Burlington Representative Jason Lorber has decided to drop his candidacy for the number three position in the House Democratic Caucus – that of Assistant Majority Leader (or “Whip”). The position is currently held by Floyd Nease who is making a run at the Majority Leader spot.

Lorber is now supporting Rep. Lucy Leriche (D-Hardwick) for the position. It’s possible there could be some consensus building going on behind the scenes as we approach the December 6th caucus, particularly since it seems likely that both the #1 and #2 spots (Speaker and Majority Leader) will most likely (but not certainly) be occupied by men (Doesn’t actually sound like that’s happening).

Sadly, my telepathy helmet is on the fritz, so to gleam insights into the thinking of the leader of what has to be the most active pre-administration in the history of the Presidency, I am forced to infer, deduce, second-guess, study body language and constellations and tea leaves, and throw some bones – like every other political observer. While I still believe firmly that the progressive left should never allow anybody a “honeymoon”, as early positioning and pressure can pay off a hundred fold in later policy struggles, I also think that things may not be as dire looking as some lefty observers like Sirota clearly fear.

First of all, as Bowers points out, progressives aren’t being entirely shut out of the nascent Obama administration, they just aren’t getting the high-profile, departmental leadership positions. Now that’s a mighty big “just,” as those cabinet roles are hardwired policy powerhouses in th executive branch, while the lesser-known appointees cited by Bowers simply get as much influence as the President is inclined to give them.

But Obama may be trying for an all things to all people approach in his early staffing and positioning decisions. If he puts in usual suspects that the media accept as “mature” and “serious,” he lengthens his media (and by inevitable extension, his public) honeymoon, making it easier for him to do what he seems to want to do – make some major policy moves very quickly. We all know how progressives would be greeted by the media in major cabinet roles – the hand-wringing about ideologues would saturate the Sunday talk shows and spill into all the op-ed papers with gleeful support from the likes of GOP Senate muppet McConnell.

Now we also know that Obama is no progressive. Many during the election were counting on the idea that he was a closet lefty, waiting to blossom in the Oval Office, but I’d say that’s a pipe dream. What’s less of a pipe dream, though, is that he may turn out to be a relatively free thinker who, while centrist, may not be the sort to be bound by centrist intellectual orthodoxy. If this is the case, the progressives he’s invited to the table won’t merely be tokens, but could have an actual impact on his thinking.

Of course we all know that an “all things to all people” approach is doomed to collapse. Hopefully Obama is smart enough not to buy into his own hype enough to imagine for a second that he’ll be mystically immune to that political law of nature. But a firm hand on a centrist cabinet, coupled with genuine open mindedness and a cadre of advisors that include progressive thinkers would be a good thing. After all, we on the left fancy ourselves the real pragmatists, so if Obama remains open to all views, I have confidence that we can have an impact.

In any event, this is simply one theory that happens to fit the facts. It’s not the simplest explanation, of course, based on his highest profile appointments. That would be that Obama is simply a relatively orthodox centrist. The key to whether or not this alternate theory is simply wishful thinking will be in which positions have progressives, and what their connections are to Obama. If we see a “Whitman’s Sampler” kind of appointment (a scattering of individuals from supportive constituency or interest groups into low profile positions), that suggests tokenism. If his appointments seem more personal, its more likely that the view from the left will get a stronger hearing. And if we see lefties placed across the board in certain categories – Bowers suggests the Assistant Secretaries for Policy in the Departments – that would be even more significant.

So keep watching, but – as always – keep being loud. The left in this country at all times, in all contexts, and with all Presidents has (hopefully) learned a long time ago that it has to continually be a very squeaky wheel to have any hopes whatsoever of getting any grease.

So, as Zappa said, let’s all try and keep it greasy.

If you have never been over to Integral Psychosis, it is definitely worth a regular visit. Right now Wes (wdh3) has a great post up about how much of a challenge Obama is for the radical lefts. He has a nice knack for being inflammatory (Obamafascism?)  and thoughtful at the same time. Maybe “provocative” is the word that unifies those two poles.

Below that post you will find the first two parts of my interview with him for VTblogosphereTV. Here’s part 3:

This interview took place 2 days after the election and we spent most of our time trying to sort out its monumental meaning.  I think Wes was trying to bring me down off my giddiness, but I’m afraid I’m still buzzing. We did manage to get in a word or two about the state of the State in regards to the fractured left.

We must have been overtaken by the exuberance of the unity and change rhetoric in the air that week, because by the end we made a dem/prog truce brokered by Bernie seem like a forgone conclusion. No such plan is in the works. I have no reason to believe in such an outcome. But goddammit sometimes speaking something makes it seem more possible. The clip closes with a little Obama Halloween season beat with dueling jackolanterns of joy and dread. I hope it captures the zeitgeist of a time not so long ago.

Next up is the Return of the Odum. Moohoohahahahaha

He’s back and he’s talking GMD visitor spikes, Lieberman, deficits and the progressive economic inferiority complex, and the December 6 meeting of the minds. You can see that on ORCA and VCAM (public access TV) this week and I’ll get it up on the youtube soon enough.

VTblogosphereTV archives HERE

Let me know if you are interested in sponsoring the show locally (basically just telling your public access channel that you want them to pick up the show) or maybe even coming on (we shoot in Montpelier).  Easiest is probably “send Message” on the youtube page.

From a press release today out of Welch’s office:

In order to stimulate the economy and meet pressing infrastructure needs, the Vermont congressional delegation is seeking to waive the state and local match requirement for all federally-funded highway, transit and rail projects through September 2009.

The move would give Vermont and other states facing tight budgets a much-needed boost to improve roads and bridges, support public transit agencies and upgrade rail lines at no additional cost to the federal government.

Transportation officials have reported that because of growing budget deficits at the state and local level, many ready-to-go projects simply cannot move forward without untying the strings of the required match. Under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act, states are typically required to meet a 10 or 20 percent match for federally funded projects.

This seems like a very good idea, and a sound way to ramp up infrastructure repair with no extra budgetary impact at the federal level and a potentially significant impact on reducing state budgets at a time when they are in crisis. Two birds with one stone, and those could be big, big birds for a small state like Vermont. Would love to see some numbers on just how many projects at what dollar value could be impacted.

Very nice 3 Musketeers moment, guys. Kudos.

(That’s two candy bars mentioned in the last paragraph….I must be craving sugar)

UPDATE: Apparently the idea was mentioned on VPR did a full news item on Bartlett’s idea on Nov. 14 a couple weeks back, where Rep. Welch gave credit to recognized and supported State Senator Susan Bartlett’s  (D-Lamoille) for the original idea and pledged to take it to Washington.

If you are, I’m sure the Chinese will be psyched.

Wake Up Walmart, who I’m working with, has a great new video up highlighting the perils of supporting the Bentonville behemoth.

In their quest to cut costs, Walmort outsources more and more jobs overseas. It’s come to the point where 70% of Walmart products are now made in communist China. “In the race to the bottom, Walmart gets ahead and the middle class falls behind,” the ad warns.

I know I’m just kind of preaching to the choir about how ugly Walmart’s business practices. But in the spirit of the holiday season, I’d like to invite you to do one of three things:

1. Send this ad to your friends and family. Walmart’s low prices are deceiving and in this struggling economy, a lot of good people might be fooled. It’s important that we get the word out about the high cost of these low prices.

2. Visit WakeUpWalmart.com today and learn how you can help. With the election over, if you have time to join the good fight, we could always use your support.

3. Blog about how the Obama administration should have a say in curbing Walmart’s ugly business practices. This isn’t only a case of a corporation out of control; it’s a case of worker abuse, shoddy environmental practices and an active union-busting agenda.

We’re fighting for more than just winning elections. We are fighting for a more progressive America.

In this time of economic peril, it’s more important now than ever. I urge you all to join the fight and send a strong message to Walmart!

Per today’s Rutland Herald:

The private information of thousands of state employees is potentially at risk in a computer hacking and extortion incident.

The target was Express Scripts Inc., which is the pharmacy benefit company for Vermont state workers, as well as the employees of many institutions and companies around the country. The company was threatened by still unidentified people in October that private information of members of its clients’ health plans would be released if demands were not met.

[…]

“What we do know is that the criminal or criminals in this situation … in early October sent Express Scripts a letter demanding money in exchange for their not publicly releasing the names and personal information of millions of patients,” said Steve Littlejohn, vice president of public affairs for the company.

Some questions:

1. Why are just discovering this now?


2. What the hell kind of security protocols is Express Scripts using?


3. Why are we outsourcing the job of tracking pharmacy benefits when we’d have much greater control over the security protocols in question if we were to do it in house?

Grr.  Argh.

( – promoted by odum)

or ..leaf me a loan ? Here is a look back at the Douglas green effort from a year ago and a program to sell the carbon-storage value of Vermont’s forest about which spokesperson Gibbs and Vermont’s new commissioner of Forest, Parks and Recreation said  “we’re talking millions of dollars here.” This caused a great deal of excitement in the press and was the equivalent of a good ribbon cutting .They were going to lease the State Lottery,the next logical step is to offer shares in the trees natural functions. In Douglas’s time in office have there been any major initiatives to come from the governor’s office which have amounted to anything ? What or where are the shining accomplishments that Douglas can point to ?

MONTPELIER – One year ago, Gov. Jim Douglas unveiled the recommendations of his Climate Change Commission and laid out ambitious plans to cut Vermont’s greenhouse gas emissions while building a “green economy.”

Three ideas stood at the center of those plans: appointment of a Vermont Climate Collaborative to guide research and action; creation of a “Vermont Green Standard” to regulate the multimillion-dollar carbon trading market and create a new business sector for the state; and sale of carbon credits from open land and state forests.Twelve months later, the Green Standard idea has been abandoned.

Other parts of the work plan require staff time and money the state does not have.

“There is a lot of pent-up desire for action,” acknowledged John Sayles, deputy secretary of Natural Resources and the administration’s point man on climate change. “It is hard to create excitement over the incremental progress we are making – but we are making progress.”

He described the Vermont Climate Change Collaborative, a panel of university, state government and outside members, as the “signature piece” of the governor’s plans.

The collaborative will meet for the first time Dec. 8.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress…

I heard the editor of Vermont Business Magazine ask that question on VT this Week. Interesting times we live in, eh?  

That got some thoughts swirling around my addled brain about a number of somewhat  related issues; the bailouts, stimulus, Jeb’s roads plan, Keynes, NAFTA, health care reform and did my economics professor go on to become the mayor of Barre?

I’ve always been a bit of an economics geek and love to look at things from a macro perspective, ever since Econ classes with Peter Anthony at Castleton (same guy?), and there are a few underlying macro things that need to be considered in the context of these economic issues we’re facing today. So I’m going to lay out my macro thoughts for some context along with my personal economic advice for the benefit of the incoming Treasury Secretary and our state government.

I’ll tease with the specifics of my advice:

-Federal bailouts should always be tied to direct government oversight of the companies’ operations.

-Vermont should be an incubator for Obama’s energy plans as well as health care.

-The Vermont stimulus/jobs plan should happen, but it should be focused on energy efficiency and internet connectivity.

more…

Over the past generation or so, capitalism has been successfully promoted by the right as the essence of American greatness. But capitalism alone is not what has driven the US to real economic growth. Real growth should be measured not in terms of the Dow or even GDP, but generally in terms of the American dream of having the opportunity of working hard and improving your lot in life, and handing your kids a better future. Real growth actually hasn’t happened for a generation, despite what the capitalism promoters tell us, because it turns out that we were all improving our lives solely on borrowed (credit) or fleeting (home equity) wealth. (And to answer the question on VT this Week, that’s why we’re not going to spend as much on gifts this year, despite our paycheck staying the same. It’s not just psychological.)

Capitalism should not be abandoned. But it does work best for our country only when coupled intelligently with regulations that foster competition. The engine of fair competition fueled by the aspirations of American workers and small business owners can produce system-wide benefits for all and a better standard of living for each successive generation, but only if the proper regulations are in place to channel the energy in a beneficial direction. I don’t mean Soviet economic planning, simply a fair set of ground rules that equalize the playing field, provide transparency to educate consumers, keep barriers to entering markets at a minimum, and prohibit non-competitive advantages like monopolies. You have to keep the power balance at a point where the actual competition can happen to drive innovation and efficiency.

So in the long term, and looking back over the failings of the government leading up to this crisis, the regulation we need and needed is/was not to have government run businesses, but to set smart competitive boundaries which will channel their drive into improving the overall markets, not just enrich the few at the top. For example, congress did not necessarily need to ban derivatives or subprime mortgages, but it should have regulated the amount of capital backing needed to guarantee these markets.

In some of the bailouts in the short term though, I think we need to look at things very differently. The justification for these rescue funds is essentially that the company is so big and such an integral part of our economy that it serves some vital public good. So far though, the bailouts have been fed into the existing system that is not focused on public good but company and shareholder profits and growth. It seems clear that as is they are bound to fail. CEO’s are not going to have a sudden epiphany and start running their companies for the betterment of mankind. If we give GM billions because we want to protect jobs, what’s to prevent them from cutting jobs anyways to better their bottom line? The motivations are simply not aligned with the funding. So in the case of bailouts particularly, it seems clear to me that we do need government to take actually control of businesses.

How about converting some GM factories to making solar panels? Or IBM if they get into layoffs?

That brings us to Vermont… I like the general tone of Spaulding’s proposal and I support the gas tax with prices so low, but better roads will not improve our economy much over the long haul. The rural electrification and federal highway programs of the past helped because they resulted in a new platform for productivity. Roads are not the answer now though; internet connectivity and alternative energy technology are. Bringing the internet highway to every corner of VT will boost our economy and provide a strong return on investment. Funding weatherization and solar panels for VT homeowners would be as effective as a direct cash stimulus to the people who need it most, would provide jobs, and would have a the added benefit of energizing the energy technology sector in our state. Get Sen. Leahy and Gov. Douglas to work together to tie this plan to an Obama energy initiative to help with funding and we’d really be cooking with gas!

Or solar power, I should say.

• Obamawatch: On the one hand…. From NYT:
  

  In the Democrats’ weekly radio address, Mr. Obama said he would direct his economic team to craft a two-year stimulus plan with the goal of saving or creating 2.5 million jobs. He said it would be “a plan big enough to meet the challenges we face.”

  Mr. Obama said he hoped to sign the stimulus package into law soon after taking office on Jan. 20. He is already coordinating efforts with Democratic leaders in Congress, who have said they will begin work next month.

  Advisers to Mr. Obama say they want to use the economic crisis as an opportunity to act on many of the issues he emphasized in his campaign, including cutting taxes for lower- and middle-class workers, addressing neglected public infrastructure projects like roads and schools, and creating “green jobs” through business incentives for energy alternatives and environmentally friendly technologies.

  Sounds excellent.

• On the other…. From Sirota:
  

  In my column last week, I praised the Obama team for suggesting they see the political and policy danger of backing President Bush’s proposed NAFTA expansion into Colombia – a country with one of the worst human rights records in the world. But now I see this little tidbit from Inside U.S. Trade:
  

  House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) in a wide-ranging interview yesterday (Nov. 20) expressed optimism that President-elect Barack Obama will support passage of the Colombia and Panama free trade agreements during his time in office…
  
  “I did not talk directly with the president-elect over Colombia, but everything that I heard from those people that [are] talking with him, [is] that he thought he could handle that and get it passed during his administration,” Rangel said.

  Rangel is the chairman of the committee that oversees trade, so this can’t be chalked up to uninformed speculation – this is likely real, though by no means concrete (and perhaps flavored by Rangel’s wishful thinking). Team Obama knows 70 new Democratic members were elected on explicitly anti-NAFTA themes, they know Obama campaigned throughout the industrial Midwest promising to change our trade policy; and they know that in the third presidential debate Obama explicitly reiterated his opposition to the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

  They’re going to have to weigh all that against the pressure they’re feeling from their corporate donors to pass this NAFTA expansion.

  Sounds sucky. Interesting mix of signals, eh? But we knew our work was just beginning, right? Stay tuned and stay loud.

• On less weighty matters…. No Speaker-race news, but just try and say “Shap Smith” ten times really fast.

Item # 34 in the Vt. Senate Judiciary Committee’s inquiry report is tucked away as the last item,almost like an after thought, but hardly insignificant.The Valley News came out Friday with an editorial supporting a change that might really adjust the balance of things in Montpelier.This power is needed according to the papers view for the legislature to properly do the jobs they are tasked with .How could it fail to shake things up? Legislative subpoena power and say,IRV voting in statewide races would put a new face on things.

Subpoena Power Legislative Committees Need It

In the course of its inquiry into how the state can better protect children from sexual abuse, the Vermont Senate Judiciary Committee came across a flaw in legislative procedures that it seeks to remedy: The lack of explicit authority for legislative committees to issue subpoenas to obtain documents or compel testimony from unwilling witnesses…………….

Granting committees the authority to subpoena witnesses makes sense to us; the power seems commensurate with the important public purposes that lawmakers have the responsibility to pursue. At the same time, safeguards must be enacted to ensure that this far-reaching power is not abused. One, of course, is that any committee issuing a subpoena must be engaged in a legitimate legislative function. That is, the inquiry must be related to a subject on which the committee has the power to act. Another is that the issuance of subpoenas ought to require the approval of a supermajority of committee members, rather than being delegated to committee chairmen. Additionally, the Legislature ought to make clear what categories of people are exempt from compelled testimony because of legal or ethical requirements imposed by their professional obligations. None of these issues strikes us as insurmountable.

http://www.vnews.com/11212008/…