As promised Hartford Rep. Kevin “Coach” Christie has introduced the Vermont Drone Bill H.540 which proposes to regulate the use of drones known as unmanned aerial vehicles. The bill seeks to permit law enforcement agencies to use a drone only if the agency obtains a warrant or if “emergency” circumstances exist. Various reporting requirements – including documenting frequency of use and cost – are also featured in the proposed bill. And drones would not be allowed to be equipped with weapons. Drone use by persons other than a law enforcement agency would follow and comply with FAA requirements and guidelines according to the bill.  

Not to go looking for problems where none exist but an article in Modern Farmer, of all places, has left me wondering if Rep. Christie or some of the 24 co- sponsors of Vermont Drone Bill H.540 might want to take a quick review of the state’s hunting laws. Wild boar or hogs are no small problem and are causing immense damage to farmland and property across the country. Says Modern Farmer: “we are well on our way to a global pig crisis.” Vermont has passed legislation this session making it illegal to own, import, or possess wild boar – because once they get established in an area, boar are next-to-impossible to “eradicate”. And this brings it back to drone regulation.  

In their free time from work at high-tech defense military-drone contractor Raven Research and Development, two Louisiana engineers Cy Brown and James Palmer are putting drones to use hunting wild hogs. The two-man team uses a remote control airplane armed with a thermal imaging camera, called the “Dehogifier”:

Brown and Palmer send their drone buzzing around a piece of farm property. When they spot a pig on the live video feed, Palmer – a crack shot – uses a rifle with a night vision scope to kill it clean. It’s sleek, fast, reliable – and not what you’d call sporting.

Vermont’s hunting regulations must already cover this use (right?), and for the time being we may be safe from Modern Farmer’s global pig crisis …  but conditions change. The Louisiana “Dehogifier” team is already enthusiastically looking to refine its system:

Brown said the only other way to increase its efficiency would be to affix a gun directly to the drone (a terrifying thought). “It would be so easy to rig it with a gun, it’s trivial,” he said. “But a lot of people would have no sense of humor whatsoever about that sort of thing.”

Right, defense engineers marketing a rifle-armed remote-controlled unmanned aerial vehicle. Who wouldn’t get a laugh out of that?! Funny thing, humor.  

I generally don't read the Times Argus, but I read it today because they have a story about my son and his new book.

 Still, imagine my surprise when I saw their lead editorial today singing the praises of Henry Kissinger.

It's actually a note about a Kissinger article in The Atlantic, which in the words of the Times Argus, is “a provocative article for The Atlantic describing the greatness of Henry Kissinger as a statesman,” and here's the core of the argument:

Kaplan reviews other Kissinger projects, including intervention leading to the rise of Pinochet in Chile and the withdrawal of support from Ethiopia by the Carter administration, which led to immense suffering in the Horn of Africa.

 Should I repeat that phrase? “The greatness of Henry Kissinger as a statesman”.

I'm not sure what your definition of “statesman” is, but in my view it is not precisely the same as a mass murderer, engineer of coups against democratically elected officials, of an architect of genocide.

For some reason there is always a certain mindset that to be taken seriously in discussions of foreign policy one must always be prepared to shed the blood of the darker races. I think it's supposed to stand for “realism”. Never mind that the history of genocide and support for dictators that the United States has been guilty of has made us demonstrably weaker and more vulnerable, it's all for the good of maintaining balance in Kissinger's bipolar view of the world.

Shame on you, Times Argus. 

I grew up reading the Chicago Tribune, which my Dad picked-up every evening at the corner store.  He didn’t particularly like the politics of the paper; but so long as that remained on the editorial page, the Tribune was our window on the world beyond Morse Avenue.

Like most big American papers, the Trib has fallen victim to the depreciating effects of media consolidation, but the latest bit of news really hurts.  

I don’t need to tell GMD readers how nefariously powerful the Koch brothers are.  Taking a page from Rupert Murdoch, the Kochs are now making a bid not just to influence the news, but to own it outright.  

Vermont’s  Senator Bernie Sanders and Democracy for America are working in tandem to raise public awareness of  the rumored attempt by the Koch Bros to buy the Tribune Company. They are asking concerned citizens to join them in signing a  a petition to protest that sale.

Addressed to Peter Ligouri, CEO of the Tribune Company, the petition highlights the potential impact that such a sale might have, given the scope of Tribune’s media conglomerate:

Given your large readership (The Los Angeles Times, fourth-largest circulation in the country; The Chicago Tribune, ninth-largest circulation; Hoy, second-largest Spanish-language daily newspaper in the country), it concerns us that one of the potential buyers, Koch Industries, is interested in the purchase of your print media outlets

…As the owners of a major fossil fuel company, they have also been leaders in providing substantial funding for organizations that spread misinformation about the reality of global warming — a growing crisis which threatens our entire planet.

…We remain deeply concerned that one extremely wealthy family, because of an absurd Supreme Court decision, is able to have enormous influence over our political life and elections.  We are unalterably opposed to that same family expanding its power by controlling the news and information that millions of Americans receive.

If ever our access to a free and impartial press was threatened, it is now. Sign the petition and make your voice heard.

Doesn’t happen very often, but this time I have to admit it: I agree with Angry Jack Lindley, chair of the Vermont Republican Party.

For months, Angry Jack has been calling for an independent probe of outside campaign spending on behalf of Attorney General Bill Sorrell. Lindley alleges collusion between Sorrell and a Super PAC funded by the Democratic Attorney Generals Association. That group’s last-minute infusion of $180,000 probably saved Sorrell from defeat in last year’s Democratic primary. Sorrell has rebuffed Lindley’s calls for a special counsel; instead, he’s told Lindley to ask one of the county State’s Attorneys to take up the case. Lindley made his request to Addison County State’s Attorney David Fenster.

And that’s where things have been stuck ever since.

Fenster told VTDigger his office is still reviewing the request.

“None of our offices are structured in such a way where we have a ready staff to engage in these types of investigations,” Fenster said. “I don’t think that means we’re incapable of doing it, but it’s outside of our normal duties.”

“Still reviewing the request.” After months have passed. And Fenster isn’t terribly sanguine on the prospects for any action anytime.  

Still, Sorrell refuses to reconsider appointing independent counsel. He called doing so a “gross waste of $20,000 to $50,000” in taxpayer funds, partly because there’s no incriminating evidence to be found, he said.

In other news, the fox has searched the henhouse and reports that no chickens are missing.

Bill Sorrell is probably right. A Super PAC representing Attorneys General is smart enough to spend its money within the (generous) bounds of the law. But I’m on Angry Jack’s side here: it’s worth spending the money to eliminate all public doubts about whether our top law enforcement official broke the law.

That’s kind of important, no? $20,000 — or even $50,000 — is a small price to pay.

Besides, I wouldn’t be surprised if Sorrell is exaggerating, since his argument is based entirely on cost.  

Apparently the Governor is losing faith in the legislative process, and in his “very good relationship with the leadership in the Senate and the House.” Because after the Senate passed its tax bill yesterday — with the support of moderate Democrats and Republicans and over the opposition of Senate liberals, by the way — he blasted it as way, way too liberal. With the same kind of angry, overheated, misleading rhetoric that seems designed specifically to meet the needs of Republican campaign operatives:

“Now is not the time to raise more taxes on hard-working Vermonters,” the governor said in a statement. “Lawmakers this session have now voted to raise taxes on Vermonters’ income, clothing, meals, vending machine purchases, water, soft drinks, candy, satellite television and cigarettes. …Vermonters expect us to control spending by using existing tax dollars more efficiently. We must protect our fragile economic recovery.”

I excised about half of the blah blah blah (or should I say “quack quack quack”), but if you’re curious you can read the whole thing at VTDIgger.

I’ve already addressed the “hard-working Vermonters” nonsense, but he throws a nice new curveball into the mix with a line straight out of Vermonters First: his laundry list of tax increases approved by lawmakers. It includes absolutely every item approved by the full House or Senate or any legislative committee. Most of those items are no longer on the table, and Shumlin knows it. His statement gives lawmakers zero credit for their efforts to meet Shumlin halfway.

And it fails to make a coherent case against the specific tax increases that could actually land on his desk.  

Well, I guess that’s understandable, because the Governor’s gonna look bad if he has to argue specifics. Capping mortgage interest deductions at $12,000? Imposing a 3% minimum tax on wealthy Vermonters who avoid paying their share thanks to overly generous tax deductions? There are no good arguments against those proposals, so the Governor has to change the subject.

Even if it means providing excellent campaign material for the Republicans and Vermonters First. And even if it means a smaller Democratic majority in the next biennium.  

If Lenore Broughton had actually hired a smart political operative to run her Big Bucks Bonfire, Vermonters First, the op’s first move would be to start sending camera crews to Governor Shumlin’s news conferences.

Because the Governor is making the conservative anti-tax argument as well as, or better than, any Vermont Republican in sight. Can’t you just see the 2014 Vermonters First attack ads, with Shumlin railing against Legislative Democrats for trying to “raise every single broad-based tax in Vermont,” aiming to “stall our economic recovery,” and “asking Vermonters to pay more taxes than they need to pay”? (Quotes are all from last Thursday’s presser.)

Great stuff. It oughta be far more effective than the warmed-over Tea party crapola that wasted a million bucks of Broughton’s inheritance in 2012.

This is why I hate it when Democratic politicians adopt Republican talking points. They help make the opposition’s case, lending it credibility that the conservatives could never muster on their own. When Democrats talk like Republicans, they allow the battle to be fought on Republican turf.

And when a Democrat characterizes other Dems as irresponsible spendthrifts, well, I think we all know who gets the benefit of that.

As the Legislative session nears its end, top lawmakers have been compromising in the Governor’s direction on taxes. Shumlin, meanwhile, continues to express optimism in the process…

I have a very good relationship with the leadership in the Senate and the House, and I know we’ll come to the end of this process with a thoughtful bill…

…while simultaneously refusing to give an inch on taxes:

…that gets the job done without asking Vermonters to pay more taxes than they need to pay.

The Governor’s rhetoric is undiminished, even though the actual tax measures currently under consideration are relatively minor and intelligently targeted.  

Shumlin rails against lawmakers who want to “raise every single broad-based tax in Vermont.” There are two problems with this:

— Lawmakers went scrounging for money because they knew the Governor would reject any big tax hikes. So instead of taking one simple approach (raising taxes on the rich, for instance), they tried to nickel and dime their way to a balanced budget, hoping to fly under Shumlin’s anti-tax radar.

— Some of the tax increases are minuscule. For instance, the Senate Finance Committee’s proposal to make bottled water subject to the sales tax. Technically, that’s an increase in a broad-based tax — but it’s a narrowly focused increase on a product that almost nobody actually needs.

The Governor also continues to repeat his “hardworking Vermonters” line — “This is not the time to raise income taxes, sales taxes, meals taxes on hardworking Vermonters.” Which would be relevant if the Legislature were really threatening “hardworking Vermonters” with big tax hikes. In truth, the tax hikes and shifts that are happening or that would happen if Shumlin had his way — the gas tax, the Earned Income Tax Credit cut, the increases in property taxes — hit “working Vermonters” hardest, while Legislative proposals try to minimize the pain on the middle class and working poor.

Shumlin’s ire even extends to Sen. Tim Ashe’s brilliant proposals to cap the mortgage interest deduction at $12,000 and impose a 3% minimum tax on those earning more than $125,000 a year.

To the former, my thought was, “How much property do you have to own, in order to pay more than $12,000 a year in property taxes? And to the latter, my response was: “Wait, there are top earners who are paying less than 3% in state income tax?”

They are not paying their fair share. Not by a longshot.  

The Legislature has tried to meet the Governor halfway, and he has refused to budge. In the process, he’s created a whole lot of potential campaign material for Vermonters First.

If they ride his material to some measure of electoral success in 2014, then remember to thank our Governor, Peter Shumlin, for lending a helping hand to some of our most downtrodden citizens — Vermont Republicans. And for contributing to the defeat of some fellow Democrats.  

A Duke University research study titled Political Ideology Affects Energy-Efficient Attitudes and Choices shows that light bulbs labeled efficient and good for the environment are less likely to be purchased by conservatives.

This research demonstrates how promoting the environment can negatively affect adoption of energy efficiency in the United States because of the political polarization surrounding environmental issues. Study 1 demonstrated that more politically conservative individuals were less in favor of investment in energy-efficient technology than were those who were more politically liberal.

Politically moderate or conservative participants chose more expensive CFL bulbs over less expensive incandescent bulbs with the same frequency when no environmental label was on the package. However when the light bulbs packaging sported a “protect the environment” label conservatives and moderates were less likely to buy the CFL.

The last skirmish in the energy efficient light bulb wars was fought in 2011 when various moves were made by Conservative US Representatives Joe Barton and Michele Bachmann. Conservatives Barton, Bachman and others proposed legislation to stop the implementation of the 2007 Bush-era law passed overwhelmingly by congress that set standards of efficiency for light bulbs.  

I don’t find it surprising that this study now shows conservative light bulb dead enders are still fighting on. It reminded me of back in the 1960’s when new cars were first required to have seat belts. One of my uncles was adamant that“no government regulation” would tell him what to do. So he unbolted all the safety belts from his new family car. Just another “common sense” conservative solution for the whole family.

This is a quick update on the unemployment that the conservatives in the Senate were pushing to screw newspaper delivery drivers.

The bill came on the floor Tuesday and the first move was a proposal to amend the amendment to do something that would directly help newspaper publishers without hurting the workers. Democratic Senator Mark MacDonald proposed an amendment that would protect the newspapers by not charging their experience rating for claims made by delivery drivers. The experience rating is based on how many claims are paid on account of a particular employer's workers, and it can raise the tax rate the employer pays. Thus, by insulating the newspapers from taking an experience rating hit the amendment protected them against their claim that unemployment payments would put them under.

That amendment failed, and that brought back the original amendment. Even though, as I pointed out Monday, the Democrats and Progressives have an overwhelming majority in the Senate, the Republicans and enough Democrats voted with the bosses to support the amendment.

The honor roll of senators who supported the workers in this fight is:

 Ashe, Baruth, Cummings, Fox, Lyons, MacDonald, McCormack, Pollina, White, Zuckerman.

And the anti-worker caucus:

 Ayer, Benning, Campbell, Collins, Doyle, Flory, French, Galbraith, Hartwell, Kitchel, Mazza, Mullin, Nitka, Rodgers, Sears, Snelling, Starr, Westman. (Bold for the Democrats who voted to exclude newspaper delivery drivers from unemployment.)

Kind of makes you wonder what a majority's for, doesn't it? 

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

Check out www.workerscenter.org/may1

For the fifth year in a row over well over a thousand people from all over Vermont will participate in at a huge May 1st Statehouse Rally. In 2009, we came to change what was politically possible in healthcare reform. In 2013, its become clear that what we really need to make possible is real democracy itself.

Please join us at 11:30am at the Statehouse to gather for march and rally to remind the legislature and governor that they don’t work for the Chamber of Commerce or only represent wealthy people. The legislature has a real opportunity to stand up for our communities, and we have some ideas of what they should and SHOULD NOT do is they were to do that.

A Budget that Advances Dignity & Equity



The governor and (to date) the legislature failed to meet the purpose of the state budget, which the law now mandates must “address the needs of the people of Vermont in a way that advances human dignity and equity” (32 V.S.A. § 306a). Instead, they are set to undermine people’s dignity and increase inequity by:

– impoverishing more people through capping the essential Reach-Up program

– making the tax code more regressive by reducing EITC and assessing new regressive taxes which affect low-income people more than wealthy people

– increasing healthcare costs for people moved from VHAP and Catamount into the exchange, which effectively makes it harder for low-income people to access health care.

Meaningful Public Participation in our State Budget Process



The governor and legislature have also failed to meet the legal requirement for “a process for public participation in the development of budget goals, as well as general prioritization and evaluation of spending and revenue initiatives” (32 V.S.A. § 306a). Instead, they are ignoring the principles of participation, accountability and transparency and increasing the disconnect between people and government because:

– budget priorities were developed without meaningful engagement from our communities

– the budget process starts with the result of past tax policy decisions (the revenue estimate) rather than an assessment of real needs

– the failure to measure progress and outcomes makes it hard to see what effect specific spending and tax initiatives actually have on people’s lives

A Healthcare System that Meets All Our Health Needs

Both governor and legislature have failed to meet the principles of universality and equity in Act 48, Vermont’s universal health care law, by:

– failing to set out an equitable financing plan for Green Mountain Care

– erecting new barriers to accessing health care by increasing out-of-pocket costs for low-income people

– failing to stop leading health care providers from forming a for-profit conglomerate, OneCare, that will profit from selling access to care rather than providing health care as a public good, as required by Act 48

The Way Forward: As the Put People First campaign made clear at the beginning of the 2013 session, we are dedicated to advancing public policies focused on meeting the fundamental needs of all people in Vermont, which is at the heart of what human rights mean in practice.

Policy decisions that put people first would look very different from the governor’s and legislature’s positions, because they would be based on principles, such as equity and universality, and developed in a transparent and accountable process with the participation of the people of Vermont.

Policies that put people first would:

– commit to eliminating poverty and ensuring a dignified standard of living for all

– assess people’s needs, such as access to healthcare and jobs, and require that those needs be taken into account in the budget process

– inform and engage the public in developing budget goals

– collect taxes in a more equitable way, so that wealthy people no longer get away with paying proportionally less taxes than those with low and middle incomes

– ensure that we all get what we need and give what we can

Learn more at workerscenter.org