To wit: Does a political officeholder have an obligation to work for policies supported by a large majority of her/his political party?

Related questions: How substantial does the majority have to be? And what if the officeholder opposes said policy?

From the general to the specific: This week, VTDigger published the results of a statewide survey on gun issues. It found 57% of respondents agree with requiring permits for carrying a concealed weapon. 39% were opposed, and 4% did not answer.

A pretty significant majority, and kind of a surprise in a state where gun control is believed to be political poison.

But, for purposes of my question, the more pertinent result is that 80% of Democrats are in favor of concealed-carry permits.

That’s quite a lot. And this poll, conducted by the Castleton Polling Institute, appears to meet current standards for professional quality: a statistically significant 682 interviews were conducted by phone, with a margin of error at the usual 4% plus or minus. Also, 13% of them involved voters who use cellphones, which would seem to minimize the potential bias in a landline-only survey.

I think it’s fair to say that the 80% figure puts my philosophical question directly before our top political leaders, who generally oppose any gun control measures. I don’t attempt to answer the question, but I believe it must be asked.  

Monday’s Washington Post delivered a devastating account of scandalous behavior by self-proclaimed leaders of the Tea Party movement. Basically, they are raising millions of dollars from True Believers and spending it, almost entirely, on themselves and their expensive fundraising operations. Little or nothing is going to Tea Party candidates.

Out of the $37.5 million spent so far by the PACs of six major tea party organizations, less than $7 million has been devoted to directly helping candidates, according to the analysis, which was based on campaign finance data provided by the Sunlight Foundation.

… Roughly half of the money – nearly $18 million – has gone to pay for fundraising and direct mail, largely provided by Washington-area firms. Meanwhile, tea party leaders and their family members have been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting fees, while their groups have doled out large sums for airfare, a retirement plan and even interior decorating.

The poster child for Tea Party grift is one Jenny Beth Martin, head of the Tea Party Patriots, who is on track to earn roughly $450,000 this year. Her group’s Super PAC has spent $7.4 million since January 2013; a mere $185,000 has gone to support like-minded candidates.

And, as the Post reports, “The dearth of election spending has left many favored tea party candidates exposed before a series of pivotal GOP primaries next month.” Such as Matt Bevin, the formerly red-hot challenger to Mitch McConnell. In fundraising appeals the Patriots named Bevin as a top priority, but they’ve spent only $56,000 on his behalf.

So why am I writing about this in a Vermont political blog? Because our state’s conservative movement is weighed down by some notable grifters of its own — small-time though they may be, compared to the likes of Jenny Beth Martin. To name names: Darcie “Hack” Johnston and Tayt Brooks, International Man of Mystery.  

I can’t tell you exactly how much our Green Mountain Grifters have benefited from the gullibility of conservative donors, because most of the relevant organizations have very lax reporting requirements. But what I can say, should be enough to make any sensible conservatives put their checkbooks in a secure lockbox.

Throughout 2012, Brooks was livin’ high on the bankbook of Montgomery Ward heiress Lenore Broughton, racking up $8,000 per month in consulting fees while spending over a million Broughton Bucks on expensive ad campaigns and mailers or Vermonters First. And failing to move the needle any farther than Johnston did. Vermonters First hasn’t been nearly as active since it rolled snake eyes in 2012, but it still exists, and Brooks is still VF’s head. Kinda makes a mockery of Broughton’s supposed devotion to free markets; in the marketplace of ideas and expertise, Brooks is a known loser. And yet he still has a job. Must be nice.

The Hack, as I reported after the November 2012 election, fleeced the Randy Brock campaign to the tune of more than $100,000 in compensation, or nearly one-fifth of Brock’s total expenditures. This was, you will recall, a desperately underfunded effort that leaned heavily on Brock’s own money. And, thanks to Johnston’s pricey “wisdom,” Brock finished with a dismal 38% of the vote. The Hack failed to move the needle one single iota.

Now, thanks to the wet sloppy French kiss she got from the Burlington Free Press yesterday, we know the Hack is now running the campaign of Arizona gubernatorial hopeful Frank Riggs while simultaneously sending out fundraising appeals for her anti-health-reform group, Vermonters for Health Care Freedom.

Funny: the last time Johnston took a leave of absence from VHCF (to run the Brock campaign), she parachuted in Jeff Wennberg to keep her seat warm. This time, she’s been in Arizona for months, and there’s been no activity on the VHCF website since January. But she’s still listed as the VHCF contact person; no second act for Wennberg.

Which makes me wonder if she’s drawing a salary from VHCF, and what exactly she’s doing to earn it. Of course, she’s #1 in reporters’ Rolodexes when an anti-reform comment is needed; but it doesn’t take much effort to crank out a couple of generic sentences.

There are probably those who think I hate Darcie Johnston — probably including the Hack herself. But really, I don’t. I’ve never met her, and from all accounts she’s a nice person. What I do hate is people who scam the system, who take money and don’t provide any value in return. Yeah, I’m a left-winger, but I do believe in giving full value for payment, and I don’t like grifters.

Recent conservative history is littered with grifters — again, ironic for people who supposedly cherish achievement above all else. The current crop of Tea Party opportunism is of a piece with the Fox News/speaking circuit/ex-candidate Carousel To Nowhere symbolized by the utter cipher that is Sarah Palin, the Kardashian of politics. Not to mention the parallel scam-o-rama of overpriced political “geniuses” like Karl Rove and Richard Viguerie.

And the granddaddy of ’em all, the profiteers of religious broadcasting — Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, et al.

Our homegrown grifters are, by comparison, penny-ante in scope. But they are part of the same, ignoble tradition.  

The all-new, MORE MORE MORE Burlington Free Press, now specializing in wide margins, oversized fonts, and giant photographs, found a new way to waste ink, paper, and its readers’ time in the Monday paper with a front-page profile piece on Darcie “Hack” Johnston, overpaid conservative strategerist and consistent loser.

In itself, this doesn’t make the Freeploid unique; indeed, Seven Days performed its own personal servicing on Johnston last fall with a very friendly profile piece. But the ‘Loid’s offense is worse because: (1) the front-page placement (the 7D piece was well inside the paper), (2) the lack of any connection to current events (last October, Johnston was very active in the conservative vs. moderate battle for the VTGOP), and (3) the fact that Johnston isn’t even in Vermont these days. With local Republicans perhaps having realized that her wrong-headed consultancies cost a lot of money and yield no discernible results, Johnston has been forced to traverse the continent to find a candidate willing to pay for her (cough) political savvy: she’s in Arizona, heading the campaign of Republican gubernatorial candidate Frank Riggs.

(Based on her track record, we should expect her return to Our Green And Verdant Land shortly after Riggs loses the primary and she cashes her last paycheck.)

So how did the Freeploid justify a front-page story about a consultant who’s 2200 miles away?

Well, she posted something on Facebook about single-payer health care in Vermont.

Er, she posted something a few weeks ago.

Yeah, that warrants the front page. Headlining tomorrow’s Freeploid: Randy Brock Tweets!!!

Sheesh.  

The Facebook post is, natch, a mere pretext for a rehash of Johnston’s undistinguished consultancy career — with the emphasis on her devotion to principle. Largely concealed in deep shadow: the fact that every campaign she’s worked on has lost, and that she’s collected ample paychecks while failing to produce measurable results.

And buried deep in the article is the sad truth about her diminishing role in Vermont politics: her anti-health-care reform group, Vermonters for Health Care Freedom, appears to be hanging by a thread. I say so, first of all, because if VHCF had any money, do you really think she’d be spending this election season in Arizona?

Second, the Freeploid reports that a recent VHCF fundraising appeal seems not to have produced much return: Johnston is still bemoaning the lack of resources for any kind of media campaign.

And third, Johnston bestie Wendy Wilton conspicuously referred to VHCF in the past tense:

As for Johnston’s legacy, Wilton in Rutland suggested, “Whether Vermonters for Health Care Freedom made any kind of mark will be seen in the legislative races in the fall and in how hard lawmakers look at alternatives to single payer in the next session.”

Which, again, leaves me honestly puzzled by the Freeploid’s decision that Johnston was worthy of full-length treatment and front-page placement.

There is, however, a story worth exploring about Darcie Johnston: She sent that VHCF fundraising letter earlier this month — when she was already in Arizona, engaged full-time on the Riggs campaign. Unanswered in the Freeploid piece: is anybody running the show at VHCF? (Someone actually based in the state of Vermont, I mean.) Is VHCF conducting any activities in Johnston’s absence? What, exactly, can potential donors expect to get for their money?

And finally this: is Johnston collecting any compensation from VHCF? And is she doing any work?

Besides, y’know, the occasional Facebook post.  

This just in, folks:

My ‘undisclosed sources in The Boardroom’ have told me that Monsanto and other companies and organizations in the GE FOODS INDUSTRY will announce shortly that they will file a Class Action Food-Fight Lawsuit against Vermont for recent state legislation calling for the labeling of GE Foods.

Artificial-Life Spokesperson Harry ‘Borg’ Bugfree of Monsanto is said to be preparing a statement to be read on FOX NEWS, even though Vermont Governor Shumlin has yet to sign the Vermont GE LABELING bill into law.

When contacted about the impending major ‘Big Money’ suit against Vermont, Vermont’s Attorney General Bill Sorrell said:  

“Shit.  This is going to screw up my ‘quiet’ campaign to get re-elected this November.  I tried to warn these anti-GE people that Vermont can’t afford to get into a ‘Break the State Budget’ battle with the GE Foods Industry.  We’ll lose.  Just like I lost with Entergy.  Sonofabitch!  I’m expected to go to Court this Fall in the middle of my ‘quiet’ re-election campaign and take on big shot corporate lawyers who have more resources and brains than me?  What The Fuck?!  First it’s the goddamn Heroin, and now the Luddites coming up with this labeling crap!  Why the fuck does everybody have to make my job so hard?  

“I ought to come out myself and declare this labeling law Unconstitutional, before the Courts do.  Man.  I just want things QUIET.  This was a nice ‘quiet’ job before all the anti-nukers started in, and now it’s the fucking Soy-Suckers.  Yeah.  Maybe we really do have a Heroin Problem in Vermont.  Maybe the whole State Legislature is on the shit.  I’d investigate, but…well…that’s not my job.  That’s up to the Feds.  Just like this GE labeling law is up to the Feds.  

“Fuckin’ A!  Read the goddamn Patriot Laws, for Chrissake, before you pass outrageous and indefensible State laws!  It says so right there–the Federal Government will not tolerate any actions by people, organizations, or state and local elected bodies that threaten the Public Tranquility of the People, nor the Domestic Safety of the United States and its CITIZENS.  And the U.S. Supreme Court says the GE FOODS INDUSTRY are citizens–PEOPLE!  Goddamnit!  Why the fuck didn’t the State Legislature vote to LABEL SODA AND OTHER SUGARY SWEET DRINKS?  I’d lose THAT lawsuit too, but at least I could get away with it, because NOBODY WOULD GIVE A SHIT!  

“Fuck me!  All right.  I’ve got to go read this goddamn GE bill now.  Haven’t read it yet.  Got a lot on my plate.  Look at all this shit on my desk.  Some asshole group just dumped off another batch of Civil Rights complaints.  Violations of migrant workers’ rights, violations of elderly and disabled peoples’ rights, violations of Open Meeting laws, violations…well, this is about Tasers…I can circular file that.  But, Hell and Goddamnit!  You see the shit I have to put up with?  What next?  Am I supposed to waste my time on drug-related CRIME next?  

“I was getting ready to come out with a campaign statement on how CIGARETTE SMOKERS should have to be ‘licensed’ by the State–Remember how I single-handedly brought down Big Tobacco years ago?  Big Tobacco would threaten to sue us again on my licensing idea too, but I’m not really serious, it’s just a good campaign issue.  Now, instead, I’ve got to face the GE FOODS INDUSTRY.  Mother-F!  They’re going to clean our clock.  I can only hope I can make it look like I’m going to put up a real fight when it comes to Court, as long as it comes to Court AFTER the November election.  If it comes to Court right off, all you fuckers better not give me any shit about how I handle it.  Or NOT handle it.  

“Remember–Everything’s FEDERAL!  Take it up with Sanders.  That sonofabitch!  Sitting in the U.S. Senate making noise about Big Business.  None of them corporations sue HIM!  Shit.  Well, I can always send in the Second Team against Monsanto and Whatever, and, when they lose, say HELL, NOT MY FAULT.  MY OFFICE OBVIOUSLY NEEDS A BIGGER BUDGET.

“Boy.  This AG job.  I don’t know how I’ve managed to put up with it for 17 years.  17 Years!  Years!  For 17 Years has Bill Sorrell taken on the Horrors of Office.  For 17 Years have I floated upon the surface of the Deep Dark Shroud Of The Sea Of Law, Order, And RESPONSIBILITY.  Mockery!  Mockery!  Here.  Stand close to me, you fuckers.  Let me look into a human eye.  Yes, I wouldst if I couldst spit in thine eye, if it were not for the obsession that drives and pushes me.  SODA.  I must give chase against all natural longings and reason to that Evil Beast which BECKONS ME!  But, alas, now what once was a Mild Mild Wind and a Mild Looking Sky has become, for me, a Whirlwind, a Maelstrom of Eternal Woe and Damnation!  My Re-Election!  My Re-Election!  Mockery…Will I be Re-Elected and live to tell the tale?”

Yes.  And those were his exact words, before he went off ‘blubbering’ some stuff about GOOD and EVIL.  And how GOOD and EVIL was all FEDERAL too.  Poor fellow.  I will update you as this story develops.  Or not.

Call me

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.

During my recent absence, Senator Bob Hartwell, putative Democrat and chair of the Senate Natural Resources Committee, pulled off a rare feat of athletic flexibility: simultaneously putting his foot in his mouth and his head up his ass.

As previously documented by GMD’s Sue Prent, the alleged Democrat and environmentalist said some very curious things to Seven Days’ Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz a while back:

“I think what I don’t like about the extremists on the climate issue … is that somehow this is all being caused by human behavior. There is a significant natural phenomenon that is also going on, in my view,” Hartwell told Seven Days.

…In Hartwell’s view, “There’s a lot of science that says it isn’t happening the way the really aggressive commentators say it is. There’s other very credible people who say it isn’t true.”

In addition to pushing this obvious straw-man argument (does anyone really claim that climate change is 100% due to human impact?), Hartwell also threw shade on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, accusing IPCC of making “extreme statements” and allowing as to how he doesn’t “know whether they are true or not.”

Heintz’ column apparently caused some trouble for Hartwell, as it rightly should have, since he was practically quoting from the Climate Change Denier’s Little Red Book. Because Hartwell issued a statement denying that he was a, um, denier.

In the process, he didn’t really change the substance of his earlier position. He still believes that climate change is due to a combination of natural processes “exasperated by the influence of human behavior.”

Um, Bob? The word is “exacerbated.” “Exasperated” is how I feel when listening to you.

Heintz responded to Hartwell’s pushback by posting a transcript of their interview, which shows that Heintz accurately quoted the Senator and did not take his comments out of context. Score one for the Huntsman.

To be fair to Hartwell, he can’t be called a climate-change denialist. But he’s clearly a climate-change skeptic, and again, he’s using the language developed by denialists intent on undermining the scientific truth.

That is, of course, not Hartwell’s only offense against environmentalism.  

He has also, as Heintz reported, “pushed for a moratorium on large-scale wind projects, opposed the recent expansion of the state’s net metering program and raised questions about the safety of smart meters.”

On top of that, Hartwell has also openly called for repeal of the Bottle Bill, criticized Vermont’s goal of 90% renewable energy by 2050, bubbled about North America’s vast oil and gas reserves, and framed his discussion of energy entirely in terms of cost, instead of environmental impact. And he talked up natural gas as an alternative to coal-fired power plants — which sounds like he might have a favorable view toward the proposed Vermont Gas pipeline.  

Hmm, sounds more like a lobbyist for the Koch Brothers than the Democratic chair of the Natural Resources Committee.  

Which brings me to the big question: Why the hell is this guy chair of the Natural Resources Committee?

Well, the quick answer to that one is that the Lords of the Sandbox, the Senate’s Committee on Committees, put him there in 2012 as part of its obvious attempt to stack the committee with Senators opposed to wind energy. At least two of the CoC’s members — Phil Scott and John Campbell — are ill-disposed toward ridgeline wind.

But whether you like or dislike wind energy, there are lots of good reasons for believing that Bob Hartwell has no business chairing the Natural Resources Committee. He should be replaced when the committee assignments are reshuffled this fall. His presence is an offense to the environmental community and to the good faith of environment-minded voters who have helped fashion the Democratic super-majority in the Legislature.  

We haven't been talking much about Cliven Bundy around here (I may have another post this weekend), but you all know the basic story, right? Right-wing cattle rancher who wanted to start another shooting range war over not wanting to pay to graze his cattle on land that you and I own? That's the guy.

Ol' Cliven was living a charmed life, the darling of the extreme right for standing up to the jackbooted thugs in the Bureau of Land Management. 

Things took a fairly negative turn for Cliven yesterday when he decided to share some of his insights with us. His topic, in his own words: “I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro.” 

It turns out that most of what he knows about “the Negro” is that the Negro is a parasite who would probably be better off still being a slave, and the Negro would do better if someone taught him how to pick cotton.

Oh, don't worry, you bet there's video.

 Believe it or not he's even lost the support of Sean Hannity.

Naturally, he's not happy with this situation. The way ol' Cliven sees it, he's a victim of the left-wing media, who are taking words out of context, twisting meanings, and the rest of the devilish tricks the media use when they want to destroy a true American patriot.  But he has a solution. Because the news coverage–remember, there's video!–doesn't show the truth, which is that he is no racist, he 

“would appreciate it if The New York Times retracted their story.

So Bundy goes and shoots his mouth off in public, even makes sure there is a video camera capturing exactly what he says, but it's not his fault, it's the media's fault for portraying him falsely.

 It's a lot like Charles Barkley, the basketball player who provided us with an endless supply of memorable quotes.

 Nevertheless, most authorities in the art of the stupid agree that Barkley's crowning achievement was when he claimed that he was misquoted. In his autobiography.

 The next time Cliven Bundy plans to claim he was misquoted maybe he shouldn't be standing in front of a video camera.

Back in Marchwe were posting about a proposal to have the state study the potential revenue to be raised if marijuana were legalized and taxed.

Or, to put it another way, if Vermont decided to smarten up and end the de facto marijuana tax exemption that criminalization causes.

The first time around it was ruled out of order as not being germane to the miscellaneous tax bill its supporters tried to add it to, but Rep. Kristina Michelsen, D.-Hardwick, assured me that it would be brought up again.

That day was today. The House was debating S. 247, the Senate's marijuana dispensary bill, and Rep. Kesha Ram, D.-Burlington, proposed the same revenue amendment. This time it passed. Here's the language:

Sec. 8a. TAXATION AND REGULATION OF MARIJUANA; REPORT

On or before January 15, 2015, the Secretary of Administration shall report to the General Assembly regarding the taxation and regulation of marijuana in Vermont. The report shall analyze:

(1) the possible taxing systems for the sale of marijuana in Vermont, including sales and use taxes and excise taxes, and the potential revenue each may raise;

(2) any savings or costs to the State that would result from regulating marijuana; and

(3) the experiences of other states with regulating and taxing marijuana.

The amendment passed, the bill passed, and now it's up for third reading and, presumably, back to the Senate for reconciliation with the revenue provision intact. 

Congratulations to the forward-thinking legislators who kept this issue alive!

I see a connection between a couple of recent articles regarding higher education — specifically, the affordability of a college education.

First, from the Freeploid (paywalled, sorry), a national study finds that Vermont is near the bottom in support for higher education. 49th, in fact, in state appropriation per full-time student.

And such a bad 49th that, as Vermont State Colleges Chancellor Tim Donovan notes, if the state increased its higher-education funding by 50%, Vermont would rise from 49th all the way to… 47th. The root cause: a steady diminishment of higher-ed funding in the state budget in recent decades.

Over the last 30-plus years, state-supported aid has not kept pace with tuition growth, with the model trending toward “high tuition, low aid” and the financial-aid burden falling increasingly on the institutions. UVM spends about half of its annual $41 million state appropriation on aid just for its Vermont undergraduates, who account for about a third of total enrollment.

According to the Freeploid, restoring state aid to 1980 levels would require “that the state roughly double” its higher-ed appropriation. In 1980, state funding accounted for about half of Vermont State Colleges’ revenue. Today, that figure is down to 20%. The other 80% comes from tuition. (The national average is about what Vermont’s used to be — roughly fifty-fifty.)

Second, an Associated Press story published Monday in the Mitchell Family Organ (paywalled, but might be available somewhere else) reporting that Vermont ranks high in the number of college students who transfer out-of-state before finishing their studies. According to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center…

…nationally, 6 percent of students who started at a four-year college in 2007 and completed their degrees by last year did so in a different state than where they began. New Hampshire and Vermont were among a dozen states where more than 10 percent of students took that path – in New Hampshire, it was 11 percent, and in Vermont, 13 percent.

Why so high? One factor common to both states is extremely high tuition for out-of-state students. At UVM, in-state tuition and fees amount to $15,700, while out-of-staters fork over a whopping $36,600.

The element that ties the two stories together: political expediency.  

When budgeting each year, Governors and lawmakers have held down higher-ed funding without apparent awareness of the long-term effect. A little trim here, a little trim there, and pretty soon you’ve got a buzzcut.

Expediency is also obvious in the disparity between in-state and out-of-state tuition. I checked a few other states, and Vermont’s proportions aren’t that unusual — it’s common for public institutions to charge out-of-state students double or even triple the rates for in-staters. The difference with Vermont is that both rates are so damn high. (The SUNY system charges out-of-staters almost three times as much as New Yorkers; but even so, SUNY’s out-of-state tuition is cheaper than UVM’s in-state tuition.)

Which makes a four-year education unaffordable for many students, which leads to Vermont’s high transfer rate.

Which, obviously, has an effect on our oft-bemoaned “brain drain.” If an out-of-state student starts in Vermont but transfers out before graduating, s/he’d be much less likely to come back to Vermont to pursue a career than the student who stays the course and graduates in Vermont.

But these are tight budget times. Governor Shumlin’s budget proposal would increase higher-ed funding by 1%, which would almost maintain last year’s purchasing power. The Legislature, casting about for solutions that don’t actually, you know, cost any money, has come up with two cups of weak tea: a bill that would reimburse part of a student’s tution if s/he stays in Vermont and pursues a career related to his/her course of study; and the every-popular “set up a study committee” to search for ways to return state funding to 1980 levels.

That’d be a magic trick worthy of Criss Angel, considering our tight budgets, reluctance to increase taxes, and all the other demands on the public purse. I’d fully expect the study committee to labor mightily and come forth with a bunch of recommendations that will mostly sit on a shelf in an attractive binder, gathering dust.

Meanwhile, our economy is paying the price(as are our students) for three decades of short-sightedness on higher education.  

Strategically placed on the Main Street roundabout in Montpelier:

Nice slogan.

Peyton is, as you may know, the only declared candidate for the Republican nomination.

“Paging Heidi Scheuermann. Heidi Scheuermann, please pick up the red courtesy phone.”  

Lotsa buzzing in political circles the past week or so, regarding the possible existence of a “Plan B” on health care reform. A mysterious Plan… from beyond the limits of our galaxy… threatening the American Way of Life™ with its hideously alien ideas… Who Can Stop This Menace From The Stars?…

Er. Ahem. Sorry.

Word of this Plan B came first from VPR’s Pete “Scoop” Hirschfeld, who got hold of a memo written by Ken Thorpe, health care expert for hire, and the Legislature’s chosen consultant at a cool 10 G’s a month (nice work if you can get it) to explore ways to achieve universal coverage in Vermont. Or a reasonable facsimile, anyway.

For those just tuning in, Thorpe is a nationally established expert on health care policy who worked in Vermont several years ago on the creation of Catamount Health. Thorpe’s memo, as reported by Hirschfeld, outlines an idea very different from Governor Shumlin’s vision for single-payer health care:

…it doesn’t create a single, universal insurance plan; and it doesn’t rely on the multi-billion-dollar tax structure Shumlin wants to use to fund his single-payer system.

… The memo details a reform concept that would maintain the premium-based model in place now, and use federal and state subsidies to pay for coverage for uninsured and under-insured Vermonters.

Based on a January report from Hirschfeld, written at the time of Thorpe’s hiring, it looks like the guy is definitely not a fan of single-payer:

Thorpe said that if Vermont can’t reduce the chronic diseases responsible for skyrocketing health care costs, then financing reforms like single-payer aren’t going to solve the problem.

“So at the end of the day, no matter where you want to go in terms of cost containment, if we don’t have a statewide capacity to really prevent the growth in chronic disease and more effectively engage and manage chronically ill patients, the only other option you have for controlling costs is just by slashing payment rates,” Thorpe said.

That’s a pretty stark choice. To judge by this statement, Thorpe sees single-payer as a sideshow. And he views the reform effort as a way to rein in costs, not ensure universal access. Which, y’know, is kinda-sorta the Governor’s primary goal.

I don’t really care whether Thorpe’s memo constitutes a Plan B or not, much as the question seems to fascinate our political media. The question I have is this:

Why did the Legislature hire a single-payer skeptic (if not outright opponent)? Why hire a guy who has one big idea on reform? The qualities you need for this job are (1) expertise and (2) an open mind. Thorpe has the former, but he falls far short of the latter.

Which begs the question: do legislative leaders have an open mind? Or are they searching for a way around the Governor’s commitment to single-payer?  

Last month, Senate Penitent Pro Tem John Campbell rightly received a lot of grief (some from these quarters) for making statements that seemed to throw cold water on single-payer. He told Hirschfeld (that guy again?) that single-payer “may not be… politically viable in this legislative body, due to the costs involved” and that he wants “to make sure that we have a place to go if this doesn’t work out, you know, the single-payer itself.”

In a later interview with WDEV’s Mark Johnson, Campbell appeared to base his definition of single-payer success entirely on cost: If the total cost of single-payer is equal to or less than the total cost of the current system, then he’s fine with it. But if the cost is any higher than that, single-payer is out. (Campbell’s answers were so lengthy, circuitious, and downright obtuse, that it’s difficult to pin down his exact position. Which, I suspect, is exactly what he had in mind.)

Campbell’s statements bear a striking resemblance to the thrust of Thorpe’s memo: cost control first, universal access if we can afford it. Which would seem to indicate a meeting of the minds under the Golden Dome, a common ground at odds with Shumlin’s vision.

Furthermore: Campbell caught heat for his apparent readiness to throw single-payer under the bus, and make cost control his top priority. But the funny thing is, House Speaker Shap Smith said almost exactly the same thing in January when Thorpe was hired:

… Smith said he’ll be looking to Thorpe to determine whether Vermont’s current reform programs are reducing the rate of growth in health care spending fast enough. And if they aren’t, then Smith said lawmakers need to reassess whether single-payer is such a good idea.

“Everybody agrees that we want to make sure that we have quality health care, we’re doing things to bring down the rate of growth for costs,” Smith said. “And if we don’t have those two things, we don’t want to move forward with the single payer.”

Game, set, match: If single-payer is no costlier than the current system, fine. If it’s not, then it’s dead in the Legislature.

Given those statements, the hiring of Thorpe makes all the sense in the world. Top lawmakers have, as Shumlin would say, a laser-like focus on cost.

The problem with this — aside from the ethical and moral issues of universal access — is that the cost savings of single-payer will take time to fully develop. We’ll (hopefully) see an immediate impact in administrative costs, claims processing and paper-shuffling. In ensuing years, we’d see an impact as the system no longer has to bear the costs of care for the uninsured. And, gradually over time, we’d see the biggest impact in a healthier and more financially secure citizenry.

I can make a very strong argument that, even if the immediate cost is a bit higher, the cost curve will bend down significantly in a fairly brief time frame. To me, it looks like Smith and Campbell are evaluating the whole project on the immediate cost. That’s a short-sighted view.

I’m sure that, if you asked Smith or Campbell why they hired Ken Thorpe, they’d say something perfectly reasonable like, “He’s a nationally known expert who’s familiar with Vermont from his work on Catamount.” Sounds like an ideal fit, no?

Well, no. For two reasons. First of all, the situation was very different last time around. Back then, the Dems and Progs were trying to craft a health care reform plan that would do some good for the uninsured, but also pass muster with then-Governor Douglas. There wasn’t a snowball’s chance of passing single-payer at the time, so Thorpe’s position on single-payer didn’t matter.

Second, since his last Green Mountain gig, he’s established a big, well-connected nonprofit organization to promote his health care bugbear: prevention and management of chronic conditions. The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease seems to be a vehicle designed to disseminate the brilliant insights of Ken Thorpe, Ph.D., with a little help from a whole lot of deep-pocketed friends. The PFCD’s 80-member (!) Advisory Board includes a lot of establishment voices from the health care industry and the business community, plus some names less likely to raise liberal hackles, plus a few odds and ends. A sampling:

The Good: Planned Parenthood, the American Academy of Nursing, the National Latina Health Network, American’s Agenda: Health Care For All, the National Patient Advocate Foundation,  and a former head of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

(Physicians for a National Health Program, a doctors’ advocacy group for single-payer, is conspicuous by its absence.)

The Bad: Two top executives from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the Naqtional Pharmaceutical Council, the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Healthcare Leadership Council (“a coalition of chief executives from all disciplines within American healthcare”), at least two Bush Administration appointees, healthcare conglomerate UnitedHealth, and the National Retail Federation.

A mixed bag at best. And, even with the presence of some worthy individuals, the PFCD Advisory Board has a decidedly establishment smell to it. Plus, as I said earlier, he obviously views health care reform through this single prism. Given all of that, I question the Legislature’s choice of him as a consultant.

But apparently Shap and Co. are pleased with their man. Thorpe’s $10,000/month contract was originally a four-month deal. But now, Hirschfeld reports…

Smith says the Legislature may decide to extend his contract through the off-session as well.

Which would bring Thorpe’s total remuneration to a cool $120,000. For his inarguable, but clearly biased, expertise on the subject of single-payer health care.

Or should I say, for his help in providing a plausible exit strategy for timorous lawmakers?