Well, then. Turning up the heat does seem to work sometimes. Peter Welch has agreed to have a meeting to discuss the war, this Sunday, November 11th at the Old Labor Hall Aldrich Public Library in Barre. The meeting is open to the public, so I'm hoping you'll attend if possible, and more importantly, spread the word to anyone you know who would be interested. As Odum pointed out earlier, the next few votes on Iraq funding will be here shortly, and Welch is definitely running out of chances to back up his words with action and refuse to sign on to anymore war funding. As you probably know, patience is starting to run rather thin lately. Hope you can make it.
Daily Archives: November 8, 2007
Demagogues of a feather
UPDATED–See below
For the last year, Windsor County State's Attorney Bobby Sand has been trying to start a public debate on the costs and benefits of marijuana prohibition in Vermont. You may remember that when Nixon ordered a look at this very question thirty-five years ago he didn't like the answer, so he suppressed the results. Yes, thirty-five years ago we were on the road to legalization.
So just maybe, when one courageous State's Attorney decides that his office has more important things to do than throw pot-smokers in jail, it can open a debate on marijuana prohibition in Vermont, right?
ll across Vermont Democrats are wailing, gnashing their teeth, and hoping that their one big pre-Christmas wish will come true: a strong challenger to Republican incumbent Jim Douglas. Somebody, maybe one of our top statewide office-holders, to step up, take the big political risk, and tell the voters of the state the truth: that Douglas is an empty suit, someone who looks like a governor, dutifully shows up at ribbon-cuttings, but is a nay-saying do-nothing when it comes to doing anything positive for the people of Vermont.
Attorney General Bill Sorrell is one of those statewide office-holders, and on occasion he has been willing to take independent stands that Governor Scissorhands wouldn't support.
So when Douglas decides, predictably, to take the low road and order the state's game wardens and other law enforcement personnel to bypass State's Attorney Bobby Sand and refer their pot cases to the AG or the feds, what the hell does Sorrel do?
Does he take the opportunity to stand up for Sand, and point out the fact that the so-called war on drugs is diverting vital law enforcement efforts from other, real crimes? Does he talk about the financial costs of confing productive citizens in prisons for enjoying an activity that hurts nobody and is far less harmful than alcohol, tobacco, or the Big Mac you can get legally all over the state? Or does he join Douglas and demagogue the issue?
I wish he could take a position that would actually move Vermont ahead, but I'm afraid not.
I guess we need to look somewhere else for a principled Democratic leader.
As it turns out Sorrel may not be such a big fan of Douglas's move after all. Here's what he said on VPR this morning:
Sorrell says that's within the law – but unusual.
(Sneyd) Sorrell says he's sure the governor's position will not sit well with prosecutors.
In fact, Ross Sneyd couldn't find anyone for his story to support what Douglas is doing, and both Dick Sears, chair of Senate Judiciary, and Jeffrey Shields, dean of Vermont Law School, were pretty critical.
The Doug Hoffer Show
The newest star of the Vermont blogosphere doesn't have a blog (although he has been known to post a bit on less traveled sites). He's Doug Hoffer, go-to guy when you need a hard core, progressive policy wonk in Vermont.
And by hard core, I mean hard core. As in, the guy other hard core wonky types such as former Representative and Act 60 architect Paul Cillo look to when they need someone to do some heavy lifting.
In recent years, Hoffer has been taking full advantage of the small pool that is Vermont. By being smart, persistent, efficient and omnipresent, he has become to the left what John McLaughry pretends at being for the right. Unlike McLaughry, though, Hoffer actually does the work, as opposed to regurgitating canned, simplistic and intentionally myopicly dogmatic drivel from the Heritage Foundation and it's allies.
In a political environment where most self-proclaimed lefties have internalized the corporate line, and mope around in a funk of fiscal and ideological self-doubt, Hoffer has the tools and the wherewithal to virtually single-handedly stand up for Keynesian economics – and manages to do so in a way that seems open-eyed and common sensical, rather than doctrinaire. If you haven't heard his name, trust me, you've heard of his work. He was behind the recent study that showed Vermont taxes as among the most progressive, dropping a bomb right into the Republican election narrative. Here he is at uber-wonk Paul Cillo's counter-Ethan Allen Institute, Public Assets Institute. Here he is with Cillo putting the McJobs facts to Douglas's job growth claims. And here he is all over the freaking place at the interfaith/labor/community coalition site High Road Vermont.
The problem with Hoffer's work has been the problem with intellectual leftism in general; that is, it'ss a total “if you build it, they will come” presentation. Some great position papers, a chat with a reporter or two and a pretty website – followed by no attention whatsoever and little counter to the effect of politics on public policy.
But Mr. Hoffer has taken his show on the blog road lately in, what to a policy professional, is the most mundane and low-brow of media; blog comments. And in the process, he's been not only stirring up quite a few online kerfuffles, but in the process is beginning to make quite the name for himself…
His favorite points of contact are in the sites rigged for anonymous posting that do not require registration. You know, the ones where you often think you might want to get in on the discussion, before you reconsider the wisdom of diving into such a mosh pit of anonymous nastiness, insults, vulgarities and dueling poster-outings.
Hoffer, however, is fearless, and dives right in (generally) with aplomb.
Here he is going after usual suspect right-wing automaton “bubba” at vtbuzz recently:
“Bubba” collapsed almost immediately, falling back on his mantra of dogmatic conservative talking points as a life raft.
It didn't help.
- bubba said…
“Giveaways” to companies such as Nissan, Toyota, Honda, etc. have proven so far (BMW i think is now in S. Carolina over 20 years) to boost the economy of the states a great deal. Auto makers are only one example of what can be done if a state is business-friendly. You cannot imagine what a Nissan plant does for Mississippi, or a Hyundi parts plant for Georgia. The WRONG way to go about it is to be so anti-business like Dean and pals, then panic, and end up giving a special deal to less-than-legitimate outfits like Husky, who I imagine got away with exaggerating claims of employment. In any case, no matter what the shortcomings of the free enterprise system,if left alone, it benefits workers far more than a bunch of Montpelier environmentalists, social engineers, and paid book-cookers spending taxpayer dollars trying to figure out how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. As a final comment (only here) I saw where some writer stated that the JFO was an “independent” group! Sure, like CNN is “Fair and Balanced”!
- Doug Hoffer said…
Nice
When you are proven wrong, you revert to Rush-speak.
Is it so hard to just admit that you were wrong?
Go ahead, admit that the “Leftist” hired gun was right. If not – in the face of inescapable facts – you have nowhere to turn but the same old tired Right Wing baloney.
Are you willing to learn something or are you so stuck in the ideology that you can't see the truth?
You said that “Giveaways to companies such as Nissan, Toyota, Honda, etc. have proven so far (BMW i think is now in S. Carolina over 20 years) to boost the economy of the states a great deal.”
B____hit. Refute the facts or just shut up.
Chuckle. And so it goes. Hoffer actually works with and understands what the numbers are saying, as opposed to just some other guy with a chip on his shoulder and access to Google. Making him even more of an asset to the Vermont left is his apparent equal comfort working with the Peace & Justice Center, archetypal Vermont Dem Paul Cillo, and posting on the Prog Blog.
But he doesn't just swoop in to set people's numbers straight. H e also gets into the knock-down-drag-outs on rhetoric and general viewpoints. He and “the other 'Vermonter'” got into a back and forth that ended with this uncharacteristicly deferential comment by Freyne Land's “Vermonter:”
First, I acknowledge that you are a good debater and I appreciate that. We disagree, but hat's off to you anyway.
Second, I'll just have to disagree with your belief that the Governor's events are lowly PR events and the Senator's are (apparently) altruistic “community outreach” events. One is venal and the other is high-minded? Sorry, I don't buy it. Different style, but same intent and same result. I also can't believe you would say that Bernie's events aren't covered. One cannot pick up the Freeps without reading about another so-called town meeting or media event by Bernie. You can't.
Third, you say that the editorial positions of the two largest media outlets in the state have been openly anti-Bernie for years. That may be historically true for CAX, but I think the case of the Freeps is much grayer, to say the least. Certainly in recent years. The Freeps covers him all the time. And leaving aside the Freeps and CAX, at least be honest and ackowledge that the “one reporter” is pro-Bernie. He reports on his doings in generally positive, if not glowing, terms almost every week.
Finally, I'll acknowledge that in my frustration I have lashed out against Bernie and the blog host. I apologize to Bernie and Peter. You may be suprised that I actually agree with many of Bernie's policy positions, if not his style.
Posted by: vermonter | Oct 28, 2007 5:20:58 PM
Yeah, you won't see that too often.
Unfortunately, we need to appreciate the show while we can, as Hoffer will likely burn out quickly if he continues to engage in that sort of debate.
Further down the same thread, though, is this smackdown of conservative activist and blogger Curtis Hier repeating Douglas talking points:
Curtis
According to the data, Jim does not equal jobs.
Private sector job growth has been significantly lower in the last three years than in the 1990s. [Note: I focus on private sector job growth because state economic development policy is not directed to and has little impact on public sector jobs.]
Not only is Vermont's annual rate of private sector job growth weak compared to the `90s (0.6%), but it is only half the national rate of 1.2%. And Vermont's rate has been lower then the U.S. rate for the last 3 years. Since September 2004, U.S. private sector jobs have grown 5.3% while Vermont's rate was 1.5%.
Furthermore, a significant percentage of the jobs being created are low wage (which the state Dept. of Labor fails to tell you each month in their press release on unemployment and the labor market).
Obviously, The Gov. is not responsible for the large economic forces beyond our control, but his policies are not helping.
Posted by: Doug Hoffer | Nov 1, 2007 7:16:02 AM
Doug,
Our latest unemployment rate is at 4.0 percent, which puts us at 19th and below the national unemployment rate. Your job growth comparison is based on the net number of private sector jobs. Our labor force in Vermont is shrinking as Vermonters are retiring and there aren't younger workers to take their place. Governor Douglas has been trying to address that.
Furthermore, I am concerned that the public sector is growing so much and the private sector is shrinking. (From my perspective as a teacher, it seems like everyone in town is becoming an instructional aide here at school.)We can't pay for that forever. I feel that the Republicans would do a better job of addressing that problem. I'm wondering why you picked September 2004.
Posted by: Curtis Hier | Nov 1, 2007 7:47:01 AM
Curtis
The unemployment rate sounds great but it's been below the national rate for the last 30 years and, therefore, has nothing to do with Jim Douglas' policies. And for the record, it's 4.2%, not 4%.
Furthermore, the median number of private sector jobs created annually in the `90s was over 4,000. In the last three years, the figure is under 1,300. These figures don't lie.
I picked September because it's the last month available to show year – to – year figures. That's exactly what the Dept. of Labor does every month.
Moreover, I track these numbers for my work and it doesn't matter what month you pick. Job creation is – and has been – anemic since the last recession.
As for Republicans doing a better job, we have had a Republican governor for the last 5 years. It is HIS Dept. of Economic Development carrying out HIS policies. Furthermore, with very few exceptions, this is the same pattern in most other states (regardless of the party in power). The Gov. is attempting to use old “tools” to solve new problems. It's not working.
And of course we've had a Republican President for the last 7 years, with a Republican Congress for most of that time. U.S. job creation is also anemic.
It's not about Jim Douglas per se. He just represents old thinking that is out of step with new realities.
Posted by: Doug Hoffer | Nov 1, 2007 8:06:06 AM
So Hoffer continues to provide content that is often more informative and useful than the entries he's commenting on. Very cool, and as I said, we should enjoy it while we can, especially after this comment:
I understood blogs to be free of the corporate filter that determines most of what we see & hear. That people could speak their minds freely. Those two criteria are met.
But I didn't expect this level of personal antagonism, anger or pettiness.
Posted by: Doug Hoffer | Nov 7, 2007 9:08:19 AM
Heh.
Welcome to the blogs, Doug.
Now somebody pass me the popcorn.
A Guantanamo Index
Number of people currently held at Guantanamo: approximately 320
Number of Guantanamo detainees who were sent to Albania: 8
Number of people who have been held in military detention at Guantanamo: 778
Number of Guantanamo detainees who were sent back to their home countries: nearly 450
Number of other people in Albania who speak the Uighur language: 0
“a small, struggling state with an aging demographic, a rising tax burden…”
I guess you didn't read the figures I provided on manufacturing job losses in the states that have “lured” big foreign auto plants. You guys still don't get it. As much as you want to bash VT, it's not just us.
The “aging demographic” is a reality in many states, not just VT.
A “rising tax burden”? I guess you didn't read the JFO tax study. And please don't tell me about how it doesn't include property taxes. Find me another state where the education property tax is based on income.
“Narrow minded isolationist points of view” did not got us to where we are today. Huge job losses all over America are the result of many factors having nothing to do with what happens in VT. In fact, the architects of NAFTA and other “free” trade agreements have helped create the situation – and that includes lots of Republicans and Democrats. Are they all isolationists?
bubba said…
Hoffer's figures on manufacturing state that they are from the “last” recession. Is that the one Bush inherited from the Clintons or some other? In any case, NAM web site does list Manufacturing employment gains/losses from 2001-2006. A few: Alabama +42.4%; Vt: +13.8%; Tennessee: +29.9%; MS: +8.9%. You can find all the others at their web site. Just a note to show how far off Hoffer can be!
Bubba – I'm glad that you did some research. Good start. But you didn't do it right. Information from the NAM is not official; it's a lobby group after all.
The ONLY source for jobs data is the U.S. Dept. of Labor – Bureau of Labor Statstics (BLS – every state uses exactly the same methodology). You will not find a reputable economist who uses anything else (unless they're paid lobbyists and then they're not reputable).
The figures I provided are correct. Please check these sites if you don't believe me. And if you prefer 2001, that's fine with me. They STILL show manufacturing job losses in every state I listed. I used Sept. to Sept. because that is the most recent data, but the annual data tells the same story.
Alabama
http://data.bls.gov/…
Kentucky
http://data.bls.gov/…
Mississippi
http://data.bls.gov/…
S. Carolina
http://data.bls.gov/…
Tennessee
http://data.bls.gov/…
Vermont
http://data.bls.gov/…
Furthermore, it is clear that you misread the NAM data. The figure you provided is NOT for jobs. Read it again. It says “manufacturing share” – not job growth. The figure you / they presented does NOT mean manufacturing jobs grew 42.4% in Alabama from 2001 – 2006.
Look at the tables. On the left it shows 299,800 jobs in manufacturing in July. That is correct – it's from the BLS (see the site noted above). But if you look at the site, it shows that manufacturing jobs in July 2001 were 322,000. That's a loss of 22,200 jobs (7.4%). You thought that NAM said it was a gain of 42.4%. that's absurd. Do you see it?
In fact, the NAM site only says “manufacturing growth” – so we don't know wxactly what it means. I suspect they are refering to the growth of manufacturing GDP as a % of total state GDP (unadjusted for inflation to make it look bigger – that's a trick used by lobby groups like the NAM).
Bottom line: As I stated, manufacturing jobs in Alabama (and all the other states discussed) is down. That's a fact.
I appreciate that you tried to nail me, but you got it wrong. You really need to let go of your belief that I misstate the data. I never do that.
BTW – The remarks in the previous post about the need for and value of investing in people is right on. That is a much better way to use public funds then wasteful tax credit giveaways to large corporations.