Voting for an incumbent is like going back to the same dentist who pulled the wrong tooth the last time.

Voting for an incumbent is like going back inside your camping tent even though you were just bitten by a snake there.

Voting for an incumbent is like re-marrying your former spouse even though she cheated on you the last time around.

Voting for an incumbent is like getting in a plane with a pilot who crashed his aircraft last time he went up.

Voting for the incumbent is like taking your computer back to the same repair shop, even though last time they told you that your computer needed a lube and an oil change.

Voting for an incumbent is a vote for “staying the course”.

Voting for the incumbent means that you believe that things can never get any better.

Voting for the incumbent signals the end of all hope for change.

Voting for the incumbent is like doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting a different result.  

Voting against all incumbents is the perfect way to achieve term limits.

I’ve got to give Randy Brock some credit for daring to attend the Renewable Energy Vermont conference. He knew he was going to face a hostile audience, and he delivered his free-market message. Didn’t sugarcoat his opposition to government support for renewables.

“I had an underlying question in my mind: Is it appropriate for government to pick industrial winners and losers in the renewable energy industry?” asked Brock.

…”Are we asking the taxpayer and the ratepayer to become investors in technology? What’s the ratepayer going to get in return? … Are they going to get any benefit? Folks weren’t able to answer that question, at least to my satisfaction,” said Brock.

Yes, Brock deserves some credit for a minor act of political bravery. On the issues, however, he couldn’t be wronger.  

First, there’s no such thing as an energy free market. Every form of energy benefits from some form of government assistance. Nuclear energy wouldn’t exist at all in a totally free market because the risks are too high. And the original development of “peaceful” nukes was heavily pushed and funded by the government. The free market wouldn’t have done that on its own.

And of course, even the profitable fossil-fuel industries get all sorts of tax benefits that tilt the free-market scales in their favor.

And just as the government played a decisive role in creating nuclear energy, it did the same for hydraulic fracturing, i.e. fracking. The Associated Press:

“The free market has worked its magic,” the Barnett Shale Energy Education Council, an industry group, claimed over the summer.

The boom happened “away from the greedy grasp of Washington,” the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank, wrote in an essay this year.

…But those who helped pioneer the technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, recall a different path. Over three decades, from the shale fields of Texas and Wyoming to the Marcellus in the Northeast, the federal government contributed more than $100 million in research to develop fracking, and billions more in tax breaks.

Now, those industry pioneers say their own effort shows that the government should back research into future sources of energy – for decades, if need be – to promote breakthroughs. For all its success now, many people in the oil and gas industry itself once thought shale gas was a waste of time.

“There’s no point in mincing words. Some people thought it was stupid,” said Dan Steward, a geologist who began working with the Texas natural gas firm Mitchell Energy in 1981.

Well, all right then. Whatever you might think of fracking — or nuclear power, for that matter — the point is proven. Government assistance for new technologies is an integral part of the way our economy works. Without it, a lot of the things we take for granted wouldn’t exist.

And given the environmental benefits of renewable energy development, we should at the very least give renewables the same public-sector benefit we’ve given to nuclear power and fracking.

Randy Brock: Brave But Wrong. Put that on a bumper sticker.  

FIRST DEBATE

(Live from Charlie Os in Montpelier, VT.)

Moderator:  “Okay.  President Obama has won the coin toss, so you rack, Governor Romney.”

Romney:  “Shit.  All right.  Hey, I need another Bud here.  (mumbles–‘Gotta rack for this miserable black…’)

Obama:  “Say what, White BOY?”

Romney:  “Nothing.  ‘scuse me, my fellow Americans.”  (racks)

Obama:  “Whew.  That’s a pretty shitty-ass rack.  Put the goddamn eight ball where it’s supposed to go.  Motha!”

Romney:  “Hey, I’m not as use to this game as you are.  And you’ve had four more years of practice.  About all you’ve fucking done.”

Obama (takes a swig of single malt scotch):  “Hell, I don’t need practice, you honky dipshit.  I was cleaning up in pool at Harvard Law while you were probably trying to figure out how to give a cue ball a close trim.”

Romney:  “Fuck you.  If you don’t like the rack, concede!  I need another shot of JD with that Bud.”

Moderator:  “Gentlemen, we do have a time constraint here.  This station wants to air its new comedy series, Leave It To Muhammad, after we’re finished.”

Romney:  “Well, tell That One to quit fucking with me.  He’s trying to distract my attention from the issues here.”

Obama:  “Distract your WHAT?  Heh-heh, that’s rich.  Speaking of which, how about a little side bet here, Whiteface.  Say an even Mil.  You make more than that in interest on those fucking Chinese slave shop investments, or whatever.”

Romney:  “Listen, you arrogant uppity black bastard, I earned every cent of my money.  The hard way.”

Obama:  “Yeah.  Was that your ole lady?  Or yo mama?” (takes big swig of scotch, and hiccups)

Romney (slobbers):  “Break, Goddamn You!”

Obama (breaks):  “HEY!  HA!  Well, piss and shit on you, White BOY!  Two solids!  I guess Mister Man here, the Pres-E-dent, got lows.  And you’re just a dirty white dog waiting for me to run the table so’s you can jump down from the roof of your car and run home to Blondie, whatshername?  Heh.  Two ball in the corner.”  (sinks it)

Romney:  “Leave my wife out of this (‘hic’), Brillo-Boy.  I don’t say dissy shit about your fucking wife.”

Obama (downs his fourth scotch):  “Five ball, side.  No?  That’s cause you’re jealous that I’m gettin’ it every night and you’re not.  (sinks five ball)  Everybody in Charlie Os here and in the rest of the fuckin’ country knows you’re a little rich white pussy-whipped asshole.  Six ball, bank, corner.  And I’ll have another (‘hic’) scotch, Moderator.”

Romney:  “You can’t make that.  And Ann fucks like a mink.  What’s this single malt scotch shit?  Are the American people payin’ for that?”

Obama (sinks six ball):  “I get more fuckin’ donations from real people than all the millions you’ll ever raise, pinhead.  And my dick’s bigger than yours too.”

Moderator:  “Mr. President, please.  There are young people watching.”  (Obama sinks seven ball)

Romney:  “Yeah, probably all those poor sufferin’ gang bangers.  Not out robbin’ people tonight.  Another JD.” (‘burp’)

Obama:  “Say, mo-fuck, how’d you like to step outside after I finish you off here?  One ball, corner.  Then, eight ball, side.”

Romney:  “What? (‘hic’)  Your friggin’ gang out there?  Bunch of lowlife blacks and spics and lessies waitin’ for me?  I’m carryin’ mace, ya fuckin’ N-Word!”

Moderator:  “Governor Romney!”

Obama:  “That’s okay. (‘hic’)  That’s cool, that’s cool.  (sinks one ball)  Mace?  No shit, titnose?  What’s that?  Some shit you put on your pecker to get (‘hic’) yo big fat Blondie ho to suck it?  Rich White Pre-vert Stuff?  (Obama sinks eight ball)  That’s GAME, Frat BOY!”

Romney:  “Why, you sleaz…(‘hic’)…in’ pimp bastard (‘hic’) dirty…”

“Moderator:  “Gentlemen…”

Romney (advances toward Obama waving cue stick)  “I’m not takin’ any more (“hic-burp’) shid from you, ya cheatin’ black sonofabitchin’…”

Obama:  “WHOA!  Cheatin’?  Say WHAT, IRS Meat?!  You ‘cousin’ me (‘hic’) a cheatin’ at pool, asswipe yo white ugly face!  Them’s fightin’ words, White BOY!”

Romney:  “I saw dat seven ball shid shot.  And so did the ‘Merican peoples.  Ya kissed my fifteeen, ya faggot!  Thought I wasn’t lookin’? (‘hic-hic’)  Whad?  Ya think I’m shidfaced?  Did ya see dat seven ball shot, Mistah Moderator?  Did ya see dat shot, my fellow ‘Muricuns? (‘hic-hac-gulp’)  I call for for…for…forfa…fa…”

Obama:  “Da word is for-fei-ture, moo-ron.  Whad (‘hic’) happens ta dose Mur-E-Cans who votes for dinks like youse.”

Romney:  “Yeah (‘hic’), for-fa-tor fer cheatin’.  I WIN!”

Moderator:  “Now, Governor Romney…”

Obama (turns to Moderator):  “Hey, shut da fuck up, YOU!  (downs his scotch)  He’s not Governor of shid anymore.  ‘Ceptin’ in his shorts.  And you’re not the Political Cor-rect Pol-Lices here.  If I want da Pigs, I’ll have Secret (‘hic’) Service get ’em.  Do somethin’ useful.  Another scotch!”

Romney:  “That’s another fuckin’ thing!  (‘hic-drool’)  How’s come you That One there gets more erect…more pro-tect-tions than ME?  Whad’s dat shid?” (‘urpp’)

Obama:  “Be-Cause.  I’m da Pres-O-Dent of the U-Night-ed Fuckin’A States, shid-lips!  A course I gets mo ‘tection than you. (‘hic-hic’)  They’s ‘tectin’ my ass against yo white disease.  The one what makes you a moo-ron.  Shid…I mean, shit.  Where’s dat scotch?  Loser here’s buyin’!”

Romney:  “You fuck!  I’ll (‘hic-hac-burp’) show ya loser.  (shoves Obama)  Ya punk!  I’ll whup da ferkin’ shid outtaya!”

Obama (pulls out switchblade):  “All right.  (turns to crowd)  Y’all whities get a round on the loser (‘hic’) here.  Whiles I carve a Z on his fo’head.  Fo Zippy da Pinhead.”

Romney (staggers back, gulping, and pissing his pants):  “All right.  Come on, Blackie!  I’ll shove dis stick up yer black ass!  Come an (‘burp’) git it!” (Romney twirls pool stick, Ninja style)

Obama:  “Why ya dumb Mormon Moo-ron…bringin’ a pool cue ta a knife fight!  Meat!”  

(Romney and Obama go down together on the floor and roll around, cursing and screaming.  And puking.)  

Moderator:  “Ah…and so, that concludes tonight’s debate.  Join us for the second Presidential Debate next week, live from Ned’s Two Card Hold ‘Em in Kalispell, Montana.  And stay tuned for Leave It To Muhammad.  Goodnight.

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.

 

“When Fascism came, it was not brought by uniformed troops.

It was not imposed at the point of a gun.

Fascism came because citizens were too distracted to pay attention.

Voters were too misinformed to cast intelligent ballots.

And the mass of people failed to recognize the inherent danger in the censoring of speech and the banning of books.”   RMJ

The moral implications of voting are too important to ignore.  It is a matter of life and death – correction, it is a matter of life and murder. The hand that controls the lever in the voting booth can be just as dangerous as the hand which controls a gun – even more so.  A person with a gun in a movie theater can kill a limited number. The voter has the power to kill thousands – simply by voting for the wrong candidate.  Pulling the lever in the voting booth has even greater moral implications than pulling the trigger of a gun.

The big issue is uninformed voting, and that old myth: “It doesn’t matter who you vote for. Just vote”.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  No vote at all is better than an uninformed vote. The vote of someone who has not studied the issues could cancel the vote of someone who has done their citizen’s homework.

Below is a list of simple topics. It was inspired by conversations with ordinary people on Main Street. This list is meant for the average voter.  Those who are not informed enough to discuss them, should refrain from voting.

Do you believe that Columbus discovered America?

Do you understand the difference between a Primary and a General Election?

Can you name the branches of government?

Do you know the location of the nearest Drone Base?

Can you estimate the number of people killed this week by Drone attacks?

Do you know how many military contractors are in your home town?

Have you ever gone to Court just as an observer?

Have you ever written a letter to the editor?

Do you support Statehood for the Palestinians?

Can you explain how the Black Budget fosters government secrecy? When was it authorized?

Do you know the difference between C-Span and CNN?

If the USA is willing to kill kids attending weddings in Afghanistan, does it really care about your kids?

Can you discuss the video “Collateral Murder”?

Do you know who Bradley Manning and Julian Assange are?

Do you support US policy on assassination?

Can you give an estimate of the number of US military bases in foreign countries?

There are many different kinds of voters. Perhaps the worse of the worse are the ‘excuse makers’ – those who refuse to take responsibility for their vote.  Within weeks after any election, they get ‘voters remorse’. They say the media misinformed them.  So why don’t they get their information from other sources?  They blame everyone else. They are still in ‘the-dog-ate-my-homework’ mindset.  Granted, honest information is sometimes hard to get. Just take a look at the textbooks used in most schools. They often are intended to misinform. Some schools are propaganda factories designed to instill blind patriotism in the youthful minds.  In order to really understand how things work, we first need to unlearn some of what we were taught in school. A class in ‘The History of US War Crimes’ would be nice, but that won’t happen anytime soon. The pendulum is swinging the other way. In a Vermont public middle school there now is a Cadet Program. It is managed by active duty and retired military.

Another category of voter includes those who say there is no one to vote for. Really?  On my ballot last time there were 8 candidates for president plus a write-in option. If you think there is no one to vote for, you are still thinking in the Democrat/Republican box.   The Democratic/Republican Party has been the biggest threat to democracy the world has ever known.  Just think about how they game the system to limit participation in debates… and how they limit candidate inclusion of other candidates on ballots. They have raised dirty tricks to a new art form. There are millions in the US who are qualified under the Constitution to be president.  Pick your favorite, but only after careful thought. Then use the write-in option. It’s fun.  And don’t forget that the real power is with the Congress. Only the Congress has the power to finance and declare war.  Your Congressional vote is the really serious one.

There is another group. Those who say that the most important issue is jobs. Economic justice is an important issue – but is it more important than protecting those who are being killed by Drone attacks?   Citizens need to prioritize.  Economic justice in the US is not the most important issue on the planet.  Think about it. Would you prefer that your loved ones be poor, or live under the daily threat of a Drone attack?  Not much of a choice. Sometimes we should put the safety of others above our own needs.  Prioritize – first things first.  Now, as I am writing this article, it is being reported that US Drones just killed at least 11 civilians,  3 of them children.  Reports of US caused Drone deaths are so common that they are usually ignored.  US Foreign Policy has succeeded in totally devaluing human life.

And let’s not forget that other group of voters. Those who openly admit that they are pro-war. There are more of them than we like to admit. At least they are honest. They support war because they think it produces jobs. Some support war because they believe the big lie that war will keep us safe.  I would challenge their logic and their moral view, but they are more honest than those who pretend to be for peace but continually vote for war candidates.  All D/R candidates support war. Repeating, all D/R candidates support war. Proof is in their support of a pro-war Party. History proves that both, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, support war.  Anyone opposed to war will not be aligned with a War Party.  Voting D/R will cost you your status as a peace advocate.  It also will cost you your right to complain after November 6.

Then there are those who are vigorously fighting to keep money out of the voting process. Is this a red herring type argument? Yes, money contaminates almost everything – BUT, if a voter is armed with accurate information no amount of money or political advertising would make any difference. A candidate with trillions of dollars would have no advantage over any other candidate, if voters were well informed. Imagine a trillion dollar advertising campaign designed to sell toothpaste which was known to contain dangerously high levels of arsenic. Would you buy that toothpaste? Some people would. That’s why some people should not vote.

Maybe all US residents should have the legal right to vote, even those who are not citizens. That would be the fair thing to do. After all if they live and work here, they are affected by the laws.  Maybe even those who are not US citizens and who do not live in the US should have the right to vote in US elections.  US foreign policy has a great impact on the lives of those around the world; therefore, they should have a say in our electoral process. Give everyone who is impacted the right to vote.  That’s what true democracy is all about. Now, that would bring real change.

There still is an amazingly large number of US citizens who do not believe that US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright admitted during a CBS Sixty Minutes interview with Leslie Stahl, on May 12,1996, that 500,000 Iraqi children died as a result of US policy.  Albright then went on to add that ”…we think the deaths of 500,000 children was worth it…”.  Any voter who is still in denial, and does not believe that Albright was expressing official US policy, should not vote.  Voting for the wrong candidate can be dangerous to children and other civilians around the world. The US has devised all sorts of ways to kill those in other countries. Drones, bombs, and bullets are not the only weapons.  Starvation, contaminated water supplies, and destruction of the infrastructure also kill.

It goes without saying that there should never be a poll tax or poll test. The right to vote should be guaranteed to all, but voters should use self-discipline and refrain from voting if they know they do not possess the information necessary to cast an informed ballot. This is a matter of honor. This is what is required of a good citizen. Remember, only you will know if you cast a blank ballot. It is OK to do that.

One side says vote for us because we are better at solving problems with the economy.  The other side says vote for us because we are better at assassinating unarmed men in their bedrooms.  Some voters are conned into voting for the lesser of the evils. That is the biggest mistake of all.  Instead of the lesser of the evils, for a change, let’s vote for the best of the best.  “No”, you say. “That candidate can’t win.”  To a moral voter that is irrelevant.  Voting your conscience is always the right thing to do.  No one is morally responsible for the vote of another.  Your vote is the only one that should matter to you.

Voting is serious business. The right to vote is a sacred trust.  It sometimes is the only way that an ordinary citizen gets to express his humanity across international borders.

In a perfect world we would have economic justice, Single Payer Health Care for all, and Peace on Earth.   After all the ballots are counted, I bet that there will be no change. More than 90% will have voted D/R.  Torture will go on. Guantanamo will not close. Bradley Manning, Lynne Stewart, and many others will still be political prisoners. Children will continue to die.  And the flag wavers will celebrate.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Rosemarie Jackowski is an Advocacy Journalist. She was arrested in a peaceful protest of the war on March 20, 2003. She was tried and convicted. After a four-year legal battle, the Vermont Supreme Court overturned the conviction.  Jackowski is author of BANNED IN VERMONT. Currently the book is being banned by at least one public tax supported Vermont library in violation of the First Amendment.  Rosemarie Jackowski is a candidate for the Office of Vermont Attorney General and is dedicated to restoring the First Amendment where it is under threat.

dissent@sover.net  

That Would Be Really Hard

I like Ann Romney. Actually, I like her as much as I like Michelle.  They are both nice ladies. They are just doing what Democrats/Republicans do all the time.  To expect anything different would be illogical.  Most D/Rs seem to have their own way of looking at the world.  Of course they do. They are in- the- box- thinkers. That explains why they are Democrats/Republicans.

When Ann gave her speech at the Republican Convention, I was not surprised to see that she could not really understand how so many of  the ‘other people’ live.   She talked about being home and raising her boys.  Many of the ‘other’ mothers thought about how lucky she was to have had that privilege.  She never had to go to work outside the home, and leave her boys when they were sick.  She had the privilege of staying home with them.  

Now Mrs. Romney makes the “Stop it. This is hard.” statement.   “This is hard”.  Really?   Actually it looks like fun to many of us – jetting around the countryside.  

No, Mrs. Romney, hard is not having enough money to feed your kids.

Hard is working 80 hours per week and still not making it.

Hard is watching your wife suffer with cancer, and not having access to good medical care.

Hard is going to bed every night wondering if you will be killed by a US drone.

Hard is being an 18 year-old boy with no front teeth – no dental care – and trying to get hired for a job.

Hard is missing your father’s funeral because your boss won’t give you the time off.

Hard is being a little kid working in a toxic farm field.

Hard is being in prison – tortured because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Hard is being Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, or Lynne Stewart.

Hard is living in a country that has no nuclear capability. Those are the ones on the list for US military intervention.

Hard is being stared at because you are homeless.

Hard is living in a country that is being occupied by US Military Forces.

Hard is being an unarmed man assassinated in his own bedroom.

Hard is being the mother of the little boy who died from a tooth abscess because his Mom did not have money for a dentist.

Hard is knowing that no one in power is on your side.

Hard is always being on the wrong side of the desk.

Hard is knowing that things will never get better.

So to Ann and Michelle, I say: “Please, understand that you just don’t get it. You never will. Maybe it’s not entirely your fault. You can’t help it. Your world is so different from the world that most people live in, and besides that, your views are reinforced by your Party and the media every day.  I don’t care if you donate a lot of money to charity, or not.  I don’t even care if you pay your taxes. I don’t care about your religious beliefs. I don’t care if you cheat on your husband – none of my business. I don’t care if you feed your kids Twinkies for breakfast.  I care only about the domestic and foreign policy that you support.  People die every day because of those policies. I might believe that you care about us, if you ever resign from the Republican/Democratic Party, but I know that that would be really hard. ”

Rosemarie Jackowski

Rosemarie Jackowski is author of BANNED IN VERMONT.

Official CAMPAIGN STATEMENT of Liberty Union Candidate for VT Attorney General

1.   At the top of the list is the protection of the most vulnerable.   Every case of reported abuse of the disabled or elderly must be investigated in a timely manner – and prosecuted if the facts support prosecution. A backlog of hundreds of abuse cases shows a shocking lack of appreciation for the dignity of all human beings.  This should never happen again.  No excuses. No exceptions.

2.   Call for a moratorium on the use of Tasers by law enforcement.

3.   Consider the elimination of the Public Service Board.  In the meantime, appeal the decision of the PSB.  The 21 million dollar loan to CVPS should be returned to rate payers.  The authority of the PSB should be reviewed, so that in the future consumer rights will be protected.  

4.   Review/rescind the State policy which prohibits doctors/dentists, licensed in other States, from rendering compassionate medical care in Vermont.

5.   Insure the privacy of all medical records.

6.   Shut down Vermont Yankee.

7.   Decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana. Increase the Prosecution of violent crimes, home invasion, and other offences which are a threat to public safety.

8.   Support farmers and the economy by allowing the cultivation of hemp as an agricultural product.

9.   Rescind the Vermont policy which supports the frivolous Defense of the State in cases where the State is clearly at fault. When a person is injured or killed – or when there is damage to property caused by carelessness or negligence by the State, there should be no gaming of the system by the State.  The Courts should never be used as a tool to prohibit justice.  In addition, it is a waste of taxpayer money to litigate every case.   Sometimes an offer of a fair settlement would save money and insure a fair outcome.  Sovereign Immunity should never be used to deprive citizens of Justice.  Eminent Domain should be used only in the extremely rare case when the public good demands it.

10.  Restore the First Amendment in Vermont.  Political speech in public tax supported facilities should never be censored.  (See photos on the Internet of Dennis Steele being arrested.)   The banning of political books by public tax supported libraries should no longer be permitted. The chipping away of Constitutional Rights should never be trivialized.  Academic freedom in high schools and colleges should be supported.

The bottom line is this: The Office of Attorney General should never be used as a political tool. The power of the office is a sacred trust that must insure justice for all.  The Office of Attorney General should set the ethical standard for Vermont.

“When Fascism came, it was not brought by uniformed troops.

It was not imposed at the point of a gun.

Fascism came because citizens were too distracted to pay attention.

Voters were too misinformed to cast intelligent ballots.

And the mass of people failed to recognize the inherent danger

In the censoring of speech and the banning of books.”  RMJ

Rosemarie Jackowski is an Advocacy Journalist, Founder of Justice for Children, a member of Veterans for Peace, and author of  BANNED IN VERMONT.

Contact information:  E-mail dissent@sover.net   Phone 802.447.0868

The story that got buried in the Freeps election coverage this AM is, as usual, GMD’s to highlight.

Democratic candidate for auditor, Doug Hoffer, who is known for exhaustive investigation of facts and figures, has discovered that, for all his protestations about “transparency,” Republican Vince Illuzzi’s track record in the Legislature is somewhat less than stellar.

Hoffer noted that “for the last six years of Senator Illuzzi’s tenure as chairman of the Institutions Committee (1999 – 2004), there are only 12 recordings of committee hearings. In contrast, the Finance Committee produced 346 such recordings during the same period. Shockingly, only one CD was produced by Mr. Illuzzi’s committee for an entire biennium (2001 – 2002).”

As Mr. Hoffer points out, decisions made by the Institutions Committee represent “tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds,” and one would think that a full record of deliberations would go with the territory.

Illuzzi counters that the discussions are too arcane for the layman to understand, so recording them in detail serves no public purpose!

The Free Press seems to think this is the end of the discussion, but I hardly agree!  There will always be people like Doug Hoffer with the financial sophistication and civic investment necessary to sift through those recordings on behalf of the rest of us.  We, the taxpayers, deserve the protection that affords us from political deal-making that may not always be in our best interests.

Which brings me back, once again, to my primary objection to Vince Illuzzi as auditor.  I am not talking about his somewhat quixotic tendency to eye higher office, which causes him to lack commitment to the job at hand; nor am I speaking of his intention to be what amounts to a “part time auditor.”  It is his very experience in the legislature that disqualifies him, in my book.

No elected office in state government should be more free of political baggage than that of the auditor.  The auditor’s job, unlike that of legislators, is not to compromise.  Deals traded on political capitol and the network of byzantine allegiances may work to free gridlock in the legislature, but they have no place in the auditor’s bag of tricks.

The best person for the job of auditor is the one who has both the skills to do the job and as few political strings attached as possible.  That person, hands down, is Doug Hoffer who approaches the job with a long history of effective, independent policy analysis, but without the encumbrances of political courtship carried by Vince Illuzzi.

And the best expression of these values comes in Doug Hoffer’ own words:

“I intend to post the entire office budget online including information about contracts with outside contractors, as well as the contracts themselves. I plan to tell Vermonters the cost of every audit in order to weigh the costs and benefits. And I will post a list of current and planned audits and reviews, as well as their anticipated completion dates

All of state government should be transparent, but the Auditor’s office has a special responsibility because of its charge. Vermonters deserve an Auditor who is committed to openness and I promise to do all I can to make that happen.”

Our morning friendly, the Freeploid (the Cafeteria Lady of Vermont journalism) delivered a heapin’ trayful of political news today. There was the unveiling of Randy Brock’s Dick In A — sorry, Business In A Box plan. There was a political roundup column. There were dueling op-eds from Brock and Governor Shumlin on health care.

And there was an overview of the race for Treasurer, accompanied by a pair of photographs that, considering their visual presentation, might well have been chosen by the VTGOP.

The article is headlined “CONFIDENT VERSUS CONCERNED.” Which refers to incumbent Beth Pearce’s certitude in the soundness of Vermont’s fiscal path, and challenger Wendy Wilton’s alarmism.

It is accompanied by photographs that present exactly the opposite image: a smiling Wilton standing outside the Statehouse on a gorgeous sunny day, and a frowny Pearce speaking in some indoor public setting.

With Governor Shumlin hovering directly behind her.

What do these two pictures tell us? That Wilton is a self-actualizer at home in the corridors of power; while Pearce is reticent if not downright mousy, and wields authority only through her relationship to an Alpha Male.

In the printed paper, the two photographs are the same size and placed side-by-side. On the Freeploid’s website, however, the WIlton photo is splashed across the top of the story, while the Pearce photo is smaller and tucked into the body of the article.

The article itself isn’t bad. But the visual presentation comes across as a covert bit of Republican propaganda. If it wasn’t meant as such, it was badly bungled by a layout designer who’s astoundingly clueless about the impact of images.  

When it comes to VTGOP chair Angry Jack Lindley, I’ve never applied my customary diagnosis when it comes to exaggerated political outrage — Bunched Knicker Syndrome, or BKS for short — because with Angry Jack, it’s not an occasional unexpected eruption; it’s a chronic condition. Like, say, male pattern baldness.

But although he isn’t a classic case of BKS, his frequent outbursts are still worth recording for posterity. And we had a doozy last week.

Now, usually I don’t bother much with True North Reports, the eyeball-hurting conservative “news and opinion” website that’s almost entirely opinion and very little news. But as I was researching yesterday’s piece on Lenore “Miss Daisy” Broughton, I clicked on over to True North.  And there, I found a piece by one Kevin Joseph Ryan about Secretary of State Jim Condos’ efforts to meet the federal deadline for getting absentee ballots to overseas military personnel. Vermont did pretty well; 94.5% of the ballots arrived on time. (Which Mr. Ryan rounded down to 94% in his headline.) By now, 100% have been delivered.

Which wasn’t good enough for Angry Jack, no sirree.

“Condos does not want people to vote or candidates to run. He’s made that very clear,” Lindley told TNR. “And, he doesn’t want to follow the law.”

Or, in other words, grump grump harrumph growl gnash ROAR.  

Okay, there’s a bit of cognitive dissonance at work here. Do you remember why there was a rush to get the ballots out on time? It was triggered by the uncertainty over the Progressive Party’s gubernatorial primary, which resulted in a recount request by write-in candidate Annette Smith.

By Vermont law, officials have to wait five days between the filing of a recount request and the onset of the recount. This waiting period can be waived if all parties agree.

The Dems and the Progs were agreeable. Smith was agreeable. But Angry Jack, in a fit of pique, refused to waive — showing no concern whatsoever for the voting rights of our military personnel.

Let’s look at the timeline. The Canvassers Committee approved the (revised) result on Thursday 9/6.  If the waiting period had been waived, the recount would have begun on Friday 9/7 and been completed no later than Monday 9/10. It would have been certified on Tuesday or Wednesday 9/11 or 9/12.

Thanks to Angry Jack’s shitfit, the recount didn’t commence until Thursday 9/13. It was completed the following day, but the presiding judge was out of town. He didn’t certify the result until Tuesday 9/18.

The federal deadline was 9/21, so Condos had only three days to get the final ballots to all of Vermont’s town clerks. His staff almost pulled it off, but not quite.

Other factors were involved, to be sure. But it’s indisputably true that if Angry Jack had agreed to waive the waiting period, the ballots would have gone out on schedule, and 100% of our military personnel would have received them on time. Instead of “only” 94.5%.

A word of advice to Angry Jack: think before you speak. Alternatively, STFU. You’re embarrassing yourself.  

There are two major economic and budgetary issues which Congress must address in the lame-duck session or soon afterward. First, how do we reverse the decline of the middle class and create the jobs that unemployed and underemployed workers desperately need? Second, how do we address the $1 trillion deficit and $16 trillion national debt in a way that is fair and not on the backs of the elderly, the children, the sick or the poor?

Both of these issues must be addressed in the context of understanding that in America today we have the most unequal distribution of income and wealth of any major country on earth and that the gap between the very rich and everyone else is growing wider. Today, the top 1 percent earns more income than the bottom 50 percent of Americans. In 2010, 93 percent of all new income went to just the top 1 percent. In terms of wealth, the top 1 percent owns 42 percent of the wealth in America while the bottom 60 percent owns just 2.3 percent.

In my view, we will not make progress in addressing either the jobs or deficit crisis unless we are prepared to take on the greed of Wall Street and big-money interests who want more and more for themselves at the expense of all Americans. Let’s be clear. Class warfare is being waged in this country. It is being waged by the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adeslon, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and all the others who want to decimate working families in order to make the wealthiest people even wealthier. In this class war that we didn’t start, let’s make sure it is the middle class and working families who win, not the millionaires and billionaires.

In terms of deficit reduction, let us remember that when Bill Clinton left office in January of 2001, this country enjoyed a healthy $236 billion SURPLUS and we were on track to eliminate the entire national debt by the year 2010.

What happened? How did we go from significant federal budget surpluses to massive deficits? Frankly, it is not that complicated.

President George W. Bush and the so-called “deficit hawks” chose to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, but “forgot” to pay for those wars — which will add more than $3 trillion to our national debt.

President Bush and the “deficit hawks” provided huge tax breaks to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans — which will increase our national debt by about $1 trillion over a 10-year period.

President Bush and the “deficit hawks” established a Medicare prescription drug program written by the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, but they “forgot” to pay for it — which will add about $400 billion to our national debt over a 10-year period.

Further, as a result of the greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior on Wall Street, this country was driven into the worst recession since the Great Depression which resulted in a massive reduction in federal revenue.

And now, as we approach the election and a lame-duck session of Congress, these very same Republican “deficit hawks” want to fix the mess they created by cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and education, while lowering income tax rates for the wealthy and large corporations. Sadly, they have been joined by some Democrats.

The fiscal crisis is a serious problem, but it must be addressed in a way that will not further punish people who are already suffering economically. In addition, it is absolutely imperative that we address the needs of 23 million Americans who are unemployed or underemployed.

What should working families of this country demand of Congress in response to these crises? Let me be specific:

First, at a time when the effective tax rate for the rich is the lowest in decades, we must repeal the Bush tax breaks for the top 2 percent which will reduce the deficit by $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

Second, we must recognize that Wall Street caused the economic crisis, and that it has a responsibility to reduce the deficit. Establishing a 0.03 percent Wall Street speculation fee, similar to what we had from 1914-1966, would dampen the dangerous level of speculation and gambling on Wall Street, encourage the financial sector to invest in the productive economy and reduce the deficit by $350 billion over 10 years. Importantly, this fee, like similar levies in many other countries, would not apply to ordinary investors, retirees or parents saving to send their kids to college. Rather, it would apply to Wall Street investment houses, hedge funds and speculators who sell credit default swaps, derivatives and operate other risky financial schemes that nearly brought down the entire economy.

Third, we have got to prohibit offshore tax shelters. Each and every year, the United States loses an estimated $100 billion in tax revenues due to offshore tax abuses by the wealthy and large corporations. The situation has become so absurd that one five-story office building in the Cayman Islands is now the “home” to more than 18,000 corporations. According to a recent report by James Henry, a former chief economist at McKinsey, the wealthiest people in the world are hiding between $21 trillion to $32 trillion in offshore tax havens to avoid paying taxes. About a third of this amount, according to one estimate, is from wealthy Americans. The wealthy and large corporations should not be allowed to avoid paying taxes by setting up tax shelters in Panama, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, the Bahamas or other tax haven countries. Cracking down on these tax evaders could reduce the deficit by about $1 trillion over the next decade.

Fourth, at a time when we have almost tripled military spending since 1997 and spend nearly as much on the military as the rest of the world combined, we must reduce unnecessary and wasteful spending at the Pentagon. According to a number of experts, the Pentagon today cannot account for hundreds of billions of dollars in its budget. Even Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), perhaps the most conservative senator in this country, believes that we could reduce defense spending by $1 trillion over a 10-year period while ensuring that the United States continues to have the strongest and most powerful military in the world.

Fifth, we have got to eliminate tax breaks for companies shipping American jobs overseas. Today, the United State government, despite our losing over 55,000 factories in the last 10 years, continues to reward companies that move U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas through loopholes in the tax code. Eliminating these loopholes would raise more than $582 billion in revenue over the next ten years and bring jobs back home to America.

What else? Ending corporate welfare for big oil, gas and coal companies; requiring Medicare to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices; taxing capital gains and dividends the same as work; establishing a progressive estate tax; and eliminating waste, fraud and abuse at every agency in the federal government would reduce spending by more than $350 billion and raise a significant amount of revenue without harming the middle class.

Taking these steps would reduce the deficit by more than $5 trillion.

Finally, and importantly, with these kinds of savings we could invest aggressively in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels and restoring our manufacturing base. That investment could create millions of decent paying jobs, make our country more productive and help us lead the world in addressing the crisis of global warming.

Despite what virtually all Republicans and some Democrats want, we must not balance the budget on the backs of a collapsing middle class or the poorest people in our society.

Despite what virtually all Republicans and some Democrats want us to ignore, we must create the millions of jobs working families still desperately need.

The American people have been very clear, in poll after poll, that they do not want to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans’ needs, education and other vitally important programs. They also have been clear that they do want the wealthy and large corporations to start paying their fair share of taxes. This agenda, the agenda of the American people, is what I will be taking into the lame-duck session. I ask for your support.