ANR on ATV’s to public: Screw you!

(note from JD: I fixed the link to the CLF's ATV page)

Those of you who follow forest recreation issues are well aware of the recent proposal from the ANR to open up some state lands to ATV riders. They sought public input and commentary on the matter, a good thing, right? I thought so too, until I received this email alert from the Conservation Law Foundation, who have been working on trying to prevent the new proposals from being enacted:

After reviewing nearly 2000 comments submitted by Vermonters like you, ANR estimates that those opposed to the ATV rule outnumbered those in favor by a margin of 4:1. Nonetheless, ANR has chosen to move forward with the proposal after making some minor changes, including the addition of a pilot program.

You can read the revised proposal here. Outnumbered 4 to 1 and they went ahead with it anyways.

The Argus had a bit on this new rule a few days ago, and among other things, noted that due to the current economic crisis and budget cuts, the money for enforcement will be hard to come by. Of course, they feel that money from registrations (and hence, more trails) will take care of that.

To add to the outrage, the scientific impact (page 8 of the report) is blank. Apparently, they're going to wait until the pilot program to fill that part in. Good luck getting that genie back in the bottle.

Fortunately, the eight-member Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules will consider ANR’s proposal at a daytime hearing on Tuesday November 3 in the Vermont Statehouse, Montpelier from 10 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. It's open to the public, and one can hope they'll be a bit more receptive. It's important to show up, as supporters tend to be a rather vocal minority. The CLF suggests:

Witnesses should plan on speaking nor more than 3-5 min. and, if opposed to the rule, it's most helpful to focus their remarks on the 3 criteria on which the committee can object to the rule:

1) the rule is not in accordance with legislative intent;

2) the rule is beyond the authority of the agency;

3) the rule is arbitrary.

If you plan to provide handouts, please bring at least 20 copies. Advance copies to LCAR are appreciated. To testify, contact: Katie Pickens, Committee Staff Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules (LCAR) 828-5760

FairPoint Announces Chapter 11 – Wall Street v Main Street?

FairPoint has Reached an Agreement with its Bank Lenders that will Restructure its Costs and Balance Sheet

As a leading provider of a full range of communications services, FairPoint Communications provides local and long distance voice, data service, Internet, television and broadband services. FairPoint operates 32 local exchange companies in 18 states with 1.7 million access lines. Like many companies, FairPoint has been impacted by the recent turmoil in the financial markets. As we have shared with many of our stakeholders, we have been working with our bank lenders to reduce our debt. We are pleased to announce FairPoint has succeeded in reaching a pre-arranged deal with our bank lenders that will reduce our debt in excess of $1.7 billion. We have entered Chapter 11 to implement this deal and restructure our costs and balance sheet. This is good news and we are confident that FairPoint will emerge as a much healthier and more viable company structured for future growth and profitability.  

To read the FairPoint’s entire announcement, click http://www.fprestructuring.com/.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and Communication Workers of America (CWA) announced Friday that FairPoint was on the brink of bankruptcy.  

As the unions have consistently maintained, FairPoint’s problems were caused primarily by its crushing debt and an organizational chaos that adversely affected revenues and operations.  Despite waging an all out campaign to oppose the sale, thousands of former Verizon workers have spent the last year-and-a-half working to make their new company succeed.

According to the Maine Public Broadcasting Network:  

South Carolina-based FairPoint has been struggling since its $2.3 billion acquisition last year of Verizon Communications’ landlines in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont. Thousands of customers in all three states have lodged complaints about billing and service problems, and regulators in Vermont are considering pulling FairPoint’s license to operate in that state.

FairPoint says the Chapter 11 filing, which must still be approved by a court, will reduce its annual interest costs from $200 million to $65 million. The company says it’s current debt is now $2.7 billion, and the agreement will reduce it to $1 billion.

The CWA and IBEW, which represented 2,800 workers employed by Verizon in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, submitted lengthy legal briefs to State Regulators in opposition to the FairPoint sale.

Based on what we know at this point in time, the proposed sale of Verizon’s properties in these states to FairPoint poses significant risks not only to our jobs and livelihoods but also to the economic health of our communities, both in terms of the quality of telephone services and the availability of truly high speed internet.

One of the key issues of the CWA and IBEW argument was that of a legal loophole called a Reverse Morris Trust, which CWA and IBEW claimed was being “used by Verizon to abandon its

customers and avoid taxes.”

The “Reverse Morris Trust” is a tax-avoidance technique that, thanks to Wall

Street’s financial wizards, is increasingly deployed by corporations seeking to sell off

unwanted assets without paying taxes on their gains.  It is a remnant of the once-

booming “disguised sale” transaction structure that many thought Congress had

largely eliminated in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.

Under a Reverse Morris Trust, a parent corporation can spin-off a subsidiary into an

unrelated company, tax free, if the shareholders of the parent end up controlling

more than 50% of the voting rights and economic value of the resulting merged

company.  As graphically described below, the basic elements of this process are:  

Corporation D spins off subsidiary Corporation C, which then merges into

Corporation A (an unrelated company); to qualify for tax-free treatment, Corporation

D’s shareholders (and thus Corporation C’s as well) must own a controlling interest

in the post-transaction Corporation A.

Typically, the parent loads up its “Spinco” with as much debt as it can support, while

causing this subsidiary to “dividend-out” or otherwise pay the proceeds of the new debt to

the parent or one of its affiliates immediately prior to the spin-off and merger.

Reverse Morris Trust,corporate tax loophole,FairPoint,Enexus

Remember the likes of Brian

 Today the Times Argus takes an unusual position for a news organization .They came out   editorially supporting   Obama’s criticism of Fox “news” as having crossed the line from a news organization to a rightwing propaganda mouthpiece.

The Obama administration’s war against Fox News could be a worrisome precedent, except we know from experience the pernicious methods that Fox uses to distort the news.

The media wagons most often circle up in defense of their brother media when a powerful politician criticizes. Fox must have crossed way over the boundary to the right and out of the mainstream.

The Times-Argus and the Rutland Herald have felt the wrath of the Fox and Bill O’Rielly. Several years ago Fox’s O’Reilly attempted to bully the papers  because they had not  shared the stand on Jessica’s law that Fox/O’Reilly were pushing. It was a time of extremely high tensions and O’Reilly’s film crew at one point harassed a state legislator in an attempt at intimidation. Vermont was solidly on O’Reilly’s target list. Both papers were added to Fox’s “worst newspapers” list. The lines were drawn.

Aw shucks Brian, O’Reilly?

With lines drawn back then  Lt.Gov. Dubie made an appearance before the Fox man himself offering a tribute of maple syrup . O’Reilly said


Dubie is a pro-life Republican who supports Jessica’s Law, proving there is diversity in the land of Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders,  far-left Senator Patrick Leahy.

Last week candidate Dubie participated in conference call and toured the emergency bridge closure site.  In a manner he must have thought reassuring he declared among other things an understanding of the importance of bridges and left.

“…I know first hand the importance of the Champlain Bridge to the economic and social well-being and safety of Addison County.”

Just another spoken reminder that the prime time spotlight is not his comfort zone.  Reinforcing his documented  habit of ducking debates he started his campaign with a curious unorthodox email announcement . These are not winning tactics for the Republicans.

Even as one elder Vermont commentator  declares Governor Douglas’ new lame-duck status may actually give him “the mantle of statesman” with the legislature, one has to wonder seriously about the anointed Republican candidate Dubie’s rightwing positions and a skill set needed to campaign for higher office.

http://www.timesargus.com/arti…

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0…

http://www.vermontbiz.com/news…

http://www.vermontbiz.com/arti…

Biden Is Emerging As Powerful a Veep As Cheney — Minus Cheney’s Arrogant Hubris

Like Cheney Before Him, Biden Is Using His Long Expertise in Washington to Influence Obama on Both Foreign and Domestic Policy and Is Keeping Much of the Power Cheney Amassed, But Unlike His Predecessor — Who Raised Questions About Who Was Really in Charge of the Bush White House — Biden Isn’t Throwing His Weight Around

When Barack Obama chose Joe Biden as his vice-presidential running mate last year, many commentators at the time believed that on many issues — particularly foreign policy — Biden’s long experience would compensate for Obama’s perceived weaknesses. Sure enough, after ten months in office, Biden has emerged as the president’s right-hand man on both foreign and domestic policy, while at the same time retaining much of the power that was amassed by his predecessor, Dick Cheney — without displaying the kind of arrogant hubris that caused many to question who was really in charge of the Bush administration. Biden has even succeeded to a certain extent in curbing his notorious habit of making shoot-from-the-hip public remarks that have gotten him in trouble in the past. But the Obama-Biden partnership faces a real test in the coming days over the war in Afghanistan. (Photo: Reuters)

(Posted 5:00 a.m. EDT Monday, October 26, 2009)

==============

SPECIAL REPORT

==============

By MATTHEW MOSK

The Washington Times

Shortly after he took office in January, Joe Biden invited a handful of experts on the vice presidency into his newly-occupied official residence at the U.S. Naval Observatory to seek their advice.

“He essentially said, ‘Look, previous vice presidents seem to leave office somewhat diminished from when they come in,’ ” recalled Jody Baumgartner, a professor of American politics at East Carolina University, who flew in for the gathering. “He made it clear, this is not necessarily a thing of protecting my legacy, but more, ‘What is the job, and how could I do it better?’ ”

What has emerged after ten months in office, Baumgartner and others agreed, is a powerful version of the vice presidency by the former Democratic senator from Delaware that bears its most striking — if unlikely — resemblance to the one that immediately preceded it, that of Republican Dick Cheney.

In short order, Biden has, like Cheney, turned the office into a central hub for a dizzying array of political and policy decisions, ranging from advising President Obama on Iraq and his Supreme Court pick to helping devise strategy on the economic recovery, on relations with Russia and, most recently, on the approach to war in Afghanistan.

Call it “Cheney Lite” – a vice presidency that has retained much of the power, while so far escaping the role of lightning rod for partisan critics and avoiding any whiff of ambiguity about who is really running the country. Much like the man who came before him, Biden has dipped repeatedly into a deep reserve of Washington experience to help the president push his policies.

“I would say that Dick Cheney and Joe Biden have brought the vice presidency to a new level,” said Leslie Gelb, the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a close friend of Biden. “It’s unusual for vice presidents to play as big a role as Cheney did for Bush, or that Biden is playing for Obama. It’s up a notch from [former Vice President Al] Gore, for example. They’re playing bigger roles and gaining much more public exposure.”

That exposure was on full display last week, when Biden hustled to Eastern Europe after the administration had botched its announcement of a major shift in the missile-defense installations championed by former President George W. Bush.

BIDEN CAPITALIZES ON HIS LONG EXPERIENCE

Trading on long-standing friendships built during his years as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden — who’ll turn 67 on November 20 — quickly defused the flap, providing the precise reassurance that Poland and the Czech Republic needed to feel comfortable with the new approach.

Specialists on the region said they can think of few figures in Washington who would have carried into office the trust of so many foreign leaders.

“He’s more credible with these countries than anybody,” said Daniel Hamilton, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for European affairs. “He’s it. He’s the guy.”

It is a byproduct of that experience that has led Obama to rely heavily on his second-in-command. He repeatedly has been dispatched overseas to smooth over sticky situations. He flew to Iraq when local officials began to express concerns that their conflict was being pushed to the back burner. He went to the Ukraine after the president rattled nerves with his outreach to Russia. He went to Lebanon and Bosnia to reassure government officials that they were not going to be forgotten.

Antony J. Blinken, the vice president’s top national security adviser, said recently that he has seen Biden assume “a central role” on the foreign-policy team.

“You’ll recall that he went to, at the [then-]president-elect’s request, went to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq in January before the inaugural. He gave the — again, at the president’s request — the first major foreign-policy speech of this administration, February at the Munich conference,” Blinken said.

“And since then,” he continued, “at the president’s request, he’s been virtually all over the world as a core member of the team, to the Balkans, to Europe, repeatedly to Iraq, where the president has asked him to oversee the Iraq policy, to South and Central America, and now to Central Europe.”

BIDEN, OBAMA FORMING A CLOSE ‘TAG TEAM’

When in Washington, Biden sees the president almost every day. They attend the same economic and security briefings, dine together often, and appear outwardly to be very much on the same page.

That bond has occasionally been tested by Biden’s renowned lack of discipline when speaking publicly. (At the very moment Obama was trying to thaw relations with Russia, Biden told the Wall Street Journal he saw Russia’s economy as “withering.”) Last week, when Biden tried to pull back a dismissive comment about Cheney he made during an interview with The Washington Times, he insisted he was “getting a little bit better” at holding his tongue.

The relationship could face a much more serious test in coming days.

Biden has emerged on one side of a roiling debate within the president’s national security team over how best to proceed in Afghanistan. While the president’s top military advisers have been urging the president to adopt a far more aggressive approach to the conflict — one that would involve sending tens of thousands of additional troops — Biden has advised a different strategy.

His recommendations have focused more on bulking up the effort in Pakistan, while limiting efforts in Afghanistan to securing urban areas and targeting the limited population of al-Qaida who still operate there.

The vice president’s supporters believe it is a sensible approach — the least bad of a series of unforgiving choices facing the president in Afghanistan. Critics, such as conservative author and blogger Tom Ricks, argue that Biden has been consistently wrong on Iraq, starting with his opposition to the 1991 Gulf War and continuing with his support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and then with the various policy recommendations he made that followed.

“That doesn’t mean he certainly is wrong on Afghanistan,” Ricks said. “But it means that his track record should be kept in mind.”

After five lengthy review sessions and another expected, it remains a fight the vice president very well could lose.

A BREAK FROM CHENEY ON STYLE, IF NOT ON SUBSTANCE

Much as Cheney did when Bush ignored his strong advice against talking to the Iranians and went against his advice in making a deal with the North Koreans, Biden says he will fight his battles privately, not in public. When asked by The Washington Times whether he would consider his role diminished if the president dismisses his advice on the Afghan strategy, Biden said it’s not ever something he considered.

“I’d be surprised if he publicly dismissed anything I had to say, number one. Number two, look, I knew when I signed on as vice president that he is the president. The only thing, the only guarantee I got, and that he’s kept, is that I get the opportunity on every important decision to be in on the deal, to give him the benefit or lack thereof of my opinion.

“The truth of the matter is,” Biden continued, “that he has kept that deal. He has sought my opinion; not generically, but in detail. And if he reaches a different conclusion than I do, that’s OK. He’s the president.”

Baumgartner, the professor who met early on with the vice president about his approach to the job, said he thinks Biden may have attempted to portray himself as someone ready to dial back the profile of a job that had become supercharged under Cheney.

Given Cheney’s dismal popularity ratings — and the former vice president’s continuing public sniping at the Obama administration’s foreign policy — that move seemed almost a given.

“He made it sound like he was going to be going back to the traditional vice president,” Baumgarten said. “The surprise has been, I think, that he’s actually taking a far more active role than anyone expected.”

# # #

Volume IV, Number 81

Special Report Copyright 2009, News World Communications, Inc. Re-posted by permission.

The ‘Skeeter Bites Report Copyright 2009, Skeeter Sanders. all rights reserved.

Jim Douglas: anti-business

From today’s Rutland Herald:

The battle over how to deal with the state’s dwindling unemployment insurance fund continues. Next week… officials in Gov. James Douglas’ administration will offer a new version of their plan for the program, an earlier version of which lawmakers have already rejected.

The governor, who sent a scathing letter to legislative leaders last week about the issue, will again propose splitting the pain between workers and employers…

“The governor’s proposal that we rejected would have increased the tax on Vermont’s business community by $80 million over two years in a time when they are facing tremendous economic challenges,” Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, D-Windham, said recently. “It proposed draconian reductions in benefits to people who have just lost their jobs.”

In an economy in which businesses are struggling to keep their doors open, there’s real question about the wisdom of giving them a dramatic tax increase, even if it is something that in normal times seems fair and reasonable.  Furthermore, cutting benefits is just short sighted and dangerous.  It leads to less revenue going towards those businesses and causes people to cut back spending even more than they already had.  

There are good ways and bad ways to handle a poor economy.  Cutting benefits to the point where it accelerates the depression is not among the good.

Tomorrow CAN be a better day

It’s your money and your health.

Last year I testified in Burlington to a panel of government officials, civic leaders, and doctors regarding my experience back in the early 1990’s without health care.  It was a challenging and difficult time for me and my family, and luckily we and our children were in good health and came through that hardship relatively unscathed.  

All around me, friends are losing jobs and health care, and those friends who do have healthcare are finding their coverage lessened as their costs rise astronomically.  

According to the Grassroots orgainization Billionaires for Wealthcare,45,000 people die every year because they can’t get access to the health care they need.  What kind of cruel third-world country have we become where corporate profits are more important than the health and welfare of our citizens.  

This video brings home the point that

AHIP is the powerful insurance lobby that spends 5 million dollars a week trying to kill health care reform. Billionaires for Wealthcare is a grassroots network looking to stop them – with song.


• AHIP and other insurance and HMO interests spend nearly $5 million per week undermining real health care reform, including a public option.

• AHIP has resorted to out-right lying and scare tactics to block health care reform. They sent letters that lie to seniors about what health care reform means for Medicare, and they issued a report on the costs of health care reform legislation that is so misleading even the reports embarrassed authors distanced themselves from the way AHIP used their work.

Every year as innocent hard working people die in one of the wealthiest countries on the planet,

AHIP continues to stand in the way of health care reform that would provide coverage to millions of Americans because the industry is more concerned with protecting profits than saving lives.

http://www.billionairesforweal… – check them out and join with them in cleverly bringing the point home in a non-violent way.

It’s your money and your health.  

And then again …


Environmental Defense Fund will send a team of experts to Havana, Cuba, on Sunday to discuss ways to eliminate overfishing, protect coral reefs, conserve coastal areas, and tap potential ocean energy – a signal that greater environmental cooperation may be on the horizon.

. . .

EDF has asked the Obama administration to ease policies that limit scientific exchanges between U.S. and Cuban scientists and conservation professionals. Last month the U.S. State Department issued visas for four Cuban environmental officials to attend scientific meetings …

(United States Scientists Visit Cuba to Discuss Overfishing, Coral Reefs, Ocean Energy and Ocean Issues, Reuters, 10/23/09)

Thank you President Obama.

Independent advocacy?

Cross posted from Beyond VSH:

Friday's New York Times covers an issue that Vermont patients' rights advocates have been trying to address for years. NAMI, a national organization that attacks the patients' rights movement and the very concept that anyone would have the right to refuse treatment by labeling mental illnesses as “brain diseases”, received almost $23 million from the drug industry in the last three years, almost three quarters of its funding.

What is true nationally is also true in Vermont. While Vermont's legislature has banned drug companies' “gifts” to doctors, if you visit NAMI-VT's annual conference on November 6 and 7 you'll see an ample array of note pads, Post-Its, clipboards, pill containers, and other drug company swag on display.

The dependency of NAMI on the drug companies is so complete that at least one advocacy group has called NAMI a Pharma front organization which, far from advocating for patient rights, has actually opposed the issuance of black box warnings for drugs with known cardiac risk factors.

In 2004, NAMI opposed the FDA issuing “black box” warnings on antidepressants about their increased risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors in under 18-year-olds.

In 2006, despite overwhelming evidence of serious adverse cardiac events and sudden deaths caused by ADHD drugs, NAMI took the position that the “black box” warning on ADHD drugs was “premature.”

There is no question that many NAMI members are sincere, generally parents and other family members truly concerned for the impact of mental illnesses on their relatives. Nevertheless, until NAMI rejects its ties to Big Pharma it will never be a truly legitimate voice for the rights, needs, and concerns of people with mental illness.

Just prisoners of trends

 In 1776 tough sentencing laws and a need to deal with prison overcrowding led to an “innovative” solution. The English Parliament passed an act authorizing for two years   that decommissioned naval ships (hulks) would serve as “temporary” holding prisons. This practice lasted 80 years.

Given Vermont state’s existing relationship with private for profit prison services and budget pressures it is worth taking note of recent trends nationwide in extreme privatization of government functions. Vermont currently has about 680 inmates in out-of-state prisons, mostly in two facilities in Kentucky and Tennessee. Both are owned by Corrections Corporation of America, the nation’s largest for-profit prison vendor.

Recently a female prisoner died (the second in several years) from lack of access to medicine while in state custody but under the care of a for profit prison medical service  Prison Health Services Inc.  

Razing Arizona state prisons?

Arizona State officials will soon seek bids from private companies for 9 of the state’s 10 prison complexes that house roughly 40,000 inmates, including the 127 here on death row. It is the first effort by a state to put its entire prison system under private control.

 The state’s death row inmates could become the responsibility of a private for Profit Company. A truly mind boggling move when one considers the potential for abuse. There must come a time when state governments will again shoulder the responsibility and cost of actually running the government rather than subcontracting it out . Taxing though it may be.

The privatization effort, both in its breadth and its financial goals, demonstrates what states around the country – broke, desperate and often overburdened with prisoners and their associated costs – are willing to do to balance the books. Arizona officials hope the effort will put a $100 million dent in the state’s roughly $2 billion budget shortfall.

………

For advocates of prison privatization, the push here breathes a bit of life into a movement that has been on the decline across the country as cost savings from prison privatizations have often failed to materialize, corrections officers unions have resisted the efforts and high-profile problems in privately run facilities have drawn unwanted publicity

http://www.7dvt.com/2009vermon…

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10…

Save Net Neutrality

(A face from the past! Heya goDLC. – promoted by odum)

Don’t let freedom die in the name of Freedom.  While we focus on the big issues, such as War, and Health Care, pesky little issues, like attacks on Net Neutrality sneak, in the back door and gnaw at our freedom.

Today, Senator John McCain introduced legistlation to block the governement’s efforts to block net neutrality.

I’m sure most here know what this means, but just in case you don’t, here’s a quick run down.

You connect to the internet via an Internet Service Provider, such as:  Burlington Telecom, Comcast, Green Mountain Access, Sovernet, etc.

What if your Internet Service Provider could block your access to a certain search engine?  Let’s say that Yahoo pays Burlington Telecom to block access to Google- your freedom of choice would be limited.

Let’s say that a giant, oh I don’t know, beverage company wanted to block your internet access to the website of a small brewer…and they had the money to pay your ISP to make it happen.

Or let’s say that some rather conservative types at the ISP felt that a certain pesky website like Green Mountain Daily was getting too big for it’s britches…and decided make the connection so slow that most readers didn’t find it worth the wait.

While we are concentrating on the big things, like war, and health care, pesky little issues like net neutrality fly in under the radar, and, if we’re not careful, our lives, our freedom of speech, even the free market, get changed for the worse…

Please take a few minutes to write Leahy, Sanders, and Welch and remind them that you ARE paying attention…

Thanks.

You Tube Vid on Net Neutrality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…