I am not optimistic right now.
I’ve been thinking about how to put this into words for some months now. I’m not sure I’m there yet, but it’s important enough to try.
Ever since the Democratic members of our legislature started embracing “Challenges for Change,” I’ve had a kind of sinking feeling about where this state is headed. I’ve been hoping to be proven wrong, but nothing’s happened yet to suggest I am, and I’m honestly sickened by the cynicism behind this and the speed with which we’ve been willing to sell out the poor and disadvantaged in the name of fiscal responsibility.
I’ve mentioned this before, but it was awhile ago so I’ll bring it up again. I’m pleased with the outcome of the vote on Vermont Yankee, but I keep coming back to wondering why it took place specifically when it did and why it was so urgent to do the vote that specific week.
And no matter what else I come up with, I’m led back to one thing: we were being played. They knew they’d be taking up Challenges for Change that week and that the VY vote would be such big news that it would provide great cover for the support for Challenges.
I just don’t see another reason for this and I don’t see it as anything but a ploy.
And the thing is, it basically worked. Even though I believe Shumlin was behind this, I’d still vote for him in November if he’s the nominee. Even though I believe most of the candidates were complicit in it, I’d vote for any one of them over Dubie.
But there’s a dramatic difference between having my vote and having my support, and I don’t know who I can support any longer. I hear these assurances that they’ll make sure the Challenges legislation doesn’t have too much of a negative impact. But both Shumlin and Racine voted for legislation connected with Challenges for Change, and they basically handed a lot of power to the Governor for no reason that I can see.
I don’t know what the solution is, but it feels like this particular “solution” started with a back door deal that was done in such a fashion as to avoid responsibility and accountability. And it was done on the backs of the poor. It was done on the backs of child care providers and working mothers. It was done on the backs of the homeless and mentally ill. It was done on the backs of the most vulnerable among us.
I don’t often blog angry. But I’m angry about this and when I wait until I’m calmer or more settled on the topic, it doesn’t come. I just stay angry.
And I honestly have no idea what to do about this, because I don’t see us overturning this legislation, even with a different governor.
So I try looking ahead and I keep coming back to one thing: we’re just pretty much screwed.
I believe this is the result of a right-wing strategy started long ago to reduce social programs. They did not see outright budget cuts as being politically feasible and instead went after the revenue side of the equation. The consequences of the Bush tax cuts are upon us and the connection is opaque. The strategy is working, and fabulously well I might add. Everything that JulieWaters writes above is true but it fails to get to the root cause of the problem.
Just knowing that Douglas’s crew was on board with this whole challenges crap should have been enough to make Shumlin and Racine run away from the idea. But they sold their souls and now we will have to wait for the upcoming news that the challenges didn’t work like it was supposed to and Vermont is back in the finanical shitter. They will say they don’t want to keep reducing services to make up the challenges money and all but I wondere if it won’t be a case of too little too late.
Challenges for Change was the product of a Douglas, Shumlin and Smith agreement. Racine was primarily on the outside looking in. Challenges has already failed, so there is little to wait for. Any two Vermonters could have been paid $250,000 and delivered a better product than the hotshots for the mid-west.
I am constantly balancing the desire to focus government help on the poor and disadvantaged with a profound mistrust of large institutions. Just being near the scent of power, and all that money, seems to turn good people into back-slapping, deal-making oligarchs willing to sell their souls for a donation and a new TV commercial.
I have had conversations with many of these “leaders” and it always comes back to, “Well, you just don’t understand.” In that, they’re right…I don’t understand. Have we consistently elected bad people? Or does the system drive the behavior no matter who is in power?
Why would anyone on this progressive site trust that a $Billion+ institution would act anything but conservatively? Why do people keep investing hope in an organizational structure which is designed to funnel money to donors so they can re-elect those who did the funneling? Why are we surprised when a program gets turned towards donors and away from the poor, since that’s what keeps people in power? What am I missing?
If you think it’s tough to repeal this, imagine how tough it’s going to be to repeal Obamacare?