Many of you are well aware of the notion of "corporate personhood", namely the idea that corporations have the same rights as us lowly humans. Unfortunately, unlike us peoplefolk, they're not subject to the death penalty, and can live much longer than us people , too. They have the rights, but not the responsibilities. Must be nice, eh?
The real injustice about corporate personhood is it's based on a legal misinterpretation of an 1886 Supreme Court Case. It was in the court clerk's headnotes regarding the case, not in the actual ruling. Essentially, it's bunk (lots of history at the wikipedia entry here).
By now, some of you are aware of the Change.org website (not to be confused with change.gov, the Obama transition website). It's a social entrepreneurship venture set up to help organize and raise money for various progressive causes. Their extensive website is set up sort of like a news/blog hybrid. One of their current projects see what new ideas that people would like to see coming from the Obama administration. There's been several rounds of voting, and in the last round, "Ending corporate personhood" is #9. They've got some sort of media blitz planned right before the inauguration to hopefully draw more attention to the top 10 issues. From the site:
On January 16, Change.org and the Case Foundation are co-hosting an event at the National Press Club in Washington, DC to announce the top 10 rated ideas and then launch a national campaign behind each idea and mobilize the collective energy of the millions of members of Change.org, MySpace, and partner organizations to ensure that each winning idea gets the full consideration of the Obama Administration and Members of Congress.
Now, of course, one never really knows what effect these things can have, but if you're interested, you can vote for the "end corporate personhood" here. It can't hurt.
Sources report that Secretary of State Deb Markowitz is in the race for Governor in 2010 as well, setting the stage for a high-profile primary - which is just what the Doctor ordered to gin up energy, interest, and organization, frankly.
And on the Racine front: Former Governor Phil Hoff hosted a meeting for Racine at his home in Burlington over the weekend with 20-25 supporters in attendance (including at least one person engaged in the blogs/new media). A source who was there indicated Racine talked "about the Vermont economy and how the Douglas Administration has mishandled it, and his focus will be on bettering the economic circumstances of Vermonters - and that includes figuring out ways to protect low-income, senior and disabled Vermonters."
It looks like whatever illness kept all the potential Dem candidates for Governor and Lt. Governor hiding for so long in the '08 cycle has been fought off. This email is making the rounds of Democratic County Chairs in the state:
Dear County Chairs,
As Doug Racine starts his campaign for governor, he would first like to get around and visit all the county committees and the rank and file Democrats. I told Doug I would help him set up some of these appointments.
Please let me know when your next county committee meeting is. Doug would like to come and visit and engage in a conversation on issues and on the 2010 governor's race.
Thanks.
-mary sullivan
Racine, of course, is the only candidate who has ever given Douglas a run for his money in a gubernatorial contest - losing by a mere 2.5 percent (and that was with a strong third candidate in Con Hogan pulling 9.7%, as well as an unsanctioned Progressive - Michael Badamo - who pulled 0.6%). Douglas is clearly stronger now, but so is Racine after his own political rebirth. The former Lieutenant Governor pulls terrific numbers in the more conservative Chittenden County burbs that always end up kicking our statewide candidates' asses against Douglas and Dubie - stronger numbers than he even had in the old days.
And having Mary Sullivan on his side sure doesn't hurt. There are factions and divisions within the Democratic Party in Vermont, but Sullivan's long history with the institution and its players at every level make her not simply a "faction-straddler," but likely the faction-straddler. In the Democratic Party, everybody likes Mary, and that likely makes her unique in the VDP(scratch that - I'm hearing email complaints about her after writing that. Ah, Democrats..).
One can make the case that Markowitz, Spaulding, Shumlin or Dunne (and others) could defeat Douglas, but in each of those cases, there is an element of faith built into the case. Racine remains the only potential candidate for whom the case can be made with math. That's not to say its a perfectly linear equation, but the numbers are there historically to make the case for a Racine candidacy, as I made in more detail a year ago.
And as a numbers guy myself, that gets me feeling pretty good. More analysis on this tomorrow.
There is at least one idea that I have not heard among the options discussed for closing the budget gap. Namely, increased resources for enforcement at the Tax Department.
A recent report (Univ. of Michigan & IRS analyst) estimated that people earning between $500,000 and $1 million failed to report 21% of their income.
http://www.bus.umich.edu/otpr/...
If this is true in VT, it would represent $147 million in unreported income just from this group. The yield on this level of income is about 5.6% so we could be losing as much as $8.2 million per year (not counting loses from those with even higher incomes).
For perspective, an earlier IRS report using the same data estimated the federal "tax gap" at $345 billion (the difference between taxes owed and taxes paid). National Research Program Individual Income Tax Reporting Compliance Study for 2001
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/ar...
I've heard other states have achieved solid rates of return on increased funding for enforcement. Shouldn't we do the same? It has to be better than cutting programs for kids & elders.
And I would love to hear the Governor tell us why this wouldn't be appropriate / affordable / necessary. C'mon Jim, tell us why we can't do this.
Breaking news from NBC, AP, and the Times: Bill Richardson has informed Barack Obama that he's withdrawing his name as the nominee to be Obama's Secretary of Commerce.
It seems almost inevitable that issues will crop up with at least one nominee, as well vetted as they seem to be. Up to now the consensus has been that Obama's been handling the transition perfectly, or pretty close. Now this comes up.
I'm sorry to hear this. I've always liked Bill Richardson, and I disagreed with people who were ridiculing him as the "resume candidate" during his brief presidential run. Maybe it's just me, but I didn't see anything wrong with running on the basis of a record as strong as Richardson's. Not that I ever thought he had a chance.
Apparently it has to do with a pay to play investigation into the business dealings between some company and the state of New Mexico. Naturally Richardson says there has been no wrongdoing.
(The folks at The Guardian had me write a 2008-retrospective piece on what I thought the most significant event of 2008 was. It was to run this week, but they've posted all their retrospectives, didn't include it, and my editor hasn't told me whether or not its just been tossed or not.
I'm guessing at this point that it has been dumped, so I'm posting it here instead.)
2008 was the year of Obama, and even in light of the worldwide financial collapse, it is the image of the young African American President Elect that personifies the year. But as much as the November election itself, the hurdle Obama needed to overcome to reach this historic milestone was the most intractable hurdle in American culture.
Reverend Jeremiah Wright was never supposed to be a household name. The fiery rhetoric that came from the pulpit of Obama's former minister was not unique, but it's unique proximity to the candidate made it problematic - possibly fatally so. When that rhetoric was brought to light at the height of the Democratic Party primary season by his political opponents and amplified by an eager media, Obama was forced to act quickly and decisively - and he did so in March through what will likely be proven to be the speech of his life. A speech that was a turning point, not only for his own campaign, but for the turbulent history of race relations in America - one that will continue to resonate for years after the Obama Administration has come and gone.
It's a subjective question to be sure, but I'm always interested in looking back and considering what news events of the last year were either barely covered or incompletely covered, given what their real impact is likely to be. It's easier to ask that question nationally or globally, but when you get down to the state level, it gets a little more challenging and a little more fun.
I've included nine I think fit the bill. What do you think? Any to add (or any of these to quiblle with)?
"We can count on state government to do less and less to help even those in dire need. "
This is a truly radical and disturbing statement. The Free Press sees the state government as something wholly detached from an obligation to care for the citizens,especially, by their logic in a recession "And the only talk coming out of Montpelier seems to be about the enormous budget deficit that threatens to swallow Vermont.." In their editorial titled, with no irony, Core principle: we're all in this together, the "we" they speak of does not include our state government. No one can dispute the need for community, family and associated networks, but the retreat of the state government in the face of what the paper is calling dire need is an insult. They declare that one of the defining characteristics of Vermont is its sense of community, isn't state government an integral part of that community?
This is the monologue of drivel the Democratic legislature is failing to get out in front of.
The last year ended with the hard realities of the recession crashing down upon us, and 2009 is sure to bring even more challenges. The economic decline continues, with no one predicting a rebound anytime soon. News about layoffs keeps coming. And the only talk coming out of Montpelier seems to be about the enormous budget deficit that threatens to swallow Vermont.
We can count on state government to do less and less to help even those in dire need. Food shelves and emergency shelters report increased demand they are having trouble meeting. Social service agencies warn that less money will mean people losing the support they need in their daily lives
Wind, of course, has been the most controversial, largely because people driving around the countryside don't have to look at compact fluorescent light bulbs, or small dams, but they are very concerned that they will have to look at giant wind turbines.
So even if you accept the claim that wind turbines are ugly (I don't, but let's go with it for the sake of discussion), tell me which you think is uglier.
