From Nicole Gaudiano at the Freeps:

Vermont’s congressional lawmakers are standing behind the federal funding they secure for home-state projects, even as Republicans and some Democrats wage war on the practice.

Sens. Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, and Bernie Sanders, an independent, said they will continue to seek money for earmarks for Vermont projects.

[…]Welch said the Vermont delegation has worked on “some terrific projects” to improve sewers, help local colleges and promote energy efficiency.

“It would be unfortunate to lose the opportunity to help communities that are helping themselves,” he said.

This earmark crusade is so many layers of stupid; earmarks account for a tiny percentage of the overall budget, supporting and funding homestate projects is supposed to be part of a Rep or Senator’s job, etc.

The problem with a bridge to nowhere is not that it’s an “earmark,” it’s that it’s a bridge to nowhere. Why is it so hard to judge these projects on their individual merits?

Of course we all know why. It’s the same psychology at work that went into the “Challenges for Change” nonsense – let the actual policy follow the reactionary soundbite – and then let the all the shrapnel fall where it may.

And the Democratic leadership in Washington (including – especially – the Obama administration) continue to demonstrate how desperately concerned they are about the politics of every situation, even as they demonstrate how incompetent they are at actually understanding those politics. It’s depressing that reactionary soundbite politics trumps all in our political culture these days.

So to Patrick, Bernie, Peter – thanks guys. Thanks for understanding the job you were sent to do and taking it seriously. At present, it’s a losing battle, no doubt, but the projects you guys have funded over the years – and by all rights should continue to support over the coming years – are worth it.

There are two pieces currently on the front page talking about taxation, specifically focused on sales tax and sin taxes.  I’m going to throw out a different perspective and make an argument that may surprise a few people.

I’ve been trying to run the numbers on this to get a clearer perspective on it– I would have written this much sooner had I been successful at that, but I’m still trying to find the numbers I need to be as thorough as I’d like with this.  So until then, treat this as a “this is something I’m pondering” rather than “this is a serious policy proposal.”

So what if we were to eliminate sales tax, at least for certain types of business or sales?

Mind you, I’m not coming at this from an anti-tax perspective.  I very much believe that if we eliminate the Vermont sales and use tax, we’d have to make that up elsewhere.  One option would be increase in income tax.  Another would be an increase in corporate taxes, or possibly Motor vehicle fees.  It might require a combination of those things.

What I have worked out is that if we were to eliminate sales tax entirely, we’d be able to make up for it by doubling Gasoline taxes, Motor Vehicle Fees, Purchase and Use Fees, Corporate Taxes and Insurance Taxes, which is kind of a lot of tax increases.

But there are other options:

1. eliminate sales tax for any product which is manufactured and pays taxes to Vermont;
2. eliminate sales tax for any store which has paid taxes to Vermont for the previous five years;

This could also be used as an enforcement tool– businesses which get the sales tax exception could lose the exception if they’re convicted of selling cigarettes or alcohol to minors.

I want to be clear: I’m not anti-tax.  I’m not even anti sales tax.  But I do have concerns about regressive taxes that unfairly go after the poor.  Taxing purchases as opposed to income has two big problems with it.  It (a) taxes the poor unfairly and (b) fails to stimulate the economy.

Right now, we want people to be spending money and exchanging goods.  But currently, most people I know will go to Keene or Hinsdale to do Christmas shopping in order to benefit from New Hampshire’s zero sales tax.  That fails to help Vermont’s economy or tax base, and it puts money that could be going into Vermont’s coffers into New Hampshire’s.  

But if we could increase local purchases from local companies by eliminating or reducing sales taxes (provided we still replace that income somewhere else) we could actually benefit from it, not by just eliminating sales tax and magically increasing revenue, but by replacing regressive taxation with progressive taxation and stimulating the economy in the process.

One of the issues in this year's campaign was Peter Shumlin's call for a single payer health care system. There was a lot of skirmishing, with Peter arguing that single payer is the best way to structure health care financing and Dubie arguing that, regardless of its merits, single payer is off the table because it isn't allowed under the Affordable Care Act.

Peter's response was that we can ask for a waiver, and they'll probably grant it. Not bad, but it depends on getting the waiver, and getting it years before the law says we can ask for it.

Today we learn that things may be changing. Scott Brown, the new Senator from Massachusetts whose qualifications are apparently limited to the fact that he owns a truck and has, in the past, had the ability to make women salivate,is working with Oregon Senator Ron Wyden to "fix" the Affordable Care Act.

According to Ezra Klein in today's Washington Post:

 Also, according to Klein, even Orin Hatch supports this idea.

And who benefits from this idea? Here's Klein again:

These are early days and there's a lot that could go wrong with this proposal. 

Still, if Peter Shumlin, working with Bernie Sanders (exactly what he said he’d do in his campaign) can get some traction for a waiver to try a single payer system in Vermont, this will be not only a huge benefit for the people of Vermont, but a tremendous accomplishment for our new governor.

( – promoted by kestrel9000)

(The VT Migrant Farm Worker Solidarity Project asked me to post this here, which I’m glad to do)

VT Farm Workers End 3 Day Strike in Frustration. Workers denounce Mack Farm and file $4,494.00 back wage claim.

Charlotte, Vermont-November 18-. “We told him we’re not working and we’re not leaving until you pay us,” explained, a 27 year old migrant farm worker woman from San Isidro, Chiapas, Mexico after going on strike last Saturday with her boyfriend and father at Mack Farm in Charlotte.

The workers are owed $4,494.00 in back wages for the previous months work and since beginning employment there last January they claim the farmer owes them $8,344.00. “He is always late with pay and sometimes pays us half of what he owes us, sometimes the checks bounce, and sometimes he gives us nothing at all. Then he tries to run you from the farm. He owes others who got frustrated and already left the farm,” explained the worker.

The 3 workers ended their 3-day strike on Monday night to stay with friends and were fortunate to find work at another farm within a couple days. They filed a back wage claim with the Vermont Department of Labor yesterday.

Background

On Friday November 12th, the VT Migrant Farmworker Solidarity Project received a call from a worker on the farm. She had called months earlier with a similar complaint. On Saturday, after the Solidarity project reminded David Mack that the workers had been promised payment by 12 noon he hung up the phone saying, “This conversation is over”.

On Monday, an anonymous source called the Solidarity Project and shared that when he told a group of unemployed workers there was work at Mack farm one worker replied, “Mack Farm, no way, I’ll never work there again.” It turns out the worker is owed roughly $3,000.00 from Mac. The Solidarity Project is working with the farm worker community to track him down to help him file a back wage claim.

Today is a National Day of Action Against Wage Theft (www.iwj.org/index.cfm/national-day-of-action-against-wage-theft) and today the VT Migrant Farmworker Solidarity Project stands with this family to publicly denounce Mack Farm . “We are aware that neither Mack Farm nor any dairy farmer is getting rich right now,” said Natalia Fajardo co-coordinator of the community organizing project at the Solidarity Project. “However, in this well documented case that spans a number of years Mack farm must be singled out for their consistent wage theft.”

Just last year the Solidarity Project received a similar complaint about Mack Farm. Workers were owed thousands of dollars and went on strike. Some of the workers left without being paid and in the process the Solidarity project learned that there were a number of other former Mack employees who had also left without pay. A clip from the interview they conducted at that time is available on line at: http://www.vtmigrantfarmworker…

After consulting with a group of anonymous dairy farmers, the Solidarity Project learned that some farmers are aware and concerned about Mack’s disregard for workers and fear he makes all farmers look bad. Although, non-payment of workers is not a problem on the majority of VT dairy farms there are a handful of other back wage claims in Vermont that have been or will be filed in the coming weeks after repeated failed attempts to appeal directly to farmers.

“This isn’t a simple case of a farmer who falls behind on pay once or twice and negotiates some agreement with workers. This is the way this farm is run. We are hopeful that the farming community might find ways to denounce Mack because he makes other farmers look bad.” Farjardo continued, “This is a messy situation. On the one hand dairy farms are going under creating an environment where a handful of employers like Mack are more likely to exploit workers. While on the other hand Gregg Engles, CEO of Dean Foods that controls 70-80% of the Northeast Dairy Market, averages $21.3 million in compensation packages. Trickle up economics lines the pockets of CEO’s and systematically exploits the hard work of both farm workers and farmers. This case is a serious reminder for the urgent need for bold steps in economic, agricultural and immigration reforms.”

More information at: www.vtmfsp.org; 802-825-1609; vtmfsp@gmail.com

( – promoted by odum)

I have always been an Independent for myriad reasons.  As a voter and an activist, I could afford to be, and even as a candidate it offered a great deal of freedom to reach out to people across the political spectrum.  During the campaign I had success–admittedly to varying degree–with Republicans, Libertarians, Progressives, Democrats and Independents, and I was very happy with how well we performed without any party support.

That said, of course I would have enjoyed greater success at the ballot box if I’d had a different label next to my name.  There’s an inherent premium just having a party affiliation which is completely understandable.  As humans we are wired to make quick decisions based on categories as part of our survival skills–not rational, but completely natural.

So I have to consider the overall political climate as I shift gears in how I’m trying to effect change.  When I was solely working outside the system, I could get away with being “pure” and focused entirely on my particular peace and justice agenda.  Once I became a candidate for elected office, I had to put my constituents’ concerns at the top of the list, even if I think what I hope to accomplish will help them.

My philosophy of action is generally tempered with pragmatism, although it might not seem like it to people who decry some of the “extreme” tactics I’ve been involved with over the years.  I try to place all the things I’ve done into a strategic arc, designed to register dissent, raise awareness, interrupt status quo behavior, and so on.  It’s not always successful, but what human endeavor is?

When I approached major issues on the trail, my positions were motivated by my own sense of morals and yet I framed them in more practical terms.  Healthcare is a human right as I see it, and it just so happens that delivering it through single-payer is fiscally conservative.  War is evil, and a budget buster.  We need renewable energy, and investing in it will create more jobs than keeping Vermont Yankee operating.  Etc, etc.

Looking, then, at how I can improve my odds of becoming the vote I wish to see in the Legislature, I have to question my non-partisan status.  Again, I’m pleased with and even proud of what we accomplished this year, and think it was really the only way I could’ve tried breaking into the electoral system.  Now it’s just time to step up my game so I have more opportunity to do good.

Losing my first race in the manner I did was probably one of the best things I could have ever done.  More opportunities have arisen just from our hard work during the election cycle than I’d anticipated.  I built a bigger base and better network than I really thought possible, not to mention making so many new friends and discovering a wellspring of inspiration coming from likeminded people whom I never knew existed right in my own community.

During the campaign I met a lot of wonderful people who just so happen to be Democrats.  They were very welcoming as I crashed their events and chatted them up.  A number of them became enthusiastic boosters of my candidacy despite my outsider status.

Talking with some of these folks in the weeks leading up to, and after, E-day, it became clear that I had to make a change.  Where to go?

I’m more aligned with the Progressives than Democrats, it seems to me, but I live in Franklin County, not Chittenden.  Becoming a Democrat offers what I think is the greatest potential for me to succeed electorally, though I obviously want to keep working with people in other parties like the Progressives and Working Families.  Because I’ll still be, I promise, an independent person who reaches out to everybody I can.

Consider this an official announcement: I will be running as a candidate for State Representative in 2012, and on the ballot next to my name you will see ‘Democrat’.

This was a hard choice.  It’s hard to change.  It’s hard to buck the apparent trend (or meme) that people are abandoning mainstream parties.  It’s hard to join a party that, at least nationally, seems ineffective and faces serious challenges in 2012.

I talked about it with my family and a lot of friends.  I thought about what I’m trying to accomplish when I stand for election.  I saw the big tent that was open to me and in the end had to walk in.

It does feel a bit like I’m losing my religion, but it really isn’t.  It’s just a continuation of what I’ve been doing all along, and once the newness wears off I’m pretty sure it will feel just as natural as every other bit of evolution in my work.

Peace,

Todd – newly minted Democrat

(x-posted at Todd for VT House)

It’s the usual suspects talking down Vermont while wheedling for a tax break.



A “study” conducted by Art Woolf on behalf of the Vermont Chamber of Commerce and an assortment of Vermont retail associations has concluded that the state’s sales tax is driving eastern Vermont shoppers to New Hampshire.  Of course the “report” doesn’t fail to take a swipe at other environmental initiatives practiced by Vermont:

The study acknowledges that other factors – Vermont’s bottle deposit bill and strict land use provisions in Act 250 -may also be to blame, but it says sales tax disparity between the two has been the principal driver in the trend.

Of course no mention is made of the shared services enjoyed by all Vermonters that are funded through sales taxes; nor of that unquantifiable “quality of life” that most people seem to agree favorably distinguishes Vermont from New Hampshire.

But, what a coincidence!  Today was also the day that

state Attorney General William Sorrell is set to release the findings of a “healthy weight initiative” and is expected to recommend a penny-per-ounce excise tax on sugar-sweetened drinks…

Among the retail associations co-sponsoring Woolf’s “study” are the Beverage Association of Vermont and the Vermont Wholesale Beverage Association.  These are the folks that make pretty darn sure that our kids never lack opportunities to hold up their end of that retail market.  Someone should ask these guys how they plan to offset the future tax burden represented by lost productivity and health issues as our sugar-addicted children grow into obese adults.

For me, the issue is not so much the regressive nature of any sales tax.  Personally, I’m all for raising income taxes on the top 1% of earners, since they are reaping the most benefits from all the consumption that goes on beneath them; and then raising the threshold for income tax liability considerably for everyone else who is stuck in the broad consumer class that supports the ultra-rich.

What gets me is the way the sugar industry (represented in this case by the Chamber and beverage associations) works both sides of the street so thoroughly, making out like bandits while conceivably doing more damage to our national health than alcohol and drugs combined.

There’s no smooth way to transition into this, so I’ll go into it as slick as I possibly can:

As Vermonters, why do you think we aren’t facing the same kind of ethnic sectionalism that other states face today and have faced in the past (much like ours from the 1880s to the 1940s)?

Also, the largest ethnic bloc in Vermont is the French/French-Canadian population, with that – why do you think Vermont has never had a French governor in its near 220 year history?

I could sit here and explain my views, being Irish, French-Canadian, and Puerto Rican… but I’m far more interested in what you all think.

Make It Transparent, Hold It Accountable

Access to information is an important issue for GMD, so this is a piece I asked Allen Gilbert to do for these pages. I hope you can make it to the conference.

By Allen Gilbert, executive director, ACLU-VT

The right to hold government accountable is guaranteed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”) and more specifically in Article 6 in the Vermont Constitution (“That all power being originally inherent in and consequently derived from the people, therefore,  all officers of government, whether legislative or executive, are their trustees and servants; and at all times, in a legal way, accountable to them.”)

It’s this right that underlies Vermont’s public records and open meetings laws. Government is accountable to the people at all times.

Questions are being raised, however, whether Vermont’s laws are able to provide citizens with the access they need to exercise this right. Officials routinely deny requests for records that many feel should be open. Public bodies meet in closed sessions without giving adequate reason for closing out the public.

The only recourse to address violations is through litigation, which is expensive. Newspapers, which once brought most open records and public meetings cases, aren’t going to court nearly as often because of diminished resources. Even if a plaintiff prevails in court, judges may, but are not required to, award fees and costs. Few do.

Public records, open meetings, and a related issue — campaign finance disclosure — are the topics of a conference, “Transparency and Accountability in Government,” this Thursday, Nov. 18 at Saint Michael’s College in Colchester. It’s sponsored by the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont, in collaboration with the Vermont Press Association and the New England First Amendment Coalition.

The morning session, “Government is a Public Enterprise,” will focus on access to public records and open meetings. The opening presentation will be by Greg Sullivan, counsel to the New Hampshire Union Leader and a member of the board of directors of the New England First Amendment Coalition. A follow-up discussion panel will include Paul Gillies, attorney and former deputy secretary of state; Jim Barlow, senior staff attorney at the Vermont League of Cities and Towns; Mike Donoghue of the Vermont Press Association; and Anne Galloway of VtDigger.org.

The afternoon session will examine “Vermont’s Campaign Finance Disclosure Laws: Why Do They Get Failing Grades?” Lead-off presenter is ACLU-VT Staff Attorney Dan Barrett; discussion panelists include Secretary of State Deborah Markowitz, Sen. Jeanette White, chair of the Senate Government Operations Committee; and Kristin Carlson of WCAX-TV.

There have been a series of high-profile public records cases this year. The cases have ended up in court because government has denied access to materials collected by public officials as they went about their public duties. The cases are:

• Tom Salmon DUI arrest video. State police originally said WCAX-TV could have a police cruiser video showing police stopping and testing state Auditor Tom Salmon (who was running for re-election) for DUI.  Then the Public Safety commissioner, Tom Tremblay, reversed that determination and withheld the video on the grounds it was part of a “police investigation” — even though the investigation had long since ended. Judge Crawford in the Washington Superior Court ordered the video released, on the grounds that the action shown in the video occurred in a place accessible to the public. Since anyone who had been there could have seen what the video captured, the recording was public, the judge reasoned. This was an interesting approach that opens a new potential avenue of access to police records. The Attorney General, who defended the state police action, is considering an appeal.

• ACLU cell phone tracking data lawsuit. The ACLU won this case, despite the fact that technically we lost. We filed our case because we wanted to know two things: 1) Is the attorney general obtaining cell phone data to track people’s whereabouts? 2) If so, is the data obtained by warrant, issued by a judge after review for probable cause? During the litigation, we got the answers to both questions. Yes, the AG is tracking people through data from their cell phones, and no, the AG is not getting a warrant before telling cell phone companies to hand over customer data. What we technically lost on was getting actual copies of the requests for the data, or copies of the data. We didn’t need those, it turned out, to get answers to our questions. We accomplished that in the course of the litigation.

• Hartford Police Department records request. VtDigger.org investigative journalist Anne Galloway wanted to know more about what appeared to be a blatant case of racial profiling by Hartford PD officers. She asked the department for records of the incident. The department refused her request. She appealed that denial, and the ACLU is representing her in court. Last week Judge Katherine Hayes in the Windsor Superior Court ordered relevant records released. The judge set out an interesting standard for determining which records this includes. She said that if the records were obtained or compiled BEFORE police decided not to bring any charges in the case, the records are secret. If the records were obtained or complied AFTER police decided not to bring any charges, the records are public. We’re waiting for an evidentiary hearing in the case so we can see how this is going to work.

• Vermont Police Academy investigation records lawsuit. The Rutland Herald has reported on several incidents in Rutland County involving police officers’ possession of child pornography. One incident involved officers at the Vermont Police Academy in Pittsford. Complaints of officers’ possession of child porn, and a subsequent suicide, became the focus of an investigation undertaken by state police; police forwarded their report to the state Attorney General’s Office for possible prosecution. The AG declined to prosecute, and closed the investigation. The Rutland Herald, and the ACLU, asked for the report. The attorney general denied the requests. The Rutland Herald sued for release but lost in Washington Superior Court. Judge Geoffrey Crawford ruled that even though the investigation was over and no prosecutions were forthcoming, the report was secret. He did not even entertain release of a redacted version, in which individual names would be blacked out. The Herald is considering an appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court.

Why so many public records cases all of a sudden? Well, the state has just concluded an energetic campaign season. Technology has opened new avenues for police in tracking where we go and what we do. And police have been involved in some unusual incidents.

The cases have all raised questions about proper conduct by public officials — the core focus of Article 6 of the Vermont Constitution.

But there’s another reason the cases are in court.

Vermont’s public records law has been in existence 35 years. It has become increasingly complex, with more than 200 exemptions. Yet there is very little case law (clarifying law that arises from court decisions) that helps define how provisions are to be applied. What we’re finally seeing now is litigation to define how the law is supposed to work.

Case law, however, may not be enough. Statutory law — law created by the Legislature — may be necessary to make Vermont government more open and more accountable.

Quite simply, the system is broke. It needs fixing. Citizen trust in government is built on transparency. As Article 6 says, “… all officers of government, whether legislative or executive, are their [the people’s] trustees and servants; and at all times, in a legal way, accountable to them.”

There will be efforts in the upcoming legislative session for change, to increase accountability. The ACLU is behind those efforts.

Absolutely essential to reforms is making mandatory the awarding of fees and costs to plaintiffs who prevail in public records and open meeting cases. Currently, such awards are discretionary on judges’ part, and few awards are granted. That discourages people from pursuing public records requests or fighting to keep the doors of public meetings open.  

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

UPDATE: I’m bumping this because I think the issue needs more discussion than it got. I also (finally) got around to reading not only the Circuit but also the District Court decision, which  explicates the reasoning much more fully.

I’m passing along the District Court decision on the use of a Taser to force trespassers in Brattleboro to comply with police demands. You have probably already heard of the Circuit decision, but the District Court decision is much more detailed in its discussion of how the decision was reached.

The background is that two people living in Brattleboro placed themselves on a piece of vacant property to prevent the owner from building a gas station there, and chained themselves to a barrel filled with concrete and other heavy materials to prevent the police from

physically removing them. They spent the night there, but the next morning, acting on directions from the property owner, the police unsuccessfully tried to get them to leave voluntarily and eventually applied a Taser to get them to comply. They sued the police alleging a

variety of torts, including the use of excessive force.

The decisions both come down in favor of the police, applying a two-step test in which the court must first evaluate whether the action taken by the police violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, and second, if there was a violation of a constitutional right, whether the

constitutional right was so well established that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages for the violation.

Both courts determined that the police did not violate any constitutional right of the plaintiffs, and this is where the district Court decision is most instructive.

Some basic points are not at issue, or are easily disposed of: the protesters were trespassing on the property; the police were acting within their authority in ordering them to leave; the police lawfully arrested the protesters; the police pursued an approach of trying less invasive methods, such as telling them to leave, asking them to release themselves from the barrel, and warning them that they were about to be hit with the Taser and it would “hurt a lot” before actually doing it.

The basic question is whether, under these circumstances, the police were permitted to use the Taser, and the analysis of the District Court

is troubling for our work. In the public debate, the police and other Taser supporters are constantly claiming that they need the Tasers

because they save lives by avoiding the need to use guns or other more deadly weapons.

You know how it goes: if the Brattleboro police had had Tasers Robert Woodward would be alive today.

As you follow the reasoning in this decision, thought, it appears that avoiding the use of other deadly force is not the sole legal

justification for using a Taser. The court reviews two other decisions in which a person’s act in resisting a police order was justification to use a Taser as a pain compliance technique. It quotes another court decision which characterized the use of a Taser as “moderate, non-lethal force”. In this case the court finds that the plaintiffs’ refusal to release themselves from the barrel or tell the police how to do it

constituted active resistance to the police’s lawful commands.

This is apparently the same rationale by which the Barre police decided their use of a Taser against the person at Cumberland Farms who wouldn’t leave when they told her to was justified.

I can see some real problems for us here, but one of the big ones is that we’re not even talking the same language that they are. We are making our arguments in part on the presumption that the Taser is deadly force and can only be used when deadly force is justified, whereas the argument the police are using is that they’re entitled to use force to enforce their orders, whether that means a pain compliance hold, a physical takedown, a baton, or a Taser. Legally I think they win that argument.

In debates about whether Tasers should be deployed, however, they’re going to keep using the “Tasers save lives” argument. I think we need to be prepared to convince policy makers that Tasers are deadly force, and that they’re too dangerous to use merely for pain compliance.

Jack McCullough

_____________________________________________________________

Today, it was announced that a federal court upheld the decision to dismiss charges against Brattleboro police who used stun guns on two protestors in 2007.  Raise your hand if this decision makes you feel safer in Vermont. Nobody?

Appeals Court Judge David Larimer wrote that even if the officers’ actions weren’t reasonable, they were still entitled to qualified immunity for their good faith actions.

What exactly will be the effect of that decision on future encounters between peaceful protestors and police remains to be seen, but it does raise the question of where “good faith actions” end and arbitrary brutality begins.  One would think that whether or not these officers’ actions could be deemed “reasonable” would be highly relevant to their culpability.  With this decision, the court seems to be saying that if police think their actions are justified, then they are. Period.

Nevermind all the attendant issues like whether or not  use of a stun-gun should be regarded as “non-lethal force,” this federal decision represents yet another blow against civil liberties.

What good tax cutting trickle down Republican wouldn’t see the following anecdotal evidence as reaffirming, perhaps proof positive Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy need to be extended or even made permanent?

So to those struggling to make ends meet or people whose unemployment benefits are about to end ,be of good cheer, the wealthy are shopping and paying full price!  

Saks Inc. and Wal-Mart may not be the best measure, but their sales do indicate spending patterns in polar segments of the economy. It’s a pattern that indicates a widening gulf in the middle, between those struggling to stay afloat and those that are floating along quite nicely with hardly a ripple on their pond, thank you.    

Reports show that Saks Fifth Avenue overall revenue rose 4%.They sold more at full price noting strong demand for jewelry, woman’s clothing and sportswear. A Saks spokesman remarked that “we feel much better about the overall tone of business”.  Saks does caution that the increase isn’t due to wealthy customers mindless spending but because:

stores are starting to hold the line on prices and inventory and train customers not to wait for a big sale.

On the other side of the town

You have the Wal-Mart customers who are going to dollar stores toward the end of the month,observed a Wall Street Strategies analyst.

Total revenue at U.S. Wal-Mart stores fell as fewer customers visited and spent less when they did. Low end shoppers according to a Wal-Mart spokesperson: "are focusing on necessities and being practical in how they're spending their money,

The working poor (formerly known as the middle class) discount shoppers and those with jobs are scrimping and saving in an admirable fashion. Attention Wal-Mart shoppers boot-straps half off.  Now they can start cutting entitlements.