Commenting Thursday on the attacks on his health care plan and the national conservative effort to stop it, Governor Shumlin said:

“You’re going to see a lot of big interests coming, the insurance companies and others who want to ensure that we fail, not because they really care about the little state of Vermont, but because they know that if the pony gets out of the shed in the state of Vermont, the stallion could get out of the shed in California and New York and other big states where governors say to me ‘Wow! We want to know more about what you’re doing there, because it looks really interesting.’”

There is a conservative anti-healthcare bear in the woods, and he’s advising gubernatorial candidate Randy Brock. Randy’s out-of-state anti-healthcare bear is Tarren Bragdon, who comes to Vermont via Maine and Florida. Some of this isn't news at GMD but it (ahem) bears repeating. Given the more than two-to-one lead in the polls Shumlin enjoys, Brock’s campaign could well shape up to be as much about killing health care reform as about winning the governorship.

In Maine, thanks to Bragdon’s favored changes, insurance companies are now allowed to charge higher rates for very sick people and for sicker policy holders who live in rural areas, according to VtDigger.

Bragdon, who used to head the Maine Heritage Policy Center, played a significant role in crafting and garnering support for LD 1333, the controversial Maine law that made sweeping changes to the state’s health insurance laws and allowed out-of-state providers to sell plans there.

Bragdon did not offer specifics but said some aspects of Randy-care could mirror those in Maine.

Following his [cough] triumph in Maine, he headed south. In Florida, a study by Bragdon’s group, Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA), supported a proposal that required state welfare recipients to submit to drug testing in order to get their checks. Tarren Bragdon addressed an American Legislative Council (ALEC) symposium about the Florida effort. Eventually, the Florida rule was thrown out by a Bush-appointed judge. The FGA does not disclose what businesses, groups or individuals provide their funding.

It looks like Randy Brock hired an out-of-state anti-healthcare bear and has now let it loose in Vermont. However, given the national conservative bloodlust to stop healthcare reform, and considering polls that show Shumlin with a very substantial lead … maybe it’s not too farfetched to suggest that an anti-healthcare bear has enlisted Brock for its own purposes.  

Dear oh dear. I’ve annoyed our Attorney General. Well, either me or someone using the same words I used.

See, earlier this week I posted a diary entitled “Someone’s been fluffing Bill Sorrell’s Wikipedia page,” which noted (a) that an unknown person (IP address 24.147.92.129, come on down!) had filled Sorrell’s Wikipedia entry with pro-Bill puffery, and (b) that the entry, and Sorrell himself, are greatly exaggerating his role in the 1997 multi-state tobacco settlement.

So, at his campaign kickoff event on Wednesday, he again touted his role in the settlement — “several times,” according to VTDigger.

Seems a bit sad that a 15-year officeholder has to brag so much about something that happened in his first month on the job, but never mind.

After the jump: reality and revisionism.

In my previous diary, I referenced the history of the tobacco case and noted that, while Sorrell did, in fact, file suit within a month of taking office, he did so “at a time when Attorneys General were jumping on the bandwagon as quickly as they could.”

Now, a passage from the Digger account:

Sorrell’s critics have suggested he jumped on the bandwagon on a suit already in the works, but he denies the claim, calling that charge “revisionist history.”

All righty then. Let’s look at the timeline and see who’s doing the revising.

The first state filed suit in 1994. There was a slow trickle of new filings over the ensuing 20 months or so. Then, Liggett settled with the first four states. That led a bunch of others to file in 1996.

Then, Liggett settled with all the states that had sued since its first settlement. That touched off a land rush of states filing their own cases. Let’s lay it out for all to see.

March 1997: Liggett settles with a total of 20 states.

April 14: Alaska files suit.

April 22: Pennsylvania files.

May 1: Bill Sorrell becomes Vermont AG.

May 5: Montana and Arkansas file.

May 8: Ohio files.

May 9: South Carolina files. A tobacco state, for Pete’s sake.

May 10: Missouri files.

May 21: Nevada files.

May 27: New Mexico files.

May 29: Vermont files.

June 4: New Hampshire files.

June 5: Colorado files.

June 10: Oregon files.

June 12: California files.

June 16: Puerto Rico files.

June 18: Maine and Rhode Island file.

June 20: The tobacco companies and the state attorneys general announce a landmark $368.5 billion settlement. Such a complex deal must have been in the works before Bill Sorrell joined the case. And even if, somehow, dozens of states and the entire tobacco industry miraculously pulled this off in three weeks’ time, is it credible to believe that the brand-new AG of a very small state played an important role in the deal? No, not at all.

Vermont was the 30th state to file suit. It was the 10th in the parade of states that filed shortly after the Liggett deal. “Jumping on the bandwagon” may be an overly playful term for it, but this was clearly something that every attorney general in the country was getting in on.

Filing suit was the right thing to do, and it’s to Sorrell’s credit that he did so almost as soon as he took office. But It took no leadership and no original thought for him to join the parade. He deserves some credit, but he’s claiming a whole lot more than he deserves.

Conclusion: If anyone in this case is a revisionist historian, it’s Bill Sorrell.  

Music tributes are usually Kestrel’s territory; but blind Bluegrass teller-of tales Doc Watson, who died today at 89, was special to my family.  

My husband introduced me gently to his inclination toward old time country music when he wooed me to the strains of Watson’s “Frog Went a-Courtin’ ” forty years ago.  He’d been a huge fan since the 60’s.  To this day, we probably have more Doc Watson CD’s in the car, on the counter and in the bookcase, than those of any other artist.

We are fortunate to have seen Doc perform in a tiny theater in Evanston, Illinois, late in the 1970’s, with his son Merle who pre-deceased him in 1985.   Then, when our own son was a young teenager, we took him to see the legendary folk singer perform in Burlington; this time with his grandson, Richard.

‘Sure wish we could do that again.

Barre Mayor Republican Thom Lauzon early on established what he describes a “great relationship” with Democratic Governor Shumlin.He lobbied heavily to get a deal on locating state employees in his economically challenged city of Barre. Now it seems the mayor, who is a trained accountant is placing some hedge bets with his political endorsement capital. (It should be noted that the colorful Mayor Lauzon was the 2009 winner of the coveted GMD Sockeye Salmon Award)

Earlier this week before of any Republican entered the race, Lauzon invested in an endorsement of Democrat TJ Donovan. Donovan is taking on longtime attorney general Democrat Bill Sorrell in a primary.Today Seven Days' Fair Game has more on the Barre mayor. To start off his hedging fun, Lauzon comments with almost equal parts of snide and respect on possible Republican AG candidate Jack McMullen

Was he [McMullen] the one who had the primary against Fred Tuttle?

And then adds

I have a lot of respect for Jack as a person, but I’ve not had the opportunity to work with him in the context of the skill set you need as attorney general — and I have had the opportunity to work with T.J. Donovan,

Lauzon’s hedging on the race for governor could prove a riskier hedge of political capital. The mayor coyly offers that years back he once supported a Democrat (Tom Salmon) in a statewide race for auditor of accounts against a Republican. The Republican was Randy Brock. When asked the obvious question, would he endorse Shumlin, Lauzon says:

“I will confirm that I’ve had conversations with the governor’s staff,” Lauzon says. “They’ve asked about an endorsement, and I’m considering it. That’s not a knock against anyone.”  

With Republican friends like this candidate Randy Brock better stop worrying about bears in the woods.  

Oh, wow. Oh, no. Oh, man. I missed this little tidbit when it was first reported by the Associated Press a few days ago. Buried deep in an article about the Sorrell/Donovan Dem primary for Attorney General was this little gem:

So far no Republican candidate has entered the race, though Burlington businessman Jack McMullen said Monday that he would probably enter if he can put a campaign team together.

Jack Bleepin’ McMullen. Now, there’s a name from the past. For those just joining us, McMullen was the Massachusetts millionaire who moved to Vermont in 1998 and launched a candidacy for U.S. Senate. And was humiliatingly defeated in the Republican primary by the late great dairy farmer Fred Tuttle. And then ran again for Senate in 2004 and managed to win the primary, only to get his ass whipped by Pat Leahy, 71%-25%.

I guess the statute of limitations on political embarrassment has run out. Either that, or the VTGOP is truly desperate to fill out its statewide ticket. Or both.

Jack McMullen. Sheesh.

p.s. McMullen has a law degree, but has he ever practiced law? Is he a licensed attorney in the state of Vermont?

Awww. Connoisseurs of political schadenfreude will be disappointed to learn that Sen. Vince Illuzzi (D/R, Bumptious) has decided not to run for Vermont Attorney General. The Freeps’ politics blog, vtBuzz, reports that Illuzzi has narrowed his options to two: run for re-election to the Senate, or seek the Auditor’s seat about to be abandoned by Tom Salmon (D/R, Opportunist). WCAX-TV, meanwhile, says Illuzzi is leaning toward Auditor, which has the two advantages of (1) a full-time salary and (2) a departing incumbent who’s set the performance bar very low.

Either Illuzzi finally realized that his history of ethical troubles would be a huge hindrance in a run for AG, or he saw a better opportunity in the Auditor’s contest.  His fundamental assumption, I guess, is that he is innately qualified to hold any elective post in the state; it’s simply a matter of which office he will deign to hold.

Illuzzi’s AG abjuration, wise though it may have been, does leave another hole in the crazy-quilt Republican ticket for 2012.  

The filing deadline for this fall’s election is June 14, a bit more than two weeks away. And here’s how things stand for the VTGOP. (Hint: not a pretty picture.)

Governor: Randy Brock, trailing Peter Shumlin by a 2-1 margin in the latest poll with few undecideds, and running a hard-right campaign aimed at that solid bedrock 30% conservative electorate.

Lieutenant Governor: The only bright spot, Phil Scott, popular incumbent. The Dems may not even nominate a candidate.

AG: Haven’t heard any Republican names, As flawed as Illuzzi was, he had more name recognition than any other potential candidate. It’s looking more and more like the real contest for AG is the Democratic primary.

Treasurer: The Great White Hope, and sworn enemy of ShummyCare, Wendy Wilton. (Well, Emerson Lynn sees her as the Repubs’ GWH. Think he’s all alone there.)

Secretary of State: No names out there. Can the GOP find someone willing to lose big to Jim Condos? A young conservative looking to build a resume?

Auditor: The Republicans are reduced to mooning over Tom Salmon. Hey, there’s Vince Illuzzi, waving his arms in the air like the smarty-pants kid in second grade: “Pick me, pick me!” Senator Kevin Mullin is also pondering a run.

US Senate: John MacGovern and H. Brooke Paige want the privilege of giving Bernie Sanders a chance at his biggest-ever margin of victory.

Congress: Ditto Mark Donka running against Peter Welch.

Of the Senate and Congressional hopefuls, here’s an encouraging word courtesy of vtBuzz:

Vermont Republican Party Chairman Jack Lindley said he doesn’t know any of the candidates.

Yeah, and he can’t find anybody better. Wow. This isn’t exactly a ticket designed to lift up the GOP’s legislative candidates. No wonder the Republicans are so ornery this year.  

Content deleted, user banned.

Funny doings over at Wikipedia. Until early May, Bill Sorrell’s page was basically a stub — a couple paragraphs of basic biographical material, nothing more. Then, between May 4 and 6, there were eleven separate edits, each adding information that was completely one-sided, and always flattering to Sorrell.  

All eleven edits were made from the same IP address, 24.147.93.129, which traces to South Burlington. Aside from this burst of edits, 24.147.92.129 has done almost nothing on Wikipedia.

Thanks to 24.147.92.129’s literary efforts, Bill Sorrell’s Wikipedia page has been turned into a fluff piece extolling his accomplishments large and small and completely omitting any negatives or controversies. (Not a word about Vermont Yankee or campaign finance, for instance.)  One of his “major accomplishments” is so vastly overstated that it’s entirely misleading.

It’s a statement that is repeated in Sorrell’s own campaign puffery. It concerns his role in the multi-state settlement with the tobacco industry. Here it is, as it appears on Wikipedia (as of Tuesday May 29 at 7:00 a.m., in case 24.147 gets busy again):

Within weeks of taking office, Sorrell brought suit against the nation’s largest tobacco companies to end their deceitful behavior of lying about the harmful effects of their products.

The lawsuit resulted in a historic settlement with Big Tobacco that to date has yielded over $300 million dollars for Vermont taxpayers; and, as a result of Bill’s leadership*, Big Tobacco will continue to pay Vermont approximately $25 million dollars a year in perpetuity.

*A curiously familiar phrase there: “as a result of Bill’s leadership.” You don’t usually see Wikipedia postings on a first-name basis.

We’ll get to the truth momentarily. But first, here’s a curiously similar passage from Sorrell’s campaign website:

As Attorney General, only a matter of weeks after taking office, I filed suit against the country’s largest tobacco companies for lying about the addictive qualities of cigarettes, marketing to children and causing the expenditure of millions of dollars of Vermont taxpayer money each year to treat tobacco-related illnesses.  The settlement of the case has resulted in payments of approximately $300 million to the state and these payments of approximately $25 million per year are to continue forever.

There’s a lot of word-swapping between the two versions, but in terms of shape, thrust, and meaning, they are identical. It’s hard to imagine that 24.147 could have written the Wikipedia entry without using Sorrell’s own statement as a template. (It could have happened the other way around as well, but I hope Bill Sorrell hasn’t been reduced to cadging his campaign material from Wikipedia.)

After the jump: the truth about the tobacco settlement.

Now, aside from the issue of Wiki-fluffing, there’s a larger question: how much credit should Bill Sorrell get for the tobacco settlement? The historical record suggests that he’s claiming far more than he deserves.

(The following information largely taken from a PBS Frontline history of the tobacco lawsuits.)

The first state lawsuit was brought in 1994 by the AG of Mississippi. Three other states joined by early 1995. About a year later, the Liggett Group reached its own settlement with five states and numerous private plaintiffs. That touched off a series of filings; 14 more states joined the party by the end of 1996.

In March 1997, Liggett settled with the rest of the states that had filed suit by then. That touched off a flood of filings; 18 states filed in May and June alone.

Bill Sorrell took office as Vermont AG on May 1, 1997 (according to his Wikipedia page, heh). Vermont filed its tobacco suit on May 29. It was the 10th state in that flood of 18. So, the truth is, Sorrell filed suit a few weeks after taking office — but he did so at a time when Attorneys General were jumping on the bandwagon as quickly as they could. It took no particular “leadership” on Sorrell’s part.

The tobacco settlement was announced not long thereafter, on June 20, 1997. These things take a lot of time, and the deal had obviously been in the works long before May 29. It’s unlikely that Sorrell had much to do with it aside from signing his name.

There’s an Associated Press article about the Sorrell/Donovan primary race which includes an interestingly written account of Sorrell’s boast.

During his tenure, Sorrell said, he ushered hundreds of millions of dollars into the state through enforcement actions, including the tobacco settlement, which will bring $25 million a year to the state for as long as the tobacco industry is in business.

That much is true. He “ushered in” the big bucks, the same way an usher shows you to your seat in a theater. Which is a long way from asserting that the usher produced the evening’s entertainment.

I hope our ever-diligent Vermont political media will closely question Mr. Sorrell on the truth of the tobacco settlement. While they’re at it, maybe they can track down 24.147.93.127.

That, apparently, is what the Republican Party believes, including the most prominent conservatives in Vermont. Because in spite of their anti-tax rhetoric, they would really, really like to raise taxes on the poor and working class.

Sheesh. And they accuse liberals of engaging in class warfare.

I’ve reported the following comments before in this space, but I think they deserve to be spotlighted. Especially since they are part of a nationwide trend.

First, Bruce Lisman of the allegedly nonpartisan (but clearly conservative) Campaign for Vermont. This is from a 2010 speech in Burlington, previously documented here.

“The taxpaying base is quite thin. Because of the progressive nature of it, there’s a cutoff that excludes more than 50% of potential taxpayers from paying taxes. My view: I think everyone is either in the enterprise or they’re not. You’d want everyone to pay something in.”

That’s double mendacity, but we’ll come back to Cousin Brucie. Right now, we turn to presumptive Republican gubernatorial candidate Randy Brock, from the Issues page of his website:

Simplify the tax code and even the load by making sure everyone pays at least something.

That’s right: what Vermont needs is higher taxes for its poorest residents. And these aren’t just one-off, throw-away comments; they are part of a national pattern, as documented on Friday’s Rachel Maddow Show. Republicans nationwide, as well as in Vermont, are loudly and broadly putting forth the idea that Poor People Need To Pay More Taxes.

Republicans across the country, including Mitt Romney, are complaining about the fact that 47% — or maybe 50%, or 51%, or 53% — of all Americans are not paying income taxes. That statement is technically true but fundamentally misleading, and Republicans know that. Sometimes they get sloppy, like Bruce Lisman, and simplify it to “not paying taxes,” which is completely false.

After the jump: The truth about taxes.  

On the federal level, low-income Americans don’t pay income taxes because of deductions and the Earned Income Tax Credit — which is designed to encourage people to work, by allowing them to keep more of their meager paychecks*. But they still have to pay payroll taxes, including Social Security and Medicare. Those taxes hit low-income people proportionately harder.

*And here I thought Republicans wanted poor people to get off their duffs and work.

On the state level, the poorest Vermonters don’t pay income taxes — but they still pay property and sales taxes. Sales taxes hit them proportionately hard, because more of their income goes into buying the necessities of life.

Want some facts? According to a 2009 report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Vermont’s tax system is one of the least regressive in the nation. Meaning we give poor and working people a fairer deal than almost every other state. ITEP used figures from 2007, the newest available figures at the time, and found that — yes indeed — the bottom 20% of Vermonters paid no income tax. They actually received money back. And the next 20% paid only a fraction of a percent in income tax.

But even so, the poorest 20% paid a total of just over 8% of their income in total state and local taxes. The next 20% paid almost exactly 8% of income. For them, sales taxes took the biggest bite. The top 5% of all Vermonters paid about 7.5% of their incomes in local and state taxes. According to ITEP, everybody in Vermont pays roughly the same percentage of their income in state and local taxes. (The middle 20% are actually the hardest it, at about 9.4%). And the poor, proportionately, pay more than the rich.

So Randy Brock, Bruce Lisman, and all those other Republicans are lying about poor people and taxes.

Let’s say that again, all caps: THEY ARE LYING.

Why are they doing this? It’s one of the most reprehensible of Republican tactics: trying to spark middle-class resentment against the poor. Yep, class warfare.

And, looking at the big picture for a moment, this is one more sign that Randy Brock is running a hard-right, tea party-style campaign. He has claimed that Peter Shumlin is the most liberal governor in Vermont history, which is balderdash. But the way he’s going, Randy Brock may be the most conservative gubernatorial candidate in state history.  

I tell ya, I’m on the edge of my seat. Can’t hardly breathe. So, you may ask, why all the anticipation?

Randy Brock is about to unveil his health care plan.

Yes, folks, RandyCare is on the way! And as you might expect, it’ll be a free-market system — a conservative alternative to Governor Shumlin’s plan.

Brock won’t reveal the full plan until next month, but he made his pre-announcement at the Republican convention on May 19. It’s only now been reported by Peter Hirschfeld at the Vermont Press Bureau. (Published in the May 25 Times Argus, available online here. Thanks to BP for the link.) Why nobody reported it until now, and why nobody else has reported it at all — well, that tells you all you need to know about the state of the Vermont news media.

At the GOP’s convention Saturday, Brock revealed the rough outlines of his conservative take on health care reform. Less government intervention, not more, Brock said, will allow market forces to work their cost-containment magic.

Yes, “magic” is about the right word. As if the free market will solve all our health-care problems. As if the free market hasn’t been responsible for the costly, inefficient, and sadly inadequate system we’ve got today.

“There is no question that we need to reform our health care system to corral runaway costs … But only a Democrat would think solving those problems requires a government takeover of the whole system,” Brock said. “What government really needs to do is to aggressively recruit lots of new insurance companies to come to Vermont so consumers have more plans to choose from.”

Only a Republican would think solving those problems requires more of the free-market juju that’s put us in the mess we’re in today. And as for recruiting new insurance companies, I have two thoughts:

— This ain’t a football coach schmoozing high-schoolers. “Recruiting,” in this context, surely means “gutting regulatory oversight and letting insurance companies do whatever they want.”

— More isn’t necessarily better. Which would you rather choose from: 500 unvetted, poorly-regulated insurance plans, each outlined in mountains of legalese? Or a couple dozen plans reviewed and approved by experts?

Elsewhere in his speech, Brock hit on all the conservative talking points about health care: tort reform, slashing regulation, and allowing high-deductible CrapCare policies that only cover catastrophic conditions.

Oh, but I haven’t gotten to the good part yet. Brock is developing RandyCare with a team of advisors, many of them so-called “conservative luminaries” from out of state.

One of them is identified in the article, and he’s a real piece of work. Details after the jump.  

Meet Tarren Bragdon, young conservative on the move. He ran a policy shop in Maine that advised Paul LePage, the Tea Party-backed Republican Governor*, on how to institute a “free-market” health system. The result, a bill called LD 1333, was passed buy the Republican Legislature and signed into law by LePage.

*The one who sneaked into office in 2010 with only 38% of the vote, in an election that included a very strong independent candidate.

Here’s what the Maine Politics blog said about the effects of LD 1333 when it was pending before the Legislature. This is presumably what Tarren Bragdon and Randy Brock want for Vermont:

L.D. 1333 would repeal many of Maine’s basic health care consumer protections, allow out-of-state insurers to market policies in Maine without a way to enforce those policies and make sure claims are paid, undermine access to quality affordable health care for older Mainers, rural residents, people with pre-existing conditions and small businesses through significant rate hikes based on where you live or your age.

Sounds peachy, doesn’t it? Sounds like Randy Brock is fully committed to the Tea Party/Koch Brothers style Republican politics of 2012.

But wait, there’s more! Last spring, Tarren Bragdon packed up and moved to Florida, where he founded a new policy shop that’s worked closely with Gov. Rick Scott (R-Asshat). His group was responsible for the bill that would require welfare recipients to be drug-tested. (It would have already required testing, except that it’s been blocked by a judge.)

Yeah, nice guy. And he’s helping Randy Brock shape his policy agenda. There are also a few locals on Brock’s team, and they’re exactly who you might expect: El Jefe General John McClaughry of the Ethan Allen Institute; Wendy Wilton, GOP candidate for Treasurer and staunch critic of Shumlin’s health care plan; and Dr. Mel Boynton, surgeon at Rutland Hospital who’s on the advisory council of the Ethan Allen Institute. A real rogues’ gallery of hard-right Vermont politics.

I don’t think we have to worry about Randy Brock taking my advice and trying to appeal to the center.

Oops, almost forgot one other little tidbit about Tarren Bragdon. When he moved to Florida, he bought a house in Ave Maria — the archconservative Catholic enclave conceived, built, and controlled by Tom Monaghan, the nutball from my home state of Michigan who founded Domino’s Pizza and, since he sold the company, has devoted himself to an extremely devout lifestyle and devoted his fortune to bankrolling conservative Catholic causes. And that’s where Tarren Bragdon feels at home.