I used to be on the State Committee when I was Chair of the Washington County Dems – a position handled much more competently by current Chair Jack McCullough. Since I haven’t been a member, I rarely show up at meetings, as I find them difficult experiences. I inevitably witness things that will make me very proud of my Party, but then there are also always things that make me wince. Saturday’s meeting had many moments to be proud of: Jack’s FISA resolution, a tremendous reception to Windsor County States Attorney and marijuana-law reform advocate Bobby Sand.

But there were a couple of those wince moments.

Chair Ian Carleton proudly announced to the Democratic full house that Rep. Dick Marek was working with Republicans to right a great wrong through legislative action. You see, it was pointed out by some Democratic activists last year that the Democratic (and Republican) National Committeepersons (there are two: always one man and one woman), according to law (and as Carleton told the crowd “absurd as it sounds”), do not actually have a vote in their respective State Committees.

Well, hollllllllllld everything! Clearly, this injustice must not stand!

Oh, brother.

Given a political establishment which is always quick to tell activists that none of their precious, legislative time can be taken up dealing with their policy concerns, drafting, discussing and passing legislation (H.665) to give 4 people (who already number among the most revered in their respective political classes) a simple vote in their respective State Committees is more than a little tough to swallow.

I say this with all due respect to Rep. Marek, whose list of sponsored legislation otherwise reads like a snapshot of progressive priorities. Also, I mean no disrespect to the Democratic or Republican National Committeepersons (although it should be mentioned that the only reason activists brought up the matter last year was from a sense of frustration at what many saw as inappropriate influence over the Committee by National Committeeman Chuck Ross over issues such as the impeachment resolution) – but good lord, don’t we have more important things to do?

And its worse than that, actually. Fair or not (and its a bit of both) there is a sense out there that the Vermont Democratic Party is cliqueish and elitist, and is overly dominated by a political class that can be anywhere from dismissive to vindictive. When we are seen as rolling our eyes in response to (or actively inhibiting) issues that evoke strong passions and urgency, but we have to hop to when members of what is perceived as that elite are simply inconvenienced, it feeds that narrative more than passing a dozen good policy bills can un-feed.

We can huff and puff about how silly that is if we want, but it doesn’t change the reality, and its always a good political idea to have reality on our side.

UPDATE: I was just forwarded the text of last year’s State Committee resolution asking the law to be amended, as some read this diary feeling that it sent a message that this legislation came from out of the blue. I didn’t mean to suggest it had, merely that it puts our legislative priorities in a dim light that feeds a bad narrative of Democratic elitism. So long as activists continue to be told with some regularity that there’s no time for their priorities, I ‘ll stand by that opinion. (text of resolution follows)

Bland and Inners Resolution

August 29, 2007

WHEREAS, current Vermont State Statutes do not provide that the Party National Committee Man and Woman are voting members of the State Committee, and

WHEREAS, at the July 14th meeting the Vermont Democratic Party State Committee members voiced concern that the National Committee Man and Woman should be full voting members of the State Committee and that current State Statutes may interfere with granting them this right,

NOW THEREFORE, be it

RESOLVED that the Vermont Democratic State Committee transmit this resolution to the Speaker of the Vermont House of Representatives, the President Pro Tempore of the Vermont Senate, and the Chairs of the House and Senate Government Operations Committees, and

RESOLVED that the Vermont Democratic State Committee advocates that Vermont Statutes Title 17 Chapter 45 be amended so that the National Committee Man and Woman may be full voting members of the State Committee.

[Update as of 5:30 pm, per CarpetBagger  & TPM: Republican cloture motion failed on the FISA bill, 48-45. FOUR D's voted with the R's, and Republican Sen. Arlen Specter voted with the D's. As TPM says, “The fight goes on.”] — NanuqFC 

The Vermont Democratic Committee voted unanimously yesterday to call on Vermont Senators Leahy and Sanders to filibuster the version of the FISA extension bill now pending in the United States Senate because it contains the retroactive immunity for illegal wiretapping that has been anathema to defenders of civil liberties.

 Although a suspension of the rules was required to even consider the resolution, both the motion to suspend the rules and the vote on the resolution itself were unanimous. Supporters of the resolution, introduced by GMD front-pager Jack McCullough and front-pager emerita Liane Allen, pointed out that the Bush Administration's actions have been illegal, and that giving the telcos retroactive immunity would prevent any investigation into the illegality of their actions. 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now also supporting the filibuster, an idea initially voiced by Senator Chris Dodd:

Thursday, Republicans proved the only thing they care about is politics. They spent the day filibustering on the Senate floor, preventing Democrats from introducing any amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) bill. At the end of the day, Senator McConnell decided he would try and stop debate entirely by filing for cloture. That means if Republicans get 60 votes on Monday, debate on this vital issue will be shut down.

If you care about your civil liberties and our national security, it is vital you tell your Senators to vote no on cloture Monday.

Here's how to contact Senator Leahy:

433 Russell Senate Office Bldg
(at Constitution and Delaware)
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-4242

senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov

And Senator Sanders:

Also, since this is campaign season, let's contact Clinton and Obama and demand that they return to Washington to support the filibuster.

Here's how to contact them:

 http://www.clinton.senate.gov/contact/

http://obama.senate.gov/contact/

The text of the resolution is below the fold.

RESOLUTION ON THE RENEWAL OF THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE
SURVEILLANCE ACT
WHEREAS the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is about to expire, and is
now being considered for renewal by the United States Congress:
And WHEREAS the Bush Administration has used FISA and the so-called USAPATRIOT
Act as an excuse for a wide range of illegal and unconstitutional abuses of
power, including gross violations of the right to privacy and unlawful and warrantless
wiretapping of Americans in their private communications;
And WHEREAS the Bush Administration seeks to prevent investigation into the
illegality of these acts of eavesdropping by pursuing a provision in the pending
legislation that would give telecommunications carriers retroactive immunity to all civil
or criminal penalties for their illegal wiretapping activities;
And WHEREAS prior to any illegal wiretapping by this Administration, legal methods
existed enabling the Administration to wiretap in urgent situations without delay;
And WHEREAS telecommunications carriers do not need legal protection, because laws
already protect them in instances when they comply with legal wiretapping requests by
an Administration;
And WHEREAS telecommunications carriers do not need financial protection, because
mechanisms exist, and have been used before, to protect them from financial ruin;
And WHEREAS telecommunications companies were aware of the wiretapping laws
before they chose to comply with any illegal requests by the Administration;
And WHEREAS at least one major telecommunications company chose to obey the law,
and did not to comply with illegal wiretap requests from the administration;
And WHEREAS some major telecommunications carriers knowingly cooperated with
Administration requests to eavesdrop on the private communications of their customers
in violation of all applicable legal principles;
And WHEREAS some telecommunications companies chose to shut off illegal wire taps
due to unpaid bills, and reinstate those taps when bills were subsequently paid, thus
exposing as false any claims that the taps were being done for either patriotic or security
reasons;
And WHEREAS the illegal wiretapping began before September 11, 2001;
And WHEREAS the Administration, when proposing the immunity falsely claimed that
the illegal wiretapping only occurred after September 11, 2001, for anti-terror purposes;
And WHEREAS under the doctrine of “Congressional ratification,” Congressional
approval of retroactive immunity would also retroactively create in the office of
the President the constitutional authority for extra-legal warrantless surveillance;
And WHEREAS, also under the doctrine of “Congressional ratification” such prior
illegal surveillance would be automatically rendered lawful;
And WHEREAS, due to the doctrine of “Congressional ratification,” the adoption
of the proposed retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies would
thus also provide immunity to the Administration for the Administration’s illegal
actions;
And WHEREAS the Congress has twice considered granting similar immunity:
during the Johnson Administration for banks that had violated merger laws, and
during the Ford Administration for telegraph companies that illegally provided
customer’s private communications to the NSA;
And WHEREAS in both of those instances, the Congress decided not to grant
immunity because of the unjustifiable precedent that would be set;
And WHEREAS the wording of the current bill would make legal past and future
illegal requests by any Administration as long as an official gave an “indication”
to the recipient of the request that the request is “authorized” by the President and
has “been determined lawful” – even if the indication is false;
And WHEREAS the American people voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in the 2006
election to put the brakes on the Bush Administration’s unlawful actions;
And WHEREAS, as a result of that election, the Democratic Party, the historic defender
of civil liberties, now has a majority in both the U.S. Senate and House of
Representatives, and consequently has both the opportunity and the duty to restrain the
illegal and unconstitutional activities of the Bush Administration;
And WHEREAS Vermont’s senior Senator, Patrick J. Leahy, has attempted to protect the
civil liberties of Vermonters by introducing a version of this legislation that did not
provide retroactive immunity, which passed the Senate Judiciary Committee but failed on
the floor of the Senate:
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by the Vermont State Democratic Committee
that we call upon our Congressional delegation to oppose any legislation that includes
retroactive immunity for telecommunications carriers who participated in illegal
wiretapping activities;
AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that we express our great appreciation for the efforts
of Senators Patrick J. Leahy and Bernard Sanders to protect the civil liberties of
Vermonters and all Americans;
AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that we call upon Senators Patrick J. Leahy and
Bernard Sanders to take any and all actions, up to and including filibuster and opposition
of cloture, to oppose the inclusion of retroactive immunity in any legislation that comes
to the floor of the Senate.
Proposed by John J. McCullough III and Liane Allen

Crossposted @ www.rednalsiofvermont.blogspot.com

While we’re shaking up the political scene in the U.S., I think we’re due for a revamp of a little something I call government as usual.   This long drawn out primary has convinced me it needs to be a short quick process.  Left to their own ends, the candidates are pulling off the gloves, to no ones benefit.  Look at McCain & Romney, and Obama & Clinton, dividing their own parties.  It makes people want to turn off their TV’s already and we’ve got till November.

1st change is a national primary.  A week of televised debates on real issues, then everyone in the country votes in a primary.  There shouldn’t be any states whose opinion counts anymore than others.  It would cut down on costs and why should the states be treated unequally?  The only thing going on in our nations economy right now is all the wealth being spent and applied toward the presidential election.  Think about it, if the money was being put toward job creation or national debt our economy wouldn’t be going down the pooper.

2nd change is along the line of treating all states equally, and goes along with the idea of a national primary.  We eliminate the electoral college, the president must win by popular vote.  After all, are we not all americans?  Does one person’s vote not count equally as anothers?  The person getting more votes from citizens should be the winner.  This would be true democracy, not the watered down version we’ve all been fed for years.  Yes, it would make campaigning harder, to reach a bigger audience.  But then maybe real issues would be addressed instead of proving which candidate can bicker and sidestep issues more.  We need a president who can lead, unite, and bring the hope of prosperity.  Not divide and conquer.

Crossposted @ www.rednalsiofvermont.blogspot.com

While we’re shaking up the political scene in the U.S., I think we’re due for a revamp of a little something I call government as usual.   This long drawn out primary has convinced me it needs to be a short quick process.  Left to their own ends, the candidates are pulling off the gloves, to no ones benefit.  Look at McCain & Romney, and Obama & Clinton, dividing their own parties.  It makes people want to turn off their TV’s already and we’ve got till November.

1st change is a national primary.  A week of televised debates on real issues, then everyone in the country votes in a primary.  There shouldn’t be any states whose opinion counts anymore than others.  It would cut down on costs and why should the states be treated unequally?  The only thing going on in our nations economy right now is all the wealth being spent and applied toward the presidential election.  Think about it, if the money was being put toward job creation or national debt our economy wouldn’t be going down the pooper.

2nd change is along the line of treating all states equally, and goes along with the idea of a national primary.  We eliminate the electoral college, the president must win by popular vote.  After all, are we not all americans?  Does one person’s vote not count equally as anothers?  The person getting more votes from citizens should be the winner.  This would be true democracy, not the watered down version we’ve all been fed for years.  Yes, it would make campaigning harder, to reach a bigger audience.  But then maybe real issues would be addressed instead of proving which candidate can bicker and sidestep issues more.  We need a president who can lead, unite, and bring the hope of prosperity.  Not divide and conquer.

Per The Rutland Herald:

The Vermont Department of Public Service has asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to put a hold on the relicensure review of Vermont Yankee.

The Douglas administration has joined anti-nuclear groups from Vermont, New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey in an effort to stop the NRC’s relicensing of four nuclear reactors until the commission overhauls its review program. Nuclear companies in those four states have renewal applications pending before the NRC.

Vermont Tiger Interview: Jeb Spaulding

State Treasurer Jeb Spaulding served in the Vermont State Senate from 1985-2000.  He chaired several committees over the course of his eight terms as a senator, including the Appropriations Committee and Joint Fiscal Committee.  During his years as Education Committee chair, he sponsored various versions of bills authorizing charter schools.   Spaulding hoped that Vermont would become the second state after Minnesota to adopt charter schools.  But it was not to be.  None of the bills ever became law, and Vermont is still not a charter school state.

We contacted Treasurer Spaulding recently to recall what happened with the charter school bills that he sponsored.  Spaulding was quick to point out that he wasn’t as up on the current research on charter schools as he would be if he were still in the Senate.  The demands of his current job have pulled him in other directions.  Nevertheless, his philosophy about school choice remains as solid as ever.  Here is our conversation:

Vermont Tiger:  Did you have kids in school at the time?

Spaulding:  Yes, I did.

Vermont Tiger:  In public schools?

Spaulding:  Yes, my two daughters went through 12 years of Montpelier public schools.

Vermont Tiger:  Would you say you were happy with the results?

Spaulding:  Yes.  So that’s not what motivated my interest in school choice and charter schools.

Vermont Tiger:  So that’s not what was influencing your thinking?

Spaulding:  No.  I’m still — for several reasons, for school choice – I’ll use the broad term “school choice” because eventually you have to get down to what you mean by school choice.  Charter schools would be one form of school choice.  There are several reasons why I favor choice.  But the primary one is I don’t see how you can say you’re for equal educational opportunity when wealthy people have all the choice they want getting their kid into a school that meets their own needs, and people with no wealth have no choice – and, to me, that is patently unfair.  My kids happened to do well in Montpelier in the public schools.  But if they hadn’t been successful there, I would have had the capacity to find a private school to fit their needs or paid the tuition to send them to another public school.  And I just think that’s – since I think education’s the most important thing we can provide for our kids – I think that’s unfair.  For me, if you believe in equal educational opportunities, then all children ought to have the opportunity to get into a learning situation that allows them to thrive.

To read the complete interview, click here.

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

cross posted at http://mulishbehavior.blogspot…

Congress and the Bush Administration (with the blessing of Sec. Paulson) have struck a tentative deal to send between $300 and $600 each to working Americans (so up to $1,200 for married couples, plus an extra $300 for each kid). Hallelujah, and glory be…

This is a cheap trick that should insults the intelligence of our citizenry. The rationale is simple enough: Give working Americans a little cash in their pockets and they will go out and spend, spend, spend(!) thus giving the American economy a shot in the arm and avoiding recession.

The message is to simply continue conspicuous consumption… ie, we can simply spend our way out of this mess. The problem is that it doesn’t work.

Back in 2001 they tried this rebate trick, too. It didn’t work then, and it won’t work now. Studies show that only about 20% of respondents to polling on the issue said they actually spent the money on durable goods. The Tax Foundation notes one survey that showed: “the spending rate was quite low compared to what many economists had expected.” Another study showed the figure slightly higher (between 20%-40% spent) and argued that it did have a significant effect on the economy. Even if you believe that study, it’s not the picture that our friends in Washington, D.C. paint of folks running into the street waving hundred dollar bills.

I remember getting my check for $300. I used it to pay off some credit card bills. And, trust me, I would rather have done without it and known it would help pay off the national debt, build new schools, or pave roads. The specious argument that many conservatives use is to say: go for it! Send your check back to the government if that’s the way you feel… or send it to a non-profit organization. While the latter is certainly an attractive and plausible option, the former doesn’t make any sense. A singular contribution to the federal government does nothing. The purpose of taxation is so that many small contributions from millions of citizens adds up to a substantial pool of money that may be used for the public weal.

Now, what else did we get for that $300/person back in 2001? Hmmm. How about federal deficits as far as the eye can see? How about cuts to federal aid to states, reductions in essential human services, and more unfunded federal mandates. Such a deal!

Honestly, if you think about it how much is $300, or even $600 per worker going to get you? A month’s rent (if your rent is cheap)… While it is a not-insignificant amount of money for low-income workers, the reality is that it’s just not enough to get anyone through six months or a year of hard times that lay ahead. In short, the proposed stimulus package sends the wrong message for the wrong time.

Instead of using a transparent (if popular) election year trick to put a small amount of cash into the hands of Americans, why not focus on a real, long-term stimulus plan?

Such a plan might include:

1) Rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans (over $200,000);

2) Repealing (or at least recalibrating) the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) so that middle-income Americans are no longer caught in its clutches;

3) Using the new tax revenue from the wealthiest Americans to pay for unemployment insurance compensation extensions, increases in food stamp benefits, and workforce training (this was considered by the House, but they stripped it from the bill in order to move it; the Senate may put it back in, but there’s no telling if a conference committee will pass it, or if Bush will sign it with these provision included).

4) Corporate welfare reform – specifically stripping oil and coal research and development from the already hugely profitable private companies we subsidize and putting it into real renewable energy R&D and implementation. How about replacing every oil derrick in Texas with a wind turbine?

5) Balancing the federal budget.

If we have learned anything since the Bush Administration took over in 2001 it is that its economic policies are pure bunk. It took the largest budget surplus in American history and turned it into the largest deficit. This stimulus package will only make it worse.

How come nobody is talking about this?!

Actually some people are. Michael Bloomberg has just come out panning the entire package. The guy has some smarts, and some cojones. According to news reports of his comments on the package at a speech before the U.S. Conference of Mayors he said: “We can’t borrow our way out of this. The jig is up.” And, “It’s not going to make much of a difference because we’ve already been running huge deficits. If we spend all the money right now, and there is no recovery because of it, then we don’t have a second hand to play.”

His solution? According to Newsday: “Bloomberg argued that the government’s first goal should be to stop the bleeding in the housing sector. “What good is a rebate going to do for a family who’s about to lose the place that they sleep in?” he said. Instead, the mayor argued, the government should:

Adopt a capital budget to oversee long-term infrastructure spending, instead of the current year-to-year spending.

Offer financial counseling, modified loans and, in some cases, subsidized loans to homeowners who find themselves unable to afford their mortgages.

Overhaul immigration laws to bring more workers in, not keep workers out.”

Wow… how refreshing. Instead of demonizing immigrants and demagoguing the immigration issue, there is a politician out there who actually says “let them in…” the words on the Statue of Liberty actually still mean something:

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:

I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

If anyone should know the meaning of that old Emma Lazarus poem (“The New Colossus”), it would be the Mayor of New York. Is this guy actually going to run for President? An independent truth-teller (and former Democrat) who is self-funded and not as crazy as Ross Perot could sure make the race very interesting.

After reading this post I was hit by a couple of questions that were brought up in the comments, which asked

Why is it you folks worry more about religion in the schools than drugs in the schools?

and

I don’t think I’m going to convert you.  Just reflect on your priorities, guys.  It’s all I ask.

So I figure I’ll give a real quick stab at answering….

Cross posted at Integral Psychosis…

OK, well, here it goes: religious beliefs are an individual choice about how to make sense of the (often complex and confusing) world around us.  Specifically, religion is an authoritarian-minded, mythical/magical way of viewing our lives, society and nature.  There of course are some side notes to that generalization, like many Eastern philosophies or people like Thomas Merton, to name just a couple.  But nonetheless, in a free society we must have the freedom to choose, individually, what our beliefs are and how we’re going to interpret the events around us.  This means that the State, through our school systems, has the responsibility to teach us to be creative, critical thinkers, and to expose us to a wide variety of cultures, myths, and sciences, in order to give us each the tools necessary to maturely decide for ourselves what we want to believe or not believe as Truth, capital “T”.

“Drugs”, on the other hand, are like any other substance we may or may not ingest.  Meaning, whatever we put into our bodies has, to one degree or another, the effect of altering the chemical processes that are continually happening within us.  Given that some substances have a far more drastic effect on us than others, people have seen to it at various times in history to determine that some substances, which we’ve come to refer to as “drugs”, should not be ingested  at anytime, by anyone, because the effects on the individual and society are too dangerous.  However, laws (and the people who make them) are not perfect.  And over time we may find the need to change them.  In this case, as Vermonters, we’re arriving at the point where we understand that the physical and psychological effects of smoking pot are not nearly as destructive for the individual or society as the enforcement of the laws that ban it.  Rightly so, we’re re-considering the logic of keeping such a law.

Would the decriminalization of marijuana be the same as mounting billboards everywhere that literally said “hey kids, smoke pot! it’s good for you!”? Um, no, obviously not.  Can, and should, there be classes which honestly teach our children what the physical, psychological, and social effects of marijuana smoking actually are? Yes, of course.  That would provide them with the information they need to make their own choices.  That is a free society.  Pamphlets explaining to us “why jesus is better than santa” (which to me sounds like “why a firing squad is better than drowning”) do not teach us to do anything for ourselves; it’s simply telling us what right and wrong is.  This gets back to the authoritarian nature of religion.  Authoritarianism, as Bush has helped illustrate so well these past few years, is not compatible with a free society.

Did you see this story in the paper this morning: MONTPELIER – Some lawmakers were taken aback Thursday when they found out that Gov. James Douglas' proposed budget did not include funding for this year's election”?

 Did it sound familiar?

If it did, maybe that's because you read it yesterday over at Philip Baruth's Vermont Daily Briefing:

Governor Douglas Stumbles On New Way to Win Elections: Cease Having Them ASAP

Hey, I know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but MSM guys: when you pick up the stories that we break, how about giving us credit, huh? 

Oh, and great work, Philip! 

Up here in Vermont we like to look down on the slack-jawed yokels who try to kick evolution out of the schools, cram the Ten Commandments down the kids' throats, or otherwise abuse their power by using the public schools for religious indoctrination.

Couldn't happen here, could it?

Well, the news today is that it is. In a story in today's Times Argus we read about Mel Downs, a parent in Irasburg whose daughter's teacher posts the Ten Commandments in his classroom, includes links to religious sites on his official school web page, and sends home materials like “Why Jesus Is Better Than Santa Claus”. 

Downs' daughter attends seventh grade at Irasburg Village School. She received the “Jesus” handout just before Christmas vacation, and Downs says it reflects a pattern of religious-themed material being taught by Wally Rogers, his daughter's language arts teacher.

When Downs' daughter began the school year in September, he said, the Ten Commandments were mounted to the classroom wall, Christian books filled the classroom bookshelf, and a school-funded Web page, used by the teacher, included links to Christian Web sites.

 The school says it's addressing the issue, although apparently it's been going on for years. I think it's important to really understand what's gonig on here. What the teacher does in his job is not just what the teacher is doing, it's what the government is doing. Thus, we shouldn't be talking just about what this teacher is doing, but why the government is indoctrinating children in one religious perspective. It's very clearly unconstitutional, and if it isn't immediately halted they need to be sued.