Some days, the snark practically writes itself.

The Board of Directors of the Ethan Allen Institute is pleased to announce the election of Robert Roper, of Stowe, as its new President.

Yes, that Robert Roper. The Robster, “best” known as the host of Common Sense Radio, the daily hour of conservative cant underwritten* by the, ahem, Ethan Allen Institute.

*because if CSR had to depend on ad sales — you know, the free market? — it’d wither and die in a hurry.

EAI’s news release didn’t even bother with the usual “after an exhaustive nationwide search…”  Because, obviously, there wasn’t one. Because the free-marketeer movement in Vermont is like a sad little circle jerk around a Boy Scout campfire.

If you think that’s harsh, let me remind you that EAI was founded in 1993 by one El Jefe General John McClaughry, who served until his “retirement” in 2010 but is still Board Vice President, editor of the EAI’s seldom-read newsletter, author of its unreadable op-ed pieces, and voice of its tedious, ranty radio commentaries. EAI’s Secretary/Treasurer is his wife Anne. The EAI Board also includes such eminences as Sleepy Bill Sayre, the Robster himself, and Jack “Six Teats” McMullen.  

Roper… will spearhead an aggressive new program to educate Vermonters on the fundamentals of a free society – individual liberty, limited government, lower taxes, competitive free enterprise, economic opportunity, fiscal responsibility, and respect for the constitution.

Sure thing. The guy who hosts an unlistenable radio show… the guy who thinks Sleepy Bill Sayre is a great radio personality… the guy who edits a crappy conservative website… the guy who chaired the Vermont Republican State Committee during the GOP’s plunge into electoral irrelevance (2007-2009)… is now the “spearhead” of “an aggressive new program.” Somehow I’m having trouble seeing that. Especially since EAI’s current President, Bruce Shields, was hired less than a year ago, and hailed as the person who would, according to the EAI newsletter, “launch EAI into a new phase in our effort to become a more influential force in Vermont.” I guess he wasn’t, after all.

Can anyone help me out here? Someone who embodies newness, aggressiveness, and political relevance?

EAI Board Chair Jack McMullen said “I have known, worked with and respected Rob Roper for many years, and I am thrilled that he will now bring his talents to the service of free markets and economic opportunity by leading the Institute.”

Gaaaaah. No, no, no, no, no, guys. You don’t flaunt an endorsement from a three-time electoral loser, fresh off a doomed attempt to bring down an enfeebled incumbent attorney general. Unless, of course, you believe that the name “Jack McMullen” lends credibility and star power to your effort. And, sadly, I think you do.

But perhaps I’m being unfair. How does the Robster plan to broaden a movement that obviously represents a tiny minority of the electorate? How will he recast the Institute’s ideology in a way that will convince more people to take them seriously?

“We believe in and fight for the ideals laid out in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution because they work. Today, we are witnessing a systematic erosion of our rights and, sadly, the Vermont government is leading the way with a host of confiscatory taxes, unjust mandates, and ideological experiments in social engineering. Our task is to wake Vermonters up while there is still time to avert a tragedy.”

Okay, no. The same overheated rhetoric that produced abject failure in this year’s campaign is not going to suddenly open the doors to a New Age of Conservatism in Vermont.

It will, however, make Lenore Broughton happy. And that’s the most important thing, isn’t it? In the tight little orbit of Ethan Allen Institute/Common Sense Radio/True North Reports/Vermonters First/Vermonters for Health Care Freedom, the top priority is to keep the cash flowing from Miss Daisy’s inheritance.

Well, that’s probably unfair as well. I think these guys honestly do want to convince people of their principles. They just don’t have a goddamn clue how to do it. And so, as the man says, they will beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.  

Longtime observers of Vermont news are very familiar with the Friday afternoon newsdump — the carefully timed release of bad news, hopefully too late for reporters to get fully engaged before offices close, and certainly in time for the Friday night TV news (second-lowest TV viewing night in the week) and the Saturday newspapers, the least-read editions of the week. In Vermont, it’s most commonly associated with our buddies at Vermont Yankee, who were forever dumping news about leaks, accidents or shutdowns on Friday afternoon.

This past Friday, Burlington Mayor Miro Weinberger appeared to pull a news dump regarding the city’s livable wage ordinance:

Mayor Miro Weinberger has asked his city attorney to conduct a “comprehensive review” of Burlington’s livable wage policy (sic), and report back to him in 90 days with her conclusions and recommendations concerning the policy (sic).

I say “sic” because it’s not a policy, it’s a city ordinance. I think there’s a difference.

The Mayor’s request comes just a few days after controversy erupted over the granting of an LWO exemption to the Skinny Pancake in its new food-service contract with the Burlington International Airport.

Weinberger said he notified the city council of the review Thursday. He said the review by [City Attorney Eileen] Blackwood is necessary to “fully understand exactly how the policy works.”

Okay, maybe it is a policy. Are “policy” and “ordinance” now synonymous? Or is this a subtle rhetorical device to undercut the LWO?

And if Miro is having trouble understanding how the policy works, perhaps he should consult State Auditor-elect Doug Hoffer, who helped draft the ordinance in the first place. He might know a thing or two about it.  

I wouldn’t get this far in the weeds, except that the whole thing smells a bit funny to me. Weinberger’s call for a review, coming so quickly on the heels of the Skinny Pancake issue, could be taken as the opening gambit in an effort to weaken (or kill) the LWO. If I knew nothing about Weinberger, the Skinny Pancake, the Airport or the LWO, that’s how I’d interpret it. The timing fits.

It’s possible that the Mayor honestly wants some clarification. There was a lot of confusion over whether or not the LWO actually applied to Airport vendors. And there is one area of the LWO that seems to require some clarification: the exemption process.

But when the Mayor says his aim is to determine “how to keep the policy (that word again) relevant and robust,” I start to wonder. Does he think the LWO is somehow irrelevant, at a time when more and more working-class people are struggling to stay out of poverty?

This post isn’t about the Skinny Pancake; it’s about the broader issue and the future of the LWO. As a resident of Montpelier, I don’t have particular connections to Burlington politics; I’d love to hear what some Burlington Dems and Progs have to say about this.

Postscript. On the same day it published a story about Weinberger’s review, the Freeploid posted an explainer about the only other business to ever get an exemption from the LWO in its 11-year history: TD Bank, in its 2010 contract with the city for banking and cash management services. The idea that a giant institution like TD Bank can’t pay a living wage was a bit surprising to me, but perhaps they skimp on the janitors or something. It was also a bit surprising that the city couldn’t find another financial institution capable of offering the needed services and paying a livable wage, but what do I know.

Anyway, the Freeploid’s explainer included a passage form the city/TD contract that made me laugh out loud:

“Specifically, this … provision is modified to exempt TD Bank from having to comply with the ordinance for those staff members who may process a transaction or perform maintenance related to this contract.” But TD Bank is not exempt from meeting the livable wage requirements for management employees, the contract states.

Nice one! As if any bank, anywhere, pays any of its management employees anything close to #37,000 a year. Yeah, I don’t think TD had any trouble adhering to that clause in the contract.  

Corporate profits for US corporations hit record highs in the third quarter.

 blue =wages    red=profits    This chart and more found here

Whew! I kind of wish I hadn’t even seen that chart. Huffington Post reports that special year end bonuses for many companies are in the works ahead of expected 2013 tax increases and of course the S&P 500 has more than doubled since the bottom of the recession.

And how about everybody else?

Average hourly pay, when adjusted for inflation, has fallen 0.7 percent over the past year, according to the Labor Department. And the unemployment rate in October was 7.9 percent — it was at a low of 4.4 percent in May 2007 before the recession.

All this reminds me of an old cartoon from WWII that I saw in a book. It shows a bemedaled general viewing a gorgeous sunrise (or perhaps sunset) and remarking to his aide.”Wonderful sunrise Lieutenant, do the troops have one too?”

Oh, looky here. A Vermont “pregnancy help center” wants to siphon off some federal funds to support its anti-scientific, “Christ-centered” counseling services*. Care Net Pregnancy Center of Windham County (deceiving women daily at their office in Brattleboro) was turned down for a USDA building loan when the Department ruled that the group’s programming was “inherently religious.” So, Care Net is taking the government to court.

*No abortions for YOU!

Care Net’s most troubling offering, as far as USDA officials were concerned, was a rewards-based learning program called “Learn to Earn,” wherein expectant parents had to take a certain number of parenting and Bible study classes in order to receive free baby supplies. (Care Net’s executive director has said the center has since suspended the Bible study requirement.) The center also offers, according to a brochure, a “bible centered program” called “Post Abortive Teaching and Healing” that “enables women to process their abortion-related experiences and emotions with the goal of healing and recovery.” In addition, Care Net conducts an abstinence-only sex-education class called “Why Am I Tempted?” or WAIT.

The USDA also noted that, as an affiliate of the national Care Net organization, the local Care Net must certify that its primary mission “is to share the truth and love of Jesus Christ in conjunction with a ministry to those facing pregnancy related issues.”

Yeah, I can see how some people might interpret that as “religious.” But you would be wrong to think so, according to the great public thinker Bill O’Reilly, who actually said this on his show:

“It is a fact that Christianity is NOT a religion. It is a philosophy.”

Er, yeah, Bill, sure thing. But back to our story.  

Care Net Windham County currently rents its offices; it sought federal help in buying a facility of its own under a USDA program aimed at helping “develop essential community facilities in rural areas and towns of up to 20,000 in population.” And heck, lying to young women about birth control and pregnancy is the very definition of “essential” services, don’t you think?

The Brattleboro Care Net has the backing of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group. And the Alliance hopes this case will “pave the way for more religious organizations to receive government funding.”

Oh, joy.  

(It is our pleasure to bring Jim Condos to our front page! – promoted by Sue Prent)

By Jim Condos

Elections are the very core of our democratic process; citizens must be assured of the integrity of those elections. This winter, the Vermont legislature should work to ensure that our elections, and therefore our elected officials, are not for sale to the highest bidder!

Here in VT, during the 2012 general election, one individual spent more than $1 million on campaign advertising through a Super Political Action Committee (PAC). If one individual is allowed to bankroll a campaign, serious questions arise about whose interests the elected candidate will serve.

Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court has left little room to regulate campaign finance. The Court has significantly limited a state’s ability to regulate contribution limits for Super PACs and expenditure limits for candidates, parties or PACs.

As a result, Super PACs have no limits on contributions/expenditures; and in many cases, have limited disclosure requirements about the identity of their donors including how much or when they have contributed.  Undisclosed contributions and unlimited spending allow an individual or small group to overwhelm all others in our elections.

As Secretary of State, I urge the legislature to enact campaign finance reforms aimed at improved disclosure of where the money is coming from and how it is being spent. I also ask for stronger enforcement and harsher penalties for those who violate the law.

The Court has previously held that the danger of potential corruption provides a rationale to provide limits on direct contributions to candidates.  As a result, Vermont’s limits on contributions to candidates still apply and are being strictly enforced.  However, as witnessed this past year, individuals who wish to spend unlimited money to influence our elections can do so by contributing to Super PACs. This is why transparency is the key.  

At a minimum, we must ensure our laws are more meaningful by making contributions and expenditures more transparent.  To accomplish this, several important changes are needed:

1.   Increased Campaign Finance Reporting Frequency

Candidates, Parties, and PACs

• 1st year of the election cycle – quarterly

• 2nd year (January – Primary) – monthly

• Primary to General Election – every 2 weeks

Mass Media Reporting

• 45 days prior to the General Election Primary through the General Election

• Disclosure within 24 hours of expenditure and BEFORE Mass Media is public

2.   Increased Enforcement – Penalties must be meaningful for all violations of the campaign finance law – from illegal coordination between a PAC and candidate to the late filing of reports.

3.   Super PACs are allowed to raise and spend unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, to elect or defeat candidates, as long as they operate independently of candidate campaigns.  I will advocate for additional disclosure requirements:

o Disclosure of contributions to Super PACs within 24 hours of receipt during the 45 days preceding a primary or general election.

o Disclosure of top contributors to a Super PAC in mass media communications.    

o If one donor is responsible for ½ or more of the funds raised, that individual must appear in all electronic advertisements, claiming responsibility.

o Require donors to disclose their employer as required for federal elections.

4.   On-Line Reporting is more effective with an on-line filing system that is easier to use and more transparent. The Legislature must provide the resources to implement this new disclosure system. Once implemented, instantaneous electronic posting will be searchable, sortable, and more transparent for the public.

Vermont has always been a leader in reform – from abolishing slavery in our first state Constitution, banning billboards on our highways, to same-sex marriage.  We should lead on campaign finance reform as well. Vermont will be better for this.

Jim Condos is Vermont’s Secretary of State.

BREAKING NEWS!…Hollywood…30 seconds ago

Oliver Stone To Direct First REPUBLICAN NOIR Movie

With Republicans acting as born losers now, a whole new genre is beginning to emerge on the American scene. Already, there are reports here in California of Republican motorcycle gangs whose members wear T-shirts with logos such as:  Born To Lose–Just Wait Til ’16, and Live Fast, Die Rich, Make A Good Looking Tax Shelter, and What Are We Voting Against?–Whaddya Got?

And California rock groups are coming on with songs hailing Republicans as the new misunderstood rebels of the decade: I Ain’t Payin’ Taxes Anymore, and A Hard Economy’s A Gonna Fall, and, an Elvis throwback, I’m All Taxed Up.

Republican Angst it is called.  Or, Republicans Without A Cause.

Rumors also now are that these new Republican rebels have been experimenting with exotic ‘offshore’ drugs that allegedly help them make more profits through chanting, finger painting, and nude dance.  And there are increasing incidents of 20 and 30-something Republicans taking to the streets in defiance of all authority to hold LOVE THE RICH love-ins, and of them harassing respectable working class and middle class citizens with their anti-establishment of all social and economic programs attitude.

“These new Republican rebels are like Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper and Jack Nicholson in three piece suits,” said one California working class union organizer.  “They break every law we’ve got, and scare the hell out of my wife and kids and mother.  Even my mother-in-law.  And the cops can’t seem to, or want to, do anything, and teenagers are now considering them some sort of anti-heroes.  Just yesterday, I saw my neighbor’s 14 year-old daughter in a cocktail dress.  And young boys walking around wearing Donald Trump ties.  Somebody’s got to do something!”

Well, somebody is.  It has been reported to us that Oliver Stone is putting together the very first REPUBLICAN NOIR film, called: Farewell, My Bailout.  This movie will allegedly expose the grittier side of the new Republican Hep-Cat Rebel movement.  Plenty of sex and violence, we hear.  With Sarah Jessica Parker and Jennifer Aniston cast as Michele Bachmann-Ann Coulter Republican Noir femme fatales. And Arlo Guthrie as a disillusioned IRS auditor torn between upholding the system or helping a aging shadowy loner named Newt, played by Harry Dean Stanton, create the biggest stock market crash ever.  

Newt’s motive was given to us in this ‘exclusive’ piece of noir dialogue from the film: “Economic Chaos for Economic Chaos’ sake, man!  Dig it!” says Stanton as Newt. “Fucking 47 percenters!  Fucking Dildo-Dipshit-Assholes!  Fucking Rodriquez Brothers!  Shit!  There’s gotta be a way of finding out how much they owe and making them pay!”  We have not been told who is doing the screenplay for Stone’s film, but we do know for sure that Mickey Spillane died in 2006.

Also, we hear there will be a drag-racing ‘chicken’ scene, with Stanton and Guthrie driving SUVs with dogs in cages on their roofs, heading for the edge of a ‘fiscal cliff’, whatever that is.

It is reported that Stone has hired Hank Williams Jr. and Neil Diamond to create a “haunting, evocative” score–“part classical, part country yahoo, part elevator and dentist office music.”  And that Bob Dylan has been cast in the role of a rich Republican Presidential candidate who gets beat up by the incumbent President, played by Bill Cosby, causing the Dylan character to drift aimlessly from one religious cult to another, finally dying in a shoot out with a lesbian couple at a same-sex wedding in Montpelier, Vermont.  Other location scenes in Montpelier, we hear, will feature Tea Party Republican rebels fighting it out with liberal trust funded Peace Ninnies. And two brooding noir assignation scenes set in two popular Montpelier bars known as Charlie Os and Three Penny Taproom, where the Aniston/Coulter character tries to seduce the local radical communist drug-addicted madman named Mister PeteySweety, played by a character who closely resembles the deceased Hunter S. Thompson.

No real production schedule has been revealed, as, we are told, Stone wants to improvise along as the Republican Rebel movement continues to develop.  We have confirmed, however, that many other location shots were already filmed on Nov. 23 at WalMarts around the country, supposedly depicting 20 and 30-something Republican rebels shopping in a lurid frenzy for “the sheer Hell of it!”  Many of these scenes are said to be so explicit that they may earn Stone’s new film an X rating.  And possibly some lawsuits.  

Sources tell us that a liberal activist named John Odum, not attached to the film, was fatally trampled to death in a WalMart parking lot while he was trying to collect signatures on a petition denouncing a local noir politician known only as Leftfield.

We will follow the story of this film as it unfolds.  As for the new Republican Rebel movement, we advise parents out there to watch out if their pre-teen children ask for shrimp and white wine for breakfast.

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.

(and Hollywood, California)

Well, now we know why Dem/Prog Lite-Gov candidate Cassandra Gekas turned down that job offer from the Vermont State Employees Association. Instead, as Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz reports, she’ll start on Monday as chief of health access policy and planning at the Department of Vermont Health Access. Sounds like a big important job, and one that’s in line with her previous work as a health policy advocate for VPIRG.

Which makes me happy for two reasons. First, after mounting an underfunded campaign against popular incumbent Phil Scott (and losing her VPIRG job for her trouble), she deserves a break. And second, hey, I was right again. Me, August 15:

As you may remember, Gekas is a first-time candidate who was reportedly recruited by Governor Shumlin. If so, I have to say that the Governor and the Party have completely failed to provide any tangible support for her candidacy. It’s looking like she’s nothing more than a sacrificial lamb — a placeholder, so the Dems could avoid the embarrassment of an empty slot on their ticket. I hope she at least gets a good job in the Administration after she loses in November.

Not that there was any quid pro quo involved here. No no no, that would be wrong.

Gekas says she does not believe her status as a Democratic office-seeker played a role in her hiring by Gov. Peter Shumlin’s administration.

“I just went through normal channels,” she says. “I think they’ve been eager to fill the position for a long time. They’ve got a lot of work to do.”

Well, I don’t believe that for a New York minute. Neither do I mind in the slightest if she was given preference. After all, she did disrupt her career to basically serve as cannon fodder for the Dems, and that loyalty deserves some kind of reward. And besides, she’s obviously qualified, so it’s not featherbedding. Indeed, her hiring is a very positive sign that the Shumlin Administration is really committed to health care reform; I’d a lot rather have her than somebody from the insurance industry, for example.

I wish her well in the new job. I hope she can find a way to smooth out some of the apparent wrinkles in ShummyCare.  

Having given more thought to my previous post describing Wall Street’s ambivalence toward Costco, I have a few more things to say.

As you may recall, Costco is a successful, growing business with a healthy stock price. But the New York Times reports that many Wall Street analysts ding the company for being too generous to its workers and customers, thus dragging down the profits that are the rightful property of the One Percent.

Here’s what Wall Street sees as too generous.

Costco’s average pay, for example, is $17 an hour, 42 percent higher than its fiercest rival, Sam’s Club.

Hmm, $17 an hour. Assuming full-time status, that’s $680 per week. Times 52, that’s $35,360 per year.

Wall Street thinks that $35,000 is too damn much money to pay a worker. That’s the outrage that prompted Deutsche Bank analyst Bill Dreher to complain that “it’s better to be an employee… than a shareholder.”

Yeah, Bill, you just call up your millionaire clients and tell ’em they’d be better off with $35K. Jeebus.

As commenter “bmike” noted,

At some point, there will be no one left that has discretionary income to buy crap from other places that these ‘investors’ invest in.

Then what happens?

See, this is the whole problem with “supply-side economics” and the “job creator” myth so proudly promoted by financial geniuses like Bruce Lisman. We don’t have a “supply economy” — we have a “supply and demand economy.” The two sides need to balance out. If there’s no demand, it doesn’t matter how richly you reward the suppliers and “job creators” — economic activity will not increase. The corporations and wealthy people will simply hoard their wealth.

Which is precisely what has happened in recent years. Rich people own a historically high percentage of our total wealth and American corporations are sitting on huge quantities of cash, and yet our economy remains sluggish. That’s because, no matter how many breaks we give them, they won’t increase production until people are willing to buy more stuff.

And how much stuff can people buy if a salary of $35k/year is too generous?

In conservative ideology, “job creators” are viewed as wizards, or Gods. They must be appeased and richly rewarded. We must make sacrifices to earn their favor. But that’s not true: “job creators” are people, with human motivations. It doesn’t matter if the capital gains tax rate is 15% or 20% or even 50%; if businesspeople can make a profit in a growing economy full of prosperous consumers, they will create more jobs.

I don’t know why this concept is so difficult for the supposed wise men of Wall Street. Probably because their worldview is so radically confined by the parameters of their own lives.

A couple months ago, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service published a detailed study that found no evidence to support the notion that cutting taxes on the wealthy stimulates economic growth. Indeed, the CRS concluded, the only outcome of tax cuts for the rich is that the rich get richer.

The report was withdrawn, apparently after the CRS was pressured by Congressional Republicans. They can’t handle the truth, any more than Wall Street “experts” can. Concentration of wealth at the top is not only inhumane, it’s also bad economics. Our economy is stronger when a lot of people can buy in. The success of Costco is just one small example of this self-evident truth.  

Wanna know why I don’t trust Bruce Lisman? Here’s why.

Today’s New York Times features an article about Costco, the rapidly-growing wholesale chain. It’s a great success story, with a merchant finding a new niche (quality goods at bargain prices with no frills) and filling it expertly. The company is now the fifth-largest retailer in America. Its stock price is high and rising; a share of Costco stock sells for 23 times expected earnings, compared to WalMart’s 19.

But the wise guys of Wall Street are not pleased:

Some Wall Street analysts assert that Mr. Sinegal is overly generous not only to Costco’s customers but to its workers as well.

Costco’s average pay, for example, is $17 an hour, 42 percent higher than its fiercest rival, Sam’s Club. And Costco’s health plan makes those at many other retailers look Scroogish. One analyst, Bill Dreher of Deutsche Bank, complained last year that at Costco “it’s better to be an employee or a customer than a shareholder.”

Christ, what an asshole. “The workers are getting too much of OUR money, waah waah waah.”

After the jump: Costco’s CEO answers, and Wall Street foams at the mouth.

Jay Sinegal, Costco founder and CEO, insists that offering a living wage (cough) and generous benefits is actually beneficial for the bottom line: the company has a very high worker retention rate, and a very low theft rate. But obviously he’s not playing Wall Street’s game, and the Street smarks don’t like it one bit.

Costco also tries to deal fairly with its customers, which (if you believe Sinegal) is the secret to Costco’s success, or (if you believe Wall Street) amounts to theft from investors.

At Costco, one of Mr. Sinegal’s cardinal rules is that no branded item can be marked up by more than 14 percent, and no private-label item by more than 15 percent. In contrast, supermarkets generally mark up merchandise by 25 percent, and department stores by 50 percent or more.

“They could probably get more money for a lot of items they sell,” said Ed Weller, a retailing analyst at ThinkEquity.

“What’s wrong with the guy?” you can imagine Weller thinking. “He’s not screwing the public out of every last dollar!”

Sinegal also refuses to play another game dear to the heart of the one-percenters:

Despite Costco’s impressive record, Mr. Sinegal’s salary is just $350,000, although he also received a $200,000 bonus last year…

“I’ve been very well rewarded,” said Mr. Sinegal, who is worth more than $150 million thanks to his Costco stock holdings. …”Having an individual who is making 100 or 200 or 300 times more than the average person working on the floor is wrong.”

So let’s see. You have a very successful company, making good profits for its shareholders. Its stock price is healthy, reflecting investor confidence. But HE’S NOT PLAYING THE GAME, and he’s making it clear that you can be a successful business without resorting to Mitt Romney-style vulture capitalism, and you can make a profit while also making customers, workers, and investors happy. And you don’t have to pay your top executives like members of the Saudi royal family.

Blasphemy!

Do you think we could arrange for another, precisely-targeted hurricane to hit New York? This time, don’t hit Sandy Point or Red Hook or Staten Island — just wash Wall Street out to sea. I think our society AND our economy would be better as a result.  

Congratulations to St. Albans Democrat Mike McCarthy, known in these precincts as “azvox,” for being confirmed as the winner in his race for the State House.

The election day result was McCarthy 1419, Republican Casey Toof 1,399. Toof understandably sought a recount.

According to Nancy Remsen at vt.Buzz, the recount was held today and confirmed Toof’s total while reducing McCarthy’s by five… which means McCarthy is indeed the winner. Coffee and pastries all around!

Tomorrow, the other Franklin County recount begins: Democrat Don Collins vs. Republican Dustin Degree. The double-D asked for a recount after coming up short by 26 votes on election night. That count might take more than one day, with results expected Saturday or Monday.