Photo-shop coping: a great escape from the Trump Era

Sure it is juvenile and a bit foolish, like drawing a mustache on a billboard face, but … I just couldn’t write a GMD diary about Senator Lindsey Graham violating his own Senate committee rules to railroad a bill (one that will help escalate the latest horrors ICE is perpetrating on immigrant families seeking asylum) to a vote. The bill will extend the time immigrant children can be held from a court-ordered 20 days to 100 days.  I even made an attempt to break my block by scribbling about a couple other issues, such as Trump’s barrage of racist twitter-rants. I even failed to engage over GOP Senate Majority Leader McConnell’s rage at “Moscow Mitch”, his new nickname … just couldn’t do that either.

So I did what I could do — used photo-shop and a Leningrad Cowboy to mock Donald’s comb-over and scowl. And studies have found that humor was an effective coping mechanism with all levels of stress.  In fact one study on former prisoners of war found they used humor as: “[…] a way of fighting back and taking control. By defining humor as an element of communication and by thinking of resilience as a communication phenomenon, the links between humor and resilience become more apparent.

At least for a half hour or so I felt better. Now how can I dig an escape tunnel out of the Trump era into the future?

Put up your dukes! St. Albans vs. State Auditor

St. Albans City Manager, Dominic Cloud has picked an odd fight with State Auditor, Doug Hoffer over the findings of the auditor’s recent report on the City’s TIF district which identified multiple compliance issues.  

The controversy has seen City dignitaries, including Emerson Lynn, editor of the St. Albans Messenger join Mr. Cloud in circling the wagons of outraged denial with such fury that it invites comment.  Mr. Cloud has somehow enlisted the cooperation of VEPC (Vermont Economic Progress Council) to change the rules, after the fact; thus, bringing the City’s TIF decisions back into compliance.

That’s a pretty neat trick, one that many a private sector business would envy; but as a City taxpayer, I still have a few of questions.

The anger and vitriol exhibited by Mr. Cloud and his colleagues in their response to what is, after all, a professional opinion, is most unbecoming.  I have read the full report and see no cause for the tone of these responses.  

The City made some errors in administering its TIF.  VEPC’s decision to change the rules after the fact does not alter that simple fact.  We can choose to regard those as innocent errors rather than cynical manipulations to cheat the system, but it doesn’t help the situation to try and paint the auditor as some kind of villain. You know the old line about protesting too much?

The reason we have a State Auditor is that public entities in the same interest spheres as their economic “partners” (or clients) should not be relied upon to impartially judge the legal boundaries of how those “partners” manage the assets they have been given.  VEPC has rightly been characterized as a “partner” to the cities entrusted with TIF designation.  For that support, St. Albans City should rightly be grateful; but VEPC should not be in a position to arbitrarily move the boundary lines of compliance when one of its ‘clients’ oversteps. 

In any case, all of the issues raised by the audit report have not been resolved in the City’s favor.  VEPC has no jurisdiction over the taxes the City failed to pay for the Public Garage.  That issue has been conveniently omitted in the fevered reports of full exoneration.  What’s the story on that?

Phil Scott’s Vermont Climate Action Commission put in the shade by gov’s inaction

In a recent editorial the Times-Argus is shocked that Governor Scott: “In such hot times, this governor seems to have developed cold feet” over implementing the recommendation of his own climate action Commission. […] Now, two years later, we posit: What has this governor done in response to that commission’s hard work and recommendations? The answer is: Very little.

It is worth noting how low the bar is for a GOP governor that The Times-Argus finds the need to praise Governor Scott, crediting him for actually acknowledging the climate crisis, supporting the goals of the Paris accord on climate change and for forming his own 21-member study commission — two years ago.

The editorial praises the commission’s work, noting: […] the commission produced a report that recommended ways Vermont could reduce greenhouse gas emissions while also encouraging economic and job growth — a tenet of Scott’s administration. [ PDF of the 123-page Vermont Climate Action Commission report

Maybe they shouldn’t be surprised by Scott’s reluctance to expend any political capital to actually implement the plan.There were hints — big hints — from the start over his commitment to the goals and recommendations of his climate change commission. The editors might recall or might even have referenced Scott’s tortuously slow journey to be able to speak about the causes of climate change. In 2016 as a candidate he was pretty wobbly walking the line between denial and acknowledging man-made climate change. SevenDays: Speaking on WDEV’s “Open Mike” radio show in June, [then-Lieutenant Governor] said, “whether it’s man-made or not is almost immaterial.” At a Vermont PBS debate in July, he said the climate could be changing “for many different reasons.”

Scott’s language has evolved, meaning he got his foot out of his mouth after taking office and was at least making encouraging noises about support for climate change actions. But then a year into office his administration was found eliminating the term “climate change” from state documents with proposed changes to Act 250 — the environmental development law. Surprisingly few warning bells and whistles were sounded at this point.

So maybe the Times-Argus shouldn’t be so surprised that governor is getting “cold feet” about engaging the climate change commission’s recommendations. He likely had them all along. It ‘s becoming increasingly clear that while the Vermont Climate Action Commission did its job, the governor’s hidden agenda was for the commission to simply provide camouflaging fig leaves of commitment and action for the Scott administration, with little to none of either mandated in the end. Besides, fig leaf attire is so much more heat wave-friendly.

Auditor Hoffer looks at Clean Water investments.

Clean water is one of the biggest challenges facing Vermont in the twenty-first century.

With an economy largely based on agriculture, we have some difficult choices to make as to how best we direct our limited financial resources in order to address the challenge.

Having lived in the Lake Champlain watershed for close to forty years now, I can say we have made disappointing progress on that front.

As part of their mission to hold government accountable, Doug Hoffer and the State Auditor’s Office recently undertook to provide a non-audit report to the Legislature, reflecting on how well our clean water investments are serving the most pressing needs of Vermont’s waterways and wetlands.

(I will admit from the start that I do not have the technical background to do justice to the topic, so this is a pretty superficial effort. I will gratefully accept correction if I have misunderstood or omitted crucial details.) 

Not surprisingly, Auditor Hoffer finds reason to question the state’s funding priorities, as they seem to be skewed more toward urban and suburban wastewater projects and less toward agricultural runoff which represents the greater environmental threat in Vermont.

Since municipalities are better resourced and more highly motivated to engage with the state and other sources for scarce funding than are farmers, guess who gets the “lion’s share” of mitigation dollars?

So, while the deposit of phosphorus on the floor of St. Albans Bay stubbornly continues to put forth noxious algae blooms to choke Lake Champlain, sewer treatment and wastewater projects intended not just to support existing populations but also to service new development seem to have the edge in clean water budgeting.

According to the Auditor’s office:
“…wastewater projects received the largest
share of State clean water funding in the (Lake Champlain) Basin
even though the share of phosphorous pollution
from this source is the lowest by far. Wastewater
accounts for 4% of phosphorus pollution, but
wastewater projects accounted for 35% of
expenditures.”

In responding to the Auditor’s observations,  Emily Boedecker of the Vermont Dept. of Environmental Conservation says that the auditor’s report places too much emphasis on phosphorus reduction, overlooking, for instance, the benefits to general sanitation and public health that arise from new sewer and wastewater infrastructure.

There is value from improvements to general sanitation, but the priority of Vermont’s Clean Water mandate should be to address the most critical threat to our waterways which, for many years, has been from unchecked agricultural sources. Subject to statutory limitations on funding sources, one would think that there would lie the obvious priority.

It should not be a matter of either/or, but it could be argued that it is the job of the Legislature, local municipalities and developers to come up with additional funding so that all of the state’s clean water priorities can be adequately addressed.  

The purview of the auditor, in this case, is to assess how effectively the state’s environmental priorities have been addressed with the limited funding available.

It is clear from the dialogue between Auditor Hoffer and Commissioner Boedecker that additional tools must be developed so that the cost-effectiveness of different approaches to water quality management may be assessed in greater detail.

As always, a checkup by the state auditor is rather like a visit to the dentist:  a little pain is to be expected; but, in the long run, the patient gets the benefit of some necessary and healthy perspective.


The game is afoot: Rebecca Holcombe to run for Gov.

After a short hiatus Governor Scott may have figured or simply hoped he could spend the summer back at Thunder Road happily racing his stock car around in circles. Now he may need to spend a little more time thinking about his upcoming reelection campaign as he just got a declared Democratic opponent.

Former Secretary of Education Rebecca Holcombe (a Democrat appointed by former Gov. Shumlin and retained by Gov. Scott) has declared she will be running for the party nomination to challenge Republican Scott — who has yet to formally say he will run.


“I’m running for governor to take the state in a new direction — to put my experience as a lifelong educator to work and make sure every Vermonter has an equal opportunity to succeed,” she said in a written statement.

SevenDays reports: Holcombe, who has not previously run for public office, was appointed secretary of education by Democratic governor Peter Shumlin in September 2013. When Scott chose to retain her in February 2017, the new GOP governor hailed her “fierce commitment to improving Vermont’s education system,” and she said it was “a privilege and an honor” to serve in his administration.

Those feelings had evidently changed by March 2018, when
Scott announced that Holcombe had resigned for “personal” reasons. The outgoing secretary declined repeated interview requests at the time and said only in a letter to colleagues, “It is time to move on.”

Although not a candidate in 2018, Holcombe wrote an op-ed that appeared in the Bennington Banner (and several other newspapers up and down the state) critical of Governor Scott’s “flawed” reelection campaign claim that he avoided $71 million dollars in tax rate increase. Holcombe rebutted Scott’s claim and warned about what she saw as his poor budgeting practices. She closed the piece back then sounding like the candidate she now is: You can’t drive it [state government] like a racecar, unless your goal is to beach on a rock. On the other hand, engaged and measured leadership, basic fairness, and attention to details of policy can yield better solutions. None of us can get everything we want, but if we work together, we can get what we need.


Others who may join the race according to SevenDays include Democratic Attorney General T.J. Donovan, Lt. Governor David Zuckerman, who was elected as a Progressive/Democrat; 2018 Democratic primary candidate Brenda Siegel could run again.

Maybe Holcombe won’t trouble Scott’s summer idyll at Thunder Road racetrack but she got a strategic first-one-in-the-race jump on  his potential  challengers next fall.

See you at the races Phil.

Trump parade leaves tracks

Here’s another instance of the damage that simply gets lost in the floodtide of wreckage swirling along behind Trump and his GOP enablers.

After Independence Day last week Democrats in the House and Senate announced they will be examining President Trump’s “Salute to America” Fourth of July military parade (with tanks) and fireworks display held at the Lincoln Memorial.

The latest estimate is that it cost taxpayers at least $9.15 million. And despite the cost, Donald’s “Salute” was widely panned here and openly mocked by Russian state run media.

U.S.House and Senate investigations move slowly, take time and likely hardly be noticed. But the City of Washington DC is feeling immediate financial damage. The Washington Post reports Trump’s vanity project cost the city $1.7 million in combined police expenses. And [it] has bankrupted a special fund used to protect the nation’s capital from terrorist threats and provide security at events such as rallies and state funerals.

In a letter to the president Tuesday, D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) warned that the fund has been depleted and is estimated to be running a $6 million deficit when the current fiscal year ends Sept. 30. The mayor also noted that the account was never reimbursed for $7.3 million in expenses from Trump’s 2017 inauguration.

Sure it is week-old news but now a familiar pattern; someone else is always left to clean-up what Trump & Company leave in the road after the parade.

Taking a stand on lemonade

July fun fact: Vermont, California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, North Dakota, Nebraska, Texas, Missouri, Louisiana, Illinois, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut are the only states that allow children to sell lemonade without permits.

Vermonters along the border with New Hampshire take note, our state lemonade stand regulations are not restricting this style of entrepreneurship. Live Free or Die indeed.

Lemonade stands run by children are technically illegal in 34 states, usually due to violation of health codes, child labor regulations or laws that require businesses to obtain permits. The laws don’t directly target lemonade stands, and in some cases are enforced somewhat loosely, usually prompted by a complaint. But the result, from Maryland to Oregon, is the same: officials, usually police, telling children to take down their stands.

And in a clear case of corporate self interest Kraft Foods brand Country Time Lemonade mix * has organized a campaign to challenge state restrictions. The company encourages parents to apply for a reimbursement and include an image of the child’s permit or fine along with a description of what the lemonade stand means to their child. The company will review submissions and will cover permits or fines up to $300 that comply with the terms.

*Ingredients: Sugar, Fructose, Citric Acid, Contains Less than 2% of Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C), Natural Flavor, Soy Lecithin, Maltodextrin, Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate, Sodium Citrate, Magnesium Oxide, Calcium Fumarate, Artificial Color, Yellow 5 Lake, Tocopherol (Preserves Freshness).

Country Time Lemonade mix: Looks like it’s got everything but the lemons!

Alabama Alice in Wonderland and the infanticide myth.

As a female, I have to look at the calendar from time to time to remind myself that this really is the year  2019.  

Even though I am well-past my reproductive years, my horror at the erosion of hard won women’s rights is not diminished by age.  Some kind of mass hysteria seems to have seized the so-called “right-to-life” lobby, resulting in ever more grotesque displays of misogynistic cruelty.  Waiting periods escalated to invasive exams and psychological coercion; then to eliminating abortion clinics altogether and even threats to prosecute women for choosing to terminate pregnancies.

The great state of Alabama, already a dangerous outlier, just upped the ante by charging a woman with murder after the fetus in her womb was killed by a gunshot that was fired at her during an argument with another woman.  The woman who fired the shot isn’t even being charged.  The fact that the prosecuter later dropped the charges against the grieving mother does little to relieve the pall this incident has left over Alabama women in contemplating their reproductive future. This is especially true of women of color, since, unsurprisingly, the target of this draconian miscarriage of justice was black.

It’s Alabama Alice in Wonderland! 

This (hopefully) temporary insanity isn’t confined to the deep south.  It percolates up through the public discourse even in a progressive state like Vermont.

Among letters to the editor of the St. Albans Messenger on July 1 was one from a woman whom I do not know, concerning the poor little infant recently found abandoned in a plastic bag. The circumstances were so universally disturbing that it seems rather cynical for someone to seize upon that moment to distort the public record on reproductive rights. 

In her letter, the Messenger  commenter misrepresented the pro-choice position,  as so many anti-abortion advocates are inclined to do; suggesting that giving women complete autonomy to make reproductive choices; choices about their own bodies; somehow endorses infanticide after birth.  It does not. 

I felt compelled to respond.

This incident took place in Georgia, one of the states that severely restricts women’s access to reproductive choices.  Some statistics from NARAL about issues arising from Georgia’s restrictions on reproductive choice and education may shed a bit of light on what might have precipitated the tragic circumstances.

96% of Georgia’s counties have no access to clinics that provide abortions.  One in five women of child-bearing age in Georgia is not covered by either public or private health insurance.

Teen birthrates in Georgia are higher than the national average, and less than one-third of high schools provide the full range of sex education topics recommended by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.  

The Atlanta Journal reports that one in three children in Georgia lives in poverty.  23.3% of children, 0-18 years of age, are malnourished.  That’s almost one-in-four.

No child should be unwanted, but in places where reproductive rights are restricted and ignorance of alternatives is considered a virtue, unwanted children are the inevitable outcome.  Quite apart from all this, safe and legal abortion saves lives.  Many who benefit from the procedure are little more than children, themselves.

The little baby in the plastic bag is as much a victim of opposition to reproductive choice as she is to her mother’s apparent despair over a situation with which she simply could not cope.

I deeply respect the individual beliefs of those who oppose abortion as a matter of conscience; but respect should be a two-way street, allowing for the beliefs and choices of others who disagree.

it might be equally well argued that forcing any woman, but especially a woman with serious physical or metal issues, to carry a baby to term against her will, leaving the vulnerable infant in immediate peril, is cruel and unusual punishment for both mother and child.

The ethics and morality street runs both ways.

As a powerful minority attempts to steer the entire country backward toward the 19th century in terms of women’s rights, I hope they will keep in mind the moral obligation they will have for the lifetime support and well-being of every single infant that they force into live-birth despite the odds that that life will be a living hell.  This means providing adequate food, shelter, health and mental care, and accepting the societal consequences of this unhappy population.  Let’s see those checkbooks open wide, Gentlemen!