More trouble at the plant. This time, it’s another ‘leak’. Surprise! Details seem a little unclear.
Press release is from The Burlington Free Press, this afternoon, posted in the Vermont section. I did not notice it myself, who would. Information was recieved from Vermont Yankees’ Larry Smith.
From the Free Press staff report:
“Vermont Yankee officials said Friday afternoon that the tritium that was discovered leaking from the plant a year ago has shown up in a monitoring where it had not previously been detected.”
Many in Vermont have been grappling with the suicides of Connor Menning (at MMU) and Leah Short (from Brattleboro HS), but the most moving conversation and reflections I have seen have been from young people themselves and are posted through the Young Writers Project, an amazing on-line organization giving Vermont young people a place to share and become powerful communicators through the written word.
Let’s get one thing out of the way; Obama’s speech in Arizona at the service for the victims of the recent shooting was terrific. It was articulate, sorely needed, and absolutely vintage Obama. The American President at his best. And, as others have repeatedly commented, Obama’s speech was an opportunity for him to express and embody the kind of nonpartisan, collegial politics he believes so strongly in.
The danger for the upcoming policy struggles is that the President fixates on this particular example of a time when that favored approach was appropriate and needed, and glosses over the dozen or so times during the last two years when it wasn’t. This wouldn’t be a danger if Obama were as pragmatic as he, his aides, and most of the political observer class insist he is. In fact, his problem is that he is quite the opposite of pragmatic; he is dogmatic.
Before going further, it’s important to remember what the definition of pragmatic actually is, versus how it’s come to be defined by the punditry and the Washington elite. Go to dictionary.com and the first definition that appears is “of or pertaining to a practical point of view or practical considerations.” What it does not mean is political moderate or centrist. Those are ideological qualifiers.
But they are reflective of the most common political ideology among the pundit classes, most of whom themselves are centrists. The thinking from their point of view, therefore goes “I’m practical, I’m a centrist, therefore pragmatism equals centrism.”Simplistic is the word for that kind of thinking. Lazy is another one.
The simple fact is that the President has approached the challenges of governing a bitterly divided Washington in a profoundly non-pragmatic way. With occasional minor deviations in rhetoric when speaking to the partisan crowds that worked to elect him, Obama approaches every policy challenge by applying his transcendent, nonpartisan vision. It is his only tool, and like any tool, sometimes it is the right one for the job, sometimes it isn’t. And when it isn’t, the President has seemed incapable of acknowledging that fact, and instead continues futily to pound the square peg into the round hole.
A pragmatic approach would be to assess each political challenge on its own merits, weighing the individual dynamics of any given situation and choosing the best course of action. There are challenges that call for the President’s preferred, idealized method of partisan transcendence. On the other hand, there are plenty of circumstances in governing that call for a more hard-edged, combative approach.
This is the essence of pragmatism; choosing the right political tool for the right political job, irrespective of ideological preference. Insisting on a one-size-fits-all approach, as the President does, is pure dogmatism.
President Obama should not misconstrue the universal praise he is receiving for rising above the fray and bringing people together over the grisly events in Arizona as a vindication of his political dogma. Instead, the secret to success is what it’s always been: it’s time to become a genuine pragmatist.
Note: I originally wrote this for a non-Vermont audience, so I cover material that’s known to people here on GMD but didn’t want to reedit it completely –julie
Vermont can fix its health-care system by moving to a single-payer plan that would provide all residents with health coverage, end the claims chaos for doctors and cost most employers and workers less, a consultant told the Legislature on Wednesday.
For those unfamiliar, Vermont’s got three viable political parties: Democrat, Republican and Progressive. We currently have Democrats running the Governor’s office and with sizable majorities in both the Senate and House. When you combine those numbers with the progressive, those majorities grow. In the Senate, it’s 22 Democrats to 8 Republicans (Pie Chart). In the House it’s 94 Democrats, 5 Progressives, 48 Republicans, and 3 Independents (Pie Chart).
Here’s what’s important to remember about such sizable Democratic majorities in Vermont: not all politics here run directly across party lines. We overrode a Governor’s veto of same sex marriage with the help of a few prominent Republicans and we lost one Democrat on that veto override (he didn’t have the courage to vote against it– he just didn’t bother to show).
That said, we are in a different position now than we were two years ago. When we passed same-sex marriage, we had a Republican governor and needed an override. Now that Peter Shumlin, one of the Senators who pushed really hard to get same-sex marriage passed, is governor, we no longer have to think in terms of super majorities and overrides. We have to think in terms of leadership in the House and Senate, and committee chairs. If this is going to be stopped anywhere, it will be there.
Before I go on, I want to clarify a couple things here: there is solid opposition to any form of single payer plan. People will oppose “government health care,” and despite the fact that this is a complete misnomer (single payer is not single provider), it’s one of those cries that gets people kind of crazy. So messaging is important on this.
We have the tea party in Vermont, just like everyplace else, and they will show up to protest and harass and they’ll write incoherent letters and gin up controversy and try to corner you and explain the Federal Reserve to you. It’s not a pretty sight.
But they don’t have the foothold that they have in other parts of the country. Presuming to speak on behalf of the many Vermonters who have some amount of sanity left, I’ll just note that we’d like it to stay that way. They may cause trouble, but they also tried to primary one of those Republicans who supported same-sex marriage and it kind of failed, spectacularly, so I’m not too worried about them at this juncture.
I’m, frankly, much more concerned about Democrats right now. Democrats hold all the power in this scenario. Governor Shumlin wants this, and campaigned on it.
Currently, the plan most in favor is a “public/private hybrid plan.” The full draft of the report presented yesterday is available here, though there seems to be something wrong with the file at the moment ’cause I opened it and it makes no sense. An extremely vague summary is available here as well. Neither of these things are helpful. I primarily posted the draft link so that when a more useful version pops up, we have it for reference.
There are a couple pitfalls with the plan as I currently understand it, and I’d like to see how these are addressed.
First, the idea is to use payroll taxes and taxes on businesses to pay for the plan. I have no problem with this, but on a state level, how will it work? If I live in Vermont but work in New Hampshire, will my wages be taxed additionally? If I work in Vermont, but live in New York, will I have extra taxes taken out without any benefit? These are small questions, but not unimportant ones and without the ability to review the plan in detail, they will persist. They will also be the sort of questions that people opposed to single payer will use to pick away at it, so the messaging on this sort of thing needs to be clear a.s.a.p.
Secondly, do we have the infrastructure to implement the plan? The suggestion is that we contract out the claims processing system through a private bid. We do a lot of outsourcing our IT in Vermont and I think it’s a mistake when we go out of state or even out of state government for this sort of thing. We pay ridiculous numbers of dollars to companies who charge us thousands to fix small problems and hold us hostage to their demands because we’ve invested so much in the inferior software they’ve built for us that we have to continue. I’d much rather see us spend less money, hire a small IT team in-house and build it from inside. This involves a more hands on approach, but it also requires that the people involved in building it be invested and accountable to their own community.
Some of the opposition is going to complain about job loss, claiming that people responsible for medical claims processing will lose work and it will put people out of business. So I have a suggestion for neutralizing those complaints: as part of the new system, offer an incentive for people to rehire those displaced. I.e., if we do use a private partner for claims processing, give them a credit for hiring people who already work in claims processing, such as paying 50% of the first three months salary of any Vermonter displaced by this plan during the first five months of its implementation. It will mute opposition and keep people employed in Vermont.
The strongest benefits of this plan are fairly straightforward:
Universal care: if done right, this will provide health care for everyone in Vermont. That alone is tremendous.
Better business climate: people will tell you that business are opposed to single payer. Not all are, and some see the value of it. This is Paul Millman, president of Chroma in Bellows Falls, VT, being introduced by Bernie Sanders, and assisted by Peter Shumlin:
Shorter version: we’d rather spend our money on taxes than spend it on health care costs.
Moving away from a profit model: we’ve got no reason to make profit a part of health care, but that’s our system. Insurance companies are therefore invested in their bottom line and not the care of their people. That needs to change, and it needs to change today.
I want to just note: this is not a done deal. We have conservative Democrats in Vermont, and some of them have positions of power in the House and Senate. We need to push them, and push them hard at times. This is a battle, and it’s not going to be won by wishing or hoping it happens. It takes work, effort and planning. As we should all know by now, having Democrats in power is no guarantee of anything, but it’s am important step.
UPDATE: Montpelier city council denies Taser request until completion of a public process, with opportunity for a full and complete community discussion.
The January 20th edition of the Montpelier Bridge is no[w]t yetavailable online, at the time of this posting anyway, however anyone in the area who is able to pick up and read a print version available on the street is urged to do so asap.
The newspaper includes a lengthy article on pages 22 and 23 reporting on the Taser hearing before the city council last week. In addition is an editorial on page 26 written by Nat Frothingham within which is voiced strongly worded opposition to the purchase of Tasers by the city.
In addition, for further information concerning Montpelier, Vermont and Tasers, check out an informational slideshow presentation of mine on the subject, here.
Apropos of nothing, our state constitution has a peculiar obsession with things that are good for the public, community, etc:
That private property ought to be subservient to public uses when necessity requires it…
That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community, and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single person, family, or set of persons, who are a part only of that community; and that the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right, to reform or alter government, in such manner as shall be, by that community, judged most conducive to the public weal….
[N]or are the people bound by any law but such as they have in like manner assented to, for their common good: and previous to any law being made to raise a tax, the purpose for which it is to be raised ought to appear evident to the Legislature to be of more service to community than the money would be if not collected…
[T]he people have a right to assemble together to consult for their common good…
The Declaration of the political Rights and privileges of the inhabitants of this State, is hereby declared to be a part of the Constitution of this Commonwealth…
The Dec. 10 one-man filibuster that propelled Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) to folk-hero status on the left is about to be published for the ages.
That’s right. The Vermont socialist’s eight-and-a-half-hour attack on tax cuts for the rich will be released by Nation Books in mid-February, with an e-book edition available Jan. 28. It will be titled, “The Speech: A Historic Filibuster on Corporate Greed and the Decline of Our Middle Class.”
Mixed feelings. Is this overselling it, especially since it wasn’t really a filibuster (given that it didn’t impact the voting on cloture or the bill itself), but was rather a marathon speech. It was a good thing, as I argued at HuffPo, but I’d hate to see it retroactively cast as some sort of sales gimmick. That would be a shame.
On the other hand, it could also be seen as a creative way for our Junior Senator to launch his message into a medium with more staying power than the mass media’s lens on Washington, which is a fleeting thing. Bernie’s points deserve to be more than fleeting.
So I’m agnostic about the move to the bookstore racks, for now, but I’m dreadfully curious to what readers here think. Hey, at least the audiobook is already recorded.
As the US House of Representative works on its symbolic vote to repeal the new national health care plan Vermont moves forward. A draft report was presented in Montpelier by Dr. William Hsiao for recommendations today.
Vermont State Senate Pro Tem said in part “The Hsiao report provides us with a road map to develop a healthcare system with a strong foundation.”
comments can be emailed to comments@vermontact128study.com.
As required by Act 128, Hsiao studied three options for system reform:
1 A government-run single payer program;
2 A “public option” that would be offered as a choice within a new health insurance exchange;
3 A third option, not specified in the legislation, which Hsiao defined as a public/private single payer program that has a public governance structure and preserves a limited role for one private insurer.
Hsiao recommended implementing the third approach. He and his team estimate that it would reduce health care costs by $500 million while achieving quality and universal coverage for Vermonters. The plan will reduce overall employer payments for health care, decouple health insurance from employment and create as many as 4,000-5,000 new jobs in Vermont. [emphasis added]
Thanks to my intrepid colleague, BP, for alerting me to this development.
Just a month to the day since we talked about it here on Green Mountain Daily, the Times Argus (paywall alert!) reports that the infamous lamp is back on the Governor’s desk.
I am, however, a bit puzzled by a statement apparently made on Friday by David Schultz, the Statehouse curator:
“I was kind of wondering why no one had inquired yet,”
Just call me “No One.” I never did receive a response to my e-mailed query sent to the Friends of the Statehouse, who, in the course of statehouse renovations during the Dean administration, commissioned and paid the $2,500. cost of the lamp.
Anyway, she’s back; and Civil War historian and author Howard Coffin said it best:
“Aside from being a symbol of human freedom and a protest against slavery, it’s a beautiful depiction of the female body,” Coffin said. “And that is not going to trouble the present governor, apparently.”
Since there is a “new sheriff in town,” l thought it would be fun to take a brief walk down memory lane to the earliest years of the Douglas administration.
How many folks remember the former governor banishing a certain lamp featuring the work of celebrated Vermont-born sculptor, Hiram Powers? The classical sculpture in question was created in the mid-nineteenth century and represents a nude Greek slavewoman in chains. Though it created something of a stir way back then, it has since become arguably the most popular example of American neo-classical sculpture. The figure of the Greek Slave was a fixture in the Vermont Statehouse for more than a century, prompting many lively discussions, as it had become a symbol of the anti-slavery movement in America. Vermont was rightly proud of it’s native son.
Fast-forward to the dawn of the 21st century when Friends of the State House were in the midst of carefully restoring Vermont’s jewel to its earlier glory. Among the features of the restoration was the creation of a lamp fashioned from the famous statue, that would proudly illuminate the Governor’s desk. All well and good as planned during the Dean administration, the Friends’ thoughtful enhancement ran afoul of the new Governor when it was installed on his desk in 2004.
Governor Douglas had the lamp removed because, as press-secretary Jason Gibbs told inquirers, he didn’t want to have to explain it to a visiting third-grader. Gibbs hastily added that there was a fear that the lamp might be knocked-over and broken. I guess there must have been plans for a lot of arm-wrestling on the Governor’s desk top. Gibbs clearly hadn’t gotten up-to-speed yet since it didn’t even occur to him to go for the excuse that representing a woman in chains might be objectionable from some stand-points.
Governor Douglas didn’t want to have to explain a symbol of the anti-slavery movement to curious schoolchildren! Wow! Word quickly got around that what the Governor actually objected to was the “dishabille” of the statue. She was naked! Welcome to the revisionist and thoroughly air-brushed world of the Bush Republicans.
My household of artists, having had more than one scrape with censorship, followed this charade with great interest.
Some of you habitues of the State House can probably tell me whatever happened to that infamous lamp. I’d love to know if Governor Shumlin has restored her to her intended domain. Given her history, she would be the fitting symbol for a new and enlightened administration.
This week two Vermont teens at opposite ends of the state have become victims of despair and ended their own lives by gunshot. On Monday, Leah Short of Dummerston (just northwest of Brattleboro), 16 years old, was found at home. On Tuesday 15-year-old Connor Menning was found in a bathroom at his high school in Jericho (central Chittenden County).
Our hearts go out to their families and friends, to the communities they were part of who will never get to see them grow and change.
We don’t know yet what pushed them into such despair that the only way out of their pain was to end their lives. We can — and some will — speculate about bullying, physical and/or sexual abuse, pressures to achieve, shame, homophobia, and other issues as factors. But we may never truly know.
What I do know is that it gets better. Not wonderful all the time, but at least tolerable and sometimes incredibly good — along with some real craptastic times and episodes of personal pain and despair. Adult life is not all wine and roses.
And I know this from experience. The first of my three suicide attempts occurred when I was 13. I was being abused and had been since age 4. And since the abuser was the one who found me, no one knew to ask questions.
Now I’m almost 60, and glad I was not successful at 13 or later. I like my life.
The people who most tormented me in high school are having very tough lives. It doesn’t always work out that way. One of my favorite quotes is this one, from Bertrand Russell:
In the part of this universe that we know there is great injustice, and often the good suffer, and often the wicked prosper, and one hardly knows which of those is the more annoying.
If you know a high school kid, wouldn’t hurt to check in, let them know they are not invisible, that she or he is a valued part of your life, that whatever hurts them will pass if they can just hold on, that you’d listen if they want to talk about it.
If you are a high school kid, it’s probably hard to see a different future. It can look like whatever painful, bad thing is happening now is never going to end. It’s all so incredibly intense. But, please, just hold on. It does get less bad — may even get better. Find someone to talk to who will listen. You are worth the effort it takes to save your life. Death is a permanent end to possibility. Be curious enough about who you will become and how the world will change to wait and see.
