The $21,000,000 affectation

Vermont Republicans have apparently seized upon the GMP/CVPS merger as their best weapon against Governor Shumlin. More precisely, the utilities’ plan to repay a $21 million ratepayer bailout through some energy-efficiency investments. It was one of the key issues House Minority Leader Don Turner included in his last-minute list of demands that hamstrung Democratic attempts to pass its remaining legislation. It became arguably the single biggest anti-Shumlin talking point in the closing days of the legislative session.

And, considering that the issue is emblazoned on Randy Brock’s “Republican bear” mascot, it’s certain to be a key component of his campaign for Governor. (The bear could simply get a different T-shirt, of course; but Brock has also referred to it as his “$21-million bear,” which seems a pretty firm commitment.)

I’m not here to debate the merits of the merger, just to explore its place in the coming campaign. And, more precisely, the Republicans’ utter hypocrisy on the issue.

Now, I do believe that some Republicans legitimately oppose the deal on the grounds of fairness to ratepayers. But for the entire party to seize on the issue, and to try to portray itself as the friend of Everyman, is a complete joke. The VTGOP is pushing the issue out of sheer political opportunism; Governor Shumlin has outmaneuvered them on so many issues, and done a good enough job of keeping the state running through very challenging times, that the Republicans are desperate for a winning issue. And this is the best one they’ve been able to find.

Which is a little bit sad, frankly. And a whole lot hypocritical.

After the jump: an outbreak of politeness at Vermont Tiger, and consequence-free demagoguery in the GOP.

The force of this hypocrisy hit me when I read a mildly-worded commentary on Vermont Tiger by the staunchly conservative Bill Sayre. Who happens to be board chairman of CVPS. (And is also a partner in Bruce Lisman’s “nonpartisan” Campaign for Vermont. Just sayin’.) His essay offered an uncharacteristically understated defense of the deal, and some diplomatic bemoanings over the tenor of legislative debate.

(The Comments thread underneath Sayre’s essay is also quite uncharacteristically polite and tippy-toey by Vermont Tiger standards: full of delicately-worded arguments couched in expressions of mutual respect. It’s far from the fire-breathing outrage that accompanies the usual Tiger diet of anti-left screeds.)

Sayre had to be diplomatic because he suddenly found many of his “old friends and kindred spirits” on the other side. This is a man who has no trouble making full-throated attacks on the liberal/socialist/collectivist left, but he was put off stride when he had to argue with his fellow conservatives.

His discomfort is understandable, because his “old friends and kindred spirits” would — under any other circumstances — defend the merger deal and depict anyone who opposed it as an irresponsible anti-business liberal who was out to wreck Vermont’s economy. But in a year when Vermont conservatives are desperate for hot-button issues, they can’t resist this one. Even if it puts them on the “wrong” side philosophically.  

And they can comfortably do so because they know they are powerless to block the deal. Do you really think Don Turner wanted to intervene in the merger? He knew damn well that the Democratic House leadership wouldn’t accede to his demand, so he was free to demagogue the issue.

Republicans can’t do anything to stop or change the merger. And even if Randy Brock wins the Governorship in November (snort), the deal will have been consummated by then and he wouldn’t be able to do anything about it even it he actually wanted to. Which he doesn’t.  

It’s an ideal opportunity for a little harmless rabble-rousing. Problem is, it’s not going to do them very much good. It may be the best issue they can find, but there’s no way they can convince liberal and moderate Vermonters that the Republican Party is an enemy of big corporations. It’s like when Mitt Romney was trying to convince Tea Partiers that he was really their guy. Doesn’t pass the smell test.

The Republicans are having some fun with the utility merger right now. But if they can’t find a better issue, they’re going to lose the election.  

5 thoughts on “The $21,000,000 affectation

  1. Your arguments make sense, but politics is not about making sense.  This issue is a big mistake for Shumlin and it only takes one mistake to screw-up a campaign.  The good news for Shumlin is that the current field of Republicans are not very good at making hay when the sun shines.   Thus, we will all have to see how this plays out.  Democrats do need to be careful not to underestimate Brock.  Underestimating him could be Shumlin’s second mistake.  Then there is only one strike left.  This will be an interesting election – more interesting than most think at this point.

  2. I am a dyed in the wool leftie. High school activist against the Vietnam war. Busted at the Seabrook Nuclear Power plant in 1977. Participated in many, many actions, demonstrations, and marches since then, not to mention mainstream politics as a member of the Democratic Party.

    And I think Shumlin is wrong – or even if his numbers are right, he is being totally and arrogantly tone-deaf on this issue of repaying the ratepayers.

    Mary Powell and other spokespeople for the power companies have tried to brush aside ratepayer concerns – also championed by AARP.

    Not only aren’t they going to pay back the overcharges extended by ratepayers AS A LOAN and identified as needing to be repaid (in unspecified value) before any sale or merger so as not to represent a “windfall” profit (read extorted ‘gift’) for the stockholders and board of directors – BUT, whatever vague “energy efficiency” programs they promise to engage in to “return the value” to the CVPS ratepayers will be subject to higher rates to recoup the cost!

    There’s no repayment under this scheme. No value actually returned. We don’t use electric heat: how will “efficiency” help us?

    Maybe Republicans have latched onto this issue like a drowning man onto a plank, but it didn’t originate with Republicans, and they down’t own it. And THAT’s why it’s dangerous for Shumlin, because it’s a crossover issue.

    NanuqFC

    … capitalism … is not a success. It is not intelligent. It is not beautiful. It is not just. It is not virtuous. And it doesn’t deliver the goods. ~ John Maynard Keynes (1933)

Comments are closed.