( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

Gov. Shumlin recently announced a new poverty reduction initiative. The total new state funding comes to about $2.5 million for homeless shelters, longer term affordable housing solutions, child care subsidies and case management/counseling services for low-income families. Together with federal matching money the total of new spending on anti-poverty programs tops $4 million.

This is a pretty big deal. I cannot recall a time in my almost ten years at Vermont Legal Aid where an initiative like this has been announced before the sitting Governor’s budget address. Having these commitments from the Governor secured in advance starts the conversation with lawmakers about priorities in an entirely different place. It signals an early commitment to anti-poverty programs that work. And, the establishment of a new poverty council signals a new commitment to communication and collaboration with low-income service providers and anti-poverty advocates. That is a welcome development from years past and prior administrations.

It’s also worth noting that many of the initiatives outlined by the Governor were recommendations made to him by an ad hoc coalition of low-income advocates who worked for months on a wide ranging report he requested in advance. Some of the recommendations are also echoed in a months long review of the Reach Up program required by the legislature (in which I also participated).

And, hopefully there will be more to come. Vermont Legal Aid’s poverty law project has created a legislative agenda focused on “Housing, Hunger, and Hard Work”. Many of the “housing” priorities are included in the Governor’s initiative (for example, doubling the Vermont Rental Subsidy program). But we hope lawmakers will respond to other issues we and others are raising as well. For example, holding low-income families harmless from food stamp overpayments that resulted from the state’s errors, not because of any fault of the families. And, making work pay for families on Reach Up by eliminating outdated asset tests and increasing earned income disregards so that work is rewarded, not punished. It would be great incentive if families knew they could keep every dime they earn for a period of time before grant reductions kick in instead of immediately losing support simply because they went to work. Other states are implementing these ideas. Vermont should, too.

The Council members (listed below) represent a wide variety of service providers and advocates well known for vigorous and able representation on behalf of their constituents. The new plan isn’t perfect, but it’s a far cry from no investment at all, or starting the year fighting new cuts to essential programs and services.

Certainly, the budget has yet to be announced and given the early reports of a $70 million deficit there are likely to be budget cuts forthcoming. It remains to be seen how savings will be acheived by the Administration. Certainly where proposed cuts might adversely affect the poorest Vermonters low-income advocates will once again speak out. That’s our job. On the other hand, today we have good news to cheer from the Administration in the form of significant new money for several programs and services many of us have recommended.

Taken together with the Administration’s willingness to listen to advocates over the summer before implementing emergency rules that would have overly restricted access to Vermont’s General Assistance program (which has resulted in the Administration going back to the legislature for more funds for emergency shelter – something the Council members support) these commitments represent real progress for the low-income Vermonters. It’s a good start.

I know I speak for the Council when I say we hope Vermonters will join us in supporting the Governor’s poverty reduction plan – and other initiatives designed to alleviate the symptoms and causes of poverty in Vermont. It’s a worthy effort.

***

Governor’s Council on Pathways Out of Poverty

(alphabetical)

Co-Chairs:

Christopher Curtis, Vermont Legal Aid

Linda Ryan, Samaritan House

Members:

Cary Brown, Vermont Commission on Women

Joshua Davis, Morningside Shelter

Erik Hoekstra, Redstone Commercial Group

Sara Kobylenski, Upper Valley Haven

Karen Lafayette, Vermont Low Income Advocacy Council (VLIAC)

Jan Demers, Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity (CVOEO)

Erhard Mahnke, Vermont Affordable Housing Coalition (VAHC)

Rita Markley, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)

Michael Monte, Champlain Housing Trust

Melinda Moulton

Marissa Parisi, Hunger Free Vermont

Joe Patrissi, Northeast Kingdom Community Action (NEKCA)

Elizabeth Ready, John Graham Shelter

Mark Redmond, Spectrum Youth Services

Sheila Reed, Voices for Vermont’s Children

Auburn Waterson, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence

Richard Williams, Vermont State Housing Authority (VSHA)

Council currently made up of 19 members (30 member maximum).

Gov. Shumlin recently announced a new poverty reduction initiative. The total new state funding comes to about $2.5 million for homeless shelters, longer term affordable housing solutions, child care subsidies and case management/counseling services for low-income families. Together with federal matching money the total of new spending on anti-poverty programs tops $4 million.

This is a pretty big deal. I cannot recall a time in my almost ten years at Vermont Legal Aid where an initiative like this has been announced before the sitting Governor’s budget address. Having these commitments from the Governor secured in advance starts the conversation with lawmakers about priorities in an entirely different place. It signals an early commitment to anti-poverty programs that work. And, the establishment of a new poverty council signals a new commitment to communication and collaboration with low-income service providers and anti-poverty advocates. That is a welcome development from years past and prior administrations.

It’s also worth noting that many of the initiatives outlined by the Governor were recommendations made to him by an ad hoc coalition of low-income advocates who worked for months on a wide ranging report he requested in advance. Some of the recommendations are also echoed in a months long review of the Reach Up program required by the legislature (in which I also participated).

And, hopefully there will be more to come. Vermont Legal Aid’s poverty law project is focused on a legislative agenda we’re calling “Housing, Hunger, and Hard Work”. Many of the “housing” priorities are included in the Governor’s initiative (for example, doubling the Vermont Rental Subsidy program). But we hope lawmakers will respond to other issues we and many others are raising as well. For example, holding low-income families harmless from food stamp overpayments that resulted from the state’s errors, not because of any fault of the families. And, making work pay for families on Reach Up by eliminating outdated asset tests and increasing earned income disregards so that work is rewarded, not punished. It would be great incentive if families knew they could keep every dime they earn for a period of time before grant reductions kick in instead of immediately losing support simply because they went to work. Other states are implementing these ideas. Vermont should, too.

The Council members (listed below) represent a wide variety of service providers and advocates well known for vigorous and able representation on behalf of their constituents. The new plan isn’t perfect, but it’s a far cry from no investment at all, or starting the year fighting new cuts to essential programs and services.

Certainly, the budget has yet to be announced and given the early reports of a $70 million deficit there are likely to be budget cuts forthcoming. It remains to be seen how savings will be acheived by the Administration. Certainly where proposed cuts might adversely affect the poorest Vermonters low-income advocates will once again speak out. That’s our job. On the other hand, today we have good news to cheer from the Administration in the form of significant new money for several programs and services many of us have recommended.

Taken together with the Administration’s willingness to listen to advocates over the summer before implementing emergency rules that would have overly restricted access to Vermont’s General Assistance program (which has resulted in the Administration going back to the legislature for more funds for emergency shelter – something the Council members support) these commitments represent real progress for the low-income Vermonters. It’s a good start.

I know I speak for the Council when I say we hope Vermonters will join us in supporting the Governor’s poverty reduction plan – and other initiatives designed to alleviate the symptoms and causes of poverty in Vermont. It’s a worthy effort.

***

Governor’s Council on Pathways Out of Poverty

(alphabetical)

Co-Chairs:

Christopher Curtis, Vermont Legal Aid

Linda Ryan, Samaritan House

Members:

Cary Brown, Vermont Commission on Women

Joshua Davis, Morningside Shelter

Erik Hoekstra, Redstone Commercial Group

Sara Kobylenski, Upper Valley Haven

Karen Lafayette, Vermont Low Income Advocacy Council (VLIAC)

Jan Demers, Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity (CVOEO)

Erhard Mahnke, Vermont Affordable Housing Coalition (VAHC)

Rita Markley, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)

Michael Monte, Champlain Housing Trust

Melinda Moulton

Marissa Parisi, Hunger Free Vermont

Joe Patrissi, Northeast Kingdom Community Action (NEKCA)

Elizabeth Ready, John Graham Shelter

Mark Redmond, Spectrum Youth Services

Sheila Reed, Voices for Vermont’s Children

Auburn Waterson, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence

Richard Williams, Vermont State Housing Authority (VSHA)

Council currently made up of 19 members (30 member maximum).

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

I was stunned to read the list of Free Press endorsements for Chittenden County Senate. The Free Press predicated its Senate endorsements for Chittenden County on transparency and accountability in government. It went so far to say it is the “number one issue of this campaign.”

Brian Dubie has finally released his so-called “economic plan” after taking the summer off  – he is truly the “invisible man” of Vermont politics (what other politician can you think of who would unveil the centerpiece of their campaign and then give the press 12 minutes to ask questions before bolting without providing any details – maybe in keeping with his latest “marathon” gimmick he could spend 26.2 minutes answering questions next time he calls a press conference). Meanwhile, the Democrats criss-crossed the state, met with voters to hear their concerns, honed their platforms and generally campaigned on ending the Bush-Douglas-Dubie recession through responsible balanced budgeting, comprehensive health care reform, and policies that encourage both employers and workers. Peter Shumlin won the primary fair and square and now the general election race is on.

The contrast between what Peter Shumlin and the Democrats offer and what Dubie is offering could not be more stark. Shumlin and the Democrats will help Vermont weather the Republican Recession by targeting help to Vermont businesses, maintaining essential services, avoiding lay-offs and stabilizing our workforce, while minimizing the harm to the most vulnerable in the budget. Dubie’s plan appears to be a series of slogans and nothing in the way of specifics with respect to what programs and services he will cut after his $250 million tax cut giveaway to the richest Vermonters. He is truly the “invisible man” with an “invisible plan.”

The good news for Peter Shumlin and the Democrats is that this election will be won or lost on the economy. And, they are going to make Dubie own the disastrous economy that he and Jim Douglas’ policies have foisted on Vermonters over the last 8 years. Dubie’s platitudes and unwillingness to disclose specifics on how he would balance the budget show he is not ready for prime-time, and that he has no real solution for what ails our economy. His “proposal” will usher in an era of permanent budget crisis that Vermonters cannot afford. In sum, the Dubie plan is simply “deficits as far as the eye can see.”

Vermonters must ask themselves: did Jim really = Jobs? If so, where are they? Are you better off now than you were 8 years ago? The vast majority of Vermonters are not. Brian Dubie is offering more of the same. We cannot afford the unfulfilled promises of the GOP and Brian Dubie. It’s time to give the Democrats a shot to turn our economy around ensuring Vermont is poised to take advantage of the recovery when it comes.

( – promoted by GMD)

(Crossposted at http://www.mulishbehavior.blog…

Anyone who pays attention to the U.S. Supreme Court knows that for the last generation an epic battle has been taking place over the role of constitutional interpretation. The old Warren Court and its progeny read the Constitution as a competing body of rights and laws that, taken together with specific facts of individual cases gave us a broader understanding of constitutional rights (e.g., a view that “separate” is “not equal” and/or, for example, a “right to privacy”). Conservatives, notably the Federalist Society led by Justice Antonin Scalia, have been trying for years to whittle away at our rights by interpreting the constitution as a “literal” document, something they call “originalism” which would greatly limit the Court’s ability to protect many of the rights and responsibilities many Americans have come to believe are bedrock principles of our jurisprudence.

But even Justices in the middle are pushing back on this excessively narrow and limited view of the Constitution. That is, a limitation on the essential core of “judging.” Most notably recently retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter.

The Washington Post ran a recent opinion column by E.J. Dionne on a speech given by Justice Souter at Harvard University’s commencement ceremony. Souter, was the “quiet” Justice from neighboring New Hampshire, appointed by George H.W. Bush in 1990, who retired in June of 2009. He now continues to serve on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as an active Justice.

The press, rather simplistically, has mistakenly characterized Souter’s remarks as a defense of “judicial activism,” when really it is a repudiation of the judicial activism practiced by those on the right — the theory that the Constitution must be read as a static, literal document, inflexible, inviolate, and irrelevant to our times. In short, Souter’s remarks are a clear refutation of the illogical approach of the Federalist Society and others on the right with respect to constitutional interpretation (what they like to think of as “originalism” or the philosophy that we can (and must) resolve all of modern society’s legal conundrums by a strict “fair reading” (Souter’s words) of the Constitution).

Souter’s point is that the Constitution sets out many general legal and moral principles that are frequently in conflict with one another (e.g., “liberty” vs. “security” and/or “equality”) thereby precluding a simple literal reading. Rather, judges are required to weigh these principles against one another in the context of the facts of a given case and contemporary legal, moral, and ethical norms. That is, taking into account our societal values, not as a determinative factor, but perhaps as context for a decision based on the law, but also not so disconnected from the reality of society that you couldn’t have, for example, a decision like Brown v. Board of Education, which would not have been possible from an originalist perspective. Does that mean, according to Justice Scalia, the Federalist Society (and others) that Brown should be overruled? It is troubling that this is the logical extension of originalist theory in the context of important decisions like Brown.

In fact, the “originalist” philosophy, far from being a mainstream judicial philosophy, is more akin to the views espoused by people like Rand (and Ron, for that matter) Paul and the Tea Party Movement. Paul, who recently won a primary contest in Kentucky for a U.S. Senate seat flatly stated that the federal government had no business ending segregation at lunch counters and other private establishments serving the public through the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

( – promoted by GMD)

Interesting Mark Johnson show today. Mark interviewed both Geoff Norman, Editor of Vermont Tiger, and economist Art Woolf. First, Mr. Norman talked a lot about economic growth… but not wind power development. He didn’t want to spoil his view. Even though it would create jobs, new tax revenue, and, well, economic growth (not to mention a long-term, sustainable source of renewable/carbon-free energy). But, he does support installing new cell phone towers so he and his vacationing friends from New York can have cell phone service. Hmmm. So much for the NIMBY argument.

Equally interesting was the discussion with Art Woolf who said that gas taxes should be raised to pay for our roads and bridges. And, he said that he would favor eliminating the VEGI program which hands out taxpayer dollars to private businesses who promise to expand or create new jobs in Vermont (the trade-off, he said is that instead Vermont should reduce the corporate income tax). Still, it’s nice to see at least one of the folks at Vermont Tiger finally talking about new revenues, public investment, and ending corporate welfare. I’m sure it won’t take long to back track and/or explain away these statements.

Finally, I noted with some interest the session at the Vermont Tiger conference led by Tom Evslin. Mr. Evslin’s session is called “What the stimulus giveth, Challenges taketh away.” This is a shocking admission from the Governor’s point person on stimulus money and Challenges for Change. It is a clear signal that the Administration recognizes that its efforts are at best counter-cyclical and worse, may be counterproductive in terms of emerging from the recession.

It calls into question the Douglas/Dubie team’s obsession with budget-cutting. Instead of enhancing efforts to stimulate the Vermont economy and ensuring a permanent budget solution using new revenue, the Administration’s constant cut-backs are jeopardizing public investments. Vermont is facing the possibility of a $120 million budget deficit next year and there has been next to no real discussion of making the necessary adjustments to find the revenue to deal with it. If Vermont leaders fail to design a balanced approach to Vermont’s budget woes it will mean ushering in an era of near-permanent budget crisis which will lead to even more draconian cuts to essential programs and services.  The result of focusing solely on budget cuts is that we are left fighting this recession with one policy arm tied behind our backs, and with reduced ability to seize economic opportunities when they arise as we emerge from the recession. It’s worth noting that most other states are raising the revenue they need, so they will be better positioned to rebound faster than Vermont.

This kind of flip characterization is really stunning, especially in light of the fact that we are not supposed to “take away” from the impact of the stimulus package… that is precisely why much of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) money came with strict rules attached that said states must show “maintenance of effort” rather than cutting back on programs when the federal funds came in. While Vermont presumably complied with those requirements where specified, if the cumulative effect of the budget cuts reduces Vermont’s ability to maintain effort across state government in a variety of related essential programs and services does that not compromise the rationale for why those requirements were imposed in the first place?  

Don’t know if anyone noticed the (albeit small) presser presented by small businesses against any revenue proposals to solve the budget crisis. But, it’s hard to take the so-called representatives of small businesses seriously when the spokespersons speaking against a tiny income tax increase (about 50 cents per month to the average Vermont taxpayer) are giving hundreds and thousands of dollars to Jim Douglas and the Republican Party.

A cursory search of the Secretary of State campaign finance disclosure reports showed:

Bart Frisbie gave at least $3,250 in contributions to the Governor alone.

Blair Enman and/or Enman Engineering gave at least $200 to Gov. Douglas

Rene Laberge gave at least $200 to Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie.

Shawn Shouldice Banfield (the lobbyist/organizer behind the news conference) personally gave at least $400 to Lt. Gov. Dubie.

Amanda Ibey’s PAC, HOME PAC gave $300 to “Friends of the Republican Party” and at least $1000 to Gov. Douglas

William Driscoll’s group, Associated Industries of Vermont gave at least $1000 to Friends of the Republican Party

Nobody would ever suggest that these folks don’t have a right to contribute to whoever they wish. But, it is disingenuous at best to suggest they cannot afford a very modest income tax increase when these folks are literally giving away hundreds and thousands of dollars to their conservative friends at the highest levels of state government. Something doesn’t add up.

When most people understand they could save hundreds of jobs, preserve essential services and institutions, avoid a massive cost-shift onto their local community (and avoid a worsening of the recession for that matter) by contributing a dollar here and there, they overwhelmingly support a small tax increase, or a tax increase on those with the greatest ability to pay.

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

The Save Our State coalition of citizens and advocates is hosting a Tax Day Filing Event to show that Vermonters support raising taxes rather than making serious cuts to human services and other essential programs and state institutions.

You can join the Save Our State effort by showing up at the Tax Department help window on Wednesday, April 15th at 10am (more details below).

More below the fold, and check out:

Friends,

VPR is reporting that Vermont State Treasurer Jeb Spaulding is recommending immediate investment in Vermont’s roads and bridges… real economic stimulus that would help keep Vermonters working, create demand for goods and materials, and repair our broken transportation system. Oh, yeah, and it’s paid for!

For years Jim Douglas has failed do anything about our ailing infrastructure and instead simply puts a band-aid over the problem. Our bridges are falling down, our roads are pockmarked and crumbling. Yet, the Governor does nothing. Why? Well, making those repairs costs money.

Jeb’s plan sounds great, right? Fix our roads and bridges and provide jobs for working Vermonters. So, what’s the catch? The catch, is how you pay for it. Treasurer Spaulding has suggested a 5-cent per gallon increase in the gas tax to bring in about $20 million annually. The total cost of repairs is closer to $120 million or more, so the state could get all the money up-front by bonding it and using the tax to pay it back over time. Then, the state could either retire the tax after about six years, or continue it to pay for other needed infrastructure improvements. Typically, Jim Douglas is going into political pounce mode and is likely to declare this “high taxes” that Vermonters cannot afford.

But is that really true? First of all, gas prices have dropped dramatically over the last few months. We were paying $4 and more per gallon. Gas is now about half that (I’ve seen it for $2.19. A nickel increase would only raise it to $2.24. Now obviously, gas prices are volatile and the cost will likely continue to go up and down for awhile. Still, why not take advantage of the opportunity while prices are low? In the meantime, we’re facing a terrible recession and Vermonters need the work. And, they really need good roads and bridges to support people getting to work, our tourism trade, the distribution of goods and services and to save the wear and tear on our vehicles.

Second, pumping money into the economy that goes directly into creating demand for construction materials and that creates jobs is classic economic stimulus – precisely the kind that may create more economic opportunity than it costs. People use their paychecks (which is taxable income) to buy goods and services locally, which in turn puts money in the pockets of local shopkeepers, etc. and adds to the total gross receipts for the state. This is exactly the kind of activity we should be encouraging right now.

Finally, here is someone with a plan. An actual honest-to-goodness plan(!) to not only fix our infrastructure, but to invest in our communities and our people and actually do something about the economy. We’re still waiting for Jim Douglas’ plan. Unfortunately, a plan does not appear to be forthcoming. The Gov’s position appears to be that we cannot afford to do anything, so the only thing to do is cut the budget, cut services to low-income people who need them now more than ever. It’s hard to know if that is part of an actual strategy, or if it is simply the political equivalent of pulling the covers up over your head and hoping these problems will just go away. But, a plan it is not.

The Governor and the legislature should consider Treasurer Spaulding’s plan carefully. Vermonters should get behind this. It is time to do something about our economic situation. This is a worthy plan.

Crossposted at http://mulishbehavior.blogspot…

(crossposted at http://mulishbehavior.blogspot…

That’s what today is shaping up to be: a landslide.

I know, I know… don’t jinx it.

I don’t believe in jinxes.

I do believe in organization. I believe in message discipline. I believe in voter turnout. I believe in tens of thousands turning out for rallies for change. I believe in polls that underrepresent first-time voters and voters who no longer have landlines. And, I believe in the electoral college tilting inexorably in favor of Barack Obama and the states for Democrats generally.

So, put your money where your mouth is, and have a little election day fun. Predictions?

Popular vote: Obama – 54%; McCain – 46%.

Electoral college?

Obama: 352 (ME, VT, NH, NY, MA, RI, DE, CT, MD, NJ, DC, PA, MI, OH, VA, IL, FL, WI, IA, MN, MT, CO, NM, NV, CA, OR, WA, HI).

McCain: 186 (AK, ID, UT, WY, SD, ND, AZ, NE, MO, KS, OK, TX, AR, LA, MS, AL, GA, NC, TN, KY, WV, SC, IN).

Dems end up with 58 seats in the Senate (gain of 9 seats); 259 seats in the House (gain of 26 seats).

Oh, and one last prediction: The first state called for Obama after the polls close? Vermont… at 7:04 p.m. EST.

You heard it here first. Somebody will be eating crow on Wednesday (hopefully not me).

See how your predictions stack up against the pros and pundits at the Washington Post. Just click here and you can check out all their numbers on the key races tonight. Interestingly my prediction on the electoral college math matches up most closely with Ed Rollins (big GOP advisor) and Eleanor Clift (liberal-lefty from Newsweek and McLaughlin Group). My Senate/House picks coincided with Juan Williams of NPR and Bill Maher of whatever it is he does (HBO? Smarminess?). Hmmm. What does it all mean?!