About a month and a half ago, I posted this piece, which outlined the problems faced by Vermonters trying to contact the department of labor about filing unemployment claims, which included this quote from the Rutland Herald:

And while the state has been adding staff to the call centers, Powden said Vermonters who need the services should keep on calling.

“Think of it as a radio contest,” she said. “Just hit the redial button.”

A week later, there was a reference in the Herald to how Vermonter’s were “draining” the unemployment system, and how it would require increased contribution from employers.  That piece included this gem (emphasis mine):

The administration of Gov. James Douglas has not proposed a solution to the problem of a diminishing unemployment fund. But the answer will likely have to involve changes to the amount of employer contributions – don’t call them taxes, Powden said – and diminished benefits for unemployed workers.

Apparently, the Hearald didn’t listen to her, though, because here’s today’s piece:

The proposal by Gov. James Douglas’ administration to keep the fund afloat would involve raising taxes on employers by more than $40 million a year for two years by increasing the amount of wages that are subject to the tax. That amount, $8,000 in annual wages, has not been changed in a quarter century, even as benefits have increased.

The herald also notes that:

…hidden in the arcane details of the declining unemployment fund, is the possibility… and a decline in unemployment benefits for those who are laid off or otherwise lose their jobs.

So it’s a twofer: the Douglas administration gets to screw over the poor and has another excuse for dumping on Vermont over its high taxes on businesses.  

Hey, maybe they’ll use this as an opportunity to push for elimination of ACT 250.  Win-win!

Bobby Jindal, Gov of Louisiana, dependent on the Army Corps of Engineers for levies and pumps, and on NOAA for weather reports, giving the official Republican version of the State of the Union, just came out against monitoring volcanos!

“God bless Louisiana.”

So where does Big Jim stand on volcano monitoring?

So you’ll remember the rumor I referred to in a previous diary – that Emily’s List (the national PAC that supports pro-choice women for political office) was intending to power a $2 million gubernatorial campaign for Deb Markowitz. Well I mentioned the rumor in passing in conversation, and it turned out I was speaking to the source.

Senate Appropriations Chair and potential gubernatorial candidate Susan Bartlett contacted Emily’s List herself, only to find out that they had already decided to back Markowitz in a primary. When she informed them that she thought a gubernatorial run would need to be in the $750k – $1m range, they told her explicitly that they intended to work towards a $2 million campaign for Markowitz.

On the one hand, this means that my theory that this was a fanciful number being floated by Team Markowitz to scare off the competition was off the mark.

On the other hand – Two million dollars?!?! Holy crap!

While the Democratic enthusiast in me is thrilled by the prospect, the realist in me is shaking his head. Honestly, I just don’t see it in this state. Might as well have said 2 gajillion. Still, it’d be something to be proven wrong, as that kind of money would significantly surpass Jim Douglas.

Of course, I can’t imagine how pissed off Bartlett must really be to be stiff-armed by what should be a natural base of support. Very interesting that they’d make such a definitive commitment so early in the cycle too. On the other hand, if Bartlett does get into this and the polls start surprising people… well, you just never know with some of these big national outfits. Stay tuned. The game’s afoot.

NRC  instructs Entergy to do more testing to find pipes leaking radioactive water into the Hudson River. Extensive testing for tritium leaks, found at many other reactors, needs to be done at Vermont Yankee.

NRC: NY nuke plant must be checked for bad pipes

February 24, 2009

BUCHANAN, N.Y. – Federal regulators say the owners of a nuclear plant in the New York City suburbs will have to check more underground pipes for corrosion.

Last weekend, workers at Indian Point 2 in Buchanan were able to repair a pipe that was leaking slightly radioactive water from 8 feet underground.

http://www.newsday.com/news/lo…

more…

Neil Sheehan of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says Entergy Northeast will have to do a study to see if corrosion is a problem at other pipes beneath the surface.

Entergy owns the plant and its twin, Indian Point 3.

Sheehan said Tuesday that Entergy won’t have to dig down to every pipe _ but must at least investigate a fair sample.

The water that leaked between Monday and Saturday contained tiny amounts of tritium, well under federal drinking-water limits.

Will this

study

hold up Entergy’s application to relicense the Indian Point reactors?

If you attended the press conference in the ENTHUSIASTICALLY PACKED State House Cedar Creek room a week ago Friday, you also saw Euan Bear unfurl a banner.

The banner asks a simple question: If civil unions are the same as marriage, want to trade?

To me the banner is really asking: “why does the State of Vermont – or any state – force upon a couple, a union, a marriage, this legal distinction?”

More over the bump . . .

The real issue, of course, is not about anyone “trading” their State-created legal couple status, whatever that status might be.

The point is no Vermonter should be forced to think about “trading-up” for a status that the State already gives away to most of its citizens. This is a pure civil rights matter, and it is our General Assembly’s responsibility to fix. And it is our responsibility to stand with our General Assembly to see it fixed.

This is about fairness, this is about equality.  Because some of us have heterosexual marriages, the government chooses to give us one set of rights and recognition relative to our families’ State-sanctioned legal protections. The State’s role is not to play favorites, the State’s role is to play fair.

For many of our friends, relatives, neighbors and many others in our community, Vermont government ignores their right to a marriage.  Relative to state-created family and state-sanctioned marital protections, Vermont government forces upon members of our democratic community a lesser legal status if they are not heterosexuals.

Why the difference between two communities in our one State? Or, why does Vermont choose to continue imposing two sets of rights for one community of citizens? The lack of equal treatment exists because some of us were NOT born homosexual; and the treatment occurs because some of us were NOT born heterosexual. That is not a way to make public policy; it is only a recipe for community division.

So here is the practical issue. We are now at the point – finally – where State recognition of THE RIGHT to marriage, which same gender couples inherently have, is within reach. It is a relatively simple act from a legislative perspective. The bill pending in the General Assembly is only a few sentences long (H.178).

The equal marriage rights bill is simple. At its statutory core, what this law will do is recognize the right to marry by changing JUST.4.WORDS.

JUST(ice) = 4 Words

I’ll say it again, the bill TAKES FOUR (4) WORDS OUT of the Vermont code.

Where the law currently reads:

. . . the town clerk shall issue the marriage license “in the town where either the bride or groom resides . . . “

H.178 changes the language so the law will now state:

. . . the town clerk shall issue the marriage license “in the town where either party resides. . .”

See the difference? Four words.

That’s the scoop. Just four words.  JUST[ice] 4 WORDS.

History already left the station on this issue.  Vermont maybe leading much of the country.  However, it is still playing catch-up respecting the rights of all Vermonters who want a marriage.

It’s about time. It’s past time. Don’t let the forces of fear, hate, division and prejudice stop the righting of this wrong.

JUSTice 4 WORDS

Don’t fall for the distractions.  The Governor is trying to distract you. The anti-marriage collective is having the vapors in front of you. The harp-along conservative dittoheads are clutching their pearls and fretting over how “complicated” an issue this is. They are all bearing false witness about how “time consuming” or “distracting from the important work of the legislature” this will be. They shiver and stutter about how difficult civil rights issues are for the General Assembly.  Excuse me.  My representatives can vote and chew gum at the same time.

This will only become time consuming and this will only be complicated if conservatives and the anti-marriage forces drag it out. There is nothing to drag out.

The time is now. The work is done. Vote!

JUST 4 Words.

 Loading ...

If you attended the press conference in the ENTHUSIASTICALLY PACKED State House Cedar Creek room a week ago Friday, you also saw Euan Bear unfurl a banner.
 

The banner asks a simple question: If civil unions are the same as marriage, want to trade?

To me the banner is really asking: “why does the State of Vermont – or any state – force upon a couple, a union, a marriage, this legal distinction?”

More over the bump . . .

The real issue, of course, is not about anyone “trading” their State-created legal couple status, whatever that status might be.

The point is no Vermonter should be forced to think about “trading-up” for a status that the State already gives away to most of its citizens. This is a pure civil rights matter, and it is our General Assembly's responsibility to fix. And it is our responsibility to stand with our General Assembly to see it fixed.

This is about fairness, this is about equality.  Because some of us have heterosexual marriages, the government chooses to give us one set of rights and recognition relative to our families' State-sanctioned legal protections. The State's role is not to play favorites, the State's role is to play fair.

For many of our friends, relatives, neighbors and many others in our community, Vermont government ignores their right to a marriage.  Relative to state-created family and state-sanctioned marital protections, Vermont government forces upon members of our democratic community a lesser legal status if they are not heterosexuals.

Why the difference between two communities in our one State? Or, why does Vermont choose to continue imposing two sets of rights for one community of citizens? The lack of equal treatment exists because some of us were NOT born homosexual; and the treatment occurs because some of us were NOT born heterosexual. That is not a way to make public policy; it is only a recipe for community division.

So here is the practical issue. We are now at the point – finally – where State recognition of THE RIGHT to marriage, which same gender couples inherently have, is within reach. It is a relatively simple act from a legislative perspective. The bill pending in the General Assembly is only a few sentences long (H.178).

The equal marriage rights bill is simple. At its statutory core, what this law will do is recognize the right to marry by changing JUST.4.WORDS.

JUST(ice) = 4 Words

I'll say it again, the bill TAKES FOUR (4) WORDS OUT of the Vermont code.

Where the law currently reads:

. . . the town clerk shall issue the marriage license “in the town where either the bride or groom resides . . . “

H.178 changes the language so the law will now state:

. . . the town clerk shall issue the marriage license “in the town where either party resides. . .”

See the difference? Four words.

That's the scoop. Just four words.  JUST[ice] 4 WORDS.

History already left the station on this issue.  Vermont maybe leading much of the country.  However, it is still playing catch-up respecting the rights of all Vermonters who want a marriage.

It's about time. It's past time. Don't let the forces of fear, hate, division and prejudice stop the righting of this wrong.

JUSTice 4 WORDS

Don't fall for the distractions.  The Governor is trying to distract you. The anti-marriage collective is having the vapors in front of you. The harp-along conservative dittoheads are clutching their pearls and fretting over how “complicated” an issue this is. They are all bearing false witness about how “time consuming” or “distracting from the important work of the legislature” this will be. They shiver and stutter about how difficult civil rights issues are for the General Assembly.  Excuse me.  My representatives can vote and chew gum at the same time.

This will only become time consuming and this will only be complicated if conservatives and the anti-marriage forces drag it out. There is nothing to drag out.
 
The time is now. The work is done. Vote!

JUST 4 Words.

If we are looking for projects to be done, how about burying Vermont’s electric and telephone wires?  In a state that cares so much about aesthetics — from abolishing billboards to protecting ridge lines — we’ve come to accept the omnipresent jumble of wires and poles that are relics from the 1920’s.  We’re so accustomed to this visual affront (they’ve been there all of our lives) we don’t appreciate what an ugly mess they are.  Next time you look around, imagine the landscape without those cables and poles mucking it up.  It works for Disney World.

Okay, in response to Mr. Margolis and others who seem to be doing a bit too much reading between the lines on my diary from yesterday:

1. The headline, Has Markowitz already been “annointed” by Leahy, Welch, VDP over other gubernatorial contenders? was in the form of a question. It’s about appearances, folks. I’m not going to name names here, but when someone (or ones) who works for, or has recently worked, for Senator Leahy and Congressman Welch, acts to facilitate (or even simply to embrace) one gubernatorial candidate’s unfettered access to Party resources (especially when the “camps” of those Democratic powerhouses have largely acted in the past as enforcers of the proper protocols surrounding such resource access) – in the Party office – you can’t help but ask the question. And I was far from the first to ask it. What do I think the answer is? I think the answer in the immediate term is ‘no,’ but once the question is called – which it has been by Democratic legislators (not by me) – the situation must be remedied, or the answer becomes ‘yes’ by default.

2. I have been hearing about this from many reliable sources – both in and out of the legislature. All are pissed off and, in my opinion, have a right to be. Had I not written on it, as I do all such things with this degree of information, it would’ve been – to my way of thinking – a deviation from the mission and method of this site specifically to protect one candidate (Markowitz) at the expense of others. I wasn’t willing to do that.

3. Although Markowitz’s opponents have the most to lose in the short term from this arrangement, Markowitz herself is the one who would come out of a primary as damaged goods if this narrative festers. I want whoever comes out of the primary to be undamaged, hence the decision to nip this in the bud now.

4. I was questioning what to do with this information long before the State Committee meeting. I’ve known about it for weeks. Bartlett’s publicizing of the letter just freed me up on how to proceed, given that the story was now “out.”

5. The Emily’s List information is a rumor. Not one that originated with me, but one that came to me. I contextualized it against the actual facts presented in the diary in an attempt to create a “unified field theory” of what was going on overall – likely that Markowitz was simply trying to intimidate possible challengers out of the race. That unified theory is speculation, and as of now, is simply a theory that happens to fit the facts. I still think its a good one. I also think its a perfectly legitimate strategy, as I stated explicitly in the diary. There is nothing inherently wrong or sleazy or untoward about trying to intimidate challengers out of the race with a sense of inevitability or invincibility.

6. Finally, the Party reference (VDP) in the title question (again – it was a question, hence the question mark) refers not to any specific individual, as the office and Voter File are not the responsibility or property of any specific individual. They are the property and responsibility of the corporation. I do explicitly label this affair as a case of preferential treatment. Whether or not the individual members of the State Committee knew about it or approved of it is secondary – it was the reality of the situation. It sounds likely that – as of Saturday – the answer is likely a “no”, or at least a qualified no. That qualification will depend on the nature of the agreement between the candidates and how the State Committee reacts or responds to questions and concerns about it. Already, I am hearing frustration that the damage is done and that the preferential treatment that has occurred to date is a bell that can’t be unrung. Maybe, maybe not. We’ll see.

(Great catch.  Thanks for posting this. – promoted by JulieWaters)

No doubt still energized after headlining last Fall’s gala Walmart rally Governor Douglas last week was the first governor to openly endorse (at his weekly press conference no less) Mass Mutual Insurance company’s philanthropic 10 yr. life insurance program offered in all 50 states .A press release was also available on the governor’s state run website describing the effort.The company and the governor stress the purely altruistic motives for this program and stresses that no marketing or promotion is being done to sell policies .

The governor’s spokesman also stress no connection between this and Mass Mutual Life  Insurance PAC’s two $1,000.00 donations to  Gov.Jim Douglas re-election campaign .

Jane Kolodinksy, chairwoman of the community development and applied economics department at the University of Vermont, is impressed with the strategy. She said it’s a “perfect marketing communications plan.”“Is it bad? No. It’s done all the time. … It’s actually brilliant marketing. Does it hurt anybody? I don’t think so. Will it help some people in the end? It will help a very small minority of people,” Kolodinksy said.

Steven Wark dismissed the criticism and claimed not to have known about the pending endorsement until after contact had been made between Mass mutual and the Gov.’s office .

Vermont families who meet the criteria are eligible for a free, 10-year term-life insurance policy through the program. The insurance would not distribute a lump-sum check, but would establish a trust fund that could be used for a wide range of educational needs for the children. The funds cannot be used for other types of expenses, however. The signup date for Burlington is Saturday.

John Pastore of Pastore Financial Group LLC is hoping the LifeBridge program could result in $15 million to $20 million of coverage written for Vermonters, or 400 policies. Aside from the program’s overall limit of 20,000 policies nationwide, there is no cap on how many policies can be written in Vermont, as long as the applicants meet the requirements, Pastore said. Roughly 9,500 policies have been written throughout the U.S.

“Through LifeBridge, Mass Mutual has identified a way to tie their philanthropic focus — education — with their primary product — life insurance,” Douglas said

http://www.vermont.gov/portal/…

http://www.burlingtonfreepress…

(thanks to Think Progress blog for the graphic which credits Open Left blog for the idea)

The comparative standings of various things:

Personally I find this a ‘duh’ moment. People are smart enough to realize that if you smoke pot you can go on to win 8 gold medals in the Olympics or become President of the United States among other things; while being one of those radical right wing nutjobs only makes you a loser, liar, oxycontin addict, someone who hates democracy and the United States and all the good things we like to believe we stand for and worse.