Hosted by Liz and Eric Miller, last night’s fundraiser for the Vermont Democratic Party was a great first step in putting the VDP back in business since the Democratic National Committee has stopped funding State Parties.  

Burlington Photographer Carolyn Bates released the following photo of elected Vermont Democrats in attendance at this VDP Fundraiser.  Many more photos will be popping up on the VDP website and other venues as Carolyn was photographing non-stop.

©2009 carolynbates.com

From left to right: Acting Vermont Democratic Party Chair Judy Bevans, Senate President Pro-Tem Peter Shumlin, Former Governor Howard Dean, Attorney General Bill Sorrell, Chittenden County State’s Attorney TJ Donovan, Secretary of State Deb Markowitz, and State Representative Joey Donovan.  Speaker of the House Shap Smith and Senator Doug Racine, who were also in attendance, left prior to this photo shoot for previously scheduled events.

As usual Howard was warm, approachable and full of humor.  He regaled the group with humorous stories while reminding everyone that now was not the time to let up.  Using the health care issue as an example, Howard noted that now the hard work must begin.  It is time, he admonished, to make sure that all Dems become more progressive rather than compromising our party’s principals in order to win a few Republican votes.

Transparency in Government is one of my pet peeves, so I love how up close and personal Vermont Politics are.  As Howard reminded all of us, Vermont politics is about people, people involved in their community governments with the vehicle of town meeting.  

I moved to Vermont from Connecticut in 2001 only 2 weeks prior to September 11.  I hated the Bush years. Connecticut’s Governor John Rowland, later indicted on fraud and put in jail for one year, was the first Governor to endorse President Bush, and was being considered for a cabinet post, until his penchant for using other people’s money came to the surface.  For five years, I was a newspaper reporter in Connecticut, first with two award-winning weeklies and then for a daily newspaper, which I thought would be the ultimate gig.  It wasn’t.  I went from two award-winning weekly newspapers to the one daily paper in our rural part of Connecticut.  It was the paper that was the machine behind Governor Rowland’s election.  That paper, The Waterbury Republican-American, would not even allow us, mere reporters that we were, to cover Democratic party candidates unless we had an OK from the editors or publishers.  After working for a year, primarily on the police beat, I went into teaching.  

Last night’s event was about people.  I thank my neighbors Eric and Liz Miller for hosting last night’s Howard Dean Welcome Home VDP fundraising event along with Arthur and Anne Berndt, Tom and Susan Boswell, Hon. TJ Donovan, Crea and Phil Lintilhac, Hon. Deb Markowitz, Hon. Doug Racine, Hon. Peter and Deb Shumlin, Hon. Bill Sorrell, Jane and Bill Stetson, Hon. Shap Smith & Melissa Volansky, and Steve Waltien.  I also thank Selene Hofer-Shall for her vision, energy and work to put together such an event as a way of jump starting the almost empty VDP account!  

(This is a big deal. – promoted by JulieWaters)

I sent this to the Senate Economic Development Committee today

“It appears that the latest version of Sen. Hinda Miller’s economic development bill would lower the wage threshold for the “economic growth incentive” program (VEGI, administered by VEPC [Sec. 11 amending 32 V.S.A. § 5930b(24)].  I can only hope this is a typo.

At present, new jobs supposedly created by the “incentives” must pay at least 60% more than the minimum wage.  Personally, I think that’s too low, especially since the Leg. changed the definition of full-time to only 35 hours last year.  That means a job could qualify if it paid $23,478.  I’m not sure why the taxpayers should provide “incentives” for jobs that pay $13,000 less than the statewide average wage.

So it’s shocking that the bill now says the wage threshold need be only 20% above the minimum wage.  That means jobs that pay as little as $17,604 will qualify.  This is madness.  

Vermonters with jobs at that level qualify for a number of public assistance programs.  So in addition to giving employers money to create low wage jobs (often jobs they would create anyway), this bill would add to the cost by increasing demand for public assistance.

Who asked for this?  What is the justification?  How can this possibly be considered in the best interests of workers or taxpayers?”

[Note: This undoubtedly came from the Exec. Dir. of VEPC, who is a state employee (appointee) reporting to Commerce Sec. Kevin Dorn (and the governor).  This is what passes for economic development in the minds of our corporate welfare ‘Dads’.  Give millions to low wage employers.  It is especially disturbing (immoral?) at a time when the Leg. is thinking about cutting programs for the elderly, kids, and the poor.  These people have no shame.]

Big happenings at the Democratic State Committee meeting, as the beginnings of factionalizing around the appearance of favoritism in the nascent Governor’s race around the use of Party resources has bubbled into open frustration in the midst of the Party leadership vacuum.

At issue is whether or not Deb Markowitz is being “annointed” by players in the Party – specifically the camps of Senator Leahy and Congressman Welch – at the expense of other candidates and potential candidates, such as Doug Racine, Susan Bartlett (who announced that she is, indeed, contemplating a run), Peter Shumlin – and at the expense of Party rules and protocols, which seem to have been ignored on her behalf.

The concerns here? It’s not about who is or isn’t the best candidate, it’s about having a fair fight. About not setting a precedent that these decisions are taken out of voters’ hands by an elite group stacking the deck in favor of one person or another. It’s a deep concern for those of us who see a healthy primary as necessary in this election, and stand generally in favor of a robust primary process.

It’s also about having the strongest candidate possible, and if Markowitz is to be that candidate, she would come through any tainted primary seen as tainted herself, and that’s completely unnecessary.

Background: Issues center around the Markowitz campaign’s unfettered use of the VDP office and the Party’s coveted informational resource – the Voter File. Traditionally in a contested Primary, an agreement is made between the candidates before any such access is granted. Usually those candidates don’t work out of the Party offices either, but its not unheard of. What is unheard of, again, is doing so without reaching out to every possible contender and coming to an agreement. Access to Voter File – a database of every registered voter in the state with voter identification, demographic and polling information dating back into the 90s, the likes of which neither the Republicans or the Progressives have on their own – is especially strictly controlled. Every election cycle the rules for access are reviewed and tweaked but stay similar in character, accounting for the changing technology and technical nature of how the data is stored and maintained. It is also the compendium of local corrections and identification done by county and town committees, again stretching back over more than a decade. It is the Democrats most valuable common property.

Three things are clear. One: that Markowitz’s campaign manager, Jason Powell, has made use of both the VDP office and the Voter File freely. Two: that the other candidates only heard about this second hand and were not brought into the process (even though one of them, Doug Racine, is the only person to have unequivocally announced that he or she is a candidate). Three: that this entire situation has proceeded with the full knowledge of Party players directly linked to the offices of Peter Welch and Patrick Leahy.

If you still don’t think this is a big deal, consider that Senator Bartlett read from a letter that has circulated through the House and Senate caucuses, promoted not simply by candidates and potential candidates such as Racine, Bartlett and Shumlin, but also championed by House Majority Leader Floyd Nease. The letter explicitly calls for an end to the brazen preferential treatment and appearance of a pre-ordained favorite of the Democratic Party and some of its most influential members. Nease’s involvement is significant as it makes clear that the discontent runs broader and deeper than any mere sour grapes from candidates not so favored.

At the meeting, outgoing Chair Carleton responded that a) There is now a Voter File contract, and so far Markowitz is the only candidate who has signed it, but it’s open to others. b) Office access should be equal and conditioned on payment of rent.

Unfortunately, it’s not as simple as that. For one thing, there remains some question as to whether or not those candidates who haven’t yet “staffed up” can sign up for access, and at present, Markowitz is not only the single candidate who has, but its unlikely any of the others will do so soon. As to rent, it sounds as though an amount has not been worked out, and when it is, it will likely not be levied retroactively for the usage the Markowitz campaign has already made of the space.

Part of what’s frustrating here is that there is no need for Markowitz to be involved in this ill-advised nonsense. She’s a great candidate who understands how to run elections and may well have the best shot in a primary election already, depending on how things sugar out in the coming months. It seems likely that this fits into an overall strategy to “shock and awe” opponents out of the race and clear the primary field if at possible for a direct run at Douglas. In addition to the advantages steered her way from the Party, she has already hired a Campaign Manager, which speaks to the money she is raising and has already raised. Reportedly, Emily’s List – the national PAC that supports pro-choice Democratic women candidates – has committed to supporting her, even though Bartlett is also a potential candidate. Hubbub is that EL is hoping to power a $2 million campaign for Markowitz. The connections are being worked hard to give her the appearance of an electoral juggernaut only four months out from the previous election.

Now, $2 million is a ludicrous number, frankly, and the fact that it’s in circulation is further testament to the theory that she is simply trying to scare off opponenets. It’s a legitimate strategy, and accumulating special favors from those with oversized influence over party resources… well, I suppose you could say its good work if you can get it. But she and those selfsame supporters should be deeply afraid of being responsible for creating a sense of an “establishment” candidate vs. more populist ones. In this day and age, such an impression could be poisonous, and it’s precisely the narrative they are flirting with.

It should be clear to all that the only honorable way forward is to follow the precedents of the past – precedents which candidates have had a right to expect would be in play this cycle. And going by that precedent, no candidate should have access to office space or Voter File until all the candidates have come to an agreement. Period.

For those of us who work hard to insure that the Democratic Party is an institution we can all hopefully be proud of, this cycle is off to a piss-poor start.

The bubble is burst, but who thought it would last?

Our demographics – both state and national – certainly don’t indicate that we should be booming.  How much more junk do 50-somethings need to buy? How many more bathrooms do you actually need?  How many times did you drive around and say, “I know what people make: how can they afford this?”  

Anybody who had lived through something like this before knew that somebody was going to be left without a chair when the music stopped.  

The hangover is painful, but this can also be a time for reflection that can lead to  progress and change.  We already see signs in the current discussions: from Chief Justice Reiber’s address to the Vermont legislature regarding the structure of the judiciary, to the just released report about reshaping law enforcement, from an examination of higher education, to a closer look at secondary school districts.  

These are all issues that would have been brushed aside if times were better.  They are too much of a political risk.  It’s easier to give people a new benefit than to be seen as taking something away.  (You are always losing something in change.)  It’s easier to avoid difficult decision if you can still sweep them under the rug, as we have done for decades.

The decisions we were able to avoid in good times can create crisis in hard times.  However, this crisis can create the forest fire we need to clear the landscape:  to spur people to action and for leaders to step forward and go out on a limb with a new idea or proposal.  

We have the opportunity to examine the status quo and prepare Vermont for the 21st century and beyond.  Much of the staus quo was developed in a time when people got from one town to another on foot, or by horse and buggy.  Going from Montpelier to Burlington, even 40 years ago, took twice as long as it does today.  One hundred years ago, the trip was comparable to going from Montpelier to Boston today.  We need to objectively look at our state infrastructure and see what we need, and what needs to be changed.  As New Englanders, we are proud of our traditions, but we can also be afraid to take a risk.

The restructuring needs to be see as an investment.  An investment of time and energy in our future.  An investment that will create new opportunities we cannot even imagine, flexibility, and will free resources for creative new ideas and growth.   The more we can put our house in order, and set up a flexible structure for future growth, we will liberate human and physical resources for creativity.

We can’t reach the next branch without letting go of the one we are holding onto.  Citizens need to feel secure there are necessary social programs to catch them if they fall during the transition, and confident that the leaders have some idea of where we are going.  

A recession is a temporary lull within the prevailing economic pattern or trend.  This is a full blown reset.  

If you want to make a difference, this could be a lot of fun.

From today's Times Argus:

MONTPELIER – Should Vermonters have a “right to dry?”

For McCormack and other right-to-dry supporters the bill just makes sense: Hanging wet clothes out to dry in the sun is more energy efficient than using an electric dryer, a step forward in conserving energy that most families can easily tackle.

Thumbs up to Senators Dick McCormack, Claire Ayer, Sara Kittell, and Tim Ashe for sponsoring this legislation!

You can find the bill here.

With the ever-increasing proliferation of hybrid and other high-mileage vehicles, federal gas tax revenue is in the decline. Transportation Secretary Roy LaHood is tossing around the idea of a “mileage tax” to replace the current system, a bad idea for several reasons, both of which summed up aptly in the first paragraph right here:

A tentative plan in Massachusetts to use GPS chips in vehicles to charge motorists by the mile has drawn complaints from drivers who say it's an Orwellian intrusion by government into the lives of citizens. Other motorists say it eliminates an incentive to drive more fuel-efficient cars since gas guzzlers will be taxed at the same rate as fuel sippers.

Besides a VMT tax, more tolls for highways and bridges and more government partnerships with business to finance transportation projects are other funding options, LaHood, one of two Republicans in President Barack Obama's Cabinet, said in the interview Thursday.

“What I see this administration doing is this — thinking outside the box on how we fund our infrastructure in America,” he said.

Apparently, LaHood is open to this idea, as are several states. Now, I know, the gas tax as it is currently structured is a regressive tax, but given the choice of the government being able to track everyplace I go in my car or raising the current tax, I'll go with the latter. Simply put, there is no way in hell I'm going to allow the government to be able to track me in that way, and this one will reverberate across the left/right spectrum in terms of opposition due to privacy concerns. Aside from what the government can do with it, there's a ton of opportunities for abuse if the information is compromised and falls into the hands of private detectives, marketers, etc. No thanks.

Perhaps, 5 or so years from now, after more people have switched to more efficient vehicles, a mileage tax could make sense, but it can be done in a way that is less intrusive, perhaps at vehicle inspection every year or something. But tracking vehicles in this way is ridiculous.

(Poll beneath the jump)

 UPDATED: White House says it isn't happening.

 Loading ...

Per an email that you may have gotten this morning, Ian Carleton is resigning as state chair:

After three rich and exciting years of serving as Chair of the Vermont Democratic Party, it is time for me to move on. As of this Saturday, I wish to resign from my position as State Chair. Our able Vice Chair Judy Bevans, with whom I have already discussed this decision, has graciously agreed to serve as acting Chair until such time as the Party wishes to hold a special election for Chair (see Article XX of the VDP Bylaws), or until this November when the Party is statutorily required to undergo complete reorganization.

I’ve heard a lot of discussion about the state organization, its effectiveness and its vision. Can anyone here shed any further light on how things are running at the state level and how well it’s working?

I honestly don’t have a good handle on it, all I would say is that the state-wide campaigns seem to be rather lacking in inspiration or vision in some cases, which of course should not necessarily be blamed on the state party.

The most concerning trend I have seen is that the state party has seemed to rely on an attitude of expectation that all Dems will march in line, contribute and work hard for our candidates. Now, that’s not totally unreasonable, but when it’s the only justification you’re offering, it can be less than inspirational.

There are strong cases to be made for the Democratic platform and vision in Vermont, but I’m not seeing that case being made. Candidates who can illuminate that vision for voters would be one way to go, but there also seems to be an opportunity to inspire more on a party level. Grassroots outreach seems to be limited to asking for donations, not actively engaging and empowering people on the local level, nor does it seem to reach out to expand the party base very effectively.

As good democrats we should always keep our eyes open to opportunities to engage in selecting leaders and setting new visions. Is this an opportunity for needed change?

Someone stole my public airwaves .We were given an old TV years ago.No cable,no dish.

When outfitted with rabbit ears and adorned with the ideal amount of tin foil it got two and one half stations,depending on the weather (sunspots?).

And then there was one.

Last night I battled with a digital converter box and successfully reduced our number of stations down to one ,but by god its a great picture !

Why is New Hampshire Public TeeVee the only station we now receive here in Vermont ?  

( – promoted by odum)

“Let's say a son in-law wants to buy a $100,000 apartment building as income property, but he only has $3,000,” Little suggested in testimony.   

Metaphorically, Little is referring to VSAC's request to raise about $230 million of capital in the municipal bond market.  The particular market VSAC jumped into last May requires a line of credit as collateral.  In January 2008 VSAC bonds began to fail in the Auction Rate Securities market.  The ARS market as a whole failed by early May and now VSAC is stuck with $1.7 billion in failed ARS bonds.

Great piece by Tom Gjelten on NPR.  Adds another dimension to the criminal failure of financial regulators to do their job for the past 8 years.

http://www.npr.org/templates/s…

Highlights:

*  America’s intelligence community has said the global economic crisis is now the top threat to the nation’s security. The downturn could produce political instability and damage the ties that hold countries together. Countries might even be tempted to engage in financial warfare, officials say.

*  The concern now is not the gross size of countries’ economies, but how money moves between countries, and the way those movements can turn into a kind of financial warfare.  

*  The Chinese now hold about $1 trillion worth of U.S. debt, including Treasury notes and other securities. That gives them enormous power over the U.S. economy. Were they to suddenly sell those securities, the U.S. dollar would tank.

*  Another critical area is Eastern Europe. Governments from Poland to Romania are seeing their currencies plummet compared with the dollar and the euro; this means a decline in the standard of living. After the collapse of the Soviet bloc, these countries turned away from socialism and toward free markets and Western democracy. Another danger is that Russia could take advantage of the economic vulnerability of these countries and try to reassert control over them, perhaps by offering new loans – or withholding energy supplies.

*  The other big financial warfare threat involves al-Qaida. Osama bin Laden has made clear how much he would like to bring down the U.S. financial system. But he does not have the tools, expertise or capital to manipulate the U.S. financial markets the way China or other players could.

*  “If you launch a terrorist attack in a prosperous economy, we kind of bounce back,” he said. “If you launch the same attack in a weak and getting weaker economy, there could be a multiplier there that could drive markets down very quickly, very extensively.”

Add it all up, and the financial crisis means the United States finds itself today in an especially precarious situation