Let Jon Stewart explain.

Episode 7 of VTblogosphereTV is on the air and this week’s installment is called “Return of the Odum.”  We spent the first bit talking about Lieberman retaining his chair, the vote tally story that GMD broke, and the resulting visitor spike.

Then we moved on to consider how the Obama cabinet is shaping up. Daschle had just been announced for Secretary of Health and Human Services and in the clip here, John underlines the debt of gratitude the nation owes our own Howie.

So what’s left for Dean? I would like to make the case that Secretary of Labor is the best fit out of the positions that remain. Why Labor? He’s got the executive experience and he deserves to head a department. I also think that governing a small state, he got very clear knowledge of how federal  departments interact with and effect states. And as he’s shown with this chairmanship, he knows how to fix stuff, and Labor has been ailing terribly under Elaine Chao, wife of Mitch McConnell and only original cabinet member left standing in the Bush administration. But most importantly, if we are going to retain an employer-based health care system (which looks like a lock) Labor will be pivotal in health care expansion. If Obama is serious about health care expansion, a full court press will be necessary and Dr. Dean at Labor would be a great addition to the team.

I have also heard rumblings that Dean may be vying for Secretary of Education too and I wonder what GMDers think about where Howard belongs and what his chances are.

Next we talked about the state budget, deficits and the progressive economic inferiority complex (© Odum 2008).  Some of the themes dovetail nicely with SPS’s Keynes for Vermont, and here is a great example of where we crazy bloggers can put solutions on the table that the Democrats may initially fear to touch.

Which leads into the potential of a summit to clarify goals and help the dems gain some backbone and outreach to the greater small p progressive world. In the next clip of the interview, John talks about some goals for the summit and I’ll make sure to get that posted before Saturday.  

It’s 4 days until our upcoming strategy/brainstorming session among new media activists and other “Democratic stakeholders,” focusing on avoiding the mistakes of this recently passed election cycle and bringing power, energy and ideas to bear from outside the usual institutional channels that seem to limit us year after year to many of the same dead ends.

We have a solid, workable and varied group who have RSVP’d so far. I would remind everyone who hasn’t RSVP’d to contact me (jodum at poetworld.net) if you plan to attend, as I have reserved a very small room and I need to know if we’re going to push the capacity limit – again, this is not a public forum per se – its a working meeting with the goal of brainstorming some specific strategies and moving towards implementing them to whatever extent we feel is manageable.

Over the days leading up to the meeting, I’ll break out the discussion items into diaries to solicit input from the greater GMD community, whether or not you’re planning to attend. After introductions, the first point of discussion is slated to be:

II. A review/discussion of the states of the 3 major parties.

(Please note that what follows is my opinion only, if that isn’t already obvious. Maybe when I show up to Saturday’s meeting, the collected group will tell me I’m full of crap… wouldn’t be the first time…)

If you look at the states of the 3 parties, there’s no question but that the Democrats look (on paper, at least) to be the strongest and healthiest. 4 of 6 of the Constitutional offices. 2 of 3 members of the Congressional delegation, with the third a D in all but ballot line. The Dems were the only party to actually add to their numbers in the legislature (albeit slightly), and hold overwhelming majorities in both.

The fact is, though, that all three parties seem to be in a sort of stasis – which can also be described as a rut. And if the rut continues, it’ll be the Dems who end up taking the biggest hit from the inevitable rut-driven frustration from the electorate, as they have the most to lose. Electoral inertia will give way to electoral entropy and the Dems will see that lead fritter away if they continue to make minimal legislative action and no serious attempts to take the top two Constitutional offices.

Who would gain from such a withering? Both the Rs and the Ps took hits this time. For the Rs it was a real humiliation, but for the Ps it was more of a crisis, as a loss of 1 is a significant percentage loss from their caucus total. Added to that is the fact that its two highest profile pols – Anthony Pollina and Tim Ashe – felt the need to move beyond the P label in order to increase their chances.

Even worse for the Progs is that this strategy seemed to work. Fusion candidate Ashe won and Pollina the Independent rescued Pollina the Prog from his basement polling numbers, leading to a very respectable finish compared to most other Progressive runs. That’s not good news for the Prog label.

Where it’s inevitable that Rs would benefit if the Dems are indeed peaking, its less clear how the Ps would fair, as they are not one of the “two parties” of the “two party system.” Are the Progs plateauing, or is this merely a bump in the road?

Where the two party system polarizes the big two into broad, coalition-style entities, the Progressives – due to their outsider status and their relatively small size – have the luxury of structuring themselves more like a mission-driven nonprofit. They have a linear hierarchical structure the Dems don’t, and can particularlize that mission as a traditional nonprofit does. The Platform process is more of a formal, almost ritualistic exercise in this way – whereas with Ds and Rs, it is where the perennial effort to define themselves theoretically takes place. The tension for the Progs, then, is in over-particularizing themselves so much that they would consign themselves to niche status forever.

The Republicans in the state have fallen into serious disrepair with the rise of Jim Douglas. Under the care of Douglas’s people, the Party let the Legislative seats languish as the top spot(s) were focused on like a laser beam. The grassroots R surge that put current Chair Rob Roper into office put its faith in the wrong person to fix things, as Roper’s promise to take back ground in the Legislature fell flat. Roper’s big plan was apparently to focus on the Republican electoral fundamentals of massive amounts of direct mail, but direct mail in and of itself stopped winning elections some time last decade.

Finally, the Democrats stand at the edge of a precipice. During election time, the Democrats are constructed like a coalition organization. Each “lobe” of the Democratic Party has an individual presence – the Senate caucus, the House caucus, the Party proper, the individual statewide campaigns, etc. They join forces as a “Coordinated Campaign” during election season.

After a massive breakdown of trust and cooperation among these lobes in the mid 90’s, relationships and trust were steadily rebuilt, and the results showed in Legislative races, as well as in the consolidation of the “other” four Constitutional offices. The collective resources are impressive, including the Party’s second-to-none “Voter File” which consolidates Vermont-wide voting pattern, demographic and polling data over about 15 years.

This year, however, only 3 of those entities fully paid in to the coordinated effort, suggesting a serious breakdown. Anecdotally, the reasons for that are clear; the Coordinated Campaign focused a disproportionate amount of its resources on the Obama campaign (certainly to a far greater degree than was done for the Gore or Kerry campaigns). An odd choice, to be sure, as Obama had Vermont wrapped up before he even announced his candidacy. Legislative interests in particular felt ill treated by the coordinated campaign, and many decided to “go it alone” breaking down working relationships that took no small amount of effort to build up.

Additionally, there are multiple reports that the Coordinated Campaign’s crown jewel – the Voter File – is in rough shape, including not-insignificant losses of data. While its hard to believe it cant be repaired (if it hasn’t been already) the fact is that this prime tool for Democratic candidates was less relevant for the Obama campaign, which had its own voter ID methodology for the state. Reportedly, with the Obama campaign not sweating the Voter File (much of which represented days of work from many of the local candidates themselves), the Coordinated Campaign wasn’t sweating it too much either.

The end result may not have been apparent this cycle, but will likely manifest in 2010. Rebuilding trust and refocusing the players will be time-consuming and frustrating, and is by no means guaranteed to happen.

All things being equal, the Dems are primed to take a hit in 2010, and the ripple effect to the chances for taking down Dubie and/or Douglas will be significant, whether you’re a D, P or I.

After the great flood of 1927, the Federal Government offered to send money to Vermont to help rebuild the infrastructure. Vermont said, “No thanks,” and went it alone. Now we have to replace many of the bridges that were built 80 years ago.

In 1991*, Vermont faced a huge budget deficit. Republican Governor Richard Snelling went to House Speaker Ralph Wright and proposed removing partisan bickering in finding a solution. The result was painful spending cuts and temporary increases in the income tax. No one liked the plan, but it passed, and more importantly, it worked.

This year, Lamoille Senator Susan Bartlett came forward with a plan for the Federal Government drop its requirement that states pay a percentage of transportation projects. This would allow cash-strapped states to immediately put people to work on repairing roads and bridges. The money is budgeted; the projects are ready to be done. It is an elegant solution.

Treasurer Jeb Spaulding came forward with a plan to use a small increase in gasoline taxes to leverage a bond issue to improve our infrastructure, again putting people to work and doing much-needed repairs. Another imaginative solution that bears discussion; if we cannot take advantage of Vermont’s stellar bond rating for sensible projects that will stimulate our economy in tough times, what is the point of having it?

Democrats Bartlett and Spaulding have come forward with plans that will lower unemployment in Vermont, improve our quality of life and make the state more attractive to business. They may not be the right solutions but they bear discussion. The marketplace is hungry for work, so Vermont’s cost of building projects will never be cheaper.

Governor Jim Douglas takes a traditional approach: no tax increases and cut spending. He appears happy to make it easier to spend Federal money, but he is opposed to any Vermont solution that calls for sacrifice from anyone but our poorest citizens. He proposes old solutions and rhetoric in the face of unprecedented challenges.

We rebuilt our bridges during the last great depression without help. We balanced our budget and provided services in the 1980s by asking all Vermonters to pitch in. It is time for us to rise to the challenge again.

If we are to be successful, we will need more fresh thinking and less partisan platitudes. Cooperation between political parties will be necessary and an open mind in all corners essential in the challenges ahead. Bartlett and Spaulding should be applauded for beginning the dialog.

Governor Douglas, won’t you join the conversation?

*CORRECTION: Corrected year to 1991. Was “1981” as originally posted.

From VPR:

The chairman of the Vermont Senate’s Judiciary Committee says lawmakers may want to consider expanding the power of legislative committees to subpoena witnesses and take testimony under oath.

Senator Richard Sears says his panel was frustrated at times in recent months during hearings looking into how Vermont responds to sex crimes against children…

…Legislative committees currently can issue subpoenas only with the approval of the full Senate or House or both.

It’s a sentiment certainly repeated ofttimes at this site, but not simply for compelling testimony on this one issue. The fact is that Vermont’s Legislature cedes an inordinate amount of power to the Governor – and the lack of oversight with any teeth is a huge part of that problem. The only thing preventing the Legislature from implementing a more aggressive check-and-balance system like that at the federal level (or in many other states) is, well… the Legislature itself. And we’re not talking a change in law but a change in the rules of how the Legislature conducts itself.

It’s a change long overdue.

VPR had a good story this morning contrasting the approaches that Richard Snelling took to the huge budget deficits we were facing in 1991 and the approach Douglas is taking today.

It's worth a listen. The story points out that although Douglas considers Snelling his mentor, heis taking the exact opposite course, refusing to even consider tax increases on any segment of the population to address our current and coming deficits.

Of course, that's no surprise. What we have learned to expect from Douglas's years on the Fifth Floor are two things: rigidity and demagoguery, and they are both amply demonstrated in the story.

In addition, there is a striking contrast between Snelling's willingness to walk across to Speaker Ralph Wright's offce without preconditions and work out a plan for deficit reduction, and Douglas's “my way or the highway” approach to dealing with that pesky legislative branch.

What should also not go unheeded is Bob Kinzel's last observation:

Legislative leaders seem to agree with Douglas that the 2009 deficit can be erased without raising taxes but there's less agreement if this policy can be maintained for the 2010 budget.

 We have a nearly 2-1 advantage in the House, a more than 3-1 advantage in the Senate, and our leaders won't even talk about raising taxes, evenon the richest segment of the population, to address a crisis?

What the hell is going on here?