Cross-posted at ASR

Many of the folks I know who live in Burlington, Vermont have a mixed perception of our co-operative grocery store, City Market. Though they appreciate the convenience of the downtown location, it’s often perceived as an overpriced natural foods store which might be nice for specialty items, but would break the bank if you did the bulk of your grocery shopping there. The attitude can ultimately be summed up by the epithet that some Burlingtonians apply to the store: “Shitty Mark-up.” Recent events, however, have revealed the utter falsehood of that impression; in fact, it has gotten to the point where anyone who lives in Burlington and doesn’t do the bulk of their shopping at City Market is clearly acting against their own economic self-interest.

There are several reasons that this is so, but they all derive from the fact that City Market, unlike all of the other grocery stores in the Burlington area, is not a joint stock corporation, a partnership, or a sole proprietorship, but a consumer co-operative. When many people think of food co-ops, what often comes to mind is organic, fair-trade, expensive but high-quality food. While it is true that City Market stocks a wide variety of such items, so does Healthy Living and Fresh Market, which are not co-ops. Instead of being defined by what it sells, the core of a co-op’s identity lies in its ownership structure.

A traditional corporation is owned by shareholders, who are entitled to a share of the profits commensurate to the amount of stock they own. A consumer co-op, by contrast, is owned by its customers (or, in co-op parlance, members). Each member may only own one “share” of “stock,” referred to as equity, and that share entitles him or her to a refund of the profits that were generated by that member’s patronage. As a result, the co-op operates on a non-profit basis in relation to its member-owners.

In concrete terms, this is what that looks like:

http://asftr.files.wordpress.c…

Sweet City Market Dough

The above is a picture is the patronage refund check that I received in the mail today from City Market, which refunds the profits the co-op made on my purchases between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010. It breaks down as follows.  Over the course of that time period, I spent $2105.60 at City Market, and the co-op returned about 7.3% of that sum back to me.  Half of that took the form of cash (hence the check is for $76.80), and an equal amount was retained in reserve to make sure the co-op has operating cash, money to pay for capital improvements, etc.  However, I retain a claim to that sum: it (along with the retained money from previous years) is in an account under my name, and if I ever leave Burlington and close out my membership, I’ll receive that a check for the total amount.

Now, someone might object that such benefits come at the cost of a $15 per year membership fee; even if that were true, membership would still be worth it. However, the $15 yearly required payment is not a membership fee, but the payment for a piece of your share of “stock.” Each share has a value of $200, but the co-op doesn’t require new members to pay the full lump sum right away. Instead, one only has to fork over a minimum of $15 per year until the total reaches $200, after which no further payments are necessary. And, as in the case of the retained patronage refund (but unlike the fee paid to a company such as Costco), if you ever leave the co-op, you get that money back.

As such, I believe that it’s financially irresponsible for anyone living in Burlington to buy their groceries anywhere but City Market. Not only do you get a portion of money you spent there back in cash and build a bit of a nest egg in the form of your retained patronage account, but the prices for staple grocery items (even excluding the dividend) are, according to the Burlington Free Press, roughly on par with other area grocery stores. Add in the financial benefits of cooperative membership, and shopping anywhere else is literally throwing your money away. So, next time you need a gallon of milk, head over to the Customer Service counter at City Market and become a member; your credit union account will thank you!

P.S. Credit unions are also organized as consumer co-ops; why put your money in a bank someone else owns when you can own your own bank and keep the profits! A list of Vermont credit unions can be found here (http://www.vermontcreditunions.com/Consumer/JOIN/vtcusearch.htm) if you want to make the smart switch!

There’s been a fair amount of hand-wringing about the president’s inability to improve the job market, especially without a cooperative Congress. While the president has little he can do directly, there’s one idea that hasn’t been considered: cracking down on overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

For 40 years, workers and businesses alike preferred a loose enforcement policy on overtime. Many workers who spend far more than 40 hours a week on the job are insulted at being considered an hourly worker, or a non-professional. There was a greater desire for flexible schedules than for time-and-a-half.  The notion of overtime is so quaint that most people have probably forgotten that the laws exist and can be used to protect them against unreasonable demands of management.

The recession reinforced this trend as companies tried to avoid cutting too many people. It can be career suicide to refuse to do the work that 2 or three people used to, just a few years ago.  As corporate profits have improved, though, companies have avoided hiring incremental workers. They can only get away with this because they do not pay overtime.  If they did, it would quickly become unprofitable and the better alternative would be to hire new staff.  

President Obama has the ability to shake up this status quo.  Rigorous enforcement of the FLSA, along with tightening the definitions of who is exempt, would be the right medicine at the right time. Of course, the managers of these companies will complain vigorously; they do not hire in order to preserve their mega-bonuses. But their cries should fall on deaf ears.

Right now, major companies are quite profitable. (The FLSA doesn’t apply to small companies). It’s the best possible time to force managers to remember that we’re better off if more people work 40 hour weeks than if fewer work more. This is a way to transfer income from corporate bank accounts to workers, without a direct government payment. 100 trained labor violation investigators, focused on profitable industries, would result in the hiring of hundred of thousands of incremental employees, and the payment of overtime to potentially millions of others. Except if you’re a Republican, what’s not to like?

Nearly-Governor Shumlin graciously carved out a few moments to address the GMD community about his thoughts on the election and the tough policy road ahead. At this stage of the game, it’d be a bit much to ask to pin down the outgoing Senate President Pro-Tem on too many specifics, so we stay in the realm of generalities. Shumlin did, though, reaffirm his commitment to such goals as as single-payer health care system for Vermont.

It’s no coincidence that his rhetoric sounded much like President Obama’s rhetoric going into the Presidency. That’s a good thing – after all, it’s good rhetoric. The problem with the way it has unfolded with the President, of course, is that his insistence that all voices will be at the table and that no one group should be expected to get their way turned out to be code for all the folks who are used to being at the table of power will still be there, and you progressives will have to be content being represented by me and trust that I’ll be enough. That, of course, has not worked out too well in terms of policy, and has been a disaster in terms of politics, given the “enthusiasm gap” that followed and the fraying of Obama’s coalition.

So while the similar sounding rhetoric may press a few warning lights, with a little good faith, its likely that both our new executive and his progressive-moderate-conservative spectrum of allies within the electorate can avoid Obamaesque pitfalls going into the next election campaign which, after all, starts virtually right away with a two-year term.

Interview follows the flip:

GMD: First of all, congratulations. Folks like me are always looking for the weak links in the chain, but there really weren’t any in your campaign. How hands on were you in your campaign strategy day to day? Were you and Alex on the same page, or were there occasions when you either deferred to her and the team you put together, or alternatively told them “nope, we’re doing it this way?”

Shumlin: The fact is that I was extrodinarily lucky in choosing Alex Maclean to run he campaign. She pulled this thing off, there’s no question about it. She has incredibly political judgment, she works like a dog, and she has great instincts. We also had help – a really good inner team that worked together well. So there were occasionally times when I said ‘no we’re not doing this,’ and there were times when they told me ‘yes we are.’ It was a great partnership.

GMD: So you must be feeling some extrodinary vindication, here. I mean – you were the rising political star in the late nineties. You want to run for Governor, but in an era with a more rigorously controlled, top-down Democratic Party at the time, you’ve got a desire to avoid a primary and you’re encouraged to run for the Lieutenant Gov spot and let Racine go for gov. You run a good campaign, but see Pollina split the vote against you while Racine comes up short. Next cycle, you start making moves to run, but the establishment sees an opportunity to mend the Prog rift and coalesces behind Clavelle – pushed down a bit more there. Fast forwrd to the 2010 cycle, and Racine and Markowitz get all the nods as being the frontrunners. And after all that, you’re finally ‘da man.’ You must have been feeling a little like the Rodney Dangerfield of the party for a while.

Shumlin: You know, I knew the odds were against me as a candidate. When the legislature adjourned in May, first of all I was tired because, as the Speaker will tell you, it was a tough session – trying to negotiate a budget with Governor Douglas and trying to avoid a veto in an election year was – it was a long haul.

So we then polled it, and what we found in the poll is that I was down 2 to 1 against Deb Markowitz a distand third to Doug Racine. So we knew it was uphill fight just to get into the Primary. We – you know, I’ll be honest with you – there were moments in May where I asked myself if I was making the right judgment in running for Governor. I wrestled with that for about ten days, and then looked at myself in the mirror and said listen, I really want to be Governor. I think I can beat Brian Dubie. I understand the prospects of winning the Primary are not great, but what is there to lose? So we went for it and I never stopped after that day. You know, I worked 7 days a week from 6:30 in the morning to 11:30, 12 at night just pushing.

But you know I think, to answer your question, I understood that any of the 5 would make great Governors. I understood that to get the nomination it was going to be really tough for any of the 5 of us to beat Brian Dubie. We would all be broke. There was all of the (challenge) after a Primary of bringing people together, even when its a really positive Primary. The folks that are real die-hards for a particular candidate have a hard time making the shift, and understandably so. So i knew that whoever wins – one, would have no money and would have a – I dont want to say divided party, but a group of Democrats that might never be enthusiastic no matter who the other nominee might be. And Brian Dubie had a year and a half to amass a million dollars and do a lot of things right, and he’s a nice guy. And the argument that they didnt make very effectively but thought they could have of a divided government is a strong one.

So I thought, whoever won it was going to be a tough battle. I thought I could beat him if I got the chance, but I knew it would be close.

GMD: Okay, now you’re putting together a team, and you’ve brought Bill Lofy back to help, which is terrific news and I hope he’ll stick around. I’m sure you’ll be bringing on some conservative faces – even Republicans – into your administration. Obama caught a lot of flack for that nationally, but this is smaller, more personal Vermont so I wont expect anyone to fault you for that. There will be an eye, I think, in a couple specific areas where the left will probably have an expectation that they’ll be well-represented. First is the economic team. Are we going to see the continuing presence of people like Harlan Sylvester as the drivers of economic policy, or will there be room for the more Keynesian crowd like the Doug Hoffers out there?

Shumlin: Well you know I think there’s room for everybody. I think one of the mistakes that Governors sometimes make on economic policy is by coming up with a very small group of people and thinking that represents Vermont. I mean, its not campaign rhetoric, I’m incredibly optimistic about Vermont’s economic fortunes. I think that we can get jobs as we get off of our addiction to oil and move to other technologies. The other 49 states may not have the courage to make the infrastructure changes that allow us to get those jobs. And I’m not suggesting that we’re going to be, you know, this economic island that’s going to boom when everybody else fails. What I am suggesting is that I think the face of this economic opportunity is particularly well-suited for the Green Mountain State.

If we can get some small sliver of it that we pretty much have not gotten – you know, we pretty much missed the tech boom, pretty much missed the industrial revolution historically. We can get a piece of this one. If we continue to do what we’ve always done, we wont. so my plan is to listen to the people who have helped build jobs in the past and to listen to those who have new ideas, and I think that’s our opportunity. As a businessperson I look at it this way; the businesses that have succeeded in the last 3, 4, 5 years, my own being one of them, are the people that —

When this recession hit, (those that) said “if we do things the way we’ve always done them, we’ll be okay and this recession will pass,” the people who have thought like that are failing. The businesspeople who said lets change the way we do things, we can turn this into an opportunity, but we’ve got to change the way that we do business, they have succeeded. And that’s the sort of way I see the environment – the economic opportunity for Vermont. I think there’s a bright manufacturing future, I think we have a bright ag future – really bright. I think we have a bright renewable energy and efficiency future. I think we have a bright biotech and tech future. And definitely a bright future in tourism and travel, but we’re going to have to do it differently, and therefore the answer is I wont listen to any one group. I want to be as inclusive as I possibly can, but we need new ideas, new energy and new vision.

GMD: You made some big committments on Health Care, and I think you’ve got a strong resevoir of trust in the progressive community on that issue. But what should reformers expectations really be over the first term?

Shumlin:Well, we’re going to get Dr. (William) Hsiao’s work back shortly. I’m going to start assembling in the next few weeks a team of people – I abhor ribbon commissions because they just sit on shelves collecting dust. what I do like is a group of really informed people that can sit around and chart an ambitious course. I’ll be putting that group together. I am convinced that vermont has an opportunity to pass a single-payer health care system that does three things. First, that contains costs so that we’re not spending a million dollars a day than we were before. Second, where health care follows the individual and is not a requirement of the employer. And third, where health care is a right, not a privilege. They’re the sort of pIinciples that i go into this with.

Now, I got a lot of criticsim during the campaign by Brian and frankly a lot of the Democrats over the Primary saying ‘he’s overpromising more than can be delivered.’ And what I’ve said about this health care vision is this is not a promise, its a plan. My promise is that I will work as hard as I can over the next two years to make this happen as quickly as I can. I understand the obstacles. Some people see the federal waivers. My own view is that the federal waivers is the easy part. I think the hard part is designing a system that actually works, and bringing together the players and getting them to agree to change, and making it fast enough so that we dont bankrupt the state, see more and more people lose their health insurance because they cant afford it, keeping the middle class from continually being (inaudible), and most importantly, keep our providers alive. You know, we’re in crisis. We’re losing our primry care providers in Vermont. We’re losing many of our health care providers. Our hospitals are on the brink because of this crazy reimbursement system. Because all the money we’re spending chasing money around, and because of a lack of technology and efficiency in the system. So – its a very ambitious goal, I get that, but I’m going to work as diligently as I can with as many people as we can and get it done.

I think that – let’s put it this way; part of the economic opportunity I’m talking about in terms of infrastructure is cracking this nut. If we can be the state where health insurance follows the individual, where its affordable, and where everybody’s covered. And where we’re sharing –  using technology to reduce costs. Getting rid of the waste – the percentage for insurance companies and bureaucracy – we beat the other 49 states to jobs, because that is the  single biggest challenge. Small business, middle class families – how do we afford the health care increases, 10, 20 30 percent a year? It’s just not sustainable.

GMD: As far as the waivers go – you’ve got some of this wave around the country of Republican Governors that got in. I was just hearing Rick Perry in Texas – arch-conservative – saying the same sort of thing, you know, they want waivers for medicare so they can do their own thing. Obviously their own thing is going to be very different, but do you see some potential for maybe getting together on that?

Shumlin: I do, I’ve already talked to (Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen) Sibelius about this. I had the pleasure of having a conversation with the President of the United States, told him I was going to be looking for three waivers. You know, we just – all I’m saying is I dont think the waivers are the biggest challenge. The biggest cahllenge is designing a system, getting consensus on a system, and passing it.

GMD: In terms of the inevitable cuts your going to have to make. A lot of people – well, virtually your entire base of supporters, really, were unhappy with the “Challenges for Change” approach, which seemed to be pretty arbitrary, and borne from the “drown government in the bathtub” approach, as opposed to a genuine point by point analysis of what works and what doesn’t, letting the numbers lead the policy rather than vice versa. I’m just wondering – that was such a blow-up at the time – what did you learn from the challenges debacle and how will you tackle these issues now that you’re Governor, given that you are going to be looking at these budget challenges?

Shumlin: Well, you know, I’m not shy about telling you when I’ve made mistakes. I’ve made hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of decisions as Senate President which is one of the reasons I was so vulnerable in this camapign. Many of my running mates like Doug Racine and others had similar challenges – we have long records in government. But you know, the (inaudible) for Challenges for Change was a bunch of Democrats who were frustrated that we couldn’t get this administration to manage government better. And we had this notion that if we hired a sympathetic consultant, from Minnesota who – to work with us and this administration – that we could somehow move government to be more productive. To deliver services in a more efficient way by using technology and other simple methods of management. The mistake we made was by thinking we could do it with an administration who wanted to decimate many of the services of state government.

So – it was a good idea that was extraordinarily poorly timed. My goal is to rethink Challenges for Change, to go back to the principles which were to challenge state government, the managers of state government, starting with the Governor, to think of ways to deliver services to customers more efficiently. It was never about cutting services to vulnerable vermonters.

GMD: Will you be staying in touch with the GMD community?

Shumlin: Absolutely. I’m looking forward to being as available and transparent and as honest as any governor has been about what our direction is, what the challenges are. You know, I’ll close by saying this, John; first of all, you provide a really important service… (inaudible, unfortunately)… but second – whoever won this race was going to face some really daunting challenges, I get that.

We have the dual challenges of a tough budget, putting the state back on a responsible fiscal course, combined with making these really bold infrastructure changes – health care, corrections, things I talked about in the campaign. Broadband internet to every last mile. Obviously, growing jobs. Our committment to education, from childhood education to higher ed – the list goes on.

But no one is always going to be happy. We’re going to make tough decisions, we’re going to making things happen. When you do things, sometimes people feel a little shaken up. So our job is to have a really inclusive conversation about the initiatives that your going to see us put forward over the next 2 years. Because the more inclusive we are, the more we communicate, the more we get it right. But its not going to be another two years of ribbon cutting. We’ve got tough work to do, and I look forward to getting to work.

At the risk of being thumped by the naysayer club, and before the ugliness of the Lame Duck session puts more gristle in our gruel...

I’ve just gotta say it did my heart good to read in the FP that Burlington College will sell its old facility to COTS for conversion into housing for the homeless rather than cash in on some developer’s dream of luxury condos.  There in the accompanying photo was COTS director Rita Markley  and President of Burlington College, Jane Sanders,  a.k.a. Mrs. Bernie Sanders.  No decorative dilettante is this Senator’s wife.  Mrs. Sanders is an urban educator with a  plain grasp of her community’s needs:

“When we went into the process of selling our property, we talked to a number of community agencies, because we did want our building to continue to serve the population of the city’s Old North End.”

It struck me that this was  symbolic of the authentic spirit of social justice that continues to prevail in Vermont despite a decidedly selfish wind that blows through much of the country. Jane Sanders and Burlington College doing a good thing for COTS;  Bernie Sanders on the Senate floor; both represent what I like best about Vermont.

Time and again we elect our champions not just to bring us money for roads and infrastructure projects, but also to tell DC that Vermont values social justice.  For the most part, they do not disappoint (yeah, I know…ACORN.)  That, in itself, is a remarkable thing given the cynical and grasping forces that all but control the agenda in Congress these days.  Still our guys persist…in Senator Leahy’s case, for literally decades.  They carry with them the collective wisdom of Vermont voters who seem to “get” that positive change doesn’t happen overnight, and that, much as we’d like to think otherwise, no good deed goes unpunished.   We may call our reps out every so often, but we know they stand head-and-shoulders above the rest.

Even when much of the country stampedes to the right, we have the good Yankee sense not to toss out the baby with the bathwater.

Lame ducks? Not our guys.  They’re in it for the long-haul.

(Nicely expressed. – promoted by JulieWaters)

Peter Shumlin heads to the Vermont Governor’s office with some striking parallels to President Obama and his election two years ago. Both are riding a wave of partisan relief to be regaining their respective executive offices. Both candidates had health care reform as central planks in their platforms, and take office with high expectations of delivering on that promise despite severe economic challenges. The Vermont Legislature, like Congress just two years ago, has a decisive Democratic majority to support Shumlin’s efforts. Questions abound about a more sustainable energy policy, potential economic impacts of change, and the alarming environmental fallout of the status quo, just as they did nationally in 2008. Overshadowing and integral to all these issues is concern about the fundamental economic strength of our financial and jobs markets.

Vermont managed to avoid most of the conservative/Tea Party tidal wave that swept large swaths of the country this election, but if Governor Shumlin follows the same path as President Obama, that storm surge will come pounding on our ballot boxes in 2012 just as it did in the Lower 49 last week.

(more)

But enough about the similarities, how can Shumlin learn from Obama’s difficulties and find a better way?

There is already one glaring and encouraging sign of difference between the two men; Shumlin hired Howard Dean.

Howard Dean, along with the rest of the impressively experienced transition team, signals above all to Vermont that Shumlin is serious about good government.

This group will be nothing if not competent. Throw in Shumlin’s references to the tax study commission looking for ways for Vermont’s tax code to provide “sustainability, appropriateness, and equity” and there is hope that we will see effective governance emerge from this administration. It’s my strong belief that competence is the best political strategy in these uncertain times.

Competence, or the perception of competence, will also make or break any health care reform efforts undertaken by the Governor-Elect. More than any other issue, health care reform will only be accepted if it makes good sense to the average voter. The good news is that there is a huge tract of space available within which to make significant, progressive and sensible improvements in the system. The flip side is that there are many ways of bungling this issue. Over-reaching, over-complicating, or the kind of politicized special interest accommodations that Obama made would each have likely-fatal impacts on the 2012 Shumlin re-election campaign in this environment.

I’m hoping to see a strong progressive agenda put forth from our new governor, it will be just as important for the long-term health of Shumlin, Democrats and our state that this administration really have its act together in a way that restores some faith in government in these reactionary times, and shows that people are being put first.

We’ve just seen what can happen otherwise.

Maybe a little overkill but that’s the way we work in this business.

Larry Smith, on shutting down to fix radioactive water leaks.

http://www.vpr.net/news_detail…

(Thanks for posting this here– fairly thorough debunking of an oft-cited fake statistic. – promoted by JulieWaters)

The recent Vemont election has finally exposed the Second Vermont Republic polls commissioned by Thomas Naylor to be the misleading and deceitful constructs that I’ve always said they were.

Naylor’s handpicked candidate for Vermont governor, Connecticut native Dennis Steele, finished the race at what can only be described as a very distant and abysmal third place. Some of the independents who ran speak of this third place showing in an unreal way, as though the three “top” vote getters were all within a few votes of each other. Of the 241,605 votes cast, nearly 240,000 supported Dennis Steele’s opponents. Steele has the support of approximately 0.79% of Vermonters who voted.  

Given that Naylor has been telling the out of state press and anyone else who’d listen that a UVM poll (that he rarely tells people that he’d written and commissioned) showed that 13% of Vermont voters supported the notion of secession, something must have gone terribly, terribly wrong over the past 10 months for the tiny band that comprised the Steele campaign. Indeed, Naylor has “extrapolated” that his polls indicated somewhere around 60,000 of Vermont’s voters support secession. Yet, now that the counting is finally done, Naylor’s “extrapolated” projection of the support in Vermont for his and Steele’s “imaginings” for secession has fallen short by more than 58,000 votes.

In Charlotte, VT, the town where Thomas Naylor retired to after spending most of his life in the South, and where people generally roll their eyes at the mere mention of Naylor’s ambition for Vermont, only 10 people voted for Steele. That’s 0.48% of the 2041 votes cast in Charlotte. In Waitsfield, home to “Vermont Commons” publisher and über propagandist for the SVR and Free Vermont crowd, Rob Williams, Steele got 9 votes. Perhaps worst of all, Steele got only 5 votes in his present hometown of Kirby, VT.

So, what went wrong?

Well, nothing really. You see, the so-called “Vermont secessionist movement,” said to be making great strides in moving the secessionist ball forward in the United States, has always been an elaborately constructed hoax. Despite “secession activist Thomas Naylor(‘s)… left-leaning Second Vermont Republic movement” having been described as successful in generating popular support for Vermont’s independence, it just ain’t so. Steele’s vote total is on a par to that of other bizarro fringe candidates that appear from time to time in Vermont.

A part of the structure of the hoax of a Vermont independence movement has been, in addition to the phony poll results, an academic veneer carefully applied during the past 7 years by people such as Naylor, “Professor” Williams, Ian Baldwin, Kirkpatrick Sale, Donald Livingston, Thomas DiLorenzo, Jason Sorens, and a host of other scholarly bullshitters scattered mostly in the South. These guys grind out papers and books at a remarkable pace for something without much success or substance – secession.

Another part of that hoax has been the writers who “corroborate” the overstatement that a movement is afoot and growing. Often these supposedly objective chroniclers of this story repeat unquestioningly the “facts” put forth by the leaders of secession without presenting other contradictory facts that they are aware of, including those that directly undermine the figment of a movement to address the deficiencies of difficult times – secessionism.

No one would dispute that these are difficult times but, really, when in the experience of humankind haven’t the times been difficult? Hasn’t there also always been a human need to consider something that might be possible to ease or offer a pleasing alternative to the difficulties? (And no, I’m not about to launch into an equation of secession to that other great opiate, religion.)

One such instance of an easier to think of alternative to the hardships of the time occurred in England during the Great War in 1917. It was embraced by theosophists who looked for evidence of the potential for evolutionary development of man. It had to do with the supposed existence of fairies. And it was a hoax.

In order to perpetrate a fraud, a hoax or a con, you need only the con and those who want so badly to believe in an easy path to something better.

Naylor and company have been industriously working at making their secession plan appealing to whoever, and in whatever manner it takes, so as to sell the gullible on their idea. Naylor’s called his plan a Genteel Revolution and has come up with all sorts of cute catch phrases to suggest that nothing could be simpler than to opt out of what he calls “the Empire.” Along the way he’s mangled quotes attributed to early Vermonters, issued a form of currency that he calls a token, purloined the regimental flag of the Vermont National Guard, and has lashed out at virtually every Vermonter and local institution since we have not slavishly endorsed his enthusiasms as has his “small community of secessionists”. I’m surprised that they haven’t thought yet to conjure up a Vermont Secession fairy for there movement.

The truth is that the Vermont secession movement, like the Cottingley fairies, is simply a hoax. Naylor at first claimed to have 125 members in SVR and then discontinued membership claims. Based on a variety of sources, a more modest figure of somewhere between 20 to 25 people constitute the hardcore center of “membership” to the Free Vermont independence group. Before launching their campaign late last year, a party registration was discouraged. Obviously that was so the true dearth of secessionists would not be revealed.  Even at the January 15 announcement this year of their campaigns for statewide and General Assembly offices, they only gathered the usual 20 or so deadender sesechers that always show up for Naylor’s dog and pony shows.

“I’ve been writing about Vermont independence for nearly ten years… and, more often than not, it was for an audience of one.”– Thomas Naylor (starts at 3:07)

Vermont has had a history of oddball candidacies, some more successful than others. Just six years ago Peter Stevenson ran for Lt. Governor on the Liberty Union party ticket and received nearly 1400 more votes (3291) than Steele and a higher percentage of the vote total, 1.08%.

“Umm, I, ahh, it would be my privilege to work as Vermont’s next Lt. Governor. Umm, I’m a very loyal person. I’m a hard worker and I would do a lot for the people of the state of Vermont. They say a good friend would help you move. A really good friend would help you move a body. And my message to the people of the state of Vermont is, let me know if I need to bring a shovel. Thank You.”– Peter Stevenson (starts at 3:33)

Fact is, fringe candidate Stevenson is more real, as well as a more successful candidate, than the fairy tale that there is a growing Vermont secession movement.

Just in case there is any doubt about the unhinged from reality quality that infects the Vermont secesher community, here’s their latest InterTubes communiqué from the “provisional capital of Free Vermont,” a dispatch, if you will, meant to cash in on all that nomentum they’ve built up from the election:

Ribbon Cutting & First Plenary Meeting



Posted on November 4, 2010

Center for Vermont Independence

Sunday 12/12 at the Center in Hancock!

Please keep this day open, bring your expertise and ideas.

In 2006 a single Free Vermont candidate ran for governor, a horse

farmer and a man of the theatre known to us as Ethan Allen. This

year, FORTY independents ran! This has led to many new organisational

initiatives. We want to keep the momentum going. Let’s coordinate, support each other, and be successful. Hancock is now the place to go, the provisional capital of Free Vermont.

Let’s please be clear that this is about Vermont’s Independence:

food/energy relocalization, our constitutional liberties, financial

independence from the corporate oligarchy, the post-carbon future of

Vermont. This is not just painting a pretty picture, this is DOING it. Want in?

Potluck meal, bring a dish if you can, then we’ll roll up our sleeves.

In a day the most we can hope to accomplish is to review the current

and future initiatives, and match up talent with those initiatives and future initiatives, and match up talent with those initiatives and

determine how to coordinate. There’s also dealing with media, lessons

learned from the 2010 election. A 2012 discussion will have to be

left for another day. (I’ve already declared for 2012, on Twitter of

all places.)

If people have concerns they should submit an agenda item in advance. New topics will be identified, interested parties can return to meet.

Cheers,

Robert (Wagner, notably unsuccessful secesher candidate for senator from Ripton, VT)

Likewise, Steele intends to cash in on his mandate by launching a new initiative:

Campaign Reflections and the Road AheadNovember 3, 2010

Today represents a beginning, not an end. When I agreed to take on the difficult and exhausting task of running for Governor as an independent this year, I did so with the hopes that my actions would serve to help lay the foundations for a robust, grass-roots movement that will carry the message of a Free Vermont forward. Towards that end, I’ve been collaborating with several supporters to found a democratic, state-wide organization. Dedicated to spreading the ideas of Vermont Independence, providing support for Independence-minded candidates for public office, and organizing volunteer activities that both serve our neighbors and help lessen our communities’ dependence on the Federal Government, it will serve as our movement’s new center and engine of growth. It will be organized by county, and I encourage anyone who supported my campaign to get involved in their county committee.

… Our next step is to build upon the foundations of this success and take our movement to the next level!

Dennis Steele

No doubt that next level is to be somewhere other than where he found himself at the close of the polls – flat on his face.

In the coming months I’ll, of course, be reporting on their usual lack of substantive results and the attendant puffery from the “small community” of local seceshers, as well as their out of state supporters and flacks.

Official Vermont Secretary of State results for the 2010 general election may be found here.

Google, googles up some odd marriages, search-wise but what does this say about Vermont Yankee?

The flurry of news from Public Service Commissioner David O’Brien about Entergy putting the aging Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant up for sale found  their way onto an anti-aging news webpage as the screen capture shows. Maybe poor VY, suffering the indignities of old age, leaking pipes and collapsing cooling towers and up for sale is searching for a miracle cure.  

Here are a couple anti aging insights offered alongside the thirty year old plant’s news link.

From Salamat Dok a Philippine medical TV show that featured a discussion on aging asking:

‘Why look old when you can age beautifully?’  Maria Isabel “Maribel” Lopez. Winner of the Miss Philippines-Universe 1982! That was 28 years ago but the feisty actress with beauty and brains has not aged at all. What’s her secret?

Or: 10 Skin Care Steps a process which claims to be science based. This offers 10 ways to turn back the clock, now using a new science of reverse aging process that scientists have recently pinpointed!

Science based reverse aging suitable for any aging power plant. Please consult your NRC for approval before using this product.

Hey, our unemployment rate just went down!  Go Vermont!

Except…

…according to the Brattleboro Reformer, since Vermont’s unemployment rate fell below 6%, we’re no longer entitled to federally subsidized Tier 3 benefits.

What does this mean?

Actually, I’m not entirely certain because despite my fairly high degree of literacy and post-graduate education, I can’t fully decipher the explanation on the department of labor’s web site.

I think what it means is that Tiers 4 & 3 are now closed to unemployed workers, meaning that we’re left with tiers 1 & 2, which I think are still available to us (though the web site doesn’t actually make that entirely clear).

What I do know is that regular state extended benefits are not currently available, leaving us to rely entirely on the federal tiers.

The 6% rate I referenced above?  That’s not an increase in net employment.  It’s based on people who are looking for work.  If you are no longer eligible for unemployment and no longer looking for work because you have simply given up, you are no longer unemployed.

So when people fall off of unemployment and end up going on food stamps because they don’t have any other options left?  That actually makes our unemployment numbers go down, and triggers a loss of benefit in the process.  In other words, the poor, already screwed, just got screwed a bit more.  

Yay us?

Congratulations, Voters: You Swept Out the Last Remaining Republican Moderates in the GOP Primaries and Democratic Moderates in Last Week’s Elections — Leaving Both Parties in Congress Totally Dominated by Hard-Line Ideologues of Both the Right (GOP) and the Left (Dems). Bipartisan Cooperation? Forget About It!

WELCOME TO GRIDLOCK CITY, AMERICA — You were warned in last week’s column not to vote to return control of Congress to the Republicans, but you wouldn’t listen. Now that you’ve turned over control of the House to the GOP, you’ve guaranteed that the next two years will see nothing but total ideological warfare on Capitol Hill, for the Democrats you swept out of office were mostly moderate-to-conservative Democrats — replaced by conservative Republicans — including several hard-line Tea Party ideologues — and leaving behind a Democratic caucus dominated by liberals determined not to be intimidated by the so-called “Red Wave.” Congratulations, America — You’ve now got a Congress that you said for months you didn’t want: A Congress completely dominated by unrepentant ideologues of both the left and the right, to whom the word “compromise” is as alien as a Martian. (Image courtesy Wikipedia.org)

(Posted 5:30 a.m. EST Tuesday, November 9, 2010)

Dear Readers:

Congratulations, America. You did the exact opposite of what Guest Columnist Russell King strongly urged you not to do last Tuesday.

Now, for the next two years, you’re going to have to suffer the consequences.

For months, you’ve told pollsters that you were sick and tired of the partisan wrangling in Washington. Yet when you went to the polls — in both the primaries and in last week’s general election — you elected what is destined to be the most ideologically polarized Congress in American history since the Civil War — the 150th anniversary of which, ironically, is next year.

In the Republican primaries, you defeated one moderate Republican after another, going instead with conservatives, many of them backed by the Tea Party movement. In last Tuesday’s election, you swept out one moderate-to-conservative Democrat after another, going instead with even more conservative Republicans.

ONE AFTER ANOTHER, MODERATES OF BOTH PARTIES GET SWEPT OUT BY FIREBRANDS

Indeed,, instead of ending the partisan gridlock, you, the electorate, did the exact opposite, voting in a Congress with a near-total absence of moderates of either party — especially in the House — guaranteeing that the hyper-partisanship you so thoroughly despise will only intensify, as both parties become even more ideologically rigid than before, to whom the word “compromise” is as alien as a Martian.

Of the 49 Democrats you tossed out of the House, 24 of them were moderate-to-conservative “Blue Dogs,” including Mike Arcuri of New York, Baron Hill of Indiana, Jim Marshall of Georgia, Glenn Nye of Virginia, John Salazar of Colorado and Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota.

In the Senate, the most prominent “Blue Dog” who lost was Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas — who barely survived a fierce primary challenge from party liberals angered by her opposition to a government-run “public option” as part of the health-care reform law passed last May.

Among Republicans, one moderate after another found themselves swept away by a right-wing tsunami driven by the Tea Party movement in the GOP primaries. Among the moderates who got thrown under the Tea Party bus: Mike Castle of Delaware, Charlie Crist of Florida, Trey Grayson of Kentucky, Bob Bennett of Utah, Rick Lazio of New York and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

(Murkowski, however, may well have gained sweet revenge for her primary defeat by beating her Tea Party-backed opponent, Joe Miller, in last week’s general election as an independent write-in candidate. Murkowski’s win, if confirmed, would be a bitter blow to former Governor Sarah Palin, who ousted Murkowski’s father, Frank, as governor in 2006 and strongly supported Miller.)

But by far the biggest loser of all was Republican-turned-Democrat Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. He abandoned the GOP when it became clear that he would lose in the primary to conservative former Representative Pat Toomey — only to lose the Democratic primary to liberal-backed Representative Joe Sestak. In the end, though, Toomey narrowly defeated Sestak, 51 percent to 49 percent.  

RESULT: GOP MORE RIGHT-WING THAN EVER; DEMS MORE LEFT-WING THAN EVER

Left standing on Capitol Hill after the “Red Tsunami” is a Republican caucus that is the most right-wing in its history and a Democratic caucus that is equally the most left-wing in its history.

Within days after the election, Republican leaders — and their Tea Party allies — made it abundantly clear that they’re in no mood for compromise. Senator-elect Rand Paul told ABC News on Sunday that compromise with the Democrats — or even with his own party’s leadership — was out of the question.

“We’re coming,” Paul said. “We’re — we’re proud. We’re strong. We’re loud. And we’re going to co-opt. And, in fact, I think we’re already shaping the debate.”

House Democratic leaders, however, aren’t about to roll over and play dead. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California), who will lose the speakership to GOP House leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), declared Friday that she was in the running for House minority leader. In a letter to fellow House Democrats, Pelosi vowed to fight to preserve her party’s legislative achievements — especially the health-care reform law that Republicans have vowed to repeal.

“Our  work is far from finished,” Pelosi wrote. “As a result of Tuesday’s election, the role of Democrats in the 112th Congress will change, but our commitment to  serving the American people will not. We have no intention of allowing our great achievements to be rolled back.”

Pelosi has reason to strike a defiant tone: Her congressional district is one of the bluest in the country. While the outgoing speaker has only a 30 percent job-approval rating in national polls, she won a record 13th term in her overwhelmingly liberal San Francisco district with 80 percent of the vote, breaking the record set by her predecessor, the late Phillip Burton.

She also has the numbers on her side: Although several moderate-to-conservative House Democrats are likely to oppose Pelosi, they’re now badly outnumbered by the  liberals, thanks to the loss of nearly half of the House Democrats’ conservative caucus in the election.  

For his part, Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell sharply defended his comments that his party’s top priority in the next two years will be to ensure that President Obama becomes a one-term president. “Some have said it was indelicate of me to suggest that our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term in office,” McConnell said Thursday in a speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank.

“But the fact is, if our primary legislative goals are to repeal and replace the health spending bill, to end the bailouts, cut spending and shrink the size and scope of government, the only way to do all these things is to put someone in the White House who won’t veto any of these things,” McConnell asserted.

IT ISN’T ALL BAD: WORST OF TEA PARTY EXTREMISTS — AND A LIBERAL FIREBRAND — GOT THE BOOT

However, to your credit, voters, you did say “no” to several hard-line right-wing Tea Party-backed extremists who proved to be an embarrassment to the GOP and incurred the wrath of Latino voters angry at their anti-immigrant, anti-Latino campaigns, including Sharron Angle of Nevada and  Tom Tancredo of Colorado.

And, also to your credit, you resoundingly rejected the totally off-the-wall campaigns of Christine O’Donnell of Delaware and Carl Paladino of New York — both of whom clearly demonstrated that they were unfit to serve in the U.S. Senate and the New York governor’s office, respectively.

In Florida, you threw out a left-wing firebrand, Democrat Alan Grayson, voting in a Republican with, ironically, one of the most famous names in American history: Daniel Webster.

And in Kentucky, you said “no” to Democrat Jack Conway after Conway made the foolish mistake of mocking his GOP opponent Rand Paul’s religious faith — or lack thereof — in his now-infamous “Aqua Buddha” TV campaign ad, which angered conservative Christians in a deeply conservative state.

Frankly, this column is surprised that Conway’s ad didn’t also anger practitioners of Buddhism — the world’s fourth largest religion, with 360 million adherents worldwide — who could rightly accuse Conway of mocking their faith.

SENATE FACES TOTAL PARALYSIS AS BOTH PARTIES CAN NOW FILIBUSTER BILLS

But with the Democrats now more firmly under liberal control with the ouster of so  many “Blue Dogs” — and under tremendous pressure from liberal activists and public-sector labor unions not to give in on health-care reform — a knock-down, drag-out ideological war is almost certain.

Republicans have vowed to repeal the health-care reform law passed by Congress without a single GOP vote. But the repeal effort is almost certain to fail, with Obama wielding his veto stamp and Republicans fully aware they lack the two-thirds majority required to override.

A repeal bill is unlikely reach the president’s desk anyway; with the Senate still under Democratic control, Senate Republicans lack the 60 votes required to choke off an expected Democratic filibuster. Indeed, with neither party able to choke off each other’s filibusters, the Senate could fall into total paralysis.

GRIDLOCK COULD PROVE DANGEROUS AS DEBT-CEILING VOTE NEARS

This could prove extremely dangerous next year, when Congress will be required by law to vote on raising the national debt ceiling. Essentially the nation’s credit-card limit, the debt ceiling, now set $14.3 trillion, could max out as early as next spring.

The national debt is now estimated at $13.7 trillion. If Congress fails to raise the limit, the government would legally default on its debts, destroying the nation’s credit rating and causing a panic on Wall Street that would make the Meltdown of 2008 seem tame by comparison.

Already, there is a bitter debate among Republicans over what to do about the debt ceiling, with some newly-elected Tea Party hard-liners vowing to vote no. GOP national chairman Michael Steele declared that his party won’t approve any debt-limit increase. “We are not going to compromise on raising more debt. We are not going to compromise on raising the debt ceiling,” Steele said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on the Sunday before the election.

But soon-to-be Speaker Boehner warned that failure to raise the debt limit is not a viable option. “Increasing the debt limit allows our government to meet its obligations,” Boehner told ABC News, “and I think that there are multiple options for how you deal with it. But for our [GOP] team, I think we’re going to have to demonstrate that we’ve got to have reductions in spending. The government’s spending more than what we bring in. We can’t afford it.”

PARTY POLARIZATION SEEPING DOWN TO STATE LEVEL

Under these circumstances, do you really expect the hard-line ideologues of the right and the left who now control both major parties to find common ground and compromise — especially since they’re already sounding white-hot belligerent rhetoric? If you do, we have a bridge in Brooklyn that we want to sell you.

The really bad news is that the ideological polarization in Congress is seeping down to the state level, as state after state is seeing one party or the other take total control of both the legislatures and the governor’s offices — essentially bifurcating the nation into red states and blue states and leaving moderate voters out in the cold.

While much of the country was swept in a tsunami of Republican red, The Northeast and the West Coast, particularly California, have become fortresses of Democratic blue. Democrats swept all but one of the nine statewide offices in California for the first time in the state’s history and tightened their control of both houses of the legislature — as well as both U.S. Senate seats and the majority of the state’s congressional delegation.

In Vermont, Democrat Peter Shumlin, a champion of a state-run “single-payer” health-care system, was elected governor and Democrats retained their overwhelming majorities in both houses of the Vermont legislature. Connecticut will have a Democrat as governor for the first time in 20 years as Dan Malloy narrowly defeated Republican Tom Foley.

For all the bemoaning and bewailing by voters about the partisan polarization of the two major parties, the results of the 2010 elections clearly show that, to the contrary, America is a more deeply polarized nation now than at any time since the Civil War — and perhaps in all of American history.

Former President Jimmy Carter, in an interview broadcast on “NBC Nightly News” in September, said that the country has become “astonishingly” polarized to a degree that he’s never seen before. “President Obama suffers from the most polarized situation in Washington that we have ever seen,” Carter said, “even maybe than the time of Abraham Lincoln and the initiation of the War between the States,” as most Southerners, including Carter, refer to the Civil War.

For those who complain bitterly about the poisoned partisan atmosphere in the nation’s capital, it may already be too late to do anything to bring a halt to it.

Which is why the next two years could prove to be America’s worst political nightmare.

Sincerely,

Skeeter Sanders

Editor & Publisher

The ‘Skeeter Bites Report

Copyright 2010, Skeeter sanders. all rights reserved.