The Snelling Center presents itself as a “nonpartisan” nonprofit working to engage the public in serious discussion of public policy issues. Its current project, on which it began polling last year, is whether Vermont should amend its constitution to change the term of office for Lt. Governor and Governor from 2 years to 4. A question that is clearly treated as secondary is whether the Senate and/or the House should get the same deal.

But frankly, there’s an agenda here, and it’s not exactly nonpartisan — although the polling figures handed out at last night’s debate between Gov. Madeleine Kunin and Prof. Frank Bryan suggest that majorities of both Democrats and Republicans participating in a randomized poll favor an increase in the Gov’s term.

I blogged on this, with an aside regarding John McLaughry’s strong support for the four-year governor and total disdain for the four-year legislature, almost two years ago. My opinion hasn’t changed. But the urgency of taking the poll online has: the Snelling Center will present the results of its polling in January in a push to get a vote on an amendment bill.

The amendment process, a cautionary list of supporters, and the two competing proposals after the jump.

A Constitutional amendment must be approved by a 2/3 majority in the Vermont Senate, pass by a majority vote of the House this session, then get majority approval in both chambers in the next legislative session, then win a popular vote in order to be enacted.

As for the “funding partners” supporting the Snelling Center’s relentless “engagement” with this issue (last defeated by public vote in 1974), here’s the list:

Funding Partners:

AARP Vermont
Blue Cross/Blue Shield Vermont
Central Vermont Public Service Corporation
Champlain Oil Company
Doubletree Hotel
Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC
Entergy Nuclear VT Yankee
Fletcher Allen Health Care
Forcier, Aldrich, and Associates, Inc.
Gallagher, Flynn & Company, LLP
GBIC
Green Mountain Power
Hackett, Valine, MacDonald
Hazelett Strip-Casting Corp.
Hubbardton Forge
Kelliher, Samets, Volk Communications
Lang Associates
Middlebury College
National Bank of Middlebury
National Life Group
Neagley & Chase Construction Group
Northfield Savings Bank
Paul Frank & Collins P.C.
Queen City Printers, Inc.
Union Mutual Insurance
Union Street Media
Vermont Business Roundtable
Vermont Electric Power Co., Inc. (VELCO)
Vermont Gas Systems
Vermont Law School
Vermont Mutual Insurance
Vermont State Chamber of Commerce
Wells River Savings Bank
Windham Foundation

What I see here for the most part is a who’s who of folks who fund the army of lobbyists and donate to Gov. Does-less: banks, utilities, insurance companies (include AARP in that group), and law firms which provide “government liaison” services.

Yes, there’s a bill in the Senate, sponsored by Sen. Bill Doyle, he of the famous Town Meeting Day survey of issues, along with Ann Cummings, Harold Giard, Don Collins, and (ahem) Doug Racine, among others. A competing bill that includes all the legislators was filed by Jim Condos and co-sponsored by Diane Snelling, and (more on this in a minute) Don Collins, among others.

Sen. Collins, of Franklin County, was at a different event in Montpelier at the Capitol Plaza, but dropped by briefly before the debate. He said, “I support a 4-year term for constitutional offices and the Senate, and that’s it.” It was said lightly, with a laugh, but I think that’s what he really means.

Other shared sponsors between the competing proposals are Hinda Miller and Ginny Lyons.

The chairs of the three major parties were on a “reaction panel” at the debate, and Dem chair Ian Carleton and Repub chair Rob Roper agreed (!) that each of their parties held a “diversity of opinion” on the subject. Only Martha Abbott of the Progressives was solidly against moving to four-year terms.

Carleton admitted that, personally, he would support moving to four-year terms for statewide offices. The issue is not (yet) on the agenda for the State Committee meeting on Nov. 17. Perhaps it should be.

Final note: on Nov. 28 there will be an “interactive forum”  with Supreme Court Justice John Dooley and Vermont Law School Professor Peter Teachout at UVM in Burlington at 4:30. The topic is “looking at the roles of Vermont’s Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches in the 21st Century.” The location has not yet been listed.

NanuqFC
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the TRUTH Is a Revolutionary Act. — George Orwell

Oh, and PS: I’ll bet a four-year term wasn’t something Gov. Does-less heard from Vermonters on his STAT.
 

…here are reports today about how Chuck is landing in the lap of hedge funds in exchange for a couple of $28,500 gifts to the DSCC from two hedge fund executives. 

Let's do the math:  $57,000 for the DSCC, or closing up a 20 point tax loophole for hedge fund execs.  So that’s 20% on, say $1.7 billion on appropriately charged income to add to the common weal, or $57,000 for the DSCC.  Hmmmmm….  How much of the $57,000 is landing in Schumer’s war chest?  Heck, even if he got it all, he’d still be a really cheap date for a couple of high flying billionaires.

The bill being discussed suggests that hedge fund execs should be taxed on income, not on short term capital gains.  Short term capital gains tax is 15%. For anyone else earning over $174,850 a year, there’s a a reasonable income tax of 35%  

But if you're pulling down $1.7 billion, then Chuck is ready to give you a break. 

( – promoted by odum)

A couple of issues near and dear to the hearts of Vermont activists are playing out (or beginning to).

First is the aftermath of Rep. Dennis Kucinich's move to do what so many Vermonters wanted Rep. Peter Welch to do – sort of. As everyone has no doubt heard by now, Kucinich called the impeachment question on the floor of the House (where motions on impeachment are considered privileged and must be addressed). Yay Dennis, except, well – it was a call for the impeachment of Cheney, which seems to me to miss the target politically and ethically. Long past are the bygone days where people on the left wondered whether President Bush was no more than an ineffectual empty suit. Cheney may be his most crude, effective and brazen hatchet man, but he is still a hatchet man – a mere symptom of the problem that is Bush himself.

In any event, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland moved quickly to table the motion, but was stymied by a block of Democrats joined (ultimately, after some vote-switching) by Republicans who thought a public debate over the merits of ditching a vice president whose approval rating is nearly in the single digits would somehow embarass his critics more than his defenders (this is bizarro world, isn't it?). The motion was not tabled, but, after getting the dissident Dems marching to his drum, was then quickly sent by Hoyer to the Judiciary committee where the profoundly disappointing Chair, Rep. John Conyers, will simply stack it to die along with the other Kucinich impeachment resolution gathering cobwebs in that committee.

But the question on everyone's mind is – will Kucinich simply bring it to the floor again (and aim at Bush next time)? By House rules, it remains a privileged motion that must be considered. If Kucinich is serious, he could well bring it to the floor on primetime every day of the session. He's gotten gobs of good feedback on this, so activists are watching and waiting…

Second is Rep. Welch's moment of truth on Iraq funding that is now on on its way.

Welch has gone through a process which many Vermont activists (myself included) have found rather frustrating in terms of Iraq Warfunding (and I'm not refering to the bizarre, Welch-is-personally-responsible-for–Iraq crowd who seem so obsessively fixated on him, or who see piling on him as a means to other political or personal ends). Welch has moved through a series of steps on his dealing with Iraq much like the stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and now, acceptance. While he's done them all within the course of a year (which is fast in Legislative time), it has been frustrating to watch him go through such a process to end up where he reasonably should have been years ago (and where many of us thought he already was when he was elected); at a point where he's prepared to stop playing political games and refuse to continue funding of Bush's Middle East adventure.

Some time back, Welch joined other frustrated members of the Progressive Caucus in signing a letter saying enough is enough – that they would no longer follow the Democratic leadership (intent on biding its time until next year's election, apparently) and would simply vote against any and all funding for the Iraq War without firm withdrawal timetables. The Welch-haters, naturally, didn't care that he'd made the very commitment they were demanding, and have even continued to circulate angry emails that simply state (in the face of reality) that he hasn't signed the letter, and castigate him for it. Whatever.

But the point is, the moment of truth is nearly here. From AlterNet:

In the next few days, a Congressional conference committee will likely pass the largest defense spending bill in the history of the United States. Despite Democratic lawmakers' promises to stop issuing blank checks for war, the bill does not call for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq or Afghanistan, nor does it prevent military action against Iran.

If Welch means what he says, he can likely hardly wait to cast his vote to get the Welch-haters to shut up (they won't, of course, as he has somehow acheived almost mystically evil stature in their eyes. Why is beyond me, but that's a matter better addressed by social psychologists). If he doesn't (and I can't see why he wouldn't, as he seems to be playing out a fairly consistent pattern), he's gonna rightfully catch holy hell if he flubs this.

Stay tuned.

RICHMOND — A 21-year-old soldier from the Jonesville section of Richmond was killed Monday during a roadside bomb attack near Kirkuk in northern Iraq.

He graduated from high school the same year my younger son graduated. 

“He went into the Army to pay off his college loans,” Wells said. “It's really a crying shame that in the wealthiest country in the world, people have to go into the army to pay for college.”