Geez. Here’s a look at what some of the other new Governors of other states are doing.

Wow. That’s only kinda funny. It’s really crazyland out there.

 How about a snapshot-sized look at the state’s obscure captive insurance industry?

Briefly, a captive insurance business is an insurance risk business controlled by a parent company.  Worldwide Vermont places first with $135.4 billion assets under management and has the third largest number of licensed captive insurance entities. The traditional corporate tax havens of Bermuda and the Cayman Island are first and second. In Vermont it’s big, operates largely below the day to day radar, and changes are afoot.

Frequent regulatory tweaking of often little-noticed rules is standard procedure in this business segment. Revisions are so common that the director of the financial services in the Vermont Department of Economic Development recently said  “I think our enhancements to our captive law are an annual tradition,”  

Contrasting starkly with what might be expected from regulators, especially after recent insurance and banking horrors, are accommodating remarks explaining how easily these changes happen. Speaking of recent changes undertaken David Provost, Vermont's deputy commissioner of captive insurance said

“Basically this was something that the industry requested. They[the industry] wanted to see the option to have incorporated protected cells.”

And they must want tax credits too! New laws will make permanent a first year premium tax credit of $7,500.00 per entity which had been temporarily in place for 18 months

Captive insurers as portals to cheap bank credit?

Captive insurance corporations are financial risk management insurance companies which insure investments of parent companies. Captive cells and individual cells are separate enterprises but through various forms of entanglement remain connected with their captive or sponsor partners. Changes to the regulations governing captive insurance cells are in the works; tucked into bill H.468. Current restrictions on cell businesses will be eliminated and replaced by enhanced discretionary power to be wielded by the commissioner .

This change will eliminate the current restrictions on cell business. Business written by a sponsored captive will no longer be required to have it be fronted, reinsured or secured by a trust. This requirement will now be at the discretion of the commissioner.  

While Vermont modifies certain regulations, captive insurers may soon take advantage of an interesting quirk in the Federal Home Loan Bank Act of 1932.

Federal Home Loan Bank Act allows companies to use their captive insurers as portals to cheap bank credit. A budding concept is for captive owners, nonbank companies included, to use their captive insurers as portals to cheap bank credit under a federal banking law enacted decades before the first captive appeared.

While captive experts do not foresee the arrangement transforming captives into profit centers, some say it could enhance a facility's liquidity and claims-paying ability or assist its parent company in accessing tough-to-find credit or lowering borrowing costs  

Vermont’s deputy commissioner Provost is reported to be cool on this concept and suggests the federal housing agency was misinformed about the nature of captives. Provost and a regulator from Delaware’s captive insurance commission think federal home loan bank would quickly reject a captive or any applicant that fails the asset test.

— Provost mentions the need for “a lot more information” before he would support it but appears to leave the door accommodatingly ajar for Vermont’s 900 captives.

He said parent companies could find better ways to line up credit but that he would consider allowing it if he was shown that the parent faced problems obtaining credit.

Yes, it’s true that Vermont’s brand of Republicans tend to be a different breed than Republicans in the rest of the country, especially in these heady days of unbridled Glenn-Beckery.

But there are exceptions. Freshman GOP Representative Tom Burditt of West Rutland took to the floor this morning to speak out against the health care reform legislation. Sadly, I missed hearing him myself, but I am told that it was a meandering exercise in free-form teabaggery, quite possibly marking the first such rhetoric on the floor of the Vermont Statehouse.

In arguing against universal coverage, Democratic lawmakers were castigated for supporting this “communist” legislation, claiming it played to the forces of “radical islam” while our troops were dying overseas. Yeah, there was stream-of-consciousness stuff about lower taxes and letting the market handle it, blah blah blah – but bringing “radical islam” into the floor debate makes it one for the ages.

Update: A quote! Thanks to the commenter below who found the speech when it became available:

I find it very sad…. in a country where men and women have died…. fighting to preserve our freedom…. and have died…. fighting off socialism, communism and recently radical Muslim beliefs…. that some are now considering socialized medicine as a solution to improving access to health care.

So, he doesn’t quite call the bill “radical islam”  (as he labels it “socialism”), he just invokes it, with the direct implication that passing this legislation is at odds with the goals of those who have “died… fighting to preserve our freedom” against “radical islam” and “communism.” That’s pretty clear.

The video is sketchy, and the audio even worse, but here’s Senator Al Franken’s now-legendary impression of Senator Bernie Sanders from the David W Curtis awards in Burlington.

( – promoted by odum)

An Op/Ed By Zak Griefen, Chairman of the Vermont Sierra Club*

I love the Green Mountain National Forest!  From snowmelt to snowfall, I explore the small streams and headwaters of our national forest prospecting for brook trout and enjoying the quiet beauty of our state.  The Green Mountain National Forest is a real Vermont treasure; comprising more than 400,000 acres that stretch across nearly two-thirds the length of Vermont, it offers outstanding hiking, fishing, and recreational opportunities while serving an important function as a north-south biological corridor to cushion the impacts of climate change and preserve forest ecosystems.

And I’m not alone in my appreciation for the GMNF and its benefits to our beautiful state.  Each year visitors from across the country flock to the Green Mountain National Forest and other national forests to recreate, retreat, and recharge.  America is unique in that it boasts over 100 million acres of national forests for us all to enjoy.  Whether you’re seeking solace or adventure, or perhaps a bit of both, our national forests provide much needed opportunities to connect with and be nurtured by nature.

Enjoyment of our forests has made them major economic drivers.  

The wildlife habitat, clean water and scenery provided by our forests are crucial to supporting the nation’s $700 billion outdoor recreation economy and the people it employs.

    In a rapidly changing world faced with increased pollution, over development, degraded habitats and climate change, it is crucial that we safeguard our national forests so that they remain for future generations to enjoy.  That means shifting how we think of conservation to consider whole natural communities and large landscapes.  It also means updating old and outdated forest management practices.  Scientists have learned a lot about how to best manage and protect wild places and wildlife in the past 20 years.  Yet the guidelines controlling forest management have not been updated, until now.

    The U.S. Forest Service is currently working to modernize the standards for planning how our forests are used and protected, setting safeguards and standards to ensure that everyone can access and enjoy our national forests.  The Forest Service’s updated proposal is a step in the right direction towards addressing the challenges our forests face today.  For the first time ever, these rules would address the impact of climate change in an effort to set up a framework for managing our forests in a way that prepares for changing conditions, like the shifting migration and weather patterns.

    The Vermont Sierra Club believes that these draft regulations are a positive step forward in addressing climate change planning, adaptation, and resiliency.  It is clear the agency took a serious look at addressing this essential issue and threat to our forests, waters, and ecosystems.  However, for these new planning regulations to really accomplish the job they need to be substantially tightened and real accountability for the agency specifically incorporated into the standards and directives.  The Vermont Sierra Club is drafting comments and participating in public forums on the proposed rule, and I invite every concerned citizen to do the same.  Information on the proposed planning rule is available at: http://fs.usda.gov/planningrule.  Please take some time to look into the proposed planning rule and submit your comments on the web by going to:  http://www.govcomments.com/Web…

The Vermont Sierra Club’s concerns with the proposed rule center on the following four issues:

1. For the first time, the proposed rule addresses the threat of climate change on our national forests.  There are references to climate change in the rule’s three main components: assessment, plan revision, and monitoring.  However, all of the language is discretionary.  There is no mandatory program to analyze the effects of climate change or to develop strategies to address those threats.  Given the profound changes we are already seeing in forest ecosystems due to a changing climate, the requirements for addressing these changes should be explicit and mandatory.

2. Under the current planning rule, the Forest Service is required to manage habitat to maintain viable populations of native wildlife in the planning area.  For most species on the national forests, the proposed rule replaces this clear requirement with vague instructions to manage for ecosystem health.  The proposed rule should require the Forest Service to keep common species common and maintain viable populations of native wildlife.

3. The proposed rule limits the viability requirement only to “species of conservation concern,” and then lets local forest officials decide which those are.  It also allows the agency to absolve itself from the responsibility for protecting the species it does identify by claiming impossibility.  Yet at the same time, the Forest Service claims the proposed rule gives “equal or greater levels of protection” than the existing rule.  The proposed rule should not allow the Forest Service the discretion to exempt species from protection.

4. Under the current forest rule, the public can hold the Forest Service accountable when it fails to meets its commitments to safeguard water, wildlife and other forest resources.  The proposed rule seems to allow for a much greater degree of agency discretion instead of providing concrete standards and requirements for the management and protection of critical forest resources.  The practical result is a sharp curb on public accountability. The proposed rule should maintain the agency’s existing accountability to the public, thereby ensuring that the agency does not stray from its mission to sustain, protect and enhance forest ecosystems.

    The Obama administration is holding public roundtables across the country, including one in Rochester, VT, on March 23, to gather input on how to manage our shared forest heritage.  I hope they take the opportunity to really work with the public to develop a forest policy that safeguards the health, jobs and outdoor heritage of the American people.  We have an opportunity to balance our forest use in a way that conserves wildlife, promotes local businesses and supports cherished family traditions.  We should not waste it.  

Zak Griefen chairs the Executive Committee and the Wetlands and Water Resources Committee of the Vermont Sierra Club and practices environmental law with Cheney, Brock & Saudek, P.C., in Montpelier.   *The Vermont Sierra Club is a grassroots organization of folks who are for a clean a sustainable environment. They have 3000 members across the State of Vermont. Their offices are at: 149 Main Street, Montpelier, VT, 06602. Phone: (802)229-6399. Website: www.vermont.sierraclub.org

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).

Topper, we hardly knew ye… Remember when Topper McFaun (R-Barre Town) was the darling of the health care activists? The poster boy for why single-payer neednt be a partisan issue? Here’s Martha Abbott writing on the Prog Blog back in ’07:

This may be a first in Vermont Politics: A Republican is the featured speaker at a forum organized by and sponsored by the Democrats and Progressives. The Republican is Representative Topper McFaun of Barre and his bill is called “Universal Hospitalization and Premium Reduction”. It could be the next giant step forward for Universal Health Care.

Here’s a 2009 letter to the Washington World from a Montpelier voter:

I strongly protest the removal of Rep. Topper McFaun (R-Barre) from the Vermont House Health Care Committee by newly-elected Vermont House Speaker Shap Smith. It appears to be a deliberate act to undercut progress toward single payer health care in Vermont.

Here’s what McFaun said in support of William Hsiao’s proposal to take on the health care issue – a proposal which led to the current bill:

“His group has a track record all over the work designing health-care systems,” said Rep. Francis “Topper” McFaun, R-Barre. “He knows what works.”

McFaun voted no on the health care reform bill.

I’m still very curious to hear from those people who might see military intervention as an option under certain circumstances. How do you make those judgments? How does the Libya action fit into that view? How does it compare to actions in Iraq?

The last thread seems to have become exclusively a discussion/debate about the merits of non-violence overall, so rather than try to restart the original topic, perhaps a parallel thread is in order. That way the other, distinct conversation can continue unimpeded.

What do you think? I’m especially curious to hear from lefties who support this action. I assure you that your opinion will be respected and heard.

Life is easier if you’re a pacifist.

No, really. Pacifism is a one-size-fits-all, absolute moral code. No warring, no-way, no-how. No cost-benefit equation, risk analysis, or elaborate moral criteria required. You can spend absolutely zero time hung up on the value of a given conflict and move on to other things.

I’ve never been a pacifist. Sure it’s appealing as a philosophy, but violence is – well – just one of many things that people do from where I sit, so the question to my mind is how does it fit within a moral framework. To the pacifist, it simply doesn’t.

When the first Gulf War was Bushed on us, I wasted no time signing up to assist potential young draftees with conscientious objecting, should it come to that. I stood on street corners in Lexington Kentucky protesting against the war to the jeers of many passersby, and I was appalled by the reports of so many supposed lefties who supported the effort.

That’s not to say I wasn’t sympathetic to the feelings that Saddam was a nasty, evil territorial aggressor that should be stopped – I was. The war just seemed like a bad solution on many levels.

Flash forward to Afghanistan. We knew who was behind the 9-11 attacks, and we knew where they were operating from. I couldn’t, in good conscience, not support a military strike against those locations to eliminate (or at least seriously retard) their ability to repeat the attack. And yes, you read that right – I used the word “conscience.” I did, however, feel profoundly uncomfortable with the expansion of that strike to include a mission of full-on regime change in Afghanistan-proper. Like many, I had asked myself whether or not the Taliban’s horrific actions against women merited military intervention. It seemed clear to me that it merited more international intervention of some sort than had been undertaken up to that point, but slipping it in as a freebie under what I saw as a more appropriate use of military force was not the way.

And then, of course, there was the Iraq War, god help us…

So here we’re faced with involvement in Libya. You’ve got a dictator who is legendarily brutal facing a truly homegrown resistance motivated by a desire for basic rights and freedom. The very motivations that have brought about so much of what is good in the human world. This resistance has started getting pummeled by the dictator who is using his considerable wealth to bring in outside mercenaries with whom he has cultivated long-term relationships with. ANd the resistance has spoken with unusual clarity to outsiders, specifically the US; please give us air support, but no ground troops.

Again, this is not an issue for pacifists – and I don’t say that to exclude them from the discussion, just to make the point that it’s a fundamentally different discussion to them. But for the rest of us anti-war lefties who can conceive of the concept of a “just war,” where does that leave us? Where does this Libyan engagement fit into that?

It helps a bit to look at history – I think most of us would consider the Civil War and World War II to be, at least to some degree, “just” wars. But again, it only helps a bit.

If you’re building a moral equation, there are a lot of variables to fit together:

• Is it a defensive or an offensive war?
• If it is waged in the defense of others, is it fundamentally an offensive or defensive war, or something else – and what would the moral character of that “something else” be?
• Can we rely on the information we are receiving with which we use to make our judgements of the action’s relative “justness?”
• What are the long-term consequences of a given degree of engagement?
• What do we stand to lose as a nation, or as a group of individual communities (separate things)?
• If it’s “right,” how moral is it to consider the various consequences?
• If there is a degree of “just” military engagement, what if we cannot trust our government not to engage further to an “unjust” degree once that door is opened? Should that matter in deciding on a morally acceptable degree of violent intervention?
• What about financial cost? Should that enter into a moral calculus?
• What is the moral quality of those we purport to intervene on behalf of? How much does that matter?
• How confident should we feel that our engagement would lead to an improvement in the short or long term if we choose to intervene?
• Do we, as a nation or culture, bear some responsibility for the situation that is now creating violence?

I feel like I could go on forever now that I’ve started, but I’ll just stop there and turn it over, because I don’t have any easy answers. I’ll admit, I’m not entirely sure how to feel about this engagement in Libya. I know that will horrify folks, but the situation itself seems morally clear – what is less clear is what the consequences of our involvement could be, and I’m still trying to work that out – as well as work out how much that matters, in a case where the good guy/bad guy equation really does seem so clear cut.

In all such things, I am primarily morally moved by the Golden Rule, and I do find myself wishing that, if the tables were turned, someone would intervene for me and mine.

Did I join the military when I was of age, though? Thought about it – but decided I would not join a force that was so regularly used for political purposes that I did not agree with. I always said if there were a military branch I could join that would only engage itself with the defense of our borders, I wouldn’t simply sign up, I would feel morally obligated to. But given that stand, do I have any business pretending to support any military intervention outside our borders at all?

Tricky stuff, and I bring it up to spur discussion, and fully expecting a range of viewpoints (or maybe not – what do I know?).

What do you think?

(I’m promoting this to the front because I want to encourage groups like Sierra to use this resource for reaching people, but I think we’d appreciate it if folks who do want to post here take a moment to see how posts work, are written and are formatted, before submitting. I made some formatting adjustments in this case (such as eliminating the ALL CAPS headline) as a “welcome to GMD,” but that’s not something folks should expect. Thanks. – promoted by odum)

An Op/Ed By Zak Griefen, Chairman of the Vermont Sierra Club*

I love the Green Mountain National Forest!  From snowmelt to snowfall, I explore the small streams and headwaters of our national forest prospecting for brook trout and enjoying the quiet beauty of our state.  The Green Mountain National Forest is a real Vermont treasure; comprising more than 400,000 acres that stretch across nearly two-thirds the length of Vermont, it offers outstanding hiking, fishing, and recreational opportunities while serving an important function as a north-south biological corridor to cushion the impacts of climate change and preserve forest ecosystems.

And I’m not alone in my appreciation for the GMNF and its benefits to our beautiful state.  Each year visitors from across the country flock to the Green Mountain National Forest and other national forests to recreate, retreat, and recharge.  America is unique in that it boasts over 100 million acres of national forests for us all to enjoy.  Whether you’re seeking solace or adventure, or perhaps a bit of both, our national forests provide much needed opportunities to connect with and be nurtured by nature.

Enjoyment of our forests has made them major economic drivers.  The wildlife habitat, clean water and scenery provided by our forests are crucial to supporting the nation’s $700 billion outdoor recreation economy and the people it employs.

In a rapidly changing world faced with increased pollution, over development, degraded habitats and climate change, it is crucial that we safeguard our national forests so that they remain for future generations to enjoy.  That means shifting how we think of conservation to consider whole natural communities and large landscapes.  It also means updating old and outdated forest management practices.  Scientists have learned a lot about how to best manage and protect wild places and wildlife in the past 20 years.  Yet the guidelines controlling forest management have not been updated, until now.

The U.S. Forest Service is currently working to modernize the standards for planning how our forests are used and protected, setting safeguards and standards to ensure that everyone can access and enjoy our national forests.  The Forest Service’s updated proposal is a step in the right direction towards addressing the challenges our forests face today.  For the first time ever, these rules would address the impact of climate change in an effort to set up a framework for managing our forests in a way that prepares for changing conditions, like the shifting migration and weather patterns.

The Vermont Sierra Club believes that these draft regulations are a positive step forward in addressing climate change planning, adaptation, and resiliency.  It is clear the agency took a serious look at addressing this essential issue and threat to our forests, waters, and ecosystems.  However, for these new planning regulations to really accomplish the job they need to be substantially tightened and real accountability for the agency specifically incorporated into the standards and directives.  The Vermont Sierra Club is drafting comments and participating in public forums on the proposed rule, and I invite every concerned citizen to do the same.  Information on the proposed planning rule is available at: http://fs.usda.gov/planningrule.  Please take some time to look into the proposed planning rule and submit your comments on the web by going to:  http://www.govcomments.com/Web…

The Vermont Sierra Club’s concerns with the proposed rule center on the following four issues:

1. For the first time, the proposed rule addresses the threat of climate change on our national forests.  There are references to climate change in the rule’s three main components: assessment, plan revision, and monitoring.  However, all of the language is discretionary.  There is no mandatory program to analyze the effects of climate change or to develop strategies to address those threats.  Given the profound changes we are already seeing in forest ecosystems due to a changing climate, the requirements for addressing these changes should be explicit and mandatory.

2. Under the current planning rule, the Forest Service is required to manage habitat to maintain viable populations of native wildlife in the planning area.  For most species on the national forests, the proposed rule replaces this clear requirement with vague instructions to manage for ecosystem health.  The proposed rule should require the Forest Service to keep common species common and maintain viable populations of native wildlife.

3. The proposed rule limits the viability requirement only to “species of conservation concern,” and then lets local forest officials decide which those are.  It also allows the agency to absolve itself from the responsibility for protecting the species it does identify by claiming impossibility.  Yet at the same time, the Forest Service claims the proposed rule gives “equal or greater levels of protection” than the existing rule.  The proposed rule should not allow the Forest Service the discretion to exempt species from protection.

4. Under the current forest rule, the public can hold the Forest Service accountable when it fails to meets its commitments to safeguard water, wildlife and other forest resources.  The proposed rule seems to allow for a much greater degree of agency discretion instead of providing concrete standards and requirements for the management and protection of critical forest resources.  The practical result is a sharp curb on public accountability. The proposed rule should maintain the agency’s existing accountability to the public, thereby ensuring that the agency does not stray from its mission to sustain, protect and enhance forest ecosystems.

The Obama administration is holding public roundtables across the country, including one in Rochester, VT, on March 23, to gather input on how to manage our shared forest heritage.  I hope they take the opportunity to really work with the public to develop a forest policy that safeguards the health, jobs and outdoor heritage of the American people.  We have an opportunity to balance our forest use in a way that conserves wildlife, promotes local businesses and supports cherished family traditions.  We should not waste it.  

*Zak Griefen chairs the Executive Committee and the Wetlands and Water Resources Committee of the Vermont Sierra Club and practices environmental law with Cheney, Brock & Saudek, P.C., in Montpelier.  

**The Vermont Sierra Club is currently organizing to establish a mosaic of TOWN OWNED FORESTS across Vermont as a means to build protected wildlife migration corridors. Please sign the online petition to show your support!  Please see the following link:

http://action.sierraclub.org/s…

***The Vermont Sierra Club is a grassroots organization of folks who are for a clean a sustainable environment. They have 3000 members across the State of Vermont. Their offices are at: 149 Main Street, Montpelier, VT, 06602. Phone: (802)229-6399. Website: www.vermont.sierraclub.org