( – promoted by odum)

The BFP is running a piece on Vermont's victory in the lawsuit brought by many of the big automakers regarding the regulation of greenhouse emissions.  I am no lawyer, but the judge's opinion sounds pretty definitive.

The automakers were trying to do an end-run around California by suing us because we can't afford the army of lawyers that California can.  My hope is that this ruling will prompt the automakers to bow to the inevitable and support strong federal controls on automotive GHG emissions. Ok, maybe not…. Still, I think this is a good day for all of us and a step in the right direction.

Today Chris Dodd became the next Democratic candidate to unveil a detailed health care plan.   Basically, he wants to combine the existing Medicare/Medicaid system with a supercharged version of the Federal Employees program.

Of the proposals I've seen thus far, this strikes me as the most doable.  Single Payer is never gonna work in this country and, anyway the insurance companies will fight it to the death.  Instead, this model creates a marketplace to compete and also gives consumers choice.

I also really like the fact that it separates coverage from employment.  Having a good job is a silly criteria for having access to good insurance, so the two elements should be de-linked, 

There are, however, a couple of things that need to be clarified:

Employers pay based on ability to pay… How is this determined? Size, profits?

I am skeptical of anyone who says this can be paid for out of efficency gains.  

( – promoted by odum)

<><>Has anyone by chance seen the article about the Dyncorp merc in Free Press (I can't get the weblink to function, but it on the front page of the website)?   It is appalling that the paper treats the guy like a human interest story and fails to raise a single point about the implications of what this guy was up to. 

<>A few years back (shortly after 9/11) a friend was working on her thesis for her grad degree.  She was, at the time, the CFO of one of the largest private security firms in the world – Group 4/Falck.  Her thesis was on the privatization of military and intel capablity and its negative implications for US foreign policy and civil liberties (quite a stand given where she was sitting at the time – no wonder she was later fired).  At the time, I thought she raised an interesting point, but a bit overblown.

<>I didn't realize how prescient she was until a few years later I was sitting at Dubai airport waiting to catch a rickety Ariana 727 for Kabul.  Instead of the usual NGO – humanitarian types waiting at the gate, most of the passengers were clearly ex-military.  Past their prime, but still sporting tight white wall hair cuts, tucked in polo shirts and Wrangler jeans.  On the flight to Kabul I struck up a conversation with one of these guys and he told me a story very similar to the Freep article.

<>When I got to Kabul, I was stunned at the omnipresence of the private security firms.  The US embassy is not guarded by Marines, but by contractors – consisting primarily of Nepalese Ghurkas and South African supervisors.    Even most of the NGOs  operating there are forced to hire these firms.  While I was in Kabul, the Dyncorp office was blown up by a warlord (whose kid was ran over by a Dyncorp convoy, so I suppose he had a beef).  

Anyway, I digress.  The point I am trying to make is that one of the greatest worries I have about the Bush era is the privatization of military force and intel capability because it will be very hard to ween these companies off of their fat contracts.  Unlike the traditional defense contractors (Boeing, Lockheed Martin) which can thrive in peacetime (provided there is a threat justifying huge expenditures) – these guys need active conflicts to make money.  Do we expect Dyncorp and Blackwater to simply give up their contracts and go home when the war in Iraq ends?  How do we turn these swords to plowshares?   

(As usual, SPS writes a great diary that should generate discussion. My own feeling, though, is that we’re past the point where its possible to meet all 3 of his listed conditions for leaving responsibly. – promoted by odum)

June 2007 will likely be seen as the turning point in the Iraq war due to three events that fundamentally alter the political calculus surrounding the conflict:

1) The destruction of the Shiite Shrine in Samarra ended any real hope of reconciliation between Sunni and Shia in Iraq in the near term.  The mosque is the equivalent of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre or the Wailing wall for shia.  

2) The utter collapse of the Palestinian Authority.  Why is this important?  There was always a chance that  the Iraq conflict could be addressed through a regional solution that would give Palestine final status (and Golan back to Syria) in turn for regional support of US aims in Iraq.  Now, there is no one to discuss final status with on the Palestinian side.

3) Sen Lugar's speech on the Senate floor on Monday.  Lugar is the elder statesman in the GOP on foreign affairs.  His breaking with the White House will provide cover for moderate GOP republicans to split as well.  I suspect some time after labor day at least one or more of the Prez candidates will break with Bush as well.    

Taken as a whole these three events make the status quo in Iraq completely unteneable, both domestically and internationally.  For the peace movement, I think the last point is especially crucial.  The sustained pressure has had a major impact on domestic thinking.

Sadly, I think we are reaching Act III in a five-act Shakespearean tragedy.  We still have to figure a way to end the war in a way that prevents three things:

1) Genocide.

2) Safe haven for Al-qaeda or other terrorist groups

3) regional war (Iran, Turkey, Saudi, Syria etc) .

Not exactly lofty idealistic goals, but important ones.  As we continue to oppose the war, we should all be keeping an eye on those three points.  We need to end the war responsibly.

( – promoted by odum)

If we want to salvage anything out of this super-majority in the legislature before Nov 08, Democrats need to focus on a few core state-level issues.  Impeachment and climate change are important topics, but the Vermont legislature has no real influence over either.  I know this is not a popular view on this blog… 

The democratic leadership needs to come up with a bold approach to the 900 lb gorilla in the room: how we fund our schools in this state.  By bold, I mean we need to address both how we fund education and the underlying cost structure (why costs are rising).

On the how, I personally support the idea of switching education over to an income tax.  It is fair and inherently progressive.  My guess is a 2-2.5% income tax ought to do it (I haven’t run the numbers, but this sounds about right).

The downside to an income tax is that it will, inevitably, take away local control because the state will have to gather the tax and disburse funds.  Still, on balance, it seems more fair than all these games of penalties and shifting money around via property taxes.

On the cost structure side, there have been some tentative moves towards consolidation, but we need to move much more aggressively to rationalize district management.  In russia (hardly a model, but look at all their nobel prizes…), they faced the same problem on a huge scale.  Declining enrollments, tiny schools and large, duplicative overhead.  There, the federal government simply established a formula for district composition and allowed communities to sort things out themselves.  It was a bit heavy handed and the transition was not easy, but I have seen the results: rural schools are showing signs of improvement.  I am not advocating this approach for Vermont, but I think the outcome demonstrates the value of consolidation: it focuses more resources on kids, less on overhead. 

Special education is another tricky question.  My son is in Kindergarten here in Essex and I was simply blown away to learn the resources we are spending on special ed. It is very, very heartening, but it is also eating a huge amount of the budget.  Essex is a big district, so we have a fair amount of resources.  This question is much more difficult for small districts.  I am not education specialist so I don’t have a lot of ideas on this front, but welcome thoughts from those who are.

Health care and pension costs for educators is another issue, but those merit separate diaries.

It is quite possible that none of the above ideas are the best solution, but I think the important thing is that we Dems come up with a bold plan on education funding and use the next session to put it into law.

The Vermont Senate narrowly passed a bill put forward by President Shumlin that will tax profits from Vermont Yankee to pay for energy efficiency projects.  Shumlin proposed this after the fuel oil surcharge went down in flames.

Vermont claims to take climate change seriously.  Yet, we are going to put an additional tax on one of the few large-scale sources of carbonless energy available to the state to pay for energy efficiency? How does this make sense? 

I came around to nuclear power when the former head of greenpeace made the very compelling argument that it is the only reliable source of large-scale power generation that is carbon free (at least for the next few decades).  It definitely has its downsides, but it seems to me that nuclear is part of the climate change solution. 

Another issue is why we Democrats in this state see additional taxes as our only policy tool in the toolbox?  There are a lot of other ways we can promote energy efficiency w/o taxing the crap out of everything.  For example, why not simply eliminate the sales tax on energy star appliances and compact flourscent bulbs?  That, along with the existing rebate (offered through efficiency vermont) would be a great incentive for contractors and consumers alike.  Retailers would also support it because it would steal some of NH’s thunder on major purchases.
 

Thought I’d post on something other than impeachment.

This morning’s WaPo reports that Randall Tobias, the Director of US Foreign Assistance, resigned yesterday after allegations that he used an escort service for sex.  TPM has some coverage as well.

As someone who works in international development, I am having a hard time deciding whether to laugh or cry at this farce.  For years, the Bush administration has been preaching a policy in developing countries called ABCs, where ‘A’ stands for abstinence, ‘B’ stands for Be Faithful, ‘C’ stands for condoms.  That might be a policy for Dobson’s Focus on the Family, but it is a bit trickier in developing countries where HIV is frequently spread by commercial sex workers.  As a result of the ABC policy it has become very hard for family planning NGOs to promote safe sex practices with USG funds. 

One wonders if Tobias at least remembered the ‘C’ part….

Also, the Wolfowitz scandal at the Bank continues…  He gave his girl friend a 60k raise (tax free) to be seconded to the State Department where she was trying to launch the Foundation for the Future – an Orwellian nightmare designed to promote democracy in the Middle East. 

As if we needed to give our critics more ammunition about America’s moral hypocrisy….

( – promoted by odum)

This is my first attempt at a diary, so forgive me if I commit some blogging faux pas…

On Thursday night, I attended an ‘Affordability Agenda’ meeting with Gov. Douglas here in Essex.  The meeting was interesting not so much for what the governor had to say (almost nothing of substance), but how he positions himself vis a vis the Democratic legislature.  To hear Douglas tell it, he is the last bulwark preventing the Democrats from taxing/regulating everything to death.

Now Essex is pretty conservative by VT standards, but it was striking to me how people really buy into the Douglas narrative.  Douglas offers no new idea, but rather positions himself as the voice of reason.  It is extremely effective – because it appeals to that ‘in the ballot’ booth moment of truth when voters get nervous about their pocketbooks.

Scudder Parker was blown out of the water largely due to this narrative and we will get our hats handed to us again if we don’t come up with an antidote.

I think the antidote should be comprised of three components:

1) The Dem platform should make reform of education financing its #1 agenda item with the stated goal of reducing spending and adopting a progressive (read not property taxes) strategy to finance the bulk of education needs.

2) Adopt some sort of economic development strategy.  Hell, anything would be better that what is on the table now.  The Next Generation Commission report is a disaster.  Douglas’ half-assed Green Valley initiative is a joke.  The state needs to get serious about building new industries that create high value jobs.  Those high value jobs can provide the base to support local agriculture and other sectors we consider vital to the Vermont way of life.  The renewables industry train has pretty much left the station (Oregon and Washington state are CRUSHING us), but we might be able to catch up if we get serious.

3) Recruit candidates for the governorship from outside the legislature, who can speak to the above points (along with other Dem priorities on environment, health care etc) with credibility. 

I realize the above points may not be terribly popular in this forum, but I raise them now because I think we should think carefully about how to position the party in 08. 

I am going out of town this weekend, but will do my best to reply from the road….