Members of the General Assembly, distinguished guests, fellow Vermonters:

Thank you for getting to work so quickly. This is the earliest budget address in a decade, enabling us to accomplish the important work Vermonters sent us to do and adjourn in a timely fashion. Since my budget is being presented before the official revenue forecast is updated, refinements may be required if projections change significantly.

Today, I present a budget that makes the necessary choices to match our spending with Vermonters’ ability to pay. This is a balanced budget that protects our most vulnerable, strategically invests new dollars in making Vermont the education state, and builds on our strong jobs future.

Last year, we made tough choices to close a $176 million gap. Today, I present a budget that closes a $51 million shortfall without raising broad-based taxes on hardworking Vermonters who continue to struggle to make ends meet.  This budget also preserves programs for Vermont’s most vulnerable: our seniors, Vermonters with disabilities, our children, and those who live in poverty.  

We face two challenges this year: to rebuild this state better than Irene found us, and to continue to build our bright jobs future. To those who say we can’t do both at the same time, I say: we must.

We start by getting credit to entrepreneurs when they need it most. In partnership with Treasurer Beth Pearce, we are asking the legislature to increase the state’s moral obligation support for VEDA by up to $30 million.

Next, with over 600 historic buildings in our downtowns flooded by Irene, many Vermonters who were put out of work are counting on us. I am proposing an additional $500,000 in downtown tax credits. Each dollar leverages 16 additional dollars in job creation, and every million dollars creates 110 new jobs.

For the municipalities hit by Irene, I recommend we provide assistance in two ways: first, my budget increases the state match for town highways on the federal aid system. Second, for those towns whose storm damage completely overwhelms their ability to pay, the state will pay your entire share of the FEMA match. My message to towns is clear: we stand with you all the way as we rebuild together.

Many individuals and communities are facing tough decisions about whether to rebuild in flood plains.  The FEMA buyout program only covers 75 percent of the pre-disaster property value. The goal is for the state to cover the remaining 25 percent where needed. Through the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board we will provide a minimum of $2 million in matching funds for Vermonters who seek buyouts for destroyed homes and towns who seek flood mitigation.

Vermont’s transportation infrastructure pre-Irene was crumbling before our eyes. We will take the lessons from Irene to rebuild our roads, bridges, and rail stronger, faster, and more affordably. My budget proposes the largest transportation program in Vermont history by adding $45 million to desperately needed paving and bridge projects. It also increases town highway aid by $1.5 million, the first such increase in six years.

We must turn the devastating flooding at our state office complex into opportunity by building efficient, effective, green state workspace for the future.

The following principles must inform our decisions as we consider how to rebuild:

One, when making capital investments of taxpayer dollars of this magnitude in real estate, facts really matter: weighing the cost of each of our options is critical.

Two, with more intense storms looming large in our climate change future, our investments must be protected from getting washed away by future storms.

Three, we will use this opportunity to co-locate and integrate state agencies that share a common mission.

I recommend the following actions:

First, it should be clear from the effective collaboration of the past four months that the Agencies of Transportation, Natural Resources, and Commerce be co-located and integrated on a permanent basis. It makes sense to consolidate them in space that we are currently leasing at National Life in Montpelier.

Second, the Department of Education is currently functioning in two different locations in central Vermont, inhibiting efficiency and collaboration. I recommend relocating the Department of Education to the office building being proposed in the heart of Barre by Mayor Lauzon, Representative Poirier and others. This action will help revitalize Barre’s downtown and return it to a vibrant center for commerce and job creation.

Third, the Agency of Human Services is scattered between Washington and Chittenden Counties. This inhibits our ability to provide seamless and integrated service to the people who need state government most. I ask you to support me in reuniting AHS into one location in central Vermont.

My first choice is to unite them in Waterbury. Before we make that decision, we must first ensure that we can keep it dry and modernize the workspace affordably.

Rebuilding in Waterbury would be ideal. My administration, working with the legislature, will move as quickly as we possibly can, as our architects and engineers develop the multiple scenarios under consideration.

Whatever the outcome, it is unlikely that the significant costs incurred will be entirely covered by FEMA or insurance. That’s why I am requesting that the House and Senate Institutions Committees redirect $18 million of previously approved projects to help cover the investments that lie ahead.

***

Irene has also delivered an opportunity to create an outstanding mental health system for Vermont.  

We will not return to the State Hospital, whose decrepit condition did not dignify our most vulnerable Vermonters or high quality of care provided by our state employees. Since that fateful August day when we evacuated the hospital, we have worked tirelessly with our mental health community – state employees, community providers, hospitals and designated agencies, to put in place a plan to address our short-term crisis and design a long-term solution.

Guided by the simple principle that quality care for the patient is our top priority, we will expand community services, increase peer services, enhance hospital care regionally, and build a new state of the art facility.

In our effort to achieve mental health parity, it is inexcusable that we require patients seeking acute care for mental illness to travel far from home to receive it. Our plan allows for acute care and community-based care in multiple locations throughout Vermont to keep patients close to home.

While we should be proud of our collective response since our hospital was flooded, let us not forget that we remain in a crisis situation. While we have been fortunate to avert disaster or loss of life thus far, that could change at any moment.

I appreciate your commitment to address this emergency in an expedited fashion. Your authorization of the acute care beds at the Brattleboro Retreat, Rutland Regional, and in Windsor County cannot happen soon enough. Vermont’s taxpayers will be relieved to learn that most of these costs will likely be paid for by FEMA. We must also break ground on our new state 16-bed state operated facility in central Vermont this summer. I am counting on you to put a bill on my desk by February 17 that implements this plan and moves us from crisis management to quality care.

***

Some critics have argued that this session we must limit any discretionary spending to only Irene-incurred expenses. I say: we must not pit Vermonters against Vermonters. We must not say to our low-income seniors in Springfield that we can’t provide heating assistance to keep them warm this winter because Irene did not impact them directly. We must not tell small businesses in the Northeast Kingdom that they don’t deserve support or a struggling dairy farmer in Swanton that we can’t help them stay in farming because they were not impacted by Irene. Pitting Vermonter against Vermonter is not the Vermont way, it’s not Vermont Strong, and we must not do it.  

***

Building the best education system in the country will create jobs.

My budget proposal includes a $282 million appropriation to the Education Fund. For the second year in a row, we are increasing Education Fund dollars, this year by $6 million, in our effort to hold the line on property taxes.

Recognizing that in recent years, Vermonters gathering at town meeting have chosen to spend more per pupil than almost any other state in America, I commend our local school boards for holding the line on new spending over the past two years and urge them to do it again. Rising property taxes continue to be a tremendous burden for Vermonters struggling in this recovery, and a failure by local boards to hold the line again will result in unacceptable property tax increases. As student enrollment continues to decline, we are finally seeing a downward trend in the number of teachers and staff, which should make level funding our school budgets even more achievable.

I am a strong supporter of local control. I firmly believe that we in Montpelier should never live under the illusion that we should decide which schools stay open and which schools consolidate. However, we can save money and retain local control by cutting administrative costs and consolidating supervisory unions.  Senator Kevin Mullin has proposed consolidating our 60 supervisory unions, reducing bureaucracy and saving taxpayers roughly $9 million each year.  This bold proposal deserves your consideration.

Your recently released school funding study demonstrates that, through Act 68, Vermont has found more success than any other state in converting the regressive property tax into fair education funding.

Now is our time to move on from the old battles about whether our financing system works. The opportunity now is to partner with our locally controlled education community to do the more important and difficult job of enhancing creativity and quality for every student.

Our challenge is two-fold. First, despite our progress in achieving equity, educational achievement continues to stubbornly track family income. Second, our delivery system leans too heavily on the rigid model that time spent together in class with blackboard and pencil will collectively result in acquisition of skills for our diversity of learners.

From early education to higher education and technical school, we have among the most innovative offerings in the country. By creating a seamless system that allows each student to take advantage of these offerings, we will achieve excellence. However, we have to have the courage to do some things differently.

We must start by elevating the Commissioner of Education to the Secretary of Education, appointed by the governor.

We must also continue to partner with our local communities to expand access to pre-K education. Last year, we lifted the cap that gives every community equal access to quality pre-K education. Continuing to build universal pre-K in Vermont will assure a strong start for every student.

Flexibility is critical for all students, and I strongly believe that expanding our limited school choice to all of our public high schools in Vermont will enhance innovation. Additionally, allowing high school juniors and seniors to take college courses for college credit wherever they choose will make higher education more affordable for low- and middle-income, first-generation students. This flexibility, with the money following the student, should be available to all high school juniors and seniors in Vermont.

In my travels to businesses across the state, I hear consistently a similar story: businesses are hiring, but they can’t find enough Vermonters with skills in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

To address this growing problem, I propose an $8 million innovation investment in the University of Vermont and the Vermont State Colleges. This one-time investment from the Higher Education Trust Fund will still leave the fund ten percent higher than last year.

Under my proposal, the University of Vermont will use its one-time investment of $4 million to undertake the following:

1. Expand successful university-industry partnerships, giving seniors the opportunity to get hands-on job experience with businesses and nonprofits.

2. Create an international center of excellence in complex systems at UVM that will enhance economic growth. The new multi-million dollar Sandia National Laboratory is just one example of the kind of innovation this investment will stimulate.  

3. Develop a program that facilitates the re-entry of critically needed science and engineering professionals back into our workforce. By targeting women who have temporarily left their fields, often to raise families, we can help retain already skilled workers.

The Vermont State Colleges will use its $4 million to:

1. Allow more high school students to enroll full-time in college during their senior year, saving their families money and getting a head start on finishing a college degree.

2. Create an applied educational institute supporting the renaissance in the agricultural and food production sectors.

3. Improve access to CCV and VTC in southern Vermont by supporting a consolidated academic center in downtown Brattleboro.  Both CCV and VTC School of Nursing now operate in antiquated leased space; this investment will be an economic shot in the arm for downtown Brattleboro, which has been hit hard by fires and floods.

We hear a lot about the need to invest in innovation and the future workforce; this is an opportunity to back our words with action, and I urge you to support these initiatives.

***

To build jobs, we know that strong, coordinated marketing of the Green Mountain State led by the Department of Tourism and Marketing, works.  Leaf peepers poured into Vermont despite Irene. To keep our tourism industry vibrant, my budget fully funds our marketing efforts.

Manufacturing in Vermont is showing signs of life. I have asked Secretary Lawrence Miller to lead an Advanced Manufacturing Initiative that will bring together education, industry, labor, and government to make recommendations about how to advance the manufacturing gains we are making.  

One way to grow jobs is to make sure our permit process is predictable, transparent and timely.   Secretary Markowitz and Natural Resources Board Chair Shems have been holding public meetings around the state, hearing from hundreds of Vermonters about what works and what should be improved in our permit process.

The message is clear: we need more efficiency and transparency. Under Act 250, when an applicant or neighborhood group makes their case before the local environmental commission, that should count for something.  I ask the legislature to require the environmental court to use the commission’s record of the hearing to settle an appeal, avoiding the costly and inefficient process of starting all over again.

***

Stewardship of our natural resources requires us to manage our wildlife and habitat by promoting hunting and fishing. Hunters and anglers have been the backbone of Vermont’s fish and wildlife conservation efforts for many years.  

Unfortunately, over the last seven years, General Fund dollars appropriated to the department have plummeted by almost 60 percent. As a lifelong hunter, I know firsthand how important hunting and fishing is to Vermont’s quality of life and economic success. It is clear to me that we can no longer rely solely on revenue from hunting and fishing licenses to adequately support our fish and wildlife resources. That is why my budget includes a 150 percent increase to $2.4 million to Fish and Wildlife, an investment that leverages nearly $8 million in federal dollars to ensure a bright future for Vermont’s sportsmen and women.

***

One year into our war on recidivism, we are seeing progress. Despite corrections spending doubling in the past decade, at an average cost of $48,000 per year per inmate, our incarcerated population is finally declining and is now at the same level as eight years ago. Our progress represents a $2.5 million savings since last year.

I propose reinvesting half of these savings to deliver on our promise of providing housing, counseling, job training, drug and alcohol prevention and treatment to non-violent offenders who have completed their sentences. This will add 93 community based treatment beds to help us win the war.

Our fight against prescription opiate addiction is directly related to our war on recidivism. There are three components to addressing this growing epidemic.

The first, as I outlined last week, is giving law enforcement access to the Prescription Drug Monitoring System.

Second, our Department of Health is creating a cutting edge system that will increase substance abuse treatment for the many Vermonters who desperately need it.

Third, we will work with prescribers to help them implement best practices to responsibly dispense addictive opiates.

***

A final word about my budget proposal: last year at this podium, I called on the legislature to raise our reserves to eight percent as soon as we return to better times. As the first step toward that goal, I am recommending a down payment of $3.1 million to the stabilization fund. Should revenues exceed our forecasts in future years, I will insist that we go the rest of the way to fulfill this commitment.

***

I know I have outlined an ambitious agenda to rebuild our state while we create a better economic future for all Vermonters. While I believe strongly in the principles and proposals I have outlined today, I also welcome your suggestions for improvement. This year, as last, we will work together in a bipartisan spirit to do our best for the state we love.

Thank you, let’s get to work.  

    To regulate:

To lay down the law. Begin controlling shit. Often By physical force/restraint.

"If he pulls that shit again, I'm gunna have to REGULATE that muh-fucka."

Urban Dictionary  

NRC Revising Approach to Japan Lessons-Learned Recommendations.

The NRC blog says they have the opportunity to improve implementation of the goals of the Japan Near-Term Task Force recommendations.Congress added specific requirements for the NRC to act “as expeditiously as possible” on these recommendations dealing with earthquakes and flooding. What offers the NRC this opportunity for improved implementation?

Last month the Nuclear Energy Institute laid out the nuclear power industry’s “FLEX” approach to addressing several recommendations. “FLEX” would create a diverse, flexible set of strategies for counteracting the effects of severe natural events that could exceed a plant’s design limits.

With care and great consideration the NEI has thoughtfully laid out a “flexible” (and probably financially painless) strategy for the nuclear power industries own regulation.

The NRC staff believes this approach is a reasonable starting point, although more work is needed on defining these strategies. We also must ensure the NRC can inspect how plants put the strategies in place and that we can hold plants accountable for keeping those strategies ready and available.

I can’t see it but hopefully, for safety sake there is some aggressive regulatory threat of enforcement here in plain sight. However speedy implementation looks unlikely as the NRC just wagged their bureaucratic tail at the thought of a little industry “FLEX” and endless discussion.  

File this under “arg.”

Senator Sanders has proposed an important amendment to the US Constitution to address the “corporate personhood” issue. Many of you probably received the same email I did from the Senator’s office promoting the effort, entitled “Overturning Citizens United.”

In the email are links to the Democracy for America website, which attempts to drum up support on the issue. The site says “Last month, Senator Bernie Sanders introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.”

Here is the intro language to Sanders’ Joint Resolution proposing the amendment (emphasis added):

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to expressly exclude for-profit corporations from the rights given to natural persons by the Constitution of the United States

The amendment specifies “for-profit” corporations.

Citizens United is a non-profit corporation.

As good and important an amendment as this is, it wouldn’t have applied to the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission specific case.

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

My my. Another lawsuit? Wow. As all VY watchers await the next chapter in the “VY v VT” lawsuit — that is the decision to be handed down by Judge Murtha, just when ya think we’re lawsuited-out, here comes another one.

– Currently, Entergy Louisiana is suing the state of VT claiming VT cannot stop the plant from operating if NRC has relicensed the plant.

– Previously, Entergy unsuccessfully attempted to recieve a court injunction to continue operation after the scheduled closure date of 3/12/2012 as the lawsuit winds its way through the courts.

– Some VY employees are suing VT claiming VT violated constitutional rights that they claim they are entitled to per the licenses they hold, that if they go to another plant they must reapply & are not guaranteed the positions they now hold.

– VT is also claiming VY license invalid because Entergy failed to include or seek the required water quality permit, appears NRC just rubberstamped the application.

Now VT utilities, GMP & CVPS are suing Entergy Louisiana claiming cooling tower collapse cost the utilities as well as ratepayers an unnecessary expense as a result of their negligence.

(See full press release below the fold.)

Press release via VTDigger:

http://vtdigger.org/2012/01/10…

CVPS, GMP sue Entergy-Vermont Yankee over cooling tower failures

by Press Release | January 10, 2012

For immediate release

January 10, 2012

Source

Marketwire

COLCHESTER, VT-(Marketwire – January 10, 2012) – Seeking to recover costs resulting from Vermont Yankee cooling tower failures in 2007 and 2008, the state’s two largest distribution utilities have filed a lawsuit against Entergy-Vermont Yankee (Entergy) in Vermont Superior Court in Windham County.

“This case arises out of Entergy’s breach of its contractual obligation to use ‘Good Utility Practice’ in its management and operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Station,” Central Vermont Public Service and Green Mountain Power said in a joint statement today. “Entergy’s failure to implement and exercise sound practices with respect to the maintenance, repair and improvements of the facility’s cooling towers caused tower failures in August 2007 and July 2008. The failures resulted in significantly reduced power output, which in turn deprived us of power due to us and our customers at specified, below-market prices.”

In the first instance, a tower failure on Aug. 21, 2007 caused the plant to reduce output by 65 percent for 11 days. A subsequent Nuclear Regulatory Commission investigation blamed the failure on over-tightened bolts and salt and fungal degradation that went undetected by Entergy. The NRC found the failure to find the problem was the result of Entergy’s reliance on “remote” inspections, rather than direct, hands-on inspections.

“In failing to carry out hands-on inspections, Entergy failed to take into account considerable and relevant industry operating experience that had previously identified the importance of that kind of direct examination,” CVPS and GMP said. “That led directly to the first tower failure.”

In the second tower failure in July 2008, the plant reduced output for 12 days. This failure was caused by failed pipe supports within the tower. In both cases, CVPS and GMP contend that Entergy’s failure to use “Good Utility Practice” led directly to the failures.

“The failures and omissions of Entergy in managing and operating Vermont Yankee led directly to both tower failures,” the companies said. “This was a clear breach of Entergy’s obligations under its power purchase agreement with CVPS and GMP.”

The companies are seeking compensatory damages of $6.6 million to cover increased power costs and lost capacity payments resulting from the tower failures, plus interest and all legal costs.

“We filed this action only after lengthy efforts to reach a settlement with Entergy,” the companies said. “Due to the statute of limitations and Entergy’s failure to accept responsibility for its failures and contract breaches, we reluctantly must take this action now.”

The companies have requested a trial by jury.

I know we’re all supposed to be on tenterhooks today, eagerly parsing the results from Dixville Notch and keeping our eyes glued to cable news to see who wins the New Hampshire primary. Can Mitt Romney hold on? Can Rick “Santorum” Santorum build on his Iowa momentum? Will Evil Newt gain a foothold? Will the state’s libertarian right give Ron Paul another boost? Is that Jon Huntsman I see riding in from the distance?  

Feh. And pfui. Doesn’t matter what happens tonight; Mitt Romney, ladies and gentlemen, is your Republican Presidential nominee. It’ll happen sooner or later, depending on exactly how things turn out tonight, but it’ll happen, for sure.

The primary race is about to kick into ridiculously high gear. You’ve got South Carolina and big-money Florida before the end of the month, and then it’s on to Super Tuesday on March 6 (your correspondent’s birthday, shared with Michelangelo and Ed McMahon) with ten states up for grabs. (Including plucky little Vermont.) Which means that Mitt’s big advantages — in money and organization — are about to become decisive.

None of his challengers can come close to equaling Mitt’s machine. They’re each just hoping to slow down the Mittmentum enough to give voters another chance to change their minds. Won’t happen. Object lessons: In 2000, John McCain got a big win in New Hampshire, only to get run over by the Bush train. And in 2004, John Kerry (many eerie similarities to Romney) sidestepped the doubts of the Dem faithful through the unstoppable velocity of the primary calendar.

Still, we’ve got pundits and reporters and bloggers and cable networks spinning out all kinds of scenarios, desperately trying to convince us that it’s not all over, that anything could still happen. That you really need to Tune In Tonight.

Why? Well, a blandly predictable outcome is a whole lot less fun than a dramatic surprise twist. Reporters are people, too — and yes, even pundits are people, somewhere beneath their reptilian facades. They like a good story. They want a good story. And the cable nets — they desperately need a good story. lest America turn its attention away from the chattering class and back to The Bachelor or The Next Iron Chef or Ice Truckers. “Jeezus,” you can imagine the cable panjandrums whispering, “We gotta have a story! Hell, American Idol’s about to come back!”

Pay them no heed. Relax and enjoy the inevitability of Mitt. And why should that prospect make liberals feel as comfy as a teddy bear in a Snuggie, even though Mitt is the only Republican who polls strongly against Obama? Come jump with me…  

Mitt Romney is the very embodiment of the man who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. He has never, ever had to worry about anything in his silver-spoon life. Well, we all find things to worry about — but he’s never really had anything to worry about, beyond mis-timing a short-sell order or leaving a few dollars behind when he looted a takeover target. He’s never faced existential dread, the real thing that makes you fear for your life or even wish you were dead.

In other words, he’s a soft target. And now he’s on the political equivalent of third base — not on his own merits, but thanks to the utter incompetence of the rest of the Republican field. If there was another Republican candidate who could tie his own goddamn shoes, he would have eaten Mitt’s (very expensive) lunch by now. As it is, Mitt is shambling unsteadily toward the inevitable when he should be enjoying a triumphal march to the convention.

And clearly, he’s beginning to think he hit a triple. And he’s allowing his innate boarding-school smugness to come shining through. “I like being able to fire people” — it should be a line for the ages, and Mitt blurted it out even before he actually won a single primary.

(As some pundits have been quick to point out, the line is being misinterpreted. But it reflects what we see as Mitt’s real character; you might say it’s truer than the truth. Just like Al Gore’s supposed brags about the Internet and “Love Story” or John Kerry’s “I voted for it before I was against it,” Mitt’s “I like firing people” rings true. It resonates.)

Stretching before him is a ten-month period of intense scrutiny. Plenty of time for complacency to take root, grow, and bear fruit. Guy like this, standing on third base with a self-satisfied smirk on his mug for ten months? Just imagine the stupid shit he’s going to say.

I don’t care what the polls say right now. If Obama can’t beat this presumptuous, overbearing Upper Class Twit, then he doesn’t deserve a second term.    

For the second time in four months, Andy Bromage of Seven Days has seen fit to fire a volley in the direction of GMD’s Dear Leader, John Odum. Don’t really know why Bromage is spending so much time on a mere blogger and (very part-time) news editor of a twice-monthly small-market free newspaper, but he apparently sees Odum as a notable threat to the standards and ethics of Vermont journalism.

(Such as they are.)

In August, Bromage wrote some highly critical words about Odum’s hiring as the (very part-time) news editor of The Bridge:  

John Odum has made a name for himself by mocking Republicans and cheerleading for Democrats on his popular politics blog Green Mountain Daily. He’s also worked as a paid political consultant, most recently for PowerThru Consulting, advocating for myriad progressive causes.

But now he’s donning a new title: news editor for Montpelier’s twice-monthly newspaper The Bridge. And Odum says that in his new role, he’ll check his opinions at the door and practice just-the-facts-ma’am journalism.

Then, on January 6, Bromage put up a post on “Blurt,” Seven Days’ staff blog, in which he made fun of Bridge publisher Nat Frothingham’s attempt to market a Statehouse column written by John Odum. Bromage reiterated his earlier precis of Odum’s resume, and wondered about “a perceived or actual conflict of interest.”

(Addendum: Not only did Bromage file this on “Blurt,” but 7D posted this story on its “Daily 7” for Monday 1/9. “Daily 7” is its e-mailed capsule of the top seven stories in Vermont news. Now, if the launch of Odum’s column is one of the biggest stories in the state, then either Seven Days is suffering from a severe perspective disorder, or we live in a really, really boring state. I vote for both.)

First, a quibble: if Bromage had paid any attention to Odum’s actual GMD posts, he would know that Odum is nothing like a cheerleader for the Dems. He is at least as likely to slam Dems/Libs/Progs as to wave the pompoms. Many of Odum’s GMD posts — especially compared to the ill-considered rants of the rest of us — are even-tempered and insightful. (Somehow, Odum gets stigmatized for anything that anybody writes on GMD, when he exercises virtually no editorial control whatsoever.)

Second, journalistic purity is pretty much a joke in Vermont. And Seven Days is one of the darker kettles in that rather inky kitchen.  

The whole notion of a firewall between journalism and advocacy in Vermont is completely laughable. Really, it’s S.O.P. to play both sides of that street. Indeed, it’s the only way for journalists to make any real money in a small state where mainstream journalistic enterprises are woefully underfunded.

Let’s take three cases far more egregious than Odum’s, because all three are far more famous and influential. One: Anson Tebbetts, first a reporter, then a Douglas Administration appointee, now News Director of WCAX-TV. I don’t recall anyone questioning his hiring. Two: Chris Graff, former Vermont Bureau Chief for the AP, now chief flack for National Life and simultaneously a frequent “political analyst” for a variety of media outlets, who somehow never acknowledge his massive potential conflict of interest.

Three: the late great Peter Freyne himself, the most outrageous of lefty opinionators and onetime flack for Democratic Gov. Madeleine Kunin. If Odum’s past disqualifies him from writing a politics column, then Freyne should never have been allowed to darken the doorways of Seven Days. Still, somehow, Freyne became a respected commentator and reporter who made significant contributions to Vermont journalism. If he can do it, then maybe — just maybe — we should give Odum a chance.

(Ironically, Freyne himself almost didn’t get the chance. In Seven Days’ obituary of Freyne, co-publisher Pamela Polston noted that after his tenure as Kunin’s spokesperson, “Peter’s reputation was sullied, and for quite some time he couldn’t find work in Vermont — as a journalist or anything else.” IMHO, it’s a damn good thing that Seven Days looked beyond the taint and gave Freyne an opportunity to shine.)

In fact, Odum’s work as writer and news editor for The Bridge has been exemplary. His articles have been fair and objective, and he has tried to explore issues and trends in the civic life of Montpelier that had heretofore gone unexplored. Bromage even acknowledged as much in his August screed about the alleged evils of Odum:

His first piece for the Bridge – a front-page article on legislative redistricting published on August 18 – might be the poster child for dry-but-important journalism. It’s a thoroughly reported piece on a complicated topic, and Odum even wrangled a quote from one of his frequent punching bags, former Vermont Republican Party chairman Rob Roper. Odum once called Roper a “wingnut” on GMD.  

Odum’s subsequent work has been of similar caliber. When Bromage again hefted his cudgel last week, I wish he had seen fit to either (a) provide examples of Odumian bias in The Bridge, or (b) admit that, so far, Odum’s doing a fine job as a “real” journalist.

Now, I will concede that hawking a politics column to Seven Days wasn’t the brightest thing Nat Frothingham has ever done. Seven Days is just about the only weekly in the state that isn’t a potential market for such a column, being the home of the Peter Freyne Memorial Chair In Journalistic Advocacy And Advocacy Journalism. But there’s absolutely nothing sinister about a small weekly trying to make a little money by selling something of value for a fair price. Nor is there a threat to Vermont’s journalistic purity in having John Odum write that column. Let it thrive or perish on its merits. (Or is Bromage afraid of a little competition, hmm?)

And if anyone should be embarrassed to don the mantle of Journalistic Guardian, it oughta be Seven Days. I like the paper, I read it every week, but it routinely ignores the line between opinion and reportage whenever it wants to. A snarky tone is, indeed, the very signature of the Seven Days style. Taking the lead in that parade is the Freyne/Totten/Bromage political column itself — a walking, talking, flamboyant exercise in erasing the “news/opinion  line” that so concerns Bromage in his consideration of Odum’s qualifications. And yet, somehow, that column has been a valuable contributor to political discourse in Vermont.

Maybe Odum can do the same, if given the chance.

Finally, a word of advice to the current occupant of the Freyne Memorial Chair: One of the finest traits of Peter Freyne was that he trained his ire on the famous and influential. He was Jack the Giant Killer — or at least Jack the Giant Annoyer.  With all due respect to John Odum, he is a gnat on a hippo’s hiney compared to Tebbetts, Graff, Freyne, or many others who have crossed the journalism/opinion/flackery “divide” with nary a harrumph. If Andy Bromage is going to get all tetchy about standards and ethics, he should choose bigger targets.

Acknowledgments: I have a whole bagful of potential conflicts of interest here. I’m a colleague of Odum’s at GMD; I like the guy and would like to consider him a friend; I used to work for The Bridge, and I still write occasionally for the paper. On the other hand, I am a big fan and regular reader of Seven Days; I loved the work of Peter Freyne and Shay Totten, and I hope that Bromage can bring us more of the same. Dunno exactly how those factors balance out; perhaps you can evaluate this post on its merits.

The headline reads:

Japan plans to scrap nuclear plants after 40 years to beef up safety after Fukushima disaster

But when we read the subtext, we learn that this is wildly overstating the development.

Unlike the U.S., where nuclear reactors for energy production are required to seek renewed licensing after 40-years in operation, no such requirements exist under law in Japan.

As you may recall, the reactors at Fukushima, which belong to the same generation as the one at Vermont Yankee, were several years past their 40-year design life-expectancy when disaster struck.

What the Japanese legislature is now considering is to enact a system similar to that in the U.S., where, after forty years in operation, a twenty year extension must be secured if a reactor is to continue operating.

This relicensing is presumed to involve rigorous safety checks, but as we know from the history of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the U.S.  cronyism “creep” tends to infect the process over time, as the regulators gain intimacy with the industry and their role evolves into a kind of enabling partnership.

Reading further, we are reminded that:

 Such renewals have been granted to 66 of 104 U.S. nuclear reactors. That process has been so routine that many in the industry are already planning for additional license extensions that could push the plants to operate for 80 years or even 100.

In point of fact, not a single U.S. plant has been denied re-licensing by the NRC.

The Japanese are gaining first-hand knowledge of the faulty economics of nuclear plant operation.  The 40-year life-expectancy is ironically juxtaposed with the 40 years that have been estimated to totally decommission the failed reactors at Fukushima…to say nothing of the collateral health risk, delivered exponentially to a population of unknown dimensions.

I think for sheer understatement, the following sentence deserves mention, too.

The government has already decided to scrap six reactors at Fukushima Dai-ichi, where backup generators, some of them in basements, were destroyed by the March 11 tsunami – setting off the world’s worst nuclear crisis since Chernobyl.

Oh really? You mean there’s no way Japan can get another twenty years of service from them?  Pity.

Sigh. Here we go again.

I remember when I was hiking the Glacier Peak Wilderness with a friend when we ran into a roaming Ranger who shared his stories of the dumb questions he used to get asked by tourists. My favorite was “at what altitude do the deer turn into elk?”

In Vermont we had – and now seem to have again – our own political version: how liberal do you have to go for the Dems to become Progs?

As we’ve shown time and time and time again over the years, it’s not that simple. There are Dems who are every bit as lefty as Progs – what distinguishes them is their view of the two-party system… whether they believe third parties are viable, or whether they believe they cause more problems.

But it’s so much easier just to say all Dems are kinda lefty and all Progs are more lefty. All that nuance is just too hard. Case in point, the latest from Bromage (who’s usually excellent, BTW) at 7 Days:

When state Democrats rejected a labor-friendly resolution at its state organizational meeting this fall, Progressives reaffirmed their union support with an identical measure weeks later – and started hinting about a challenge to Shumlin in 2012.

I dunno. Bromage is relatively new to the state, but I don’t think that gets him off the hook here. This is a pretty clear misrepresentation of what happened (as in, kinda-technically true but not actually the “truth”… you know those things), which leads me to believe he’s only half-looking at what happened, and even then through the lens of a preconceived narrative.

The fact is that “Democrats” did not reject the VSEA-supporting resolution. It was passed by two separate Democratic county committees – Lamoille and Washington. I don’t think anyone has suggested that state Democrats wouldn’t have passed it either – the problem was the state Democratic Chair used a questionable rationale to refuse to allow it to come to a vote (presumably not to embarrass the Governor). Then he further (this time using questionable parliamentary procedure) prevented the body from voting to suspend the rules to bring it to the floor anyway. Heck, several Democrats walked out of the meeting.

But Bromage has his deer-elk spectrum, and he’s sticking to it, I guess. He continues:

When the governor is challenged from the left next year – on politics or policy – look for it to come from Pearson and the Progs.

Except for when it comes from progressive Democrats. Gosh darn that reality! It’s just so complicated!

Along with political figures like Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber, and Van Jones, Rolling Stone Magazine lists Governor Peter Shumlin at number 8 of its “dozen leaders [that] are demonstrating just how effective government can be.”

Rolling Stone notes Shumlin’s quick, effective, and surprisingly low-cost response to Tropical Storm Irene, as well as the Health Care reform process.

Here’s a snippet:

Admirers Say “He put a lot of political capital into a very ambitious undertaking that could become a model for the rest of the country,” says ex-governor Howard Dean.

Enemies Say His “single-payer system could very well be the biggest job-killer in Vermont’s history,” according to Darcie Johnston, head of the industry front group Vermonters for Health Care Freedom.