What a difference a couple of weeks can make.

Just a couple weeks ago, the Democratic-led Legislature seemed to be riding high. It was one year ago that Speaker Shap Smith engineered two unprecedented veto overrides, with historic connotations, over a Governor who had been thought to be politically omnipotent.  This year, Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin attained one of the Holy Grails of the Vermont left when the Senate went on record against Vermont Yankee’s relicensing.  This vote followed the amazing feat of transforming opposition to the plant into a mainstream opinion.

The tide has turned: those highly regarded legislative actions took place weeks ago and last year. Now, the Vermont left has been treated to a full-on attack in the form of the Challenges for Change (CfC) agenda. And, today we stand in the wasteland of the attack’s aftermath.

In this aftermath, every non-right interest group, from “centrist” business lobbyists to the traditionally more liberal advocates for labor or social services, is scrambling in the toxic, post-Challenges environment.

From last Tuesday’s open meeting on CfC at the state house (note: both of the programs described in the quote below, which have strong and consistent track records for creating good jobs for Vermonters, are slated for 100% funding cuts):

Mary Johnson of the VT Women’s Business Fund said the fund “uniquely, quietly, powerfully puts women to work. … Many have heard of Bangladesh supporting women w/tiny loans. Why does gender-specific support of business owners work? Because women specifically channel the money to family and community.”

A representative from the Community Action Agencies of Central Vermont, said: “We support the underlying philosophy and intent, but are perplexed that the implementation has called for the elimination of the micro-business development program. It’s the most important tool in moving low income people out of poverty. We have demonstrated outcomes – 120 full time jobs per year. 830 people served per year. All this at the astonishing rate of $2k+ per job created. Why are we targeting this? We hope you reconsider this very valuable program.  90% of jobs created are retained after 5 years. It’s a clear success.

Even the right wing has gotten into the act.

CfC proposals were hidden from view and swept forward on an unprecedented legislative fast track, seemingly on blind faith. Now it appears that panicked Legislative leaders are desperately pointing fingers at the Governor; but to the insiders on the ground, that blame-game falls flat. The Governor doesn’t draw up legislation; nor did the Governor draw up what could be characterized as the “sneaky” legislative calendar. Statehouse intrigue is a function of relationships.  Now all those relationships are off-balance and the fallout has spread to voters.

Education, mental health, you name the issue and its community of advocates is standing in shock and anger, wondering how the Legislative leadership they had seen as allies could have engaged in such a cloak and dagger operation.

For example:

Nicole LeBlanc “The state is rushing to rebuild and restructure without thinking about the long term consequences to the developmentally-disabled services. The proposal is violating federal Medicaid law. The state is losing a lot of federal funds from these proposed cuts.”

[next speaker, speaking about unemployment and other services which will be shifted from real humans in community-accessible offices to a centralized phone service:]

“Why is it happening now? Because there’s a shortage.

“And who’s getting cut? The people on the bottom.

“Where’s the cost savings coming from? If you don’t get through when filing for benefits, it can be a while before you can try again. Maybe it’s if people get frustrated and don’t stay on the phone to get through the long hold process, then the state saves benefits for as many days as it takes for someone finally to get through.”

As far as the respective leaders go, Senator Shumlin always walks a binary line with voters who want to believe the best of him, but find it too easy to believe the worst accusations. What’s seen as complicity has flipped that equation for many.

With Speaker Smith, many progressive leaders find themselves reminded of their concerns about his ideological leanings when he first emerged as the House’s likely successor to Gaye Symington. Is it possible to deny Smith’s central role in the content as well as the strategy of the CfC push? Many throughout the State are questioning the Speaker’s role in the radical deconstruction of government under the guise of questionable spending goals. Who is the real Shap Smith?

It’s so bad, 7 Days’ Shay Totten has invoked the liberal lexicon’s ultimate j’accuse proclamation: “Are Vermont’s Pols Severing the Social Contract with Vermonters?”? To progressive ears, the charge of social-contract-shredding is one reserved only for the most dreadful of Republicans.

And the progressive intelligentsia at the Public Assets Institute have hard numbers to go with their scorn.

Many voters were already asked to swallow the very concept of the CfC agenda – even when it read as the antithesis of government; and an arbitrary, conservative-agenda-driven savings goal was seen as a shrunken financial square hole into which the rain-swollen round peg of real programs would be forced.

In the media coverage, one of the few legislators who spoke up at the time was Senator Racine, but despite his defiant peep, even he stepped into line and voted for the outlined approach when it was presented early in the session.  Of course he – and others – are speaking up now, but only after the whole enterprise has crashed and burned.

Unfortunately, there is no turning back, and the burned-out, pockmarked landscape is indeed different from the left’s previously green pastures. Many progressive advocates may no longer be willing to trust Smith. And, while Shumlin will step up and work to mitigate much of the worst excesses of CfC in the Senate, he may be viewed by many as doing it for politics rather than principle.

The impact on the Democratic gubernatorial primary is already underway, as we see the two of the three candidate legislators racing to differentiate themselves from the CfC agenda. The exception is Senator Bartlett, who as chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee likely had the best view of the process all along, and continued to embrace the Douglas-Dubie Administration line, notably at a VDP State Committee meeting. And even faced with major backlash, Bartlett’s pronouncement is an incredibly patronizing admonition not to panic just because “change is scary.” More disturbing is the fact that she will likely be party to the rest of the program slaughter that will be accepted by the Joint Fiscal Committee after the Legislature goes home.

Outside the Legislature, political reality has caught up with Secretary of State Markowitz’s rhetoric. Since launching her campaign, Markowitz has seemingly been running against the Democratic Legislature as well as the current Douglas Republican administration.  Criticizing and campaigning against an active Legislature so popular with the Democratic base seemed foolhardy and politically backward. Now, such actions appear prescient. Former Senator Matt Dunne too may be well-positioned to run against the recent Montpelier political carnage as one who has been there, understands it, and does not want business as usual.

The CfC travesty may be only the beginning; for even if the worst aspects of this conservative-driven overreach, these damaging proposals, are somehow mitigated, that sense of unease and betrayal underscore a new Post Traumatic Stress Disorder that may shadow Democratic voters for months.  Such a stain upon the Democratic mantle may well position the Progressive Party for renewal and reinvigoration  just as it seemed to enter the twilight of its statewide relevance.

Many of us can hear the popping of celebratory champagne corks throughout GOP offices as the meltdown from Challenges for Change represents an act of explosive self-sabotage of historic proportions to Democrats throughout the State.

It’s sad that the Democrats decided to toe this particular frayed and timeworn Republican party line – since recent polling shows people are sick of the tired old “tax cuts are the only way” mantra, and they actually WANT tax increases. Two of those who testified last Tuesday called directly for tax increases. One taxpayer won the greatest applause of the night with one simple sentence:

A 2 cent tax on potato chips and sweetened drinks = 100 million dollars.

While one psychologist asked to be taxed more:

Give those of us with more resources the opportunity to help fill the budget hole, and do what Vermonters do best: help each other out. Many hands make light work.

And finally, we were reminded of the other “unmentionable” source of revenue by one speaker as his 2 minutes to testify came to an end:

Please include safeguards to prevent the administration from further cutting positions. Don’t walk out the door expecting the joint fiscal committee to [do the right thing].

…

I’m wearing this bright yellow “rainy day” coat as a not so subtle hint as to an alternative.

(NOTE: Diaries posted under the GMD user represent collaborative efforts of multiple admins.)

(NOTE: all quotes from the Tuesday, April 6 meeting at the State House are paraphrased, but as close to the intended meaning as possible. I still can’t type that fast… – M.)