Okay…I’m going to play a hunch here and suggest that an effort may be afoot to convince our beleaguered legislators that it will be unnecessary to stick their necks out and participate in a vote on relicensing Vermont Yankee.  The gist of this fanciful scenario is that, if our lawmakers can resist the impulse to bring the measure to a vote in the 2010 session, Vermont Yankee will make the first move to discontinue its relationship with Vermont, sparing everyone from the discomfort of having to “come out” against relicensing.  Yeah, sure; and if you go for that one, I’ve got waterfront property in Death Valley that might interest you.

From the position of a simple bystander, here’s my take on the situation:

1) The Vernon reactor was built in 1972, which means it was probably designed in the late 60’s.  Even if you didn’t know that it’s life-expectancy was only 40 years, and that its output  has already been ramped-up to well-beyond the capacity it was designed for; shouldn’t the mere fact that it is a product of the same technical era as the Ford Pinto, 8-track tapes, stretch pants and Tang give us all pause for thought?  It’s one of the oldest nuclear reactors in the world that’s still operating; and it’s doing so at 20% above its designed capacity!

2) The cat is out of the bag; claims by Entergy regarding Vermont Yankee cannot be trusted.  Despite furious efforts at damage control, the past couple of years have seen a laundry list of Yankee collapses, leaks, lapses (and even a brand new security breach) find their way into the press.  Recent revelations that Yankee officials have been somewhat less than forthright inevitably lead one to wonder what else they may not be telling us.

3) Vermont is no longer any where near as dependent on Yankee to serve our power needs as it once was; and we are about to see a significant increase in the cost of the power that is supplied to us by Yankee. It would seem to be in the best long-term interests of the state to factor Yankee out of our energy plans sooner rather than later.  There are credible alternatives that will have the added benefit of creating new economic opportunities for Vermonters.  If the plant continues to operate beyond it’s scheduled sunset, there is an ever increasing possibility that some harm far greater than the current tritium leaks will arise from the aged facility.  Apart from the devastating risk to local communities from a large scale safety failure, the potential for damage to  Vermont’s “brand” that would accompany a major contamination scandal could bring far greater job loss than will accompany the closing of Yankee,  even if none of the Yankee jobs were replaced in alternative energy industries.

Some of our representatives may have been led to believe that a lawsuit by Entergy is avoidable if the legislature never exercises its prerogative to say “no” to relicensing. Think again. The decommissioning fund has been gutted. Entergy is trying to spin-off Yankee and it’s ugly stepsisters.  Do you honestly think we’re going to see that corporation fulfill its commitments with regard to decommissioning without an epic legal battle?  

Delaying a vote will only advantage Entergy, allowing them more opportunity to cover their tracks and manipulate public sentiment.  Right now, the majority of Vermonters are squarely against relicensing and will applaud their reps for taking action.

UPDATE: Keep your eye open for the eugenics conference at UVM this spring:



March 28, 2010

Symposium

Breeding Better Germans and Vermonters

Nazi and American Eugenics in History and Memory

It appears that a long-standing injustice done to some of Vermont’s most vulnerable populations in the early part of the 20th century is about to be officially acknowledged at last.



The Burlington Free Press reported today that the Legislature took testimony from a few of the descendents of those vicitimized in the Vermont Eugenics Project, pursuant to issuing an apology to the wronged communities. Had the project achieved it’s goal of sterilizing all but those who came from “the fine old stock of original settlers,” there would be no descendents to offer that testimony today.  It is a shame and a cloud of disgrace that hangs over the past of both the state and it’s premier university, since it was under the influence of a UVM Dean of Zoology, Henry F. Perkins, that the legislature undertook this ignoble adventure, following the preliminary “studies” in the 1920’s.

The UVM website devoted to the topic has an oddly understated tone, considering the volatility of its subject. Nancy L. Gallagher, who is credited on the website, has written a detailed history of the experiment entitled “Breeding Better Vermonters: The Vermont Eugenics Project.” A friend loaned me this UVM publication several years ago because I was completely ignorant on the subject.  In all the twenty some years I had lived in Vermont, no one had previously mentioned this particular piece of regional history to me. Quite an eye-opener.

Vermont was by no means unique in this perfidious action.  When, in 1931, Vermont passed it’s own sterilization law, it was the 27th state to do so.

In Vermont, the targeted populations included the Abenaki, French Canadians and persons deemed to be “feeble-minded” by virtue of an assortment of extremely arbitrary and even bizarre determinations.  I have been told that many families of Native American and French Canadian descent destroyed all evidence of their heritage for fear of detection and consignment to the sterilization clinics.  About now you could be forgiven for picturing Ann Frank hiding in an Amsterdam attic. In fact Hitler’s “scientific” authority for the horrendous practices of the Holocaust came from the same source as Vermont’s own Eugenics Project, a little theoretical perversion known as “neo-Darwinism.”  

No wonder there is so little remaining evidence of the cultural life of the Abenaki as they press their case for recognition in twenty-first century Vermont!

How much good is an apology from the Legislature almost 100 years after it endorsed the Eugenics Project? None to the original victims who were deprived of their rights and their dignity; not much to the generations who lost their heritage as a consequence; but it is right and necessary that  the Legislature takes this small step to raise public awareness of what horror has been committed, so close to home, in the name of  genetic “purity.”

Addendum from odum: This is a very big deal. Treasurer Spaulding has allowed himself to be used as a Democratic beard by many on the right on this issue, and I have little doubt that his participation in this agreement dramatically undermines the planned anti-union and anti-public-education demogoguery (masked as budgetary pragmatism, naturally) that we were all in store for this session. This is good news.

In a news release from Vermont NEA Communications Director Darren Allen,  it was revealed today that the Vermont NEA,  Vermont Treasurer Jeb Spaulding, Senate President Pro Tem. Peter Shumlin and House Speaker Shap Smith have reached an agreement on retirement provisions for Vermont’s teaching force.

Thanking Messrs. Spaulding, Shumlin and Smith and recognizing the challenges they undertook, NEA President Martha Allen made the following statement:

We all focused on 3 interests this past month:

·That of the teachers and the state in addressing the current budget deficit

·That of the teachers and the Retirement System in making its future more secure

·That of the security and dignity of teachers after dedicating a full career to public service

What we brought to the stage was a willingness of teachers to consider working a bit longer and paying a bit more, and a firm resistance to their getting less when they retire.  What we’ve all produced is better: teachers working a bit longer, paying a bit more, but getting more when they retire.

Allen went on to say that the agreement will save the Sate of Vermont fifteen-million per year and

…taxpayers an additional huge amount – more than $80 million – regarding the cost of retiree health coverage over the next decade.While increasing the amount teachers will receive as pensions and providing health coverage for their spouses.  And, finally, we are accomplishing this without shifting the cost of the retirement system onto the backs of property taxpayers.

We’ve become accustomed over the years to Governor Douglas loudly decrying the “anti-business” climate in Vermont; so much so, that many feared his persistent negativity might eventually become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Thanks to the efforts of our friends at the Peace and Justice Center, we can finally point to evidence that the Governor is dead wrong on this characterization.

In a press release today,  P&JC reported some of the findings in the newest installment of their long running Vermont Job Gap Study:  

The first new phase since 2006, the report is the first part of a three part Phase 10 series “Toward a New Economy”, expanding upon our research on economic development in Vermont.  Titled, “Business Climate Revisited: Domestic Business Relocation and Jobs” Phase 10.1 provides critical information and data about what impacts job creation and business expansion in Vermont.

Contrary to Jim Douglas’ pessimistic characterization of the state’s business and jobs environment, the new Vermont Job Gap Study reveals that compared with the majority of other states, we are actually doing quite well in terms of job creation and job retention; and it appears that income tax has very little correlation to these factors.

Among the findings:  Vermont’s overall performance with regard to employment change has been the 17th best out of all 50 states in the nation and the best of all New England states.  With regard to job retention and creation, Vermont has performed better than 5 of the 9 states that have no income tax.  Lower performing states that have no income tax include Texas, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee and Washington.

The report also finds that Vermont’s high numbers of small business has positive effects of job expansion and contraction compared to states that rely on large business.  Vermont’s quality of life indicators and our investment in the public sector have helped to create favorable outcomes for communities that directly impact business relocation decisions.

Overall, the report found no evidence to support the assertion that Vermont is “anti-business.”  Vermont has outperformed many states with lower taxes or no income taxes at all. And, concerns about competitiveness are vastly overstated because there is very little domestic relocation.  This is not to say we should celebrate for Vermont has many challenges; only that policy should be data driven and not based on unsubstantiated assumptions.

So despite our good governor’s overtime efforts to convince the business community here and elsewhere that Vermont is a bad place to conduct their affairs,  something is working in our favor.  Could it be that limiting sprawl, protecting the environment, smaller student-to-teacher ratios and other factors that the governor values so little are actually incentives for businesses to locate and remain here?

Embracing the promise of twenty-first century communication technology, Doug Racine officially kicked-off his gubernatorial campaign today with a simultaneous appearance, via live-streaming, at nine gathering spots across Vermont.  I joined the group of about sixteen people who  assembled at the McCarthy family’s “Cosmic Bakery”  in St. Albans to enjoy coffee and pastry and watch Doug’s kickoff speech, held at the much larger gathering in Winooski’s Champlain Mill.  Following opening remarks in which he described his campaign as a grass-roots effort focused on hope and optimism for Vermont’s future, and contrasted  that  positive message with the negativity of the Douglas administration, Racine responded to a series of questions that had earlier been submitted by e-mail from voters in various locations.

When asked to list what his top three priorities would be as Governor, he listed “jobs” as number one, citing the necessity of providing broadband access throughout the state so that Vermont might benefit from the growing market for hi-tech products and services.  He also spoke of the opportunities available for Vermont to become a leader in answering the problems posed by climate change, and observed that, unlike the current administration, he does not believe that encouraging a flourishing business environment  must  be done at the expense of ordinary Vermonters.  

Moving to his second priority, healthcare, Racine spoke of the need to move toward universal and affordable coverage in Vermont, regardless of what happens on the national front.  He identified his third priority as accomplishing the “efficient management of government;” which he said may not be a goal that generates a lot of excitement, but is an underlying requirement for addressing all of Vermont’s urgent needs.

Through his responses to other questions, we learned that he opposes touch-screen voting for it’s lack of a “paper-trail;”  is committed to a strong school system in which the state partners with communities exercising local control; supports pre-k education as a way to ensure the success of Vermont’s children in meeting the challenges of the future; believes that the practice of cost-shifting for essential human services like mental health does not serve the best interests of Vermonters; and that the state must step-up to the plate to pay these costs.  Focussing on recent attempts to justify cost-cutting through reductions in school spending,  Racine pointed-out that, even though school enrollment may be declining in Vermont, the number of children with special needs is increasing.

At the conclusion of the live-streamed event, local participants were given an opportunity to register comments and questions for future response.  Supporter Jack McCarthy, who is the Superintendent of Schools for the Franklin Northwest School District expressed indignation with Governor Douglas for his “insults to local school boards,” unfunded mandates and cost shifting.  Some of the St. Albans listeners said they would like to hear more about other issues, such as Vermont Yankee (for which Racine is on record as opposing re-commissioning); but they were promised further opportunities to query the candidate in the upcoming months.  

I am still waiting for a requested explanation of his stance with regard to the issue of ATV use on public lands; but, a couple of days ago, I was assured by campaign Field Director Amy Shollenburger  that he is working on a draft response for GMD on this topic.

A decision announced today by the U.S. Supreme Court opens the floodgates of corporate dollars and influence on our foundering democracy.  If yesterday you were among those of us ordinary citizens who were already concerned that U.S. corporations held undue influence on national policy, today you should be in orbit with alarm!



Here’s the story as it appears in the Christian Science Monitor.

We have to end privately-financed national campaigns before it is too late to save our democracy.   Are you listening Senators Sanders and Leahy?  Congressman Welch?  

2010 will be another very rough year for all of us real people, despite the smug exuberance of Wall Street. Bankers are divvying-up their bonuses and climate change deniers are celebrating in Copenhagen.  It’s high-time we put an end to this circus.  I am about to take a position here that will probably land me in constitutional hot water with a few GMD participants; but I think it has to be aired.

The mind-numbing inertia in Washington, whether with regard to healthcare reform, climate action, bank regulation, or relief for the unemployed, is the direct product of a single crippling evil: privately funded election campaigns.

Let’s get a movement going to demand that  all national election campaigns be funded from a single public coffer and eliminate private fund-raising altogether.  We’ve had the discussion, right here on GMD, about why this might contravene  decisions already made by the Supreme Court, equating money with free-speech.  If that is the case (and I do not doubt that it is), that decision was WRONG, and if we value our democracy, we must yell loud and long until it is reversed.  How can we allow that to stand when the wealth in this country is being steadily concentrated in fewer and fewer individuals, so that we will soon have no true middle class, just a vast underclass and a tiny super-rich overclass?

On the surface, this may sound like an expensive new entitlement to heap on the shoulders of struggling taxpayers; but besides eliminating one of the most corrupting influences in the public process, it will actually save them a fortune.  Here’s why:

In the brave new world of internet connectivity, there is ample opportunity to learn everything possible about candidates, their records and their positions from the comfort of an over-stuffed chair.  There is no need for expensive personal appearances, hotel suites, chauffeured tour buses and limousines, private jets…ANY jets.  No Secret Service details, hired halls and chicken suppers.  We don’t need it…any of it.

In exchange for the privilege of using our public airways to shill for soap companies and fast-food restaurants, all broadcast networks should be required to serve the nations information needs during election cycles, by contributing a set amount of equal time for all candidates for office.  Telephone services should be made available  to candidates by providers in a similar equal access manner.   Limited level public-funding would meet the basic staffing requirements of qualifying candidates.  Under this plan, none of the candidates’ personal wealth could be invested in the campaign.

The election cycles would be shorter, less toxic and more to the point.  Highly qualified candidates with good moral character, but low incomes and a reluctance to sell their souls, would actually have a shot at ascending to the highest offices in the land.    What we would spend to level the playing field in elections would be more than made-up for by the elimination of  pork-barrel projects, thousand dollar toilet seats, and Halliburton-style hand-outs that have turned Washington into the election funders’ personal piggy bank.  What a revolution that would be!

It would be hell-on-wheels to pass such sweeping election reform, especially given the likely reluctance of corporate America to relinquish their claw-hold on our democracy; but shouldn’t we demand it from those cash-cows we routinely seat in Congress?  I remember watching “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington” when I was about nine-years old.  I thought it was a wonderful story, but recognized it as sheer fiction.  I understood that Jimmy Stewart’s goofy Boy Ranger character was just a romantic invention; but I also thought the “bad” Senator, Claude Raines, and his cohorts were equally fantastic.  Fresh from my civics class, I had absolute confidence that Congress was unassailable to human weakness; that the men (they were nearly all men when I was nine) who ascended to that high estate were the smartest and noblest citizens of these United States.  Clearly, I was in for a rude-awakening in short order!   To me, it was beyond comprehension that the American people would actually tolerate a system whereby the rich and powerful routinely bought and sold elections.

At sixty, I’m about out of the fairy dust necessary to keep re-inventing my belief in the future of America.    Senators Leahy and Sanders; Rep. Welch, this is my challenge to you:  let’s stop talking about election reform and start making it happen.

Update:  A story in the The Rutland Herald identifies the engineer who gave the misleading responses to the Panel as David McElwee, Entergy’s public liaison officer, and has VY officials admitting that they “should have been more thorough” in responding to the Public Oversight Panel’s questions. The Herald quotes from an August 13 e-mail sent by McElwee to panel member Arnie Gundersen, state nuclear engineer, Uldis Vanags, and Sarah Hofmann, public advocacy director for the Department of Public Service:

As for your outstanding question on underground piping goes, Act 189 requested that an underground piping system carrying radionuclides be part of the inspection…we have none. Since this is not an item active in the review of … recommendations, we consider this issue closed.

In a press release, Gundersen states that

The Panel was informed that there were no systems with underground piping that carry radioactivity at VY

It seems that Entergy just can’t quit stepping all over its own feet in the effort to court approval for a VY license extension. In light of the recent revelation that there has been a tritium contamination of groundwater at Vermont Yankee, it appears that ENVY was less than forthcoming in its representation to the Vermont Yankee Public Oversight Panel in 2008 that there was no radioactivity in VY’s underground pipe system.

The Panel’s findings include this admonishment:

The Panel recommended the following adjustments for the scope identified in Section 3 of Act 189:

1. The Panel was informed that there were no systems with underground  piping that carry radioactivity at VY.  Therefore the Panel recommended that the review of the service water system, Act 189 §3(6) (“a cooling system dependent upon Connecticut River water”), which has buried nonradioactive piping, specifically include a review of ENVY’s Buried Pipe and Tank Inspection Program.

Despite these recommendations, (which represented a legislative mandate) no such review of ENVY’s Buried Pipe and Tank Inspection Program was apparently ever undertaken, and  ENVY’s clean pipe assertions were simply taken at face value!  It is my understanding that Envy insisted to the Panel that both the piping leading to the Condensate Storage Tank and the CST itself could not possibly leak as they were completely embedded in concrete.   ‘Sounds to me like someone might have deliberately mislead the Legislative Panel.  Now that ain’t right.

One can’t help but wonder what other discrepancies in ENVY’s representation to the Panel remain to be discovered.

I took my own advice and sent an e-mail off to Susan Bartlett expressing my concern that this increase was being hurried through the legislature. Here’s what she wrote:

 actually they have supplied a great deal of information   and these incentives are performance based, in other words, until they have actually created the jobs, filled the jobs and kept folks working, they don’t get the incentive.   So it doesn’t cost the state anything unless and until the company performs as they say they will perform.   Part of figuring out the performance is the net gain in state revenues these companies produce to the state  think of it as they produce an additional $10 million in payroll and business revenues, they get a piece of the pie back, the state still makes a profit

I then asked if she  supports the increase and she replied that she does.

I’m going to exercise my prerogative and send this topic right back to the top of the queue, because it needs a fast reader response.  Doug just posted the following as an update on his “Emergency” diary and I thought it should have maximum eye-coverage in the hope that some folks will feel passionate enough to shoot off a letter or two to their reps:

the Governor’s rush to raise the VEPC / VEGI cap is getting heated; the head of GBIC sent a note to legislators telling them in effect that there are 750 jobs on the line.  The Governor knows this ploy is putting the E Board members in a corner; if they no, they’re “anti-business.”

The chairs of House Commerce (Kitzmiller) & Senate Economic Development (Illuzzi) have both sent messages asking that the process slow down so their committees can work through it. The Governor wants this decision made based on nothing but faith; the members don’t know the names of the companies, if they’ve been growing through the recession (or are just rehiring folks laid off earlier), etc.

It’s an outrage; basically extortion.  Please encourage folks to write to the E Board members and their reps and ask that they slow down this train  

Despite his words barely more than a week ago, it appears that the Governor isn’t quite through making political mischief with the legislature.

What’s this?  Art Woolf made a mistake?!  In Wednesday’s Free Press, Candace Page reveals a slight miscalculation in the report filed at the end of 2009 by Douglas’ pet economists, Art Woolf and Richard Heaps.

Instead of increasing $241., the inflation-adjusted median income of Vermont couples filing joint tax returns actually fell $1,870. or 2.7 percent in 2008.

According to Woolf, the discrepancy came to light when he was  

recently checking his calculations and discovered he had transposed two formulas.  

The article goes on to say that Woolf thinks the corrected data “makes more sense.”  Duh!  Observed Mr. Heaps:

“Sometimes you just do something stupid.”

I will be the first to admit that any economic assertion by Art Woolf is likely to be received by me with skepticism; more especially because we are on opposite sides of an outstanding Act 250 appeal that involves, among other things, Walmart’s impact on local economies.  Still, anyone might wonder on what fluffy cloud of disconnect Mr. Woolf reposed when he came up with the glaringly erroneous result and did not immediately question it.   Being a longtime member of UVM’s economics faculty, surely Mr. Woolf knows that the first rule of math is to check your work!

I can’t resist the urge to speculate on what year-end decisions within the Douglas administration might have been influenced by this timely and remarkable discrepancy.