You've probably heard that the new darling of the Right is Ben Carson, a pediatric neurosurgeon who recently spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast and supposedly was all brave and everything because President Obama was so mad about what he said.

Except I haven't seen any indication that Obama was mad about anything, and except for some mindless prattling about flat taxes and health savings accounts, Carson didn't say anything particularly exceptional.

He made up for it when he was on NPR's On Point this week. Feel free to listen to the whole thing if you want to hear a conservative Republican pretending he's not a Republican, and trying to duck any questions about progressive taxation, but that's not really what I'm interested in. (You'll hear some typical Republican tropes, including, “Your position is ideological, mine is common sense,” and a reprise from the Prayer Breakfast: “If ten percent is good enough for god, why isn't it good enough for the government?”)

If you skip forward to about minute thirty-five and start listening there you will hear him claim that there is no evidence for evolution. Or, to be specific, you'll hear him make the specious distinction between “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution”, and claim that there is no evidence that any species has ever evolved into (or presumably, evolved from) another species.

Yes, this is the guy who is a famous doctor, and whom the Wall Street Journal is endorsing for President.

He'll fit right in.

(Note: This is the promised update of my brief post from earlier today.)

You know that health care bill? The one supposedly “killed” by the House Health Care Committee on Friday on a 5-5 vote?

Well, IT’S ALLLLIIIIIIIIVE!!!

(Always wanted to say that.)

The panel approved it this morning, unchanged from its Friday form, on a pair of 7-4 votes. (Procedural thing.) The bill includes the penny-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages.

There was some last-minute wrangling. Progressive Chris Pearson tried once again to add $800,000 more in premium subsidies for the working poor. This time, he suggested trimming the bill’s increase in Medicaid reimbursement to doctors and hospitals from the proposed 3% to 2.9%. But the Democratic majority balked; some feared that trimming the Medicaid reimbursement, even by a mere tenth of a percent, would jeopardize the health-care industry’s support for the Governor’s reform plan.

Two Democrats joined Pearson and Independent Paul Poirier in voting “yes.” One of them, Dr. George Till, asserted that the Medicaid trim might actually be a good deal for doctors and hospitals. If higher costs force more people to go without insurance under the exchange, he argued, then health care providers get stuck with more charity and Medicaid cases. And, he added: “In the exchange, the hospitals and doctors [will be] paid commercial rates, way above the Medicaid rates.”  

After the jump: a non-emergency, and a lot of intransigence.)

Pearson defended his pursuit of additional subsidy funds, not only as a matter of compassion but also as a way to help ensure the success of health care reform:

I would say that the strength of the health care system as we try to transition to [single payer in] 2017 depends on achieving our targets for the rates of uninsured. And I’m not at all convinced that this gets us there.  

Speaking of Till, remember how Friday’s vote ended in a tie because of Till’s sudden departure? Turns out he wasn’t responding to a medical emergency as reported; he left the room with the intent of postponing the committee’s final vote:

There was no medical emergency. It was not unreasonable for people to assume it was an emergency, because it has happened multiple times over the years here. But on Friday I was hoping for a little more time to get one side or the other to make a little movement. Because I thought people were being stubborn to the point of not being rational.

… I was hoping that over the weekend, we could get some movement from somebody, one way or the other, and I failed.

Till also asserted that “We have an absolute roadblock to adding $800,000 to that from the leadership.”

In any case, after Pearson’s amendment was disposed of, the committee again took up the Friday version of the bill, including the sugar tax. Poirier insisted on two separate votes: one on the state subsidy funding, and one on the remainder of the bill. His purpose was to get everyone on the record as supporting or opposing better subsidies.

Before the first vote began, House Minority Leader Don Turner entered the room and urgently requested a “two-minute caucus” with the three Republicans on the committee. (VPR’s Bob Kinzel pointed his microphone in Turner’s direction hoping to get some insight into the urgency, but Turner stayed mum.) Chairman Mike Fisher assented, and the Republicans left the room.

When they got back, the first vote was taken — on the subsidy sections of the bill. It passed 7-4, with two Republicans, surprisingly, voting “yes.” Pearson, Poirier, Till, and one Republican voted “no.”

The rest of the bill was then moved, and passed on a slightly different 7-4 vote. This time, all three Republicans plus Poirier were the “no” votes; Pearson swallowed his objections and voted with the Democratic majority.

After the votes, Till stated his ardent support for the sugar tax, displaying a chart that projects skyrocketing costs for treatment of obesity-related illnesses in the next five years. (Photo: Till explains his position to Peter Hirschfeld of the Vermont Press Bureau.)

If we don’t control the rate of spending on obesity, it’s going to swallow our budget. So to me, the sugar-sweetened beverage tax is an important part of that, because of the unique contributions that sugar-sweetened beverages make to obesity.

It’s fine if you want to drink them, but you ought to be willing to pay that. It’s the same thing as cigarettes. If you want to smoke, you ought to be willing to foot the cost of that. The whole cost of it.  

The committee’s vote was a victory for the alliance of health advocacy groups who have promoted the sugar tax. But it faces an uphill battle — first in the Ways and Means Committee, then in the full House and the Senate, and ultimately Governor Shumlin — who today reiterated his objections to the sugar tax idea. Long odds, indeed.  

Expanded version of the brief item I posted earlier.

As expected, the Senate Natural Resources Committee has approved its new version of S.30, which imposes new regulatory hurdles on new energy projects. The vote was 4-1 with Democrat Mark MacDonald the only holdout.

As I reported yesterday, the bill was completely overhauled at the last minute, and the three-year wind moratorium was removed. The committee majority sought to portray the bill has strictly a local-control measure. “This is not an anti-wind bill,” insisted the Sllummin’ Solon, Peter Galbraith.

I beg to differ, sir. The first four pages of the bill — the committee’s “Findings” — are packed with arguments straight from the Windies’ playbook. (Following its token acknowledgment of climate change, a.k.a. lipstick for the pig.)

Those anti-wind arguments include the oft-repeated assertion that Vermont’s carbon footprint results largely from transportation, not from electricity generation. But there’s a big problem with that. It’s based on 2010 figures for carbon emission. In 2010, Vermont’s portfolio included a lot of power from Vermont Yankee. That’s no longer true; although VY continues to operate, Vermont doesn’t have a contract with VY. That power has been largely replaced by “market power,” usually generated from carbon-heavy sources. Which means that the carbon footprint caused by Vermont’s electricity demands is substantially larger than in 2010.

There’s also the little question of our moral obligation to the rest of the world. The bill considers Vermont in isolation: if we can provide for our needs, then we don’t need to think about anyone else. If you think that attitude is appropriate, I’ll leave you to it.

Global warming won’t. It’ll float blithely across our state, wreaking its fundamental changes, no matter how pure we manage to remain.

After the jump: more on those insidious Findings.

Finding #2 refers to the fact that Vermont allows energy producers to sell renewable energy credits, which means we don’t get the “green” benefit from wind projects. This is true, but the solution is not to block new wind farms — it’s to change the damned renewable-portfolio law, so utilities can’t sell our carbon credits across state lines. It’s a good argument, but it has nothing to do with Senate Bill 30.

Other Findings repeat the Windies’ claims about massive environmental and health effects of wind farms — claims that are founded on questionable “research” and “experts” who have ties to fossil fuel interests. They ignore the vast majority of actual research, which undermines their claims.

There are also the unquantifiable factors of “scenic beauty,” “quality of life,” “property values,” and “aesthetics”. (I presume we can thank the Slummin’ Solon for that bit of classical/British spelling.)  

In short, S.30 has been stripped of its most dramatic provision — the moratorium — but it remains a fundamentally anti-wind bill, Galbraith’s assertion notwithstanding. Its “Findings” are laden with anti-wind rhetoric, and it’s designed to throw as many obstacles as possible in the path of new wind projects.

One other provision I didn’t mention in my previous post: S.30 would establish a new Legislative Electricity Generation Oversight Committee with three members each from the Senate and House Natural Resources Committee. Well, we know the Senate half will be stocked with anti-wind voices, so at best the committee would deadlock on important issues. This new panel would be well placed to further hamstring the process — if, for instance, the Governor’s Siting Policy Committee issues recommendations the Windies don’t like.

The next step for the bill is unclear. Committee chairman (and S.30 co-sponsor) Bob Hartwell is seeking a quick path to the full Senate. But there are sections of the bill that may need to be considered by at least three other Senate committees.  

Sun Common came to Franklin County this week, making ours the fourth Vermont county to fall under its umbrella of good news.  In their own words:

SunCommon is a local Vermont business that helps Vermonters go solar with no upfront cost and a monthly payment less than their utility bill. Finally, folks can actually save money by doing the right thing.

Launched as a pilot program by VPIRG, Sun Common became an independent business early in 2012 under the entrepreneurial direction of co-presidents Duane Peterson and James Moore. It operates as a “benefit corporation,” which simply means, “for the public good,” and allows the company to preserve a social or environmental mission without violating the responsibility that a conventional corporation has to maximize profit for shareholders.

On Monday morning, joined by community organizers Jessica Edgerly Walsh (formerly of Toxics Action Center), Dan Conant (formerly of VPIRG), and Clary Franko (a North Carolina transplant), Duane Peterson introduced a gathering of about thirty Franklin County residents to how Sun Common is already making solar affordable, and even a bargain, for average Vermonters in Chittenden, Washington and Addison Counties.  

Supporting speakers included St. Albans City Mayor Liz Gamache, who, as an employee of  the Vermont Electric Coop, has firsthand knowledge of the challenges facing the state’s electric utilities.

Also lending their support were former Democratic Senator Sara Kittell and former Democratic House Rep. Jeff Young.

You’ve got to be pretty darned gutsy to talk solar to Franklin County residents in the middle of February, but,  as far as I was concerned, Mr. Peterson did a great sales job.  

I was more than convinced, and disappointed to learn that the Prent family domicile wouldn’t qualify for the program because slate roofs are beyond impossible.  

Even without a slate roof, not all homes will be suitable for roof-top solar installation.  In order to qualify, a south-facing roof must be available.   Mr. Peterson estimates that roughly 60% of all houses in Vermont could support roof arrays.

That’s okay; there’s good news even for us non-qualifiers; because a collateral benefit of my neighbors going solar will be a lessening of the load on the overall grid…on which my household must depend.  Aging infrastructure and increased demand challenge both the cost and reliability of that grid for all of us.

…And other options do exist, including ground-mounted arrays; and small shared utilities can be created by linking a number of  homes to a single suitable installation.

The objective is to reduce the cost of solar so that all Vermonters can participate.  There are a variety of purchase and loan options, but the idea is that the cost of equipment and installation is distributed over twenty years; and, at minimum, fully offset by savings in electrical bills.  

Mr. Peterson took the St. Albans opportunity to announce that New England Federal Credit Union has just offered unsecured loans at 6% to homeowners who wish to take advantage of Sun Common’s program but have no other option for financing.

Sun Common visits each home, at the owner’s request and free-of-charge, in order to assess the way solar panels can best be utilized to serve that user’s consumption patterns in order to achieve a “net O” goal that holds the cost to a set figure for twenty years, and is no greater than the homeowner’s current electricity costs. In some cases it may be even less expensive.

If I have gotten any of this wrong, I encourage the Sun Common folks to join in here and set me straight.  I was extremely impressed by the presentation and am eager to see the program adopted widely in Franklin County.

Hey look: an outside auditing firm has released its report on Department of Public Safety paysheet/overtime policies. The audit was ordered after the Jim Deeghan scandal.

The audit has some good news, and some really bad news.

Guess which news DPS Commissioner Keith Flynn chose to emphasize? WCAX:

“There is not widespread fraud or abuse within the Department of Public Safety,” Vt. Public Safety Commissioner Keith Flynn said.

…Flynn said he is pleased the independent audit showed a low risk for possible time sheet fraud, abuse and waste by a majority of the department employees.

… “I feel confident that we’ve done all we can at this point,” Flynn said.

… “Just the fact that someone was identified as having a risk is not indicative that there was some type of fraud,” Flynn said.

The audit covered timesheet and pay records for all DPS personnel from January 2010 to September 2012. It found only one case of gross abuse — Deeghan. Good news, eh?

Well, not so much. If the abuse was isolated, it’s no thanks to DPS’ own policies, which were harshly criticized by auditors. As I’ve said before, if this kind of lax administration happened in Human Services, there’d be hell to pay. But the DPS is relatively insulated from political blowback, so they’re going to get away with locking the barn after a horse revealed exactly how many doors were open. A few samples:  

— Employees’ ability to “self-activate” to on-duty status is “inherently vulnerable to abuse.”

— Third-party contracts, such as the infamous Jericho contract massively abused by Deeghan, are also “inherently vulnerable.”

— Anecdotal evidence of supervisors giving “rubber stamp approval of time reports and perform[ing] inadequate review.” Apparently this involved “electronic signatures,” not actual ones.  

– “Absence of formal chain of custody process.”

— “DPS current payroll system data validation checks are largely undocumented.”

— Top commanders “perform high-level review of overtime with a focus on budget, rather than detecting fraud.”

— DPS staffers are unconcerned “that overtime abuse will be detected.”

All this, in a department that will always have an unusual amount of overtime because of the unpredictable nature of its duties. This department, above all others, ought to have had rigorous checks on overtime claims.

A couple other notes. Although the audit found that only Deeghan had committed large-scale fraud, it did find that 21 others had some warning signs of possible fraud. And, fascinatingly:

Auditors found that overtime dropped by at least 20 percent for 88 employees in the weeks that followed Shumlin’s announcement [of the Deeghan case], compared with the weeks before he ordered the audit.

Were we feeling a little guilty, hmm?

Is this, perhaps, a sign that a lot of low-level fraud was going on? Especially since, auditors say, staffers weren’t worried about getting caught?

To his credit, Flynn has already instituted many of the measures called for by the auditors, so the system is a lot more robust now than it was last summer.

But still, to me, the big unanswered question is: How did the DPS’ procedures get so damn sloppy in the first place?

I have a feeling that Flynn’s blithe assurances will be enough to mollify uncomfortable politicians, and those responsible for this excessively lax management will go unpunished.  

On the eve of a committee vote, backers of new restrictions on utility-scale wind projects have dropped a three-year moratorium from their legislation. The Senate Natural Resources Committee, which includes three ardent opponents of wind energy, will take up the revised S.30 tomorrow morning.

The moratorium’s removal comes on the same day a new poll was released, that shows continued strong support for wind energy in Vermont. The Castleton Polling Institute survey showed:

To the question, “Do you support or oppose building wind energy turbines along the state’s ridge lines?”  66% said yes, 19% said no, and 14% were not sure.

When asked if you would favor or oppose “a wind farm in your community,” 69% said yes, 19% said no, and 12% were undecided.

And when asked if the state “should subsidize alternative energy generation,” 66% said yes, 20% said no, and 14% were undecided.

Support for utility-scale wind was strong across the board — male/female, party affiliation, household income, educational level. The top-line result was essentially identical to the numbers in a Castleton poll taken in May 2012 — 69% support, 17% oppose, 13% not sure.

I’m sure the Windies will scoff, and perhaps point to the infamous Castleton survey of the Democratic Attorney General primary last August, which gave Bill Sorrell a big lead over TJ Donovan with two weeks left in the race. But that was an outlier; Castleton has otherwise been reasonably accurate. Also, the poll showed a huge number of undecideds, and a low-turnout primary is much more volatile than a statewide race or issue. And in the case of wind, we have two polls, taken nine months apart, with fairly-worded questions, that show the same result. I don’t think you can ignore the results.

Now, back to the Senate Natural Resources Committee.

Until today, the panel had been considering two bills — S.30, the three-year moratorium; and S.21, which would make new wind projects subject to the Act 250 process. What the committee did today was to merge the two bills into one — a new S.30  — removing the moratorium and adding some new provisions.

At first glance, this seems to be bad news for the Windies. And indeed, the most prominent Windy, Annette Smith, told VTDigger that the new S.30 isn’t strong enough.

But the state’s leading environmental groups, which support a measured expansion of wind, aren’t happy either. They see the new S.30 as more politically palatable than the moratorium, and believe it has a better chance of passing in the Senate.

I haven’t seen the legislation; the new version hasn’t yet been posted online. But I’ve heard that the new S.30 adds some poison pills — new obstacles in the path of wind development. It reportedly includes a one-year “suspension” — not a moratorium, but effectively the same thing for a shorter period. It would also force wind projects to go through the Act 250 process plus the Act 248 process they’re already subject to, banish development on conserved land, bar development on land higher than 2500 feet above sea level*, and force any public official to disclose any payments received from developers.

*This provision reportedly touched off a debate between fellow Windies Sen. John Rodgers and the Slummin’ Solon, Peter Galbraith. Rodgers feared that the new S.30 would limit expansion of ski areas. To which Galbraith apparently replied, well, that’s kinda the point, isn’t it? Protecting mountains? I hope to have more on this in the near future.

The bill would also allocate $100,000 for a new study of economic, health, environmental, and even property-value implications of utility-scale wind projects.

The new S.30 is certain to sail through the Windy-heavy Natural Resources Committee. The next big test is on the Senate floor. If it passes the Senate, it would face an uncertain future in the House, where Speaker Shap Smith has said he wants to put off new legislation until the Governor’s Siting Commission issues its report. That’s not expected until April, near the close of the legislative session. If Smith sticks to his guns, S.30 faces long odds in the House.

And Governor Shumlin, who supports wind as part of an expanded renewables portfolio, would need a lot of convincing if S.30 were to somehow reach his desk.  

Congrats to ace reporter Nancy Remsen of the Freeploid, for “breaking” a story only three days after GMD broke if first.

Did a health care bill really die Friday when the House Health Care Committee neither its supporters nor its opponents mustered a majority?

Nope. It’s way too early in this legislative session to declare any bill dead…

Good one, Ms. Remsen. Me, last Friday:

…the truth is, nothing is dead. Any member of the committee can seek reconsideration of the bill on Tuesday. Dr. Till’s vote would break the tie and move the bill onward.

[and] Even if the Health Care Committee fails to pass the soda tax, the health care bill goes to the House Ways and Means Committee…

So yeah, committee chair Mike Fisher’s lament that “everything’s dead”? Either he’s criminally ignorant of parliamentary procedure, or he was deliberately exaggerating. And the media, at least for a few days, bought it.  

But apparently Fisher hasn’t recovered from his snit, because as of today, the Health Care Committee had no meetings scheduled for this week. And when asked if his committee would reconsider the bill, as it has every right to do, Fisher left it at “I don’t know.”

Sheesh.

For those just joining us, the committee deadlocked on the health care bill after Democrat George Till was called away. In Till’s absence, Fisher knew (or should have known) he faced a tie vote. But since, for reasons unknown, he chose to proceed with the vote, reconsideration of a bill is standard practice. And if he called a new vote tomorrow and Till was present, Fisher would win 6-5.

I’m glad to see at least one reporter has caught up with reality.

p.s. I’m also glad that Remsen was able to get an important fact on the record — one I was only able to get through “sources.” Which is that Chris Pearson and Paul Poirier, who voted “no” on Friday, would have voted “yes” if only one minor change were made to the bill. It would have cost $800,000, which is pocket change in terms of the overall bill. But the Democratic majority didn’t give them what they wanted, and last Friday’s (temporary) setback was the inevitable result.

Hey, remember a few weeks after the November election, when VTGOP chair “Angry Jack” Lindley talked about starting a youth movement in his party full of old angry white guys?

Vermont Republican Party Chairman Jack Lindley, admitting he wasn’t the hippest guy, said the GOP plans to get more hip. He said they are looking for an intern who can help the party appeal to younger people. “We need to be relevant to young people in the state,” he said.

I dunno if A.J. has found his magic intern yet, but he has found himself a Vice Chair to help carry the load:

St. Johnsbury attorney Deborah Bucknam was unanimously elected as vice chair of the Vermont Republican Party at the Vermont Republican State Committee Meeting on Saturday, February 23, 2013.

Deborah Bucknam. Well, she’s a woman; that’s a start. But is she the person who can spark a Republican youth movement and plot a course toward a new, relevant, and winning future.

Er, not so much.

For those unfamiliar, Bucknam is an attorney based in Saint Johnsbury. I couldn’t find her age (ladies don’t tell) but she has 11 grandchildren and her husband is 69 years old. No youth movement there.

She’s been active in Caledonia County Republican circles for a decade or so, and “helped her husband Charlie Bucknam run his campaign for State Senate in 2010.”

Charlie finished a distant fourth in a race for two Senate seats. Pretty damn thin resume for a top state party official.  

After the jump: a trail of dogma, and a Facebook scrubbing.

The VTGOP news release also credits her with founding a women’s group called POWW. Don’t know what it stands for; if you Google POWW you’ll find two pro-wrestling promotions, but no mention of a women’s group in the Kingdom. Somehow I doubt that she had anything to do with Powerful Women of Wrestling. (Yeah, I know that should be PWOW, but creative license.)

Well, if she’s not youthful, perhaps she has a forward-looking perspective that can make the VTGOP more relevant to an electorate that’s clearly rejected the archconservative, family values, pseudo-Ayn Randian dogma of the current Republican Party.

Er, sorry, no.  

The Bucknam Brood (Charlie, Deborah, their two daughters and sons-in law) run a group blog called Bayley Hazen Blog. It’s chock full of Tea Party/Rand Paul ideology. For instance, its explanation for the Republicans’ embarrassing defeat in 2012? The public school system has indoctrinated the American sheeple to believe that America is evil, that God is dead, and that they should rely on government to provide their every need. The site’s “Blog List” includes the usual suspects: the Ethan Allen Institute, True North Reports, Yes Vermont Yankee, and the late lamented Vermont Tiger.

In sum, Deborah Bucknam is a far-right conservative who will bring nothing new to the VTGOP — not even a bit of cosmetic “rebranding” — because she’s just another one of the Ethan Allen/Ayn Rand/Fox News/Rush Limbaugh true believers who is absolutely convinced of the rightness of her cause, and who (if the Bucknam Blog is anything to judge by) has no idea how to communicate with anyone outside of their ideological bubble.

p,s, Earlier today I scanned Bucknam’s Facebook page and found some rather incendiary entries. Nothing as bad as Darcie Johnston’s tasteless antigay, anti-Vermont slur, but some hard-right opinionating, some Benghazi truther bullshit, a bit of George W. nostalgia, and a lot of ranting about the liberal media.

Well, sometime in the last few hours, after her appointment was announced, somebody got busy and scrubbed the most outrageous entries from her Facebook page. She still clearly reveals her ideological colors, but there’s nothing really offensive anymore. I guess the party learned something from Darcie’s embarrassment.  

Well, it’s town meeting season again in Vermont. And with it comes a journalistic revisit to the prayer controversy in the town of Franklin that was finally resolved last year, when a judge ruled that the town couldn’t open its annual meeting with a prayer. It was a victory for local resident Marilyn Hackett, after years of protestations.  

The good people of Franklin, being solid Christian folk, have responded with all the love, charity, and forgiveness– ahh, who am I kidding? As the Mitchell Family Organ reports, they’re still angry.

End of story? Not for Hackett, who’s still taunted by critics in the mail and on the street.

“I’m a little afraid I’m going to go to town meeting and there’s going to be anger,” she says. “People are ruing the loss of a tradition.  …The majority of people still don’t get the constitution.”

The town’s annual report even notes that the court decision came “to the disappointment of the Select Board.” Nice of them not to hold a grudge. Real Christians, they are.

And Hackett fears that, in line with their views on what it means to be a good Christian, the Select Board might try to sneak the prayer in the back way:

She recalls a past suggestion simply to change the order of proceedings – from gavel/prayer to prayer/gavel – and has heard talk of a gathering beforehand at the meeting site, the Franklin Central School, for some sort of invocation.

Yup, vindictiveness, anger, and deception. Just like Jesus!