Governor Douglas testified today before the House Appropriations committee on the impact of the recession in Vermont and the need for federal assistance .Things are bad here in Vermont,but they may appear harsher the further one gets from Vermont .The Free Press Twitteringsblog reports that Gov.Douglas’s  Chief of Staff is having trouble sleeping .(The same post has an enlightening discussion with Neale Lunderville about when a state fee should be considered a tax)The Douglas press release about today’s testimony points out how bad things are but not in the very stark almost alarming terms the Governor used before the committee .If the situation is this bad and people are suffering shouldn’t we be looking for revenue here at home ? Here is some of what he said when asking for money which is not included in the five paragraph press release available here in Vermont. I think he sounds amazingly like Bernie when in Washington .

“The use of our food banks are up over 30 percent in client usage,” said Vermont Gov. James Douglas. “Applications for unemployment is so large that we had to shift 150 people out of other departments to actually deal with the ongoing crisis of servicing those that are applying to unemployment,” said Douglas. “It is time for us all to pull together, join hands together, be partners, address this, not only to stimulate the economy but to service the basic core needs of our communities.”

http://talkradionews.com/2008/…

http://www.burlingtonfreepress…

I just received a copy of this pdf file which documents some changes with respect to Vermont’s Child Care Subsidy program.

I know a lot of you aren’t familiar with the ins and outs of the Vermont Child Care Subsidy program, so I’ll explain the basics:

When a family is found eligible for support in paying for child care, there is a bit of a complex formula that will determine exactly what dollar amount of coverage is going to be paid by the state.  This may or may not cover the actual cost of care, even if the subsidy rate is determined at 100% (it’s 100% of state rates, not what the provider charges, so if the state rate is $100/week for a given category of care and the provider’s is $125, the payment is 100% of state rates, even if that only comes out to 80% of the provider’s rate).

Not everyone can pay that amount over and above (the “copay”) and there are a lot of reasons that parents will request variances for the state to cover those extra costs, some of which are granted, some of which aren’t.

In many cases, the parent needs child care in order to seek employment or start a new job.  Parents who can’t find care may have to curtail their work search or work shorter hours in order to provide care of their own.  Even a short-term (3-4 week) variance to cover a single mom who’s just getting back into the work force can make a huge difference.

What’s worse is that a lot of child care providers who are registered home providers (see a prior piece I wrote for details on the different types of providers) will just let those co-pays go when the parents can’t find variances, because they know that the families can’t afford it, so they suck it up and lose the extra income themselves.

This has the effect of encouraging providers to not be interested in taking kids who receive subsidy because they can make more money off of the ones who don’t.  It’s not that they want to do this, as much as that they are often living hand to mouth themselves and need to cover their own expenses for care as well as take care of their own families as well.  Being a child care provider is a pretty difficult life as it is, and we don’t need to make things worse for them.

One more note: the pdf I’ve linked here has a couple phone numbers and contact people whom you can call with questions.  Please don’t call them to complain about this.  This isn’t a decision that was made by them, and they can’t control it.  If you want to change this, talk to your legislators and ask them if it’s a better allocation of our tax dollars to increase the subsidy budget or to make sure that Governor Douglas has a high-paid replacement for Jason Gibbs.

Human Rights Day Report:

Voices of the Vermont Healthcare Crisis: The Human Right to Healthcare

Burlington, VT –  On Human Rights Day, the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights issued by the United Nations in  1948, the Vermont Workers’ Center (VWC) officially issued a comprehensive report entitled: Voices of the Vermont Healthcare Crisis: The Human Right to Healthcare.  This report was compiled from personal interview surveys conducted with over 1,200 Vermonters and human rights hearings held this Fall across the state.  The Workers’ Center is also organizing a major related event at the University of Vermont’s Davis Center; Ella Baker Human Rights Conference where over five hundred participants are expected.

“In this report, we present a collection of voices of Vermonters impacted by the healthcare crisis and present data examining our current healthcare system,” says Dawn Stanger, President of the Vermont Workers’ Center.  “We found that over 95 % of Vermonters believe healthcare should be a human right.  We are organizing a statewide network to establish healthcare as a human right and a public good.”

Download the Report Online: http://www.workerscenter.org/d…

More info:

www.workerscenter.org – General information on the Vermont Workers’ Center

www.workerscenter.org/healthcare – On Healthcare Is Human Right Campaign

www.workerscenter.org/hrconference – On Ella Baker Human Rights Conference and list of guest speakers and workshops

Contact: James Haslam, VT Workers’ Center, 802-272-0882, james@workerscenter.org

More info: www.workerscenter.org/healthcare

Was listening to Obama’s announcement of Daschle for Secretary and head honcho on health/medical, and Daschle mentioned that 50% of home foreclosures were due to medical expenses.

I thought “wow” and looked around for confirmation of that figure.

Wasn’t hard to find a lot like this discussing this recent study.

So we know

    about the

       home mortgage

            crisis but

                    maybe

                    we should

                         just

                         leave

                            this

                              to

                             dang

                              le

Prior to the Blago flak-o, the Republicans’ first target in their attempts to regain momentum and relevance in the public eye by knocking the uber-popular Barack Obama from his PR perch was/is the nomination of Eric Holder to the position of Attorney General. Republicans think they might have something based on Holder’s role (whatever it was or wasn’t) in the controversial Clinton-era pardon of indicted financier Marc Rich. It was quite a kerfuffle at the time, but it’s hard to imagine it having any legs now.

Eyes have been on Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania as the GOP machine has tried to sputter back to life. As the Ranking Member on Senate Judiciary, he would have to be the point person on any such effort. But Committee Chair Leahy (who has set a confirmation hearing for January 8th – early, to be sure) has gone to great lengths (and even made a bit of a show) of being pals with Specter, and Specter has reciprocated in kind. The question, then, has been; would Specter toss all that over to play cynical partisan attack dog?

The traditional media narrative surrounding Specter has been one of moderation and free-thinking (maverick, anyone?), but for those of us who’ve followed Specter over the years, its been more than clear that he talks the moderate and free-thinking line quite well, but always ends up toeing the party line regardless. As such this should be no surprise:

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, wants to slow down the process of confirming Eric Holder attorney general, citing lingering concerns about the nominee’s role in the 2001 pardon of Marc Rich.

Specter said his concerns do not suggest he would oppose Holder, but said starting the hearings before Jan. 26 is “not realistic or fair.”

Leahy’s response came quickly (and is lengthy), and it goes straight for the personal, implying that Specter’s concerns are frivolous (or suspect) and fly in the face of their friendship:

Dear Arlen:

As I hope you know, I honored your request and asked Secretary Rice to facilitate your 14-day trip to 10 countries from December 25 through January 7.  Please do let me know who the other Senators are who will be accompanying you.

I also wanted to respond to your letter of last evening.  I am a bit confounded as to why you are surprised that the Holder hearing was noticed for January 8.

…Initially, our staffs discussed possibly proceeding before Christmas if the designation were made around Thanksgiving. We commence the new session on January 6, but that day will be devoted to swearing in and recognizing the returning and newly elected Senators.  When you extended and expanded your travel plan to include January 7, my staff made sure yours knew that such an extension would mean that you would miss the Holder hearing.  Your staff indicated that you would be calling me.  You did not, but sent back the message that you chose to extend your travel through January 7.  I then learned that the Senate Republicans are planning a Republican caucus retreat for January 7.  I respected your desired travel plans and the Republican Senate retreat by postponing the start of the hearings to January 8.

I have sought to accommodate your interests on many occasions.  I scheduled field hearings for you in Pennsylvania on foreclosure and health care mergers issues, and worked hard to ensure fair treatment and confirmation for nominations in which you had a personal interest.  We worked in a bipartisan fashion last Congress to investigate the politicization of the Department and to expedite nominations to restock the leadership ranks at the Department after nearly every top official, including the Attorney General, resigned in the wake of the scandals.  I hope you will now join me to complete the hard work that must be done to right the ship at the Justice Department.  I will continue, as I always have, to work closely with you and Senators from both sides of the aisle to schedule consideration of both executive and judicial nominations and to make progress on our legislative agenda.  I look forward to working with you in the next Congress.

When Michael Mukasey was designated to be Alberto Gonzales’ successor last year, you urged that we “move promptly on the confirmation proceedings.”  I did not delay in scheduling that hearing, even though many were suggesting that I do so.  Instead, I proceeded promptly with a hearing 30 days after the nomination was announced.  For that, I received criticism from my side of the aisle.

And it goes on quite a bit, reviewing other historical, bipartisan, speedy AG hearings.

But the fascinating part is how Leahy aims right for the personal, juxtaposing it against the suggestion of crass partisan politics in order to try and force the conflict out of the tactical, institutional arena and into the context of individuals. It does so a bit ham-handedly, even.

But it is effective, and makes the message quite clear – if Specter pushes this against all reason and fairness at the behest of Mitch McConnell and a GOP still addicted to political slash-and-burn, the story won’t just be about Holder, but Specter’s character as well – a concern he has to take seriously given the popularity of Obama and his own 2010 re-election, where challengers have already begun positioning themselves.

Sleaze time … mostly because lying idiots shouldn’t be allowed to speak for movements:

“I asked him some pretty direct questions,” [Joe the Dumber non-Plumber) continued. “Some of the answers you guys are gonna receive – they appalled me, absolutely. I was angry. In fact, I wanted to get off the bus after I talked to him.”

Asked why he didn’t leave McCain’s campaign if he was “appalled” by the candidate, Wurzelbacher said, “honestly, because the thought of Barack Obama as president scares me even more.”

(Joe the Plumber: McCain ‘appalled me’, Politico, 12/09/08)

My main question is why the whackos of the right wrong … err whatever … have taken a liking to bald pretenders and wannabes?

Go ahead … look at Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher aka Joe the P …

(credit: Politico.com)

Now take a look at this guy:



(credit: Google images)

Yeah … that’s James Dale Guckert! Aka Jeff Gannon (once called himself a loose cannon no less) … former male escort, phony reporter and just one more right wrong wing nut case liar who didn’t like his real name.

I can understand why the radical wrong of the United States doesn’t catch on … they’re corrupt, but dumb.

Joe the P, the loose cannon guy and their apparently listening public. Dumb, dumber and dumbest.

From State Democratic Vice Chair Judy Bevans via email:

On December 15, our electors, Sen. Claire Ayer, Euan Bear and Kevin Christie will finalize Vermont’s contribution to the historic election of Barack Obama to the Presidency by casting their Electoral College ballots in Room 11 of the Statehouse at 10 am. There will be a reception for in the Cedar Creek Room of the Statehouse immediately following. We hope you can come, and please invite others via GMD.

Pardon me for putting up another “Daily Show” clip, but this one merits special attention.

Jon Stewart’s guest last night was none other than Mike Huckabee. You know, the former governor of Arkansas who ran for president? Anyway… the social conservative was touting his new book, “Do the Right Thing.” Much of the book focuses on social issues and Stewart wanted to discuss gay marriage. Stewart did an amazing job, just amazing. He discussed it in a way no mainstream journalist would ever have the courage to do… and Jon Stewart isn’t even a journalist!

To make a long story short, this is one of the best episodes I’ve ever seen. When you watch, you’ll know why.

Spread this video… this needs to go viral!

On his welcome new blog (gotta get the blogosphere beefed up in this state, y’know… h/t to Shay to pointing the way to this new resource), Jon Margolis essentially puts some meat on the bones of a key point of the discussion in yesterday’s diary. Here’s a piece:

The Free Press Montpelier operation is down to two reporters while the Legislature is in town. The paper shuts down the office shortly after the session ends, said political reporter Terri Hallenbeck.

…the Free Press is not the only news organization that has cut back on covering government and politics in Vermont. So has the Associated Press, and it was the AP’s daily coverage of routine matters that gave the other bureaus the “luxury,” as Hellenbeck put it, to probe more deeply into what was going on in state government.

Now the AP reporter who covers the Legislature is at the Capitol only sometimes, Hallenbeck said…

…Well, one might say, who cares? Isn’t this just a lot of journalistic Inside Baseball?

Yes and no. Because when news organizations don’t cover public affairs as much, or as well, the citizenry doesn’t know as much…

…when people learn less about something, they know less about it. In theory “new media” (blogs and the like) can fill in where traditional “old media” outlets have cut back. But Vermont’s blogs don’t really pretend to inform, merely to convey the blogger’s passions.

It’s good (if not revolutionary) stuff, despite the unnecessary little “conclusion” (rather reductive, no?) at the end. Obviously we on the blogs do “pretend” to inform when we’re informing, and editorialize when we’re doing that.

Still, I’m pretty psyched about this new blog. I’m sure he won’t continue to feel the need to so compartmentalize his fellow bloggers as he gets more into it. Those boxes just aren’t quite so clear cut as all that.