Earlier in the week I tossed up a diary about the final reading vote (which is, procedurally, the really BIG vote before final passage) on health care reform in the House. It lead with one of those throwaway musing bits noting the low vote count and wondering why so many legislators missed it. From my perspective, those votes would be the very ones that would make being a legislator fun, after all. The diary then went into a specific critique of Rep. McFaun’s vote on the bill, which was the part I was most interested in writing.

So today – several days after the fact – I received an irate email from a legislator about the piece. Now, I only hear from legislators for two reasons; either an follow-up or engagement on a specific issue (which is cool), or a complaint. This was definitely the latter. I’ve decided to reprint the complaint here for community consideration. Although I seriously doubt an email to a member of the media like myself has an expectation of privacy, I went ahead and removed identifying comments so as not to prejudice the reading and discussion in any way, pro or con.

Dear John,

I read Green Mountain Daily regularly and generally appreciate your political analysis and commentary.

However, I just read your blog post from last week about the “so-called AWOL votes on the health care bill”, cannot get it out of my mind, and just have to respond … [Sentence removed, as it could give away the identity of the legislator].

Legislators are people first, and, regardless of our political differences, we actually care about each other and each other’s well being.  This is one of the treasures of being in the Vermont legislature.  I understand that everyone applauded, despite the rules of the House, amidst the recent roll call vote when “Clark of Vergennes” name was read, and he was there to answer with his vote.  He had been gone for many, many days from his heart attack.

To just attribute political motives to missing even a critical vote is uncalled for, without first actually doing some inquiry.  And, yes, on the really CRITICAL votes, we do show up.  Note how (now deceased) Rep. Ira Trombley came in from his sick bed, with assistance from EMT folks, to help override the governor’s veto of marriage.  

Just a few instances of what I know, and you could have learned: Reps. Winters and Clark, are both recovering from serious heart attacks; [sentence removed to protect legislator’s anonymity] I prioritized my family first, as I was encouraged to by leadership.  Rep. Aswad sometimes struggles, at age 90+, to join us for very late night votes.  

In the future, please do some research before just posting snarky comments that later others never hear the full story about.  You are better than this.

Unfortunately, the legislator pushed the rhetoric to 11, here, when he/she castigated me for “attribut(ing) political motives to missing even a critical vote” – I can’t see where that came from, and it made me mad. The only guaranteed way of getting an angry response from me is to accuse me of writing something I didn’t. Drives me freakin’ bananas and happens all the time.

But let’s put the pulled-out-of-thin-air accusation aside and look at the rest of the complaint. Here, again, is what I wrote:

AWOLs? It’s a historic vote, arguably the most important vote of the 2011 session… so why was it 89-47? That equals 14 representatives of the people who did not represent the people in voting on the 3rd reading of this landmark legislation. Take one off for the Speaker, who often doesn’t vote unless it’s a close one, and you’ve got 13 reps with something else to do. I don’t know about you, but aren’t votes on potential laws like this the very reason one would want to be a lawmaker, whether you’re pro or con?

The list of missing includes 9 Dems and 4 Repubs. Yeah it was a done deal, so the Dems hardly needed to be whipped, and yeah, there were no doubt some good reasons (I see both St. J reps, the D and the R, were out – that suggests something may have been up in the district), but it makes you wonder. The absentees represent quite an ideological range, and were: Aswad (D-Burlington), Christie (D-Hartford), Clark (R-Vergennes), Condon (D-Colchester), Howard (R-Cambridge), Howrigan (D-Fairfield), Keenan (D-Albans City), Masland (D-Thetford), Mitchell (D-Barnard), Mook (D-Bennington), Reis (R-St. Johnsbury), South (D-St. Johnsbury), Winters (R-Williamstown).

I wrote it as largely throwaway, and was more interested in the follow up sentences taking Topper McFaun to task for his vote on the bill. Still, when I was at the Statehouse the next day, I did hear about the “missed vote” piece from a couple legislators, both in a nudge-poke-wink way, though, and not the anger hurled at me by he/she-who-will-remain-nameless.

So, the GMD community is my reality check in such things (which shows how far removed we are from the days of firebombing trolls in the comments, thank god). So what do you all think? Was the diary merely a throwaway musing, as I intended it, or out of line? If out of line, was it mildly tacky, or the gross personal violation the legislator suggests? I’m all ears, and will stay out of this…

( – promoted by JulieWaters)

Or, why it’s OK to tax those who can afford it sometimes, but not others?

Updated with transcript

I was listening to the Mark Johnson show (http://www.markjohnsonshow.net/) yesterday when he was interviewing the Governor and they started talking about the budget bill. The Governor said that he hoped that the Senate would reinstate the tax on non-Medicare and Medicaid dental services and not raise the cigarette tax. Mark noted that it was surprising to hear a politician not supporting an increased tax on tobacco. Since the podcast is not available yet, I don’t have the Governor’s exact quote, but here is the gist of what he replied – because of the demographics of who smokes and who doesn’t, the tobacco tax falls most heavily on lower income Vermonters who can’t afford it. People are addicted to cigarettes, and we shouldn’t penalize them more. However, the people who are getting these dental services done can afford to pay the little bit extra for the tax on these services.

Here is the transcript from the show’s podcast found at http://blog.markjohnsonshow.net. The quote starts at 27:10. Emphasis is mine.

Mark – Do you want the Senate to put back in the tax you proposed on dentists?

Governor – The answer is yes and I’ll tell you why. Right now, as you know hospitals and most healthcare providers have an assessment on their bills that allows us to draw down Federal dollars and we then reimburse them for their share. Dentists in Vermont, many provide services to Medicaid and Medicare, low income VTers who need their teeth fixed too. Many of the dentists don’t. Under my plan, which is assessing that same assessment on dentists. Those who provide care for the poor will come out better financially than they are right now. Those who refuse, will pay the 3% assessment, and I think that’s fair. Now what the House’s proposal is instead is to ask the hard-working guy, man or woman in VT, who’s going to work – 9, 10, 11 bucks an hour perhaps – they’re going to stop at the store for a pack of cigarettes. They’re going to pay 20, 30 cents more for that pack of cigarettes and it’s going to come out of a working person’s pocket. I would rather – and this assessment on the dentists – I think it’s fair, and I don’t understand why the House didn’t support that particular provision. I think it makes a lot of sense.

Mark – I’m a little surprised to hear any politician advocating against a cigarette tax increase.

Governor – Let me tell you about the cigarette tax. People who smoke cigarettes have an addiction. We all know that as we make progress in reducing cigarette consumption, there tends to be more low income people who are smoking than higher income people. That’s just the way the numbers are. So, in my judgement, if you’re going to assess a tax, I think it should be assessed on people who can most afford it and I do not believe that the person who is struggling to make ends meet, who’s going to pick up their pack or carton of cigarettes on the way to work, who’s trying to make ends meet in a real tough economy, should be asked to pay more because they have an addiction. Let’s get them off their addiction, but I don’t think a cigarette tax is going to drive that.

Am I the only one who sees this logic as totally opposite the thinking that allows the Governor to say this about raising taxes on the wealthiest Vermonters with a straight face: (http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/90215/#)

“The state of Vermont does not have the flexibility to do that because we all know New Hampshire is to our east and Florida is not far away and frankly my job is to take the 435 high income tax payers in Vermont and grow that base grow our customer base so that we have more revenue.”

Isn’t this the same lame excuse we got from Governor Douglas? We can’t tax the rich, because they’ll move out of Vermont. Plus, Florida – even northern Florida is 14 hours away by car, but I digress.

I thought the Blue Ribbon Tax Commission – setup by then Senator Shumlin – found that there was no evidence of this. Here is what was in the Executive Summary of their report: (http://www.vermonttaxreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/WEB-REPORT-2.pdf)

There is Insufficient Data to Claim that Vermonters are Migrating Due to High Taxes – Current Statistics Demonstrate an In-Migration of Income.  

Available data suggests that those entering Vermont earn more than those leaving.  Also, Vermont’s top tax bracket is populated by high-income events, not high-income earners.  While the data cannot determine something as subjective as why people are moving, it does demonstrate that definitive claims that the wealthy are moving out and about the effect of this migration are more complicated than currently assumed.  

On the other side of the argument, the Shumlin administration is willing to cut needed services to lower- and middle-income Vermonters, the elderly, persons with disabilities and other vulnerable populations in order to balance the budget. Here is Secretary of Human Services Doug Racine with the rationale: (http://vtdigger.org/2011/03/17/racine-proposes-competition-for-designated-agencies/)

“We have a problem,” Racine said. “How do we get through these difficult times, without hurting Vermonters. There’s nothing left we can do except cut services.”

The person who posted this on Green Mountain Daily (http://www.greenmountaindaily.com/diary/7536/shumlin-sits-on-a-tax) put it succinctly – “it makes your head hurt, doesn’t it?” Where are Lewis Carroll and Franz Kafka when we need them?

The Progressive Party legislators proposed an amendment to the tax bill to raise income taxes on the top two tiers of filers in Vermont in order to stave off some of the budget cuts in human services. It was defeated. (http://www.progressiveparty.org/blog/2011/tax-amendment-fails) There were legislators who agreed with this position, but not now or in this particular bill.

So, back to the top and the sub-title to this post – Can we get the Governor to explain why it’s OK to tax those who can afford it when they get a crown at the dentist, but not those Vermonters who have high incomes and pay little or no state income tax? (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/03/23/business-vt-tax-bill_8370716.html)

Sen. Tim Ashe of Chittenden County said that when the miscellaneous tax bill makes its way to the Senate, he will seek to amend it to get the state to do a better job collecting taxes from the seven Vermonters who reported incomes higher than $1 million in the 2009 tax year and paid nothing in state income taxes. Data from the state Tax Department also show that more than 1,000 tax filers reported incomes higher than $100,000 but paid less than $1,000 in state income tax in 2009.

Or can we get the Governor to explain why we shouldn’t add a hardship to those who smoke cigarettes, but it’s OK to add hardships to those needing services and support because of disability, age or mental health issues?

I hope someone asks these questions.

Also posted here – http://joelgvt.wordpress.com/2…

  Even as the Fukushima crisis drops off and on the front pages, several hell-for-leather lets harness the god given power of the atom pro-nuclear bloggers may be showing stress cracks.  

At the top of the list  is Rod Adams AKA atomicrod who at the very start of the fast moving crisis  confidently released a blog titled:  Performance of old nuclear plants in Japan demonstrates why much of current regulations are overkill    

I also think it is important to recognize the opportunity to explain to people why there will be no health consequences to the public from challenges at Japanese nuclear plants and why that prediction could confidently be made almost as soon as the earth stopped shaking, long before all of the details of the events began to unfold.  

Writing today atomicrod seems less inclined to predicting the future, saying in part “What this event has taught me is that I need to retreat a bit.”

While still making it clear he is 100% touched  with atoms he ads:

However, I am now certain that not all operating reactors are equally safe, equally well maintained, or equally well sited. I have always known that there are risks associate with nuclear energy – it is such a concentrated source of power that it is impossible to ignore just how quickly it can get out of control.  

…far short of a catastrophe

Another supporter goes wobbly “ It is clear that LWRs are not 100% safe.”  then speedily rallies to the idea that, for him at least Fukushima is only an accident and not a catastrophe.

To date the consequences of the Dai-ichi accident have fallen far short of a catastrophe. But whether the public is aware of the distinction between an accident and a catastrophy is open to question. For the enemies of nuclear power, accident and catastrophe are the same thing.

 

Hydrogen explosions are bad and should be avoided !  

By far my favorite release is Meredith Angwin’s yesvy blog lessons learned diary.  She primly notes two root causes:    

My two lessons are:

– upgrading emergency preparedness, especially back-up power

– preventing hydrogen explosions.

She discusses the spent fuel pools then ads

Still, if the Japanese reactors had had available back-up power and if they had been able to prevent hydrogen explosions, the fuel pools would have been fine.

Yes, lesson learned : if only they hadn’t had those problems they wouldn’t have had those other problems. Safe clean logic.  

In a recent Wall Street Journal opinion article, Peggy Noonan asks quite a few questions about the U.S. military action in Libya . I’m afraid most of them will go unanswered, because in addition to not having answers, Obama doesn’t even understand the questions. When he was still a candidate, my opinion was that Obama was terminally naive and unjustifiably arrogant. In the intervening years, he has made the accuracy of that assessment more and more apparent.

Supporters, of the president rail against conservatives, liberals or both (mostly conservatives) for promoting malaise about the president’s actions. Such arguments are at best irrelevant as they fail to address the core issue. Opinions vary as to whether our actions in Libya are justified, the true goal of those actions, and the US military position with respect other participants. But they are simply that- opinions. However, Obama’s disconnect with Congress, and the American people, is an irrefutable fact.

Ms. Noonan states, “He has to make a case for his own actions. It’s what presidents do!” She didn’t say, “That’s what presidents HAVE to do!” because the reference was to protocol and respect, not requirements. An American president who is truly concerned about the country’s citizens would never take war-like actions without directly addressing those citizens and the Congress that represents them.

It is both naïve and arrogant for this president to think such communication is unnecessary- naïve because he apparently believes his actions will have no consequences, and arrogant in that he has blown off Congress and the American people. But he has also sent a similarly offensive message to our allies, while concurrently informing our enemies that he truly does not have a grasp of the nature of international conflicts.

Obama has stated that US involvement in Libya will only “last a few days”. Nothing of this magnitude lasts a few days. If the end game was to do nothing more than launch a few missiles, drop a few bombs and call it good, such might be the case. But if military action is a cornerstone for launching a humanitarian effort, it is delusional to think that the desired outcome will be achieved in less than a typical American work-week. On the other hand, proposing that the U.S. hand-off spearheading the effort to our European allies and NATO is analogous to saying, “we’re going to have a hell of a party, and if we bust up the place, you guys stick around a clean up”.

Thus far, the general media and his fellow Democrats have seemed untroubled by Obama’s modus operandi. But there are limits. Naivete and arrogance ultimately prove to be a fatal combination which begs the question, is Obama too naïve to realize it or too arrogant to care.

Looking for new home builders in NC? Then look no more! When your new home feels easy and comfortable before you’ve even moved in that’s what we call livability. It’s a feeling you get from newsymmetryhomesnc – a sense that your house is ideally suited to its setting, the surrounding community and your family’s lifestyle. Newsymmetryhomesnc new Home Builders Raleigh NC have been designing and constructing new homes, custom homes and luxury homes for well over a century newsymmetryhomesnc is known for designing homes that are the epitome of innovation. Our efficient and comfortable new homes are the right size to fit any lifestyle or budget. From luxury new homes on large lots, to affordable quality new town homes there are new home options for everyone.Whether you are a first time home buyer, or you need more rooms for a growing family, newsymmetryhomesnc has a home for sale that is right for you.

We put a lot of effort into providing homes with flexible space, efficient options, and beautiful details. Whatever your needs or budget, we have a home for sale that is perfect for you why newsymmetryhomesnc.com is the best and safest place for you to search for New Home Builders in NC, only here you have the best services and competent professionals ready to serve you and help you with everything you need,Each section of our web site has been designed to help you find new homes quickly. Our Rapid Request service will make your research a snap by returning new communities, incentive offers and communities that only match your search criteria. All of the North Carolina home builders featured on our web site have been building homes in North Carolina for many years and each meets the State of North Carolina’s required licensing then what are you waiting for come newsymmetryhomesnc.com.

Kia UK

Once again, Vermont’s own Arnie Gundersen of Fairewinds  Associates is stepping in to the analysis void in order to explain the science of radiation and some of the terminology we have been hearing with regard to its release at Fukushima Daiichi.

Arnie has provided a concise and manageable reference for the average person grappling with an unfamiliar and frightening subject.  For that I am very grateful.

… warts and all, 95-34. That vote count suggests a lot of Republicans aren’t even bothering.

The total ends up at the same bottom line the administration was looking for, with some different bends in the road, allowing the leg gets to play a bit of good cop to Shumlin’s bad cop (which is not to suggest that these efforts weren’t sincere – I’m sure they were). Here are some bullets, courtesy of a handy legislative fact sheet:

Human Services

• Added back $4.5 million in state spending, reducing Human Services cuts from $43.8 million to $39.3
  
  million.  Change brings in $4.8 million in additional net federal funds.
• Restored half the proposed reduction to services for frail and elderly; instrumental activities of daily living
  
  and respite/companion services.
• Restored half the proposed reduction to services to the developmentally disabled
  
  Restored half the proposed reduction for Mental Health services  
• Did not merge Catamount into VHAP, mitigating the reduced reimbursement rate to doctors and hospitals
• Restored 25% of school Student Assistance Professionals (SAP), which administration had eliminated  
• Funded tobacco programs at $900,000 over the level proposed by the administration.
• Replaced $1.7 million ARRA funding for homelessness prevention with general funds
  
  Funded 300 additional childcare subsidized slots to enable Vermonters to enter the labor force  
• Met funding needs for increased enrollment in Dr. Dynasaur and VHAP

Other

• Includes language to allow the $12m of labor, retirement, and contract savings reductions agreed upon by
  
  the Administration and the Vermont State Employees Union
• Reduced the Vermont Telecommunications Authority funding from $500,000 to $200,000.
  
  Funds Vermont Housing Conservation Board (with capital allocation) at 95% of statutorily required level.
• Consistent with ongoing 5% pay reduction for exempts, maintains 5% reduction for legislators in FY 2012.
• Anticipates proposed federal action to relieve Unemployment Insurance interest costs of $4.1m.
  
  Restored $82,000 for operation of the conservation districts.
• Provided funding to fill five vacant game wardens positions.
• Reserves up to $3.6 million of potential federal enhanced Medicaid payments in the caseload reserve as an
  
  offset for potential federal funds reductions.
• Maintains stabilization reserve funds at the required statutory levels.

Vermont Sierra Club wants Bottle Bill Expanded, Not Repealed

VT Sierra Club Media Contact: David Ellenbogen, Chapter Vice Chair, 802-363-6868, pianomath@gmail.com

There are few laws in Vermont that have benefitted the environment more than the Bottle Bill.  With a return rate of approximately 85% (more than twice the statewide recycling rate), the Bottle Bill has cleaned our roadsides, lessened our reliance on landfills, and lowered our carbon footprint.  Indeed the bottle bill is one of the few ways in which manufacturers are currently being held responsible for the packaging in which their products are delivered.  We in the Sierra Club have long supported the notion of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and this is exactly why we would like to see the Bottle Bill not only kept in place, but expanded to keep another 8 million noncarbonated beverage cans and bottles out of Vermont’s landfills and off of our roadsides.  With this in mind, we in the Vermont Chapter of the Sierra Club are outraged that the beverage industry has the audacity to reference our literature, taken out of context, in an effort to upend the most successful recycling program in state history. In a letter addressed to the beverage industry’s lobbyist, Amy Shollenberger, we asked that any reference to the Sierra Club be removed from the website she established for the beverage industries lobbying firm, MacLean, Meehan, and Rice.  The Sierra Club supports the Bottle Bill, as well as the expanded Bottle Bill called for in H.74 and S.21, while Ms. Shollenberger’s website promotes a beverage industry-backed bill (H.218) that is highly critical of returnable bottles and cans.  Our request has gone unheeded and unanswered.

Referencing the Sierra Club report on Producer Responsibility Recycling (www.sierraclub.org/committees/zerowaste/producerresponsibility/index.asp) in an effort to give the impression that we support a misguided attempt to dismantle a cornerstone of Vermont’s environmental stewardship-one that an overwhelming majority of Vermonters support-is deliberately misleading.  Surely Ms. Shollenberger did read, just a few paragraphs lower on the very webpage that she references, that the Sierra Club believes that “There are laws that make producers responsible for taking back their products and recycling them.  Bottle bills are an early example.”  

Our letter also urged Shollenberger to disclose the fact that the beverage industry is paying for the website that makes such misleading use of the Sierra Club’s name and statements.  At present, the website lists only Shollenberger as a contact and fails to identify the beverage industry’s involvement.  Only at the bottom of the home page there are the words “paid for by MMR.”  A link provided indicates that MMR stands for MacLean, Meehan, and Rice, a Montpelier law firm.  No mention is made of the fact that MMR has been hired by the beverage industry to lobby on their behalf.

It is important for the public to know the truth here.  Not only does the Sierra Club fully endorse the expansion of the Bottle Bill that is called for under H.74 and S.21, we remain clearly opposed to H.218 and the attempted ‘greenwashing’ being conducted by Ms. Shollenberger and the beverage industry.  The Bottle Bill remains a landmark piece of environmental legislation.  The Sierra Club will not sit idly by as an industry lobbyist resorts to desperate measures in an effort to weaken it.

Every morning I search the papers for news of Japan’s nuclear crisis, and even though the situation grows steadily worse there, the unfolding crisis seems to get pushed further and further back in the news cycle.  

Events in Libya have justifiably stolen some thunder from the “story” of the catastrophe; but what makes Michele Bachman’s latest lunacy front page news?   The Free Press has a small piece about the mounting death toll in Japan on page 3A, but that was it for the freeps; and the rather significant news that the core may be breached in reactor # 3 only made it to page seven of the New York Times!

One has to ask the question: is it our abysmally short attention span to which the press is catering, or is the nuclear industry “managing” news of the unfolding crisis in Japan so as to quickly diffuse public anxiety before it can wreak havoc with corporate interests?  Either way, it isn’t a pretty picture; but if it is the latter, one can’t help reflecting on the irony.   One of the most highly industrialized nations in the world may be, in this profound instance, a victim of the same kind of corporate “amnesia wash” that swept the gulf oil spill from the public consciousness in just a few short months.