Now, yes, I know, there's still a lot of corporate-friendly types in the Obama administration, as well a a heckuva lot of rich people in there, so I'm not being naive. And of course, there's a big difference between saying and actually doing. We well know Obama has no shortage of lofty rhetoric. Some people dig it and swoon, some people see it for what it is, and some people think it's a complete crock. But that's not what this about.

As one who's had to listen to the supply-side b.s. since I can remember, I'm detecting a whiff of change here… in the conventional wisdom, that is. As been repeated many times elsewhere, there were many things in the inaugural speech that said, in no uncertain terms, that Reaganism is finally dead, or at the very least, should be on death watch, as the “cut taxes/spending, no matter what” nonsense that's driven the country to the edge of ruin has finally exposed itself to the broader public for what it really is.

We have recent Krugman:

Old-fashioned voodoo economics — the belief in tax-cut magic — has been banished from civilized discourse. The supply-side cult has shrunk to the point that it contains only cranks, charlatans, and Republicans.

Of course, Krugman is saying this in the context of the new “voodoo”, i.e. just throw money at everything, but his point stands. And Pelosi (I know, for whatever her word is worth) is pushing for a repeal of the Bush tax cuts now.

Now, once again, I'm putting this out there to talk about the conventional wisdom may be changing to… how “mainstream thought” (whatever that is) may be changing, not necessarily what the pols will do. Is it changing?

Sometimes the squeaky wheel gets the grease (via TPM).  Apparently, the caption under the official Bush portrait to be displayed at the Smithsonian said the following, that Bush's term was:

marked by “the attacks on September 11, 2001, that led to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Sanders fired off a letter to Martin Sullivan, director of the National Portrait Gallery in Washington:

When President Bush and Vice President Cheney misled our country into the war in Iraq, they certainly cited the attacks on September 11, along with the equally specious claim that Iraq possessed vast arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. The notion, however, that 9/11 and Iraq were linked, or that one “led to” the other, has been widely and authoritatively debunked … Might I suggest that a reconsideration of the explanatory text next to the portrait of President Bush is in order[?]

Sullivan's reply? They're removing the words “led to” and revising the statement for accuracy. Nice job, Bernie.

If you could write the caption under the portrait, what would you have it say?

I recently got word from some mumblings in the statehouse that the pave-the-state forces will be going full on this session, and lo and behold, what's in today's Argus/Herald? Act 250 reform also a target:

Governor James Douglas ensured yet another session-long debate over permit reform Thursday when he blamed Act 250 for impeding economic growth in the state.

Job creation and economic development were keystones last summer and fall in Douglas' re-election campaign. Delivering on promises to reduce unemployment, increase stagnant wages and bolster corporate revenues, Douglas said Thursday, will require wholesale changes to the state's sweeping land-use and development law.

“The current system remains a labyrinth, fraught with unpredictability, which threatens job creation for years ahead – unless we are prepared to make substantive changes that will modernize the system,” Douglas said of Act 250 in his inaugural address.

Douglas' proposal seeks not only to expedite Act 250 proceedings but to fundamentally alter the criteria on which applications are judged. Rather than considering development proposals on their environmental impacts alone, Douglas wants the system to take into account their potential economic and social benefits as well.

Republicans… you can always count on 'em to exploit a crisis to do everything they can to manufacture a reason to undo good things, especially environmental protection. Like so much else they believe, it's a bunch of faith-based fiction. More below the jump.

There is so much wrong with all of this, where do we begin? There's arbitrary magical numbers, former development lobbyists getting cushy jobs in the administration, and outright lies.

Let's start with the numbers. It's often said that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes accepted as a truthful conventional wisdom (it certainly worked for Bush for a long time). And for those of us paying attention, we always hear from the VT GOP that Act 250 keeps away business, just like our tax rates make rich people leave the state (Jon Margolis has a lot on that “rich people leaving” nonsense here).

They repeat the lie often enough, and the lapdog press for the most part repeats it, ad nauseum, unquestioned. Just look at this nonsense:

Kevin Dorn, secretary of the agency of commerce and Community Development, said it's impossible to quantify the downward pressure Act 250 imposes on new development. He said though that a “mountain of anecdotal evidence” suggests would-be entrepreneurs are forgoing business plans for fear of getting entangled in Act 250 red tape.

“The labyrinth is there, and it's daunting to get through,” Dorn said. “… We have story after story of businesses or individuals saying it's just not worth it.”

So, in one sentence we have “it's impossible to quantify” and right afterwards, there's “plenty of anecdotal evidence”, which says to me he's pulling these imaginary numbers out of the darkness of his hindquarters. “Some people say” is not the same as “actual numbers”. 

Now, putting aside for a minute the fact that the few people who have been denied permits are expectedly going to bitch and whine about it, let's look at some numbers. Real numbers, not mythical, made-up ones from the Republican stratosphere. As the article briefly mentions, Jake Brown from the VNRC pointed out that the actual amount of permits denied is exceptionally low. I've got those numbers sitting in front of me, from the state's own Vermont Natural Resources Board Report from 2007 (which, apparently, Douglas couldn't bother to read, as it was probably in his wastebasket), and they pretty much knock dead this idea that Act 250 is a long, drawn-out process that denies a lot of development.

For 2007:

Number of applications: 428.

Number denied: four (0.9 percent)

Percent of Act 250 applications processed as minors or administrative amendments (no public hearing unless required): 83 percent

Median processing time at District Commission level: 35 days.

Percentage of permits issued w/in 60 days: 65 percent

Percentage issued within 120 days: 81 percent.

Estimated percent of Act 250 decisions appealed to the Environmental Court: 1-2 percent

Estimated 60 percent of all development in the state does not fall under Act 250.

So, of the 428 permits applied for, a whopping four (0.9 percent) were denied. Can you smell it? It's pretty thick. As to the “lengthy, drawn out process”, a full 81 percent were issued within 120 days, 65 percent within 60 days. The way Douglas and his toadies put it, you'd think people were waiting 4 years to get a permit. Pfft. And what's even more illustrative of the amount of bullshit Douglas is spewing, his very own words at his presser this morning likened the permitting process as a “culture of no”!  A 99.1 percent approval rate in 2007 sounds much more like a “culture of yes”. But godless forbid if a reporter actually calls him on that fact.

What's more, often the rejected permittees alter their plans, and end up geting approved in many cases. I believe Okemo had wanted to put some new ski trails in an environmentally sensitive area a few years back… the permit was denied, they made some alterations, got their ski trails and we got the environmental protection. Sounds like win-win. What's more, it sounds like Jim Douglas is outright lying, and hoping you won't notice. Or perhaps that you're just too lazy to connect the dots.

As Douglas would have it, “economic and social consideratons” would get more weight, which sounds like if he's told it would create jobs, that should be good enough- the hell with endangered wildlife habitat and the like, those bears can just apply for all of those new jobs it will create. And those ursine slackers better not even think of applying for social services, as those are on the chopping block, as well.

To get all meta for a second here, a major problem with our culture is that when economics and environment clash, the economics win out more than not. What's so great about Act 250 is it levels increases the odds in favor of the environment, a rarity in our modern, make-money-at-all costs society. It needs to stay the way it is. To add insult to injury, Douglas throws in the whole “more self-regulating” nonsense that the GOP loves so much and almost always never works. C'mon, Jim, if you're going to wage war on the environment, could you at least be a bit more original about it? People that hate government should not be running things.

There are two other things that need mentioning here. Douglas often seems to be critical of the Agency of Natural Resources. Perhaps, like when he ignored the global warming advice of his own comission last year, he doesn't realize that it's an entity under his watch? Howzabout streamlining the management process over at ANR? Or is that not sensationalist enough?

Lastly, the cronyism in the Douglas administration is really getting out of hand, it's so Bushlike, and relevant to the issue at hand. Just look at the recent appointment of Tayt Brooks to the head of the housing section of the Agency of Commerce and Community Development. Before June, Brooks was the lobbyist for the Homebuilders & Remodelers Association – their PAC arm, HomePAC, is a regular Douglas/GOP contributor. If you've got the patience to go through campaign finance reports here, here, here and here, you'll see that Douglas and the GOP gets a huge amount of money from them and other similar interests. And now the former head lobbyist has a cushy spot in the Douglas administration. Ve-eee-ry interesting. Methinks it's money well spent, as not only does one of their own have a nice, new job in DouglasCo, but they're getting Jim to renew his assault on their favorite target.

This session, I suspect, is going to be a heated, tumuluous one. The economy is in the tank, and Douglas, confident from his electoral victory (perhaps, with a sense that next time might not be so easy) sees this whole mess as something to exploit to the advantage of his business buddies. It's time to put the brakes on this, starting now. I'll be following up on this as it develops.

Many of you are well aware of the notion of “corporate personhood”, namely the idea that corporations have the same rights as us lowly humans. Unfortunately, unlike us peoplefolk, they're not subject to the death penalty, and can live much longer than us people , too. They have the rights, but not the responsibilities. Must be nice, eh?

The real injustice about corporate personhood is it's based on a legal misinterpretation of an 1886 Supreme Court Case. It was in the court clerk's headnotes regarding the case, not in the actual ruling. Essentially, it's bunk (lots of history at the wikipedia entry here).

By now, some of you are aware of the Change.org website (not to be confused with change.gov, the Obama transition website). It's a social entrepreneurship venture set up to help organize and raise money for various progressive causes. Their extensive website is set up sort of like a news/blog hybrid. One of their current projects see what new ideas that people would like to see coming from the Obama administration. There's been several rounds of voting, and in the last round, “Ending corporate personhood” is #9. They've got some sort of media blitz planned right before the inauguration to hopefully draw more attention to the top 10 issues. From the site:

On January 16, Change.org and the Case Foundation are co-hosting an event at the National Press Club in Washington, DC to announce the top 10 rated ideas and then launch a national campaign behind each idea and mobilize the collective energy of the millions of members of Change.org, MySpace, and partner organizations to ensure that each winning idea gets the full consideration of the Obama Administration and Members of Congress.

Now, of course, one never really knows what effect these things can have, but if you're interested, you can vote for the “end corporate personhood” here. It can't hurt.

The headline at HuffPo says it all: Leahy Buckles, Will Push Back Holder Hearings. Well, he must have a good reason, right? Try this one on for size:

Nonetheless, in order to accommodate the Republicans members, I am rescheduling the hearing on Mr. Holder for twice that long, until more than six weeks after his official designation. It is disappointing to me that they are insisting that we delay at a time when the nation needs its top law enforcement officer and national security team in place and working.”

Really? Well, it's disappointing to me that you're giving into their insistence, Senator. It's good to know who's really calling the shots here, even with the expanded Dem majority. I could almost envision a Senate with 80 Democrats and they'd still bend over to accomodate the wingnut brigade. As far as setting the tone, here's really what's at stake here:

By moving the hearings back to the 15th, Leahy is taking one Republican argument off the table — the idea that this nomination was somehow being considered in haste. Moreover, if all goes to plan, Holder will be confirmed by the time Obama takes office. But the Vermont Democrat is also signaling that GOP protests, even those driven by the most hyper of partisans (see: Rove), will be considered. He is also offering Republican critics of Holder more time to build their case against the nominee.

Basically, he's telling Republicans that as long as they piss and moan, they will always get what they want. Give them nothing.  You know what to do, folks.

Many of you probably know this symbol…

Could we finally have a new one?

Now, I know there’s some mixed feelings about the “shoe incident”. Iraqis are already calling for the release of the reporter, hailing him as a national hero.

Kestrel has the vid in the sidebar if you haven’t seen it yet. So what is it, people, bold action? Horrible? Best thing since sliced bread or descent into madness? All of the above? Discuss.  

It seems that there's another trial balloon floating out there, this time for Obama's Secretary of Agriculture. The WaPo has a shortlist available now. And of course, some of the selections are rather troubling, even moreso to Vermonters, who value local farms and food. Kos diarist Orangeclouds115 has a good diary about the choices here, but a quick rundown:

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who many of you are familiar with. There's not a lot on her, other than she's a popular governor of a farm state.

Charles Stenholm: a lobbyist for BIG-AG, as wel as the horsemeat industry. Aside from Obama's promise to lessen the influence of lobbyists, this is horrible choice, because the needs of Big Ag are usually in opposition to the needs of local/small farmers. The last thing we need right now is more handouts to Big Ag, and Stenholm had a lot of input on the 2002 farm bill, which had a lot of Big Ag handouts.

Dennis Wolff: the current PA Sec. of Ag, he owns a 600 acre dairy farm,  tried very hard to ban RgB-free labels in PA, which was overturned by Gov. Rendell, has done lip-service for Mosanto front groups, and seems to overall be the last person on earth we need dicatating the farm policies of the nation. There's more on him here.

Two of the above are absolutely horrendous choices. This is one of those times where it's important to spread the word about this, especially if you know any farmers, and be sure to go the the Obama transition website here and let your opinion be known.

This just in… reports are that the Dem caucus has voted to allow Lieberman to keep his Chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee.

The vote was  42-13  to allow Lieberman to keep the chair.

With 55 votes, the new members were obviously all in attendance.

Apparently our two Senators, Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders, spoke out against rewarding Lieberman with a committee chairmanship.

More to follow…

UPDATE: Among the senators, speaking in support of rewarding Senator Lieberman with a Committee Chairmanship bestowed by the Democratic caucus, include: Kerry, Durbin, Ben Cardin, and Tom Udall.

UPDATE 2: Bernie’s comments following the caucus:

“I spoke against the Lieberman motion and voted against it.  For me, the bottom line is that millions of Americans, with unprecedented energy, worked day and night to get Barack Obama elected and to move our country in a very new direction.  I think it’s a slap in the face to these activists that someone who opposed those efforts in a very prominent way is awarded with a major committee.  Having said that, there is an enormous amount of work that is facing the Senate and we all have to move on and work together to address these issues.”

Last week, I mentioned that one of the possible candidates for Secretary of Treasury was the deplorable Larry Summers, who, if you read the post, presents a whole litany of issues, not the least having some rather neanderthal views in regards to gender. Matt Stoller at Open Left started a petition drive to put some pressure on the Obama transition team not to select Summers, and there was considerable pressure from women's groups, as well.

It seems like the pressure is paying off. From Politico:

Intense backlash from women’s groups may have pushed former Clinton Treasury Secretary Larry Summers off the short-list to lead Treasury for President-elect Barack Obama, according to widespread reports circulating in Democratic circles.

The women’s opposition to a possible Summers’ appointment was the explanation some Democratic sources are hearing for why the Obama transition team has crossed Summers off their list. The Obama team doesn’t want to kick off its administration with a controversy nor go head-to-head with an important constituency when there are other qualified candidates, political operatives speculate.

To those who have said that we should just give Obama a break and enjoy the honeymoon, this is proof positive that it's exactly what we shouldn't be doing right now. Good news.