In polls, the public continually supports progressive priorities, or at least they do in the broadest senses. For example, in a recent Washington Post poll, 77% want to see the new administration make fundamental changes to the health care system. That’s amazing.

And yet, so often progressive candidates lose elections.

Part of that is the candidates themselves – for decades, lefties from coast to coast have allowed some of the biggest weenies to become our nominal “leaders.”

And yet, the current polls are tied into the Obama Administration, and Obama was not the policy-reform-oriented lefty in the primary. So what gives?

I was just mulling the possibility that Americans as a whole may want to see progressive policies enacted (whether or not they call them that), but they just don’t trust progressives themselves – or at least progressive candidates – to accomplish it.

Maybe that speaks to liberals’ styles as candidates, the individual candidates themselves, or maybe it’s just an “only Nixon could go to China” thing, whereby voters want to see someone approach these changes from a cautious, even dubious perspective.

Or maybe I’m way off. I decided to go ahead and post this without thinking it through, just to generate discussion. I may change my mind completely in a few minutes.

Consider this an open thread.

With so much at stake it becomes a major national issue when a US Senator is to be appointed to replace one stepping down in any state. That one person will, after all, themselves comprise 1% of the entire Senate, and that’s a big deal. Still, there’s been a dearth of commentary at this site about the process underway in our neighboring state of New York.

Former Vermont Governor Madeleine Kunin, however, has shared her own opinion at the often-interesting blog of the Vermont publishing house Chelsea Green. She says:

Yet, there is a good argument to be made that she would be the best person to fill that Senate seat. There are now 17 women in the United States Senate. With Hillary’s resignation, there will be 16, the same number that existed before November 4. A further argument would be that she could afford to campaign again for the seat in two years. But what interests me most is that the Kennedy legacy has been almost totally male, except for Kathleen Kennedy Townshend, a daughter of Bobby Kennedy, who served as Maryland’s Lt. Governor and lost her race for Governor in 2002.

So Kunin’s “good argument” is threefold:

1. Kennedy’s a woman (which apparently isn’t enough for Kunin to argue on the behalf of Carolyn Maloney or Kirsten Gillibrand, to whom she offers only a perfunctory collective reference).

2. Kennedy is rich.

3. Kunin’s perceived public need to enforce affirmative action among the Kennedy family itself.

I hope somebody has got a more sapient argument on Kennedy’s behalf than this.

Note: I am not a part of this project anymore.

Prominent mention in Leahy letter to Obama:

For instance, a $100 million fiber-to-the-home project in Vermont that could create hundreds of construction jobs, more than 100 immediate operations center jobs, and thousands of new business opportunities for Vermonters could start connecting customers this summer through the use of a $50 million USDA Rural Development broadband loan guarantee – an authorized program that has yet to be implemented.

(source: Leahy’s website)

That is definitely ECFiberNet

May day can be summarized quite well by this photo:

Our forecast for tonight reads:

Moderate to heavy snow will continue to fall across… southern Vermont…before tapering off from west to east between 7 and 8 PM. Snowfall rates of one inch per hour will be likely…with additional snow accumulation up to two inches in some spots through 8 PM. The snow will also reduce the visibility to less than one quarter mile at times.

I went out briefly this afternoon to take photos of birds.  All our Pine Siskins apparently decided to come back today, as there were once again huge numbers at the feeders.  Here’s one that was waiting as part of the queue:

I had to drive home in Friday’s snow storm (at least it was still light out) and my car hasn’t left the garage since.

What’s up with everyone else on this cold, quiet, day?

Crossposted @ www.vermontbloggernaut.blogspot.com

So I guess I have a different opinion of what to with the State Of Vermont’s Rainy Day fund. The total I’ve heard tossed around is like $60 million, but I could be wrong. That’s a lot of money when social programs and jobs are being slashed because of budget shortfalls. Should we use up this reserve? I really don’t think it’s time yet.

If the state needs to dip into the fund to do some triage work, that’s one thing. Options and plans are what we need most right now. Some of that money could be used, and wisely so, to keep the state, and some programs running in the interim. But I think to exhaust the fund would be a grave mistake. We have not hit rock bottom yet, and that is when we’ll need the rainy day fund the most!

Maybe make a quarter to a third of the fund available for the next year, but preserve the rest intact. Our turmoil right now is a result of Vermont’s broken system. How we tax, build revenue and provide money to programs and run the state needs to be overhauled. This is obvious, but no one seems to want to take the lead and provide some good foresight. This is why I say use at most only a portion of the fund as a crutch to limp us along into the next year.

We can’t raise the tax burden on people already struggling to get by. At the same time I don’t think we should have to bail out every jerk that’s decided to live beyond their means. It’s no fault of the rest of us. There has to be some sort of balance. I chose to go to college, I chose to hang that noose of of loan payments around my neck. I accept that. Other people with their expensive new cars and enormous homes need to accept they did that to themselves as well.

We as an American, and Vermont society are at an impasse. Free market capitalism has been replaced with social capitalism, as we all shoulder the burden of irresponsible people and their failed American Dreams. I’ve heard so many people say that they make all their payments on their mortgages, and live within their means, why not just stop paying the mortgage and get bailed out as well? I totally see their point.

So getting back to the rainy day fund, I think we need to have some foresight and look beyond the budget shortfalls of 2009, to 2010, 2011, and 2012. If we use all the money now, there will be none for the future shortfalls. As a state, Vermont needs to tighten it’s belt, and reduce spending. But at the same time, address how we will fund the state of Vermont in the future as obviously what we have been doing does not, and will continue not to work.  

They say the true measure of someone’s character emerges during times of crisis. Well, the crisis is on, and a nervous Democratic caucus is starting to show that it’s character is, indeed, Democratic.

From the Times Argus/Rutland Herald (no link found because their websites remain maddening):

“we know there will be revenue proposals coming from the Administration,” said (incoming House Speaker Shap) Smith …and while there will certainly be additional cuts in state government “it will only be in the context of revenues as well

From the AP (I dont link to them anymore and I aint paying them their extortion fees for excerpting… sorry Wilson, it’s not you…):

“It has to be on the table; taxes have to be on the table, bonding has to be on the table, every option available to us because this is a crisis,” said Rep. Floyd Nease, D-Johnson and the incoming House majority leader. “We can’t just cut our way out of the crisis.”

From VPR (Finally! A link!):

Smith and Senate President Peter Shumlin said the administration and the legislature need to consider all options, including tax increases. Shumlin recalled that in 1991 Republican Governor Richard Snelling worked with Democrats to cut the budget and raises taxes temporarily.

Douglas, of course, is digging in, but in a phony way by steadfastly rejecting “taxes” while talking “fee” increases. Whatever. Douglas at one level clearly would like to see Government drowned, but it does gives him and a lot of his political allies a pretty good life. In any event, with the Snelling model on the table, Dems can push hard to keep it there and control the conversation.

It seems clear that the combination of Smith and Nease in Legislative leadership has the potential to be a potent collective force, and rather than looking at whether Nearly-Speaker Smith himself has the tenacity to stand up to the Governor and keep the House a full partner with the Senate, its looking like we should look at the two of them as a Lamoille County Dynamic Duo.

While the early signs coming out of the tail end of the week’s news cycle bode well for mixing it up and promoting a clear distinction between Ds and Rs, there are signs that it could be a decent combination for progressives as well. Smith has a lot going for him in this role, and we should expect great things (well, we should always expect good things, I suppose). My big concern is that his eagerness to demonstrate right off the bat to the business community and the Chamber crowd that he’s one of them could make him problematic in a lot of critical policy areas. Such eagerness could also make him more easily manipulated on policy matters. Nease as a political and policy partner will help keep him grounded.

In other words, the pair has the potential to be greater than the sum of its parts.

I know folks mean well, but …

Stop giving stores a christmas present in the form

of gift cards! If you can afford a $50 gift card, you can afford $50 in cash.

A gift card locks in a shopping trip for a given store, but cash allows the recipient to purchase what they want where and when they want.

The cash would be a present to the person you want to give to.

Until I see a comparable “Master List of Revenue Ideas” (and, yes, that includes budgeting in the Rainy Day Fund) on the Joint Fiscal site, I see no reason to accept any admonitions that we should all be patient and understanding on how the budget is being approached by the Legislative Democratic leadership. There is one tune being played right now in any meaningful way – and it is the Governor’s tune: cut, cut, cut.

Yes, there are signs that the Dems on Joint Fiscal know other tunes, they just need to start singing them when on the stage. For example, via the Banner (ht JB):

Sears said lawmakers will likely consider other methods of balancing the budget, such as raising additional revenues and tapping the state’s “rainy day funds.”

“It’s clear to me that we’re not going to raise that kind of revenue. We’re going to have to make cuts, but I also think we should look at the rainy day funds as well,” he said. “I believe that’s one thing that we’re going to have to deal with and we’re going to have a disagreement with the administration on.”

What I would like to know from Senator Sears is what we can do to help him amplify that message. A reference in his County Paper does not offset the messaging and methods that emerged from the Joint Fiscal Committee, of which he is a member (and yes, I understand the limits of what Joint Fiscal can and can’t do, but this is first a battle of ideas, and we can’t lose it at stage 1). Sears’s message is the right message, but it needs to come through the right medium. Wink, wink, nudge nudge empathetic messages to constituents on the side amount to squat, quite frankly.

Also on Joint Fiscal is incoming Speaker Smith, who’s views were characterized this way by Shay Totten:

Despite the stance of his Senate colleagues, incoming House Speaker Shap Smith (D-Morrisville) said it’s premature to rule out anything – including targeted, and short-lived, tax increases.

Again, vagueries are meaning less and less – especially given that every legislator that may be outwardly forward-thinking but is secretly afraid of promoting targeted revenue increases (and I mean carefully targeted, progressive ones… not all tax-raising is inherently dangerous in a recession, but some most definitely is) or equally afraid the tapping the rainy day fund, is going to have a scapegoat to point at if such ideas end up fizzling:  

Peter Shumlin. The Senate leader, as well as Majority Leader John Campbell, are becoming the poster boys for the “Fiscal Conservatism = Republican economics” game, usually indicative of Dems who are looking to run for higher office and want Republican support. Shumlin has not always been there ideologically (not that he hasn’t always considered himself a “fiscal conservative”), but hopes for pulling him back from the brink are pretty limited by the absolutist no-new-taxes-period rhetoric he’s been hitting the media with. He’s left very little wiggle room for a reasoned, everything-on-the-table approach (and his repeated contention that Catamount will not “survive” further suggests skewed priorities).

Liberals would be unwise to paint Shumlin into a corner, though – or, more accurately, to allow Shumlin to paint himself into a corner. Shumlin may have a reputation as a savvy operator, but he is (I think) genuinely insensitive to, and frustrated by, the effect his words have on people; what lines are heard, what gets reported, and how people respond. There is a real impulsive quality to Shumlin’s speaking. It’s what makes him an effective crowd-pleaser in stump-style settings (I recall in a 2003 Orange County candidate forum, his response to a question about how Vermont should deal with some of the more heinous mandates of the No Child Left Behind law was “I’d tell them to keep their money and go to hell.”). It’s also what makes him drop unexpected bombshells in policy pronouncements that often eclipse his main message and create backlashes.

The point is, despite what his not-always-well-considered rhetoric suggests, Shumlin is not an immoveable object in this. Advocates shouldn’t fall into the easy trap of allowing him the role of “bad cop” unchallenged, because it will make it easier for those “good cops” that are too squeamish to lead to have an out for any potential controversies over revenue increases (“I wanted to do the right thing, but there was no getting past Shumlin!”).

Damn. This was going to be, like a three paragraph diary. What the hell happened?

In any event, the mantra, it seems to me, should be: responsible cuts, progressive revenue increases, hit the rainy day fund.

• Word on the street is that Howard Dean was being considered for Secretary of the Interior. Obviously only so considered as the job went to Ken Salazar (shudder), but members of the environmental community in Vermont were reportedly contacted by Obama team representatives checking him out not long before the decision was made. Interesting. Might've been a good fit.

• Raise your hand if you saw something like this coming after yesterday: The day after President-Elect Obama kicked progressives in the groin (and the resultant explosive response which is looking likely to lead to some sort of coordinated act of defiance at the inauguration), he announces his first unambiguously progressive cabinet pick: Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA) as Secretary of Labor. I just hope to god she isn't the one who will get sent out for coffee at every Cabinet meeting.
• Progressives for Wright…? In the “holy crap” department…: According to Shay Totten, not only is longtime Progressive City Councilor Jane Knodell not supporting Progressive Mayor Bob Kiss for re-election (she says she's not endorsing anybody), she showed up at Republican Kurt Wright's announcement and praised him to the media. Excuse me while I pick up my jaw from the floor. How the Progs deal with this could say quite a bit about whether they are maturing as an institution. Will she get run out of the Party on a rail? Stay tuned. In the meantime Jane, if you need some commiseration on the ups and downs of running against the desires and demands of your Party hierarchy, feel free to ring up a GMD front pager.
• The mother of all retractions. Speaking of Shay, there are retractions, and there are retractions, but the one issued by Shay Totten regarding his characterization of embattled on-again/off-again Burlington City Parks and Recreation Waterfront Manager Adam Cate borders on self-flagellation. Ouch. It stung just reading it. Makes me wonder if there weren't lawyers and rumors of lawyers involved behind the scene. We feel your pain Shay.
• …Meanwhile, Jim Douglas and Neale Lunderville (pictured right) continue demanding the systematic deconstruction of the social safety net when Vermonters need it most. But that's hardly news. Just wanted an excuse to post the picture.

• And it's not political news, but this is the internet. Majel Barrett-Roddenberry lost her battle with leukemia and passed away today at the age of 76. Bummer.

Do you ever have times when you read something, then have to re-read it because you can’t believe you read it right?

That’s my reaction to the news that Goldman Sachs (Treasury Secretary Paulson’s former stomping grounds) is having a fine holiday season while Vermonters and other Americans face destitution and service cuts. Why fund fire trucks, child care or health care when ponzi-schemers could be partying instead?

Here’s the deal: Goldman played their accounting cards so well this year, that they “owe” only 1% tax. So on the multi-billions of dollars they earned last year, plus the $10 billion taxpayer dollars they took in the bailout, they only have to pay a pittance to support the infrastructure of the country that made their obscene profits possible.

More below the fold…

So what? Companies are always finding ways to pay less tax. Aren’t fewer taxes better?

That last question is a conditioned response now in America. We’ve been told over and over for decades that companies hire more people if they have to pay fewer taxes. This is based on something called the Laffer curve (named after a person, not after what the greedsters do everytime they con us into believing in it). The Laffer curve is supposed to be this magical statistical map of taxes vs jobs. Presumably, the higher the taxes, the fewer the jobs.

But what most proponents of this theory misunderstand is that the guy who came up with the theory didn’t map a linear relationship between jobs and taxes, he mapped a curve. On one side would be increasing taxes creating jobs by creating a better educated workforce, better roads, better security, etc. – all those things taxes pay for that make it easier to do business successfully.

The peak of the curve is the hypothetical number where you’ve got the ultimate in support for successful business combined with the ultimate profits for that business.

The other side of the curve, where it goes back downhill, is where taxes become so onerous, the business can’t profit.

What we’ve been told for the last few decades is that any and all taxes are automatically on the downhill side – any tax automatically drags down profits to the point at which no business can survive. So we’ve been cutting, and cutting, and cutting, and all of a sudden, we have crappy roads, schools are hemorrhaging, and fire departments go begging. And businesses are failing. Rapidly.

Which brings us back to Goldman. They paid 1% in 2007, but paid 34% in 2006. That’s a 97% tax cut. Which side of the Laffer curve would that put them on?

From Bloomberg News:

The company’s effective income tax rate dropped to 1 percent from 34.1 percent [last year]…The firm reported a $2.3 billion profit for the year …[and] lowered its rate with more tax credits as a percentage of earnings and because of “changes in geographic earnings mix,” the company said.

So they won’t be contributing to rebuild our failing roads, our kids’ health care, or our police, fire, military, or really any budget items this year.

Instead, they’re going to make much better use of the money they’ve “saved” (you know, like that $10 billion debt guarantee they got from the U.S. tax payer in October): Christmas bonuses!

That’s right. It’s not what they’re calling it, they’re calling it “employee compensation.” Some refer to it as a “retention bonus,” because with the economy cranking out so many new high-paid jobs for bankers, they’re worried their employees will head for greener pastures.  (For the reading comprehension impaired, the previous sentence was absolutely dripping with sarcasm.)

Would you like to let Goldman Sachs know what you think of their decision to shift money around to the places that would tax them the least, so they could avoid paying taxes back home? Would you like to help them understand just how much you appreciate their shafting of the US taxpayer, by taking our money, using it for bonuses, and then choosing not to pay their fair share in taxes?

Here’s a good place to start:

GOLDMAN SACHS CONTACT INFO

Main number in NYC: 212-902-1000

Investor relations: 212-902-0300 (gs-investor-relations@gs.com)

Bug their press department: 212-902-5400

And if you want to talk to someone in the US Senate who has almost single-handedly ensured that the rip-off artists wizards of the financial industry would be comfortably free of regulations and accountability, how about dropping a line to Chuck Schumer’s office?

CHUCK SCHUMER CONTACT INFO

Washington, D.C. office: 202-224-6542

New York City office: 212-486-4430

Democratic Senatorial Camapaign Committee: 202-224-2447

Why Schumer? The NY Times gives some background:

Mr. Schumer appeared at a breakfast fund-raiser in Midtown Manhattan for Senate Democrats. Addressing Henry R. Kravis, the buyout billionaire, and about 20 other finance industry executives, he warned that a bailout would be a hard sell on Capitol Hill. Then he offered some reassurance: The businessmen could count on the Democrats to help steer the nation through the financial turmoil.

“We are not going to be a bunch of crazy, anti-business liberals,” one executive said, summarizing Mr. Schumer’s remarks. “We are going to be effective, moderate advocates for sound economic policies, good responsible stewards you can trust.”

The message clearly resonated. The next week, executives at firms represented at the breakfast sent in more than $135,000 in campaign donations.

…[Schumer] repeatedly took other steps to protect industry players from government oversight and tougher rules, a review of his record shows. Over the years, he has also helped save financial institutions billions of dollars in higher taxes or fees.

He needs to know we’re watching and that we won’t put up with this game any more. Let him know that it’s time to end trickle-on economics.

Warm up that dialing finger and get on the horn to these people. Let them know you will not tolerate any more of these shenanigans.