, and what wing of the Democratic Party does that put you in?

If you want to be serious about this, it’s not a “business tax,” it’s a nuclear waste tax, which strikes me as more than reasonable. As far as business is concerned, this bill will drive down costs for small business. Nobody, as far as I know, is even wasting their breath disputing that.

And it has straightforward symmetry. It’s an energy bill, so it finds funding from the energy sector. And it finds funding from an energy producer that we are going to have to wean ourselves off of eventually. Until the waste and safety problems are solved, nuclear power is dangerously unsustainable. It’s not an option. Expanding nuke power to cover even an additional 15-20% of our nation’s needs would require a new Yucca Mountain sized waste facility every few years. Let’s consider this a sin tax, eh?

But more than that, Entergy is rolling in dough. Through no business acumen of their own – simply the market – they are raking in phenomenal profits. They. Can. Handle. It.

The line is that this will somehow break a deal with Entergy made during their relicensing, which walks dangerously close to outright dishonesty. There were no “deals.” Things change, and those things can come into play in the next relicensing if they wanna fuss about it. Just as the fact that the waste was supposedly going to be moved out of state. We might want to revisit that understanding next time.

Folks, don’t let the Legislature weenie out on this. Call your Senators and Reps ASAP. If we let this go by, we’ll be wishing we had a “do nothing” Legislature, rather than a Legislature that is part of the problem… if there was ever an activist ball that needed to get rolling on an issue this year, this is it.

(addition from J.D – Senate contacts here and Representatives here.)