( – promoted by odum)

There are not a lot of positive things we can say about Wal-mart. The giant retailer is known for building huge stores that sell everything from groceries to garden supplies, from tools to electronics, all under one roof and at low prices. They have now extended their low prices to a select number of generic drugs that insurance companies and the uninsured alike can purchase for just $4 for a 30-day supply.

Those low prices to the consumer come at a cost. Wal-mart buys in such huge quantities that they can pressure suppliers to sell at lower prices. The suppliers in turn pressure manufacturers, who some how must find a way to make products cheaper.
The result is lower wages. Wal-mart offers health insurance to full-time employees yet has a disproportionately high number of part time employees. Their quest for lower wholesale prices force manufacturers to keep wages down and even build factories overseas to meet Wal-mart’s demands.
Their model is so successful that a suburban mega-store has been the death knell for many downtown-shopping areas. Small, traditional retailers find it impossible to compete on price. While some are able to sell service, personality and/or unique items, the demise of average shops next door decrease the amount of foot traffic and turn a thriving collection of shops into a wasteland of empty buildings.
The company is a paragon of capitalism – there is little humanity in their calculations save for the occasional gesture that plays well in the press. We as a nation are grateful for these gestures.
Their mobilization of supplies to relieve the suffering of Hurricane Katrina refugees is a good illustration. They responded with critical supplies much faster than our government agencies; bringing food, water and medical supplies quickly to thousands of suddenly homeless people.
Their $4 prescription program is another necessary, much less altruistic gesture that will help the disadvantaged, the uninsured and the sick.
Wal-Mart last month announced that some company pharmacies would sell 30-day prescriptions of certain generic medications for $4 in 65 Wal-Mart, Sam’s Club and Neighborhood Market pharmacies around Tampa, Fla., with plans to expand statewide in early 2007. They held open the possibility of expanding to other states in the future.
The program must have had a ring of marketing genius because Wal-mart announced Oct. 19 they would expand the generic prescription drug discount program to 14 additional states, including Vermont.
Like the owners of other small businesses crushed by the power of Wal-mart, Vermont pharmacists are apoplectic over the announcement. They can see the writing on the wall, yet another huge competitor is going to cut into their share of customers.
Analysts said the main benefit for Wal-Mart is in drawing more shoppers into its stores who may come for prescriptions and then stay to buy in other departments, a public relations stunt meant to drive foot traffic.
Most people will find their prescriptions do not fall under the $4 plan because only 1 percent of the drugs Wal-mart sells are covered.
That’s not Wal-mart’s fault. When a prescription sells for $250 for a thirty-day supply the pharmacists aren’t going out to buy Rolexes and luxury cars. The pharmaceutical companies are collecting the lion’s share of the money, leaving pharmacies to survive on slim (and shrinking) profit margins.
This again is the capitalist system at work. Pharmaceutical companies are beholden only to their shareholders by law and they must turn a profit to satisfy those investors, in addition to recovering their costs for drug development and an increasing propensity of slick advertising.
All of this supports the fact that Wal-mart is doing exactly as they should in our profit-derived, expansionist society – increasing their market share by taking advantage of the free press that comes from making news.
The fact that they stumbled on to a plan that helps both insurance companies and the uninsured by lowering the cost of some drugs is beside the point.
Our question is why, at a time of increasing health care costs that inflate taxes and allegedly burden business beyond the ability to compete, is the federal government prohibited from negotiating a lower price for these same drugs for veterans and people on Medicare and Medicaid?
For as long as our long memories can recall, people who rail against big government have cried that if only our government were run like a business, then the waste would whither away.
A result of the prescription drug plan passed last year is that we, the people, are prohibited from being like Wal-mart. Instead, we have to wait until Wal-mart finds it in their best interest to throw us a crumb.
At least they have demonstrated what is possible in negotiating  a quantity price for generic drugs.

[This is my second column for the Vermont Journal that appeared last week. I’m still getting the hang of this print medium thing, frankly, and this one kinda blew. The one coming out this Wednesday is a bit better… I’m working on it.]

Two years ago, Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Peter Clavelle was taken to task by the media for attempting to draw connections between Governor Jim Douglas and the already widely unpopular (in Vermont, anyway) administration of President Bush. Burlington’s True Majority organization crystallized the argument with the “Jim=George” lawn signs that popped up here and there across central Vermont.

Many considered this line of attack to be part of the reason for Clavelle’s electoral pummeling, but when you hear current Democratic candidate Scudder Parker making the same connections, you aren’t hearing the same dismissive response from Vermont’s fourth estate.

To an extent, it’s because many in the state approach elections this year as one big circus show with several rings. There’s Bernie vs. Tarrant over in that corner, Dubie vs. Dunne across the way, and our local state House and Senate candidates scattered about – but all still under one big top. It was inevitable, therefore, that with the high profile race for US Representative, the Bush factor would be brought into the general arena in a way that it wasn’t two years ago.

But it’s more than that. If it weren’t, Parker’s criticisms of Douglas’s Bush connections (he was Bush’s Vermont re-election campaign chairman in 2004) wouldn’t be resonating at all.

The fact is that national politics are on everyone’s mind in a way that they weren’t two years ago. With Iraq falling into Civil War, terrorism a greater threat than it was on 9/11, and corruption and moral hypocrisy reaching never before seen levels in Washington, it’s hard not to be thinking about the state of our union.

Iraq in particular has become an electoral catalyst. With 64% of Americans firmly against it now (and no doubt even more dramatic numbers in Vermont), the war is effecting people’s local electoral decision making in two ways.

First, it is causing eyebrows to rise at any direct connection to Bush and the Washington Republicans. Martha Rainville’s campaign has been one steady defensive attempt to create distance from this crowd, but her financial and institutional connections run too deep for her to convincingly cast herself as an independent operator.

It’s also no coincidence that the battle for Governor only caught fire when Douglas foolishly used his connections to the Washington GOP in a very public way to kill the Wilderness bill, and in doing so cast himself in opposition to Senator Leahy, Senator Jeffords, and Congressman Sanders – the virtual Holy Trinity of national anti-Bush sentiment.

Most significantly, it is feeding the anger and cynicism of self-identified independent voters as they look at the political parties as a group from the outside. Independents have abandoned Democrats in the past because of a judgment that they don’t stand for anything. While hard-pressed to shake that impression, shifting poll numbers suggest that independents are now forming a collective impression of those who willingly self-identify as candidates of this President’s party as well; that they stand for something both dangerous and foolish.

This could put anyone with an R alongside their name at any level at risk, as a vote for a Republican becomes seen as a vote to institutionally enable those whose disastrous policies have put our nation at greater risk.

This election and its unique climate will test the axiom that Vermonters vote the candidate rather than the party, like never before. Whether it makes sense or not, many voters cast their ballot based on what’s on their mind and what’s in their gut. The Governor knows this well, which is why he has tried to loudly shift the conversation towards taxes in these waning weeks.

Tip O’Neill is famously quoted as saying “all politics is local.” One has to wonder, looking at the world and the issues on everyone’s mind, if the reciprocal hasn’t become the case this year – that all local politics have become national.

In case you missed it (from the Times Argus):

Gov. James Douglas said he is “disgusted” with the behavior of his fellow Republicans in Washington, asserting that both Congress and the White House are out of touch with Vermont and the rest of the country.

In his most forceful comments against the Republican Party since becoming governor four years ago, the life-long GOP stalwart said that he would like to see a change in his party’s leadership in the House of Representatives, suggesting that current House Speaker Dennis Hastert should be replaced should the Republicans retain their edge in the chamber.

So what to make of this from he, who famously spoke the words “aren’t we lucky to have George W. Bush in the White House” with Darth Cheney at his side? Certainly he has taken positions the White House would prefer he didn’t, but usually only when he feels a need to control the conversation, as with his action on the NSA wiretapping issue. Scudder Parker came out strong, so within a few days Douglas trumped him by coming out with similar rhetoric and putting some of the muscle of the executive behind it (if Douglas does get re-elected, it’ll be interesting if he drops his efforts to force accountability on the issue, as the Bush administration has demanded).

Bud I digress. On the rhetoric at hand, logic suggests four possibilities only (on the flip):

1. His words are sincere.

2. Parker is getting traction in Douglas’s internal polling and this is a counter-move.

3. Douglas is looking to the next election, and rather than play it safe, wants to crush Parker at the ballot box as he did Clavelle to scare off any A-list challengers in future elections.

4. Some combination of the above.

In the absolute sense, we’re probably looking at #4. Like most other Republicans, Douglas is probably trying to figure out what the hell the neocons have been thinking. Still (and this shows in his phrasing), his critique is one on method and style rather than policy. 

The truth, of course, is – as anyone who knows anything about Vermont issues and has looked at Douglas’s history even casually will tell you – that his opinions and approaches ebb and flow with the political winds. He is a master of having it both ways in every argument, in no small part due to his rather shameless penchant for taking credit for the work of others – even when he himself oppsed that same work tooth and nail (in this way, he’s been doing the Bush administrations Homeland Security Department trick since the pre-Bush era, while in other state offices). Given this history, it’s hard to think #1 is at play in any meaningful way. More likely that this isn’t anything other than banking soundbites that he can refer back to in future debates.

#2 sounds nice, but based on the recent SUSA poll, it’s not too likely.

So my money is on #3. Grain of truth to #1 or no, I believe Douglas and his team want to crush his second challenger in as many cycles to send a loud and clear message to the Shumlins, Markowitzs and Symingtons of the Vermont Democratic politcal scene;

Don’t even think about it.

Whatever the reason, going forward with such rhetoric puts GOP COngressional candidate Martha Rainville at extreme risk. Although Douglas sprinked her liberally throughout his remarks in an attempt to innoculate her from any increase to the anti-national-GOP fire that is fueling Peter Welch’s campaign, the truth is it is a feeble attempt at best. Trying to control any damage, GOP State Chair Jim Barnett sounded even worse:

“I, too, am embarrassed by certain individuals in our party, just as Democrats should be embarrassed by members of their party,” Barnett said. “The problem is that too many members of both parties have shamed themselves and shamed Congress, and that’s why we need to elect a different kind of person, not a career politician who looks at Congress as one more stepping stone on an ambitious career path.”

Weak, at best. Try as they may to spin it otherwise, Douglas’s speech does Rainville no favors – which also sends a message to potential future candidates for statewide office, but in this case Republican ones:

The Governor looks out for the Governor. Douglas’s help is only there inasmuch as it’s consistent with his own goals.

This is one political Kingpin who plays by his own rules.

( – promoted by odum)

A funny thing happened at Democratic Headquarters in Franklin County today.

I was there volunteering when a 40-something woman came in and said she wanted some lawn signs. She took signs for virtually every candidate from the top of the ticket on down to local candidates … except Scudder’s.

“No,” she said, “I won’t put a minister’s sign on my lawn. I don’t want religion anywhere near my government.”

“If you knew Scudder,” I explained, “you’d know he’s not the kind of guy who would make religion an issue. Besides, he was a minister a while ago, he’s had other jobs since then. And even when he was a minister, it was for a fairly liberal church.”

“Ah,” she replied, “but I was at a Democratic fundraiser last year and he opened it with a prayer. I just can’t do it, even though it was the kind of prayer that I agreed with.”

“Are there any other concerns?” I asked.

“What’s his stance on abortion?” she queried. “Absolutely and resolutely pro-choice,” I truthfully replied.

“What about gay rights, gay marriage?” she persisted. “Scudder believes in equality for everyone,” I answered her back. “Scudder was at Gay Pride in Burlington last july. I was there. He promised, out loud, from the stage, that if the legislature passes a gay marriage bill and a gender identity non-discrimination bill, he would sign them.”

She was relieved! But still, she could not make peace with displaying a Scudder lawn sign. She left with her hands full of all the other signs, and I went back to helping with data entry.

Five minutes later, she was back.

“Okay,” she sighed. “You’ve convinced me. I’ll take two Scudder signs.”

You’ve got to know something about Franklin County to understand just how unusual that interaction was. You’ve got to remember that the good citizens of Franklin County booed legislators off the stage when they came to talk about civil unions. You’ve got to also know that Rep. Al Perry, a moderately conservative Democrat in the northernmost part of the county (Richford), voted his conscience for civil unions and lost his seat in the backlash election, only to regain it two years later. You’ve got to know how many “Take Back Vermont” and “Take it to the People” signs there were on barns and hay bales from Swanton and Sheldon and Richford to the Chittenden County line and the Lamoille County line, and how life-threatening that felt when driving by them every single day.

There’s hope in Franklin County. There are conventional dairy farmers looking to power their farms with manure-generated methane. There are farmers looking beyond conventional dairy farming to diversified harvests and organic milk. There are people who are passionate about providing and consuming local food as one way to address energy issues. There are candidates who totally get it that the economy of rural counties will increasingly depend on universal broadband access.

And there are 40-something women like this one and 30, 40, 50, 60-something women and men of my acquaintance who want to know for sure that no one will shove their religion down anyone’s throat, that women’s medical decisions must be just as private and government-interference-free as men’s, that all Vermont citizens will be treated equally in housing, healthcare, schools, banks, bars, restaurants, and every other public place. There are many of us here looking to the future. With hope.

NanuqFC