(This is a big deal. – promoted by JulieWaters)

I sent this to the Senate Economic Development Committee today

“It appears that the latest version of Sen. Hinda Miller’s economic development bill would lower the wage threshold for the “economic growth incentive” program (VEGI, administered by VEPC [Sec. 11 amending 32 V.S.A. § 5930b(24)].  I can only hope this is a typo.

At present, new jobs supposedly created by the “incentives” must pay at least 60% more than the minimum wage.  Personally, I think that’s too low, especially since the Leg. changed the definition of full-time to only 35 hours last year.  That means a job could qualify if it paid $23,478.  I’m not sure why the taxpayers should provide “incentives” for jobs that pay $13,000 less than the statewide average wage.

So it’s shocking that the bill now says the wage threshold need be only 20% above the minimum wage.  That means jobs that pay as little as $17,604 will qualify.  This is madness.  

Vermonters with jobs at that level qualify for a number of public assistance programs.  So in addition to giving employers money to create low wage jobs (often jobs they would create anyway), this bill would add to the cost by increasing demand for public assistance.

Who asked for this?  What is the justification?  How can this possibly be considered in the best interests of workers or taxpayers?”

[Note: This undoubtedly came from the Exec. Dir. of VEPC, who is a state employee (appointee) reporting to Commerce Sec. Kevin Dorn (and the governor).  This is what passes for economic development in the minds of our corporate welfare ‘Dads’.  Give millions to low wage employers.  It is especially disturbing (immoral?) at a time when the Leg. is thinking about cutting programs for the elderly, kids, and the poor.  These people have no shame.]

Big happenings at the Democratic State Committee meeting, as the beginnings of factionalizing around the appearance of favoritism in the nascent Governor’s race around the use of Party resources has bubbled into open frustration in the midst of the Party leadership vacuum.

At issue is whether or not Deb Markowitz is being “annointed” by players in the Party – specifically the camps of Senator Leahy and Congressman Welch – at the expense of other candidates and potential candidates, such as Doug Racine, Susan Bartlett (who announced that she is, indeed, contemplating a run), Peter Shumlin – and at the expense of Party rules and protocols, which seem to have been ignored on her behalf.

The concerns here? It’s not about who is or isn’t the best candidate, it’s about having a fair fight. About not setting a precedent that these decisions are taken out of voters’ hands by an elite group stacking the deck in favor of one person or another. It’s a deep concern for those of us who see a healthy primary as necessary in this election, and stand generally in favor of a robust primary process.

It’s also about having the strongest candidate possible, and if Markowitz is to be that candidate, she would come through any tainted primary seen as tainted herself, and that’s completely unnecessary.

Background: Issues center around the Markowitz campaign’s unfettered use of the VDP office and the Party’s coveted informational resource – the Voter File. Traditionally in a contested Primary, an agreement is made between the candidates before any such access is granted. Usually those candidates don’t work out of the Party offices either, but its not unheard of. What is unheard of, again, is doing so without reaching out to every possible contender and coming to an agreement. Access to Voter File – a database of every registered voter in the state with voter identification, demographic and polling information dating back into the 90s, the likes of which neither the Republicans or the Progressives have on their own – is especially strictly controlled. Every election cycle the rules for access are reviewed and tweaked but stay similar in character, accounting for the changing technology and technical nature of how the data is stored and maintained. It is also the compendium of local corrections and identification done by county and town committees, again stretching back over more than a decade. It is the Democrats most valuable common property.

Three things are clear. One: that Markowitz’s campaign manager, Jason Powell, has made use of both the VDP office and the Voter File freely. Two: that the other candidates only heard about this second hand and were not brought into the process (even though one of them, Doug Racine, is the only person to have unequivocally announced that he or she is a candidate). Three: that this entire situation has proceeded with the full knowledge of Party players directly linked to the offices of Peter Welch and Patrick Leahy.

If you still don’t think this is a big deal, consider that Senator Bartlett read from a letter that has circulated through the House and Senate caucuses, promoted not simply by candidates and potential candidates such as Racine, Bartlett and Shumlin, but also championed by House Majority Leader Floyd Nease. The letter explicitly calls for an end to the brazen preferential treatment and appearance of a pre-ordained favorite of the Democratic Party and some of its most influential members. Nease’s involvement is significant as it makes clear that the discontent runs broader and deeper than any mere sour grapes from candidates not so favored.

At the meeting, outgoing Chair Carleton responded that a) There is now a Voter File contract, and so far Markowitz is the only candidate who has signed it, but it’s open to others. b) Office access should be equal and conditioned on payment of rent.

Unfortunately, it’s not as simple as that. For one thing, there remains some question as to whether or not those candidates who haven’t yet “staffed up” can sign up for access, and at present, Markowitz is not only the single candidate who has, but its unlikely any of the others will do so soon. As to rent, it sounds as though an amount has not been worked out, and when it is, it will likely not be levied retroactively for the usage the Markowitz campaign has already made of the space.

Part of what’s frustrating here is that there is no need for Markowitz to be involved in this ill-advised nonsense. She’s a great candidate who understands how to run elections and may well have the best shot in a primary election already, depending on how things sugar out in the coming months. It seems likely that this fits into an overall strategy to “shock and awe” opponents out of the race and clear the primary field if at possible for a direct run at Douglas. In addition to the advantages steered her way from the Party, she has already hired a Campaign Manager, which speaks to the money she is raising and has already raised. Reportedly, Emily’s List – the national PAC that supports pro-choice Democratic women candidates – has committed to supporting her, even though Bartlett is also a potential candidate. Hubbub is that EL is hoping to power a $2 million campaign for Markowitz. The connections are being worked hard to give her the appearance of an electoral juggernaut only four months out from the previous election.

Now, $2 million is a ludicrous number, frankly, and the fact that it’s in circulation is further testament to the theory that she is simply trying to scare off opponenets. It’s a legitimate strategy, and accumulating special favors from those with oversized influence over party resources… well, I suppose you could say its good work if you can get it. But she and those selfsame supporters should be deeply afraid of being responsible for creating a sense of an “establishment” candidate vs. more populist ones. In this day and age, such an impression could be poisonous, and it’s precisely the narrative they are flirting with.

It should be clear to all that the only honorable way forward is to follow the precedents of the past – precedents which candidates have had a right to expect would be in play this cycle. And going by that precedent, no candidate should have access to office space or Voter File until all the candidates have come to an agreement. Period.

For those of us who work hard to insure that the Democratic Party is an institution we can all hopefully be proud of, this cycle is off to a piss-poor start.

The bubble is burst, but who thought it would last?

Our demographics – both state and national – certainly don’t indicate that we should be booming.  How much more junk do 50-somethings need to buy? How many more bathrooms do you actually need?  How many times did you drive around and say, “I know what people make: how can they afford this?”  

Anybody who had lived through something like this before knew that somebody was going to be left without a chair when the music stopped.  

The hangover is painful, but this can also be a time for reflection that can lead to  progress and change.  We already see signs in the current discussions: from Chief Justice Reiber’s address to the Vermont legislature regarding the structure of the judiciary, to the just released report about reshaping law enforcement, from an examination of higher education, to a closer look at secondary school districts.  

These are all issues that would have been brushed aside if times were better.  They are too much of a political risk.  It’s easier to give people a new benefit than to be seen as taking something away.  (You are always losing something in change.)  It’s easier to avoid difficult decision if you can still sweep them under the rug, as we have done for decades.

The decisions we were able to avoid in good times can create crisis in hard times.  However, this crisis can create the forest fire we need to clear the landscape:  to spur people to action and for leaders to step forward and go out on a limb with a new idea or proposal.  

We have the opportunity to examine the status quo and prepare Vermont for the 21st century and beyond.  Much of the staus quo was developed in a time when people got from one town to another on foot, or by horse and buggy.  Going from Montpelier to Burlington, even 40 years ago, took twice as long as it does today.  One hundred years ago, the trip was comparable to going from Montpelier to Boston today.  We need to objectively look at our state infrastructure and see what we need, and what needs to be changed.  As New Englanders, we are proud of our traditions, but we can also be afraid to take a risk.

The restructuring needs to be see as an investment.  An investment of time and energy in our future.  An investment that will create new opportunities we cannot even imagine, flexibility, and will free resources for creative new ideas and growth.   The more we can put our house in order, and set up a flexible structure for future growth, we will liberate human and physical resources for creativity.

We can’t reach the next branch without letting go of the one we are holding onto.  Citizens need to feel secure there are necessary social programs to catch them if they fall during the transition, and confident that the leaders have some idea of where we are going.  

A recession is a temporary lull within the prevailing economic pattern or trend.  This is a full blown reset.  

If you want to make a difference, this could be a lot of fun.

From today's Times Argus:

MONTPELIER – Should Vermonters have a “right to dry?”

For McCormack and other right-to-dry supporters the bill just makes sense: Hanging wet clothes out to dry in the sun is more energy efficient than using an electric dryer, a step forward in conserving energy that most families can easily tackle.

Thumbs up to Senators Dick McCormack, Claire Ayer, Sara Kittell, and Tim Ashe for sponsoring this legislation!

You can find the bill here.