Late last week, the Department of Homeland Security’s civil rights watchdog (now there’s an oxymoron) released a summary of its report on standards for searching and seizing electronic devices carried by travelers at America’s borders. And here’s a real shocker: it says everything’s okay.

…travelers along the nation’s borders may have their electronics seized and the contents of those devices examined for any reason whatsoever – all in the name of national security.

,,, “We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits,” the executive summary said.

Yeah, right. Requiring “reasonable suspicion” before seizing your iPhone is too burdensome and provides no benefit to civil liberties. Whoever wrote this obviously attended John “Torture Memo” Yoo’s popular seminar, “How to Say Ridiculous Shit About the War on Terror With a Straight Face.”

This is obviously bad news for people who cross the border. But in theory, it’s bad news for pretty much everybody who lives in Vermont. That’s because, as we all know, DHS has Congressional approval to set up checkpoints far away from the border — up to 100 miles away. And that applies to ocean (and lake) boundaries as well as borders with other countries. Which means that pretty much all of New England is within what the ACLU has called the “Constitution-free Zone.” Indeed, over half of all US residents live within the zone.

A picture of the Zone, after the jump.

So if you leave your house with an electronic device, best make sure it doesn’t contain any naughty pictures or texts in Arabic or pictures of Middle Eastern street scenes, as a New York man taking the train to Canada discovered in 2010:

At an Amtrak inspection point, Pascal Abidor showed his U.S. passport to a federal agent. He was ordered to move to the cafe car, where they removed his laptop from his luggage and “ordered Mr. Abidor to enter his password,” according to the lawsuit.

Agents asked him about pictures they found on his laptop, which included Hamas and Hezbollah rallies. He explained that he was earning a doctoral degree at a Canadian university on the topic of the modern history of Shiites in Lebanon.

Abidor was handcuffed, jailed, and questioned for three hours. His computer was not returned until 11 days later, and then only after his attorney complained.

Oh, one more thing about this “watchdog.” What it released, more than three years late, was merely a two-page summary of its findings. It has refused to release the full report. The ACLU has filed suit seeking its release.

Which begs the question: who is the watchdog watching?  

(Bumped.   – promoted by kestrel9000)

On Wednesday the Vermont senate passed the “fair share” bill 24-5, requiring non-union members to pay agency fees in return for the benefits they receive from union services such as contract negotiations and contract administration.  

VT Digger Article

(My apologies if someone else has reported this already on GMD, and I somehow missed it).

Currently, “grandfathered” employees are exempted from paying for these services while other non-union members pay a portion (85%) of the total union dues amount, in compensation for the services they receive.  

Essentially, Vermont has been acting like a “right to work” (for less) state with respect to these grandfathered employees, allowing them to benefit from the system without paying for it.  

As a state employee and VSEA member, I’m ok with other employees declining to join the union if that’s their choice.  But I don’t think it’s fair that the rest of us pay our fair share while others contribute nothing, while receiving the same benefits and services.

Thank you Vermont Senate, for recognizing this by passing the fair share bill.  Please follow their lead, Representatives, and correct this injustice.

Well… it happened again.

__________________________________________________________________________________

The past week or so has seen several stories emerge that, while not related in any usual sense, are necessary to consider in conjunction for the overarching questions they raise.

First, there was the rescue of the kidnapped six-year old in Alabama, through the unconventional devices  of the FBI.

From this, we were given to understand that the same technology that aided in the location and capture or liquidation of America’s foreign enemies was now entering the toolbox of domestic law enforcement.  Good news for the child who was safely freed, but somewhat chilling to some of us who recall J. Edgar Hoover’s unhinged vendettas against those he saw as his enemies.

Then came revelations about the Administration’s drone policies, and it crossed my mind that a spectacular rescue like the FBI had just completed, demonstrating the real benefits of related technologies of war, might just be the spoonful of sugar to make news of further compromises to our presumed liberties go down a little better.

Then yesterday, as a tense manhunt gripped LA, we had an object lesson in human failure that only served to deepen my concerns.

The L.A.P.D., understandably on edge as crazed ex-cop and trained sniper, Christopher Jordon Dorner, eluded capture after issuing a threatening manifesto against the entire department and murdering three people, became a little trigger happy and shot up a van with two innocent women inside!

As the vehicle approached the house, officers opened fire, unloading a barrage of bullets into the back of the truck. When the shooting stopped, they quickly realized their mistake. The truck was not a Nissan Titan, but a Toyota Tacoma. The color wasn’t gray, but aqua blue. And it wasn’t Dorner inside the truck, but a woman and her mother delivering copies of the Los Angeles Times.

Apart from a real concern with the threat these new stealth capabilities pose to national values of justice, privacy and  personal freedoms, I think there is good reason to distrust the human factor of simple operator error.

“Boom goes London, boom Paris…”

Boom goes the homeless guy who lives up a tree.

Watch out, Vermont — our favorite Wall Street skrillionaire Bruce Lisman is on the prowl!

The co-founder and sole funder of the putatively nonpartisan Campaign for Vermont is scheduled to appear on WDEV’s Mark Johnson Show Monday morning at 9. For those desiring a few pearls of Lisdom, WDEV broadcasts on 96.1 FM and 550 AM. The AM signal has quite a wide reach. WDEV offers a live stream of its weekday morning programs. Otherwise, Mark posts podcasts of selected shows — and I’m sure this will be one of them — at his own website.

Will Mark ask Lisman why the Democrats are so mad at him? WIll Bruce be forced to explain his inexplicable description of the 2008 crash as “this thing that happened”? Tune in and find out!

And on February 19, Lisman continues his Cookies and Condescension Tour with a stop in Middlebury. There will be a panel discussion including local businesspeople and representatives of nonprofit organizations — the latter, seemingly, an attempt to slap the Lipstick of Compassion on Lisman’s economic pig. Because although charitable concerns will have their say, Lisman says,

“My ultimate goal for these forums is to lead a discussion about advancing non-partisan policies that will help us build an economy where no one is left behind and everyone can prosper.”

Yep, it’s all about the money. And about “leading the discussion.” And convincing as many Vermonters as possible to drink the Lisman Kool-Aid with their complimentary cookie:

“This inclusive statewide dialogue is another step toward building a larger, more diverse and independent grassroots coalition to advance much-needed, non-partisan reforms to build an economy where poverty steadily declines, wages steadily rise, and everyone has the opportunity to prosper.”

We all know Lisman has very strong opinions on how to build an economy where everybody is happy: loosen the shackles binding the free market, lower taxes on “job creators,” and let the prosperity flow.

Sounds too good to be true.  

YOU DON’T CARE–IT DIDN’T HAPPEN IN GAZA

 (A message to the so-called Radical Left)

Remember me?

I’m Shelly Frey

On December 6th in Houston, Texas

WalMart executed me

I was shot dead

For shoplifting

Then Newtown happened

And then Christmas

And then the Super Bowl

There was supposed to be

An investigation into what

WalMart did to me

I haven’t seen any follow-up

On that or any articles

On the Lefty Blogs

About this atrocity

Just more crap about Gaza

If I had been executed

At the WalMart in Gaza

By the IDF,

Would that have been better?

Now you Lefties are talking about

Impeaching Obama

Because he wants to drone

Dangerous Americans

Does that include shoplifters?

Why haven’t you white Lefties

Taken up my story?

Why is it that injustice far away

Really turns you on,

Rather than what happens

In your own backyard?

And all those children in Newtown?

Can’t you see it’s products

That killed them?

Just like products

Killed me?

Those assault rifles

Should just not be sold at all

It’s all the same old shit

The Corporations make profit

To kill us all

I mean all of us who are not

Privileged white male Lefties

Writing about Gaza

And impeaching Obama

I was just another black woman

Not worth your attention

You had so many important things

On your minds

And then those poor little children

So I guess if you could figure out

How Israel was behind Newtown

And connect Obama to it,

You’d be in Heaven

But you know what?

I don’t want you here

Not in my backyard

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.

It comes as little surprise to Vermonters that equipment provided by Entergy Louisiana’s sister division, Entergy New Orlean’s, has finally been identified, conclusively, as the reason for the Superbowl blackout.

Entergy New Orleans announced Friday that an electrical relay failed in the third quarter of the game between between the Baltimore Ravels and San Francisco 49ers. The game was delayed more than 30 minutes until power and lights were fully restored to the stadium…The energy provider said the device was installed to protect the Superdome equipment in the event of a cable failure between the switchgear and the stadium.

Looks like the power giant has some explaining to do.

Will Entergy succeed in persuading the New Orleans City Council’s Utility Committee, with whom it meets on Friday, that it was just an innocent mistake that anyone could make; or will the Committee decide Entergy’s past record represents a culture of greed and unreliability, and so, demand compensation?  

Stay tuned.

Earlier this week, the federal government delivered some bad news for Gov. Shumlin’s health care plan: the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare decided not to provide matching funds for the Gov’s plan to fund health-insurance subsidies for low-income Vermonters.

(The subsidies were needed in order to minimize the transition from VHAP/Catamount to the new health care exchange, which would have hit many Vermonters pretty hard.)

Shumlin had budgeted $10.3 million to cushion the blow of rising premiums and out-of-pocket costs, including a 20% federal match. Well, that 20% ain’t coming.

And Shumlin’s response, you’ll never guess. He’s cutting the subsidy program from $10.3M to $7M. (Yes, I know that’s more than a 20% cut, and I don’t know why. I’m just reporting what I read on VTDigger, which is the first with this story.)

Those with no patience for details can skip this para: Shumlin had asked CMS to fund 55% of two subsidy programs. CMS decided not to fund the program aimed at people earning 300-350% of the federal poverty line; it was willing to fund the program aimed at those earning up to 300% of the FPL. The CMS decision meant a loss of $2.1M in federal dollars.

Because the worst thing we could possibly do, y’know, is raise taxes. Health Access Commissioner Mark Larson:

“Without the federal funds that we had requested, we simply can’t support the gross expenditure within the general fund dollars we have available,” he said.

The operative phrase being “within the general fund dollars we have available.”  

The revised proposal will hurt the people in the 300-350% range, who will not get any cost-sharing subsidies. In addition, subsidies for those in the 200-300% range will be cut by $300-500.

In real dollars, that 200-300% range is $23,000-34,500 in annual income. $500 is a lot of money for these people. Especially when many of them would also see a cut in the Earned Income Tax Credit thanks to a separate Shumlin proposal.

Larson expressed a willingness to work with the Legislature on ways to improve the revised proposal — but with the constant caveat, “with the general fund dollars we have available.” In other words, forget any notion of raising revenue; Governor Shumlin wants it all to be borne by the working poor. Who, I guess, have more money to spare than the wealthy.

There are two big problems with this. Beyond the obvious, I mean. First, the more expensive the coverage is, the more people will simply go uninsured. Which kinda defeats the goal of health care reform, doesn’t it, now?

And second, according to Peter Sterling of the Vermont Campaign for Health Care Security, “If we don’t get this right out of the gate, we’ll be stuck.” That observation arises from his experience advocating for the Catamount program several years ago. After the Catamount startup, he spent a lot of time lobbying for improvements in the program, to little avail. He fears the same thing will happen once the health care exchange is up and running. And that’s why he wants to get it right the first time around.  

If you've been paying attention we've been doling out an entirely deserved rash of shit to Bruce Lisman and his phony nonpartisan group Campaign for Vermont. Also, if you've been paying attention you know that all that Lisman & Co. have to offer is the standard warmed-over Republican prescriptions of cutting social programs as a way to cut taxes on the rich.

 Still, the payoff to pushing a phony nonpartisan agenda is that if you keep it neutral-seeming and content-free you are going to get people to like you, at least if all they read is the headline. I guess that must be how they arrive at almost 3,000 “likes” for their latest Facebook posting.

There's just one thing, though. Some people actually do read what they're posting, and when that happens it doesn't always turn out so well for Messrs. Lisman and Pelham.

Here's a sampling of some of the comments left on their latest Facebook post:

I agree that we need a campaign to continue to strive for excellence but when I read this group's position papers on issues such as health care reform, I realize this is a Republican Trojan Horse– a nice idea but an intention that is really not about the issues I care about.

Or:

 Vermont graduates the highest % of high school students in the country. Too bad that over half of them can't afford to go to college.

Or:

  I ask how can we be a model for the nation when we rank 49th in funding for post secondary education?

Or:

 Call me skeptical, but I don't think the former chairman of global equity for JP Morgan Chase (Bruce Lisman, one of the three individuals who claim this effort to “reform”) has Vermont's best interests in mind

If you have access to the Mitchell Family Organ, you must check out the latest missive from Peter “Marathon Man” Hirschfeld, captain and crew of the Starship Vermont Press Bureau. The story, “Lawmakers Pondering New Taxes,” nicely encapsulates a trend in the Legislature: widespread dissatisfaction among Dems and Progs with Governor Shumlin’s 2014 budget, especially some of his revenue-producing gimmicks; and a search for creative ideas to raise revenue more effectively or fairly without raising the Gov’s ire.

The story provides a lot of evidence for the notion that the real fault line in the legislature won’t be between the Dems and the GOP; it’ll be between the Governor and legislative lefties.

Last Friday, House Republicans made it clear that They Still Don’t Get It, with their self-immolating stance on a bill that would provide free school lunches for students who now qualify for reduced prices. The bill won’t cost that much money and it’s clearly going to pass, so the only thing Republicans accomplish by opposing it is to look like Ebenezer Scrooge before the ghosts came a-calling.

But still, Republicans on the House Education Committee voted NO. And their clueless vote was cast, not because they actually opposed the bill, but for the sake of a stupid, stubborn idea. House Minority Leader Don Turner:

“There’s a lot of talk about education reform, and it’s all down in bits and pieces,” Turner said. “We don’t want to get caught voting on it in bits and pieces. We don’t have a big picture view of what the whole change is going to cost.”

Well, gee, Don, isn’t it standard practice for the Legislature to tackle multifaceted reforms in “bits and pieces”? Different committees get different bits, don’t they? What did you expect — that the entire package would be delivered as a whole to the Legislature for a single up-or-down vote? That’s kinda-sorta not how legislatures are supposed to work. As you well know.

It’s sad, because in the post-election period, Turner showed signs of a rare Republican leader capable of some self-examination in the wake of the VTGOP’s Titanic v. Iceberg defeat. But this committee vote came right out of the John McLaughry/Lenore Broughton playbook, and it’s the kind of thing that will prevent the party from returning to relevance.

I didn’t mean to take so much time on that vote… but the point is, the Republicans are not an effective minority in the Legislature, and they won’t be as long as they keep trying to reanimate the corpse of last year’s VTGOP. Instead, if there is a legislative debate worth watching this year — a debate that might actually affect government policy — it’ll be between Shumlin’s fiscal conservatism and the more liberal attitudes of many lawmakers.  

Back to Hirschfeld. His article begins by noting that “legislative support for… Shumlin’s new revenue proposals continues to deteriorate,” and then reports:

In the coming days and weeks, Montpelier will see bills that would raise tax rates on top earners, eliminate tax exemptions that benefit the wealthy, add a 1-cent-per-ounce tax on sugared drinks, and double the gross receipts tax on heating oil.

… Leaders in the House and Senate have begun calling into question both the wisdom and viability of Shumlin’s new revenue streams. And legislators eager to retain the governor’s array of new state programs say they’ll come up with their own ways to support the spending.

Hirschfeld unhelpfully points out that the self-described fiscal conservative Shumlin has actually “recommended nearly $70 million in tax increases.” In that context, it’s not hard for Progs and Dems to go looking for better options for raising revenue. And already, they’ve come up with quite a few:

— Rep. David Sharpe (D-Bristol) is the lead sponsor of a penny-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, with the funds going to help ease the transition from VHAP/Catamount to the new health care exchange, plus a stronger anti-obesity education effort.

— Rep. Paul Poirier (I-Barre) has proposed a bill to raise income tax rates on top earners, an idea almost certain to be vetoed by Shumlin. Rep Chris Pearson (P-Burlington) is hoping to bypass the Gov’s no-tax-hikes stance by raising revenue from top earners without raising tax rates. He’s working on “a laundry list of options” that he hopes to present within the next week.

— Rep. Margaret Cheney (D-Norwich) is writing a bill that would raise taxes on heating fuels. This proposal would supplement or replace Shumlin’s idea for a tax on break-open tickets; many lawmakers don’t buy Shumlin’s revenue estimate for that tax, and they’re looking for other ways to fund weatherization and energy efficiency programs.

Lawmakers are also unhappy with another of Shumlin’s revenue work-arounds: a 1% tax on health insurance claims. This tax is a funding mechanism for the Catamount health plan, which will disband at the end of 2013 in favor of the health care exchange. But Shumlin wants to continue the tax anyway. Some legislators disagree, and will be looking for options they like better.

Of course, all of this may be sound and fury, signifying nothing; at the end of the day, the threat of a veto casts a wide shadow even if it’s never deployed. On the other hand, it’s worth noting that House Speaker Shap Smith has expressed significant doubts on some aspects of Shumlin’s budget plan — most notably the $17M transfer from the Earned Income Tax credit to child-care subsidies and the projected revenue from the break-open ticket tax. Plus Smith’s initial reaction to Shumlin’s budget speech in January: “…many of the proposals that have been put forth, people might have some skepticism about.”

If the Speaker lends his weight to the back-benchers’ budget revisionism, things could get pretty interesting under the Golden Dome. And the Republicans will be reduced to the role of spectators booing the home team.  

It turns out that the savings and other beneficial outcomes promised by the administration if they are allowed to cap and time-limit Reach-Up benefits might not be all they first appear.

Who says so? Would you believe a report put out by the administration a year ago?

Here's a press release from my colleagues Chris Curtis; Sheila Reed from Voices for Vermont's Children; and Karen Lafayette from the Vermont Low Income Advocacy Council addressing the proposals for Reach-Up. It's kind of long, but it's worth reading the whole thing.

ADMINISTRATION REPORT CONTRADICTS PROPOSED CAP ON REACH UP BENEFITS