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?  

Here’s something that might make you spill your single-malt. VTDigger and the Castleton Polling Institute have released a new poll on Governor Shumlin’s job performance. And the news ain’t great.

Two years ago, Shumlin had the approval of 65% of respondents; only 23% disapproved of his performance. This time, it’s 49 positive, 40 negative, and the rest “Not Sure/No Opinion.”  

Quite a swing, to be sure. Not enough to sway my belief that Shumlin will easily win re-election, but he might actually have to spend money this time. (And he’s got plenty to spend.)

After reporting the numbers, VTDigger’s Anne Galloway called upon Vermont Pundit Emeritus Eric Davis to divine the entrails. And he let loose with a veritable firehose of speculation, starting with the natural attrition that affects all incumbents, and moving quickly through the Jeremy Dodge land deal, Shumlin’s failure to produce a single-payer health plan, the state of the economy, his support for renewable energy, and his slowness to produce a Lake Champlain cleanup plan.

One of the Rules of Punditry: Give enough answers, you’re sure to hit the right one.

But actually, I think he left out one really big one — maybe the biggest of them all: widespread disaffection with the school-funding system. We saw a lot of it at Town Meeting Day; enough to force the Legislature to cut the proposed state property tax increase from 7% to 4%, and to begin seriously considering reform ideas for the tax or the entire education system.

That’s at the top of the issues affecting Shumlin’s ratings. Here’s the rest of my analysis, for what it’s worth.

After the jump: Eric Davis suffers a bout of Lismamnesia.

The 2012 poll caught the Governor at the best possible time. He had shown great leadership after Tropical Storm Irene. Not that you or I or anyone agrees with everything he did, but he did a lot of stuff and, in the process, looked extremely Gubernatorial. He couldn’t possibly have maintained a nearly 3:1 edge in popularity. So, on top of the incumbent’s natural attrition, add the inevitable deflation of the Irene Effect. That accounts for most of the decline.

After that comes the school-funding situation, still unresolved. I’ve previously wrote that this is by far the best issue for the Republicans this year. Not that it’ll beat Shumlin, but it’s the best weapon they’ve got. Better than health care.

Next is Shumlin’s personality. He’s very self-assured and decisive, but often comes across as arrogant, abrasive, and unwilling to listen or compromise. His style was an asset in responding to a disaster like Irene; it’s less so in “normal” times. (See also: Bush, G.W., and Christie, Chris.)

After that comes the health care combo platter: Memories of the troubled rollout, plus his failure to produce a single-payer plan. These are factors, but not as large as the Pundit Class believes. The further we get into the Age of Obamacare, the dimmer the memories of its early stumbles will become. As for Shumlin missing the deadline for a single-payer financing plan, that’s mostly an inside-baseball thing. It’s causing him trouble in the Legislature, but the vast majority of voters aren’t going to care.

As much as I made hay about the Jeremy Dodge deal at the time, I don’t think it makes a dime’s worth of difference today. Once Shumlin realized the potential harm the deal could do, he acted quickly (and fairly) to end the dispute. It’s way behind us now — except in the memories of those who can’t stand Shumlin anyway.

As for Davis’ other issues — the economy, energy, and Lake Champlain — they are factors, but they’re very low on my list.

But let’s put all of that aside. The truth is, we really don’t know why Shumlin’s poll numbers have dropped. There are two huge problems with the poll:

1. It’s the first in two years. Vermont’s too small to support an ongoing survey operation, so all we get is the very occasional snapshot. This may well be the low point for Shumlin: we’ve just been through the health care rollout and the Town Meeting Day uproar over property taxes, and he has yet to begin campaigning for re-election.

2. As Davis points out, the survey didn’t ask why voters approved or disapproved. Further questioning could have given us a read on whether it was a particular issue, or general perceptions of Shumlin’s character. Do they disagree with him, or do they mistrust him?

All in all, this new poll is the big political story of the day, and I’m sure the Republicans are enjoying a rare good moment. But I don’t think — at all — that it portends doom for Shumlin or the Democrats.

____________________________

Postscript. Near the end of the Digger article, Eric Davis turns his attention to a potential Heidi Scheuermann campaign for Governor. And, just like Terri Hallenbeck, he has a massive blind spot the size and shape of Bruce Lisman. He actually brings up the necessity for Scheuermann to have a deep-pocketed backer — but instead of naming Lisman, he suggests Vermonters First.

I’m amazed that Davis could get this so wrong. Vermonters First isn’t going to lift a finger for Heidi Scheuermann; she represents the Phil Scott wing of the party, which is anathema to the likes of Lenore Broughton. He also suggests the Republican Governors Association as a possible big-dollar supporter — which is also wrong, because the RGA has bigger fish to fry and much better prospects outside of Vermont.

Nope, Scheuermann’s only hope is Bruce Lisman forming a Vermonters First-style SuperPAC. His recent retreat from active leacership in Campaign for Vermont frees him to take such an active, partisan role. Scheuermann is a founding partner in Campaign for Vermont, and she has strongly promoted CFV’s ideas on education and ethics this year. I’m really surprised that Davis failed to see this.  

The April 16 edition of the Burlington Free Press brought us, courtesy of veteran State House scribe Terri Hallenbeck, a lengthy exploration of The Life And Times Of Heidi Scheuermann, Republican state representative and potential candidate for Governor.

Deep depth, I tell ya. Not only did Hallenbeck recount Scheuermann’s emergence as a top Republican critic of the Shumlin Administration, she also explored Scheuermann’s formative years as “a good student, determined athlete and team leader,” her sevice in the Peace Corps, her political resume, and her day job: managing her family’s Ski Town rental properties.  

No stone unturned.

Well, with one little tiny exception: her close political alliance with one Bruce Lisman, founder of Campaign for Vermont and one of the few Vermonters with the resources and willingness to put a whole lot of money into Vermont politics. She has been CFV’s chief legislative water-carrier this session, the group’s first as a State House presence. Lisman’s name does not appear in the article, at all; “Campaign for Vermont” puts in its one and only appearance at the 1550-word mark in this 1923-word epic. And it doesn’t concern CFV’s connection to her political ambitions; it’s about school funding:

As Scheuermann spoke up for repealing the current system, Democrats shot her down for failing to have a replacement plan.

… Scheuermann argues she does have a plan, one that the policy advocacy group Campaign for Vermont adopted and through which she became a founding partner of that group.

In a very long exploration, that’s all Hallenbeck has to say about Scheuermann’s ties to Lisman or Campaign for Vermont. Curious, to say the least.

Because without Lisman’s backing — tacit or overt — it’s hard to see how a state representative with no name recognition outside of Stowe and Montpelier could hope to compete against a popular incumbent with over a million bucks already in his warchest and a clearly superior party organization behind him. She’d also be getting a very late start, almost as late as the then-better-known Gaye Symington in 2008. And we all know how that turned out.    

I have previously put forward the notion that the only way Scheuermann can be competitive — not win, mind you; just avoid embarrassment — is if Lisman pulled a Lenore Broughton: pumping lots of money into a (cough) independent committee to hammer away at the incumbent.

Which makes Hallenbeck’s omission seem doubly curious: how can you assess Scheuermann as a rising politician without considering the primary factor in her rise?

I don’t subscribe to a conspiracy theory on this one. I don’t think Hallenbeck was deliberately obscuring the Lisman connection in furtherance of any stealth political plot on his part. The simpler explanation is the all-too-common myopia of the Political Stenographer’s Class: to see things through the standard prism of the “inside the Beltway” crowd. (There’s no Beltway in Montpelier, but there’s definitely a D.C.-style shared mindset among State House scribes.)

Hallenbeck’s narrative sticks to the two-party system and the palace intrigues of the State House. Her quotes regarding Scheuermann’s political standing are from the Usual Suspects: House Speaker Shap Smith, VTGOP chair David Sunderland, Lt. Gov. Phil Scott.

Her vision was too narrowed to include Bruce Lisman, even though he’s not exactly an unknown, even though my GMD theorizing must have penetrated the Freeploid’s perpetual fogbank, and even though Lenore Broughton provides a perfect, and recent, example of how a wealthy person can lift an obscure candidate into putative relevance.

Despite all that, the limited perspective of the political journalist appears to have triumphed over good sense. As a result, in spite of her otherwise solid work, Hallenbeck’s profile is fatally flawed.  

Ah, springtime. The snow has finally melted — save perhaps in the shaded corners where municipal plows dump their loads — and after a long, hard, seemingly endless winter. the warming temps and lengthening days foreshadow life’s renewal.

Well, except in one particular location, where the springtime is a harbinger of death.

Yep, I’m talkin’ the State House. This is the one location where the dead of winter is a time of newness, creativity, and promise, while spring is The Reaper’s Time: when once-lauded legislation is quietly, ruthlessly dispatched. Usually behind closed doors or in whispered hallway conferences.

Case in point: the bill that would have placed a two-year moratorium on privatizing public schools. It passed the Senate, no problem; it also gained approval by the House Education Committee. But this week, it suddenly up and died.

The question of whether voters should be allowed to “flip” public schools into private entities has churned for months in Vermont. After lengthy debate on the House floor Wednesday, the issue has been tabled.

The bill’s mysterious demise came after Minority Leader Don Turner introduced an amendment that would have removed the moratorium but retained a study of the issue: always a popular alternative to, y’know, doing something.

Usually, Turner’s dutiful rhetorical flourishes go nowhere… but this time:

After a break and several minutes of informal huddles, a motion was made to order the bill “to lie.” It’s a rare move in the House, and most often means legislation gets put on ice and left there to freeze.

Representatives agreed overwhelmingly on a voice vote to shelve S.91.

And just like that, months of legislative debate end with instantaneous death.  

VTDigger’s brief account, quoted above, offered no explanation whatsoever; nor did the Times Argus’ story (hidden, as usual, behind the Mitchell Family Paywall).

Over in the Freeploid, Terri Hallenbeck managed to get this succinct rationale from House Cryptkeeper Shap Smith:  

Smith said of the bill’s future,, “It’s not a top priority of the House.”

Gee, Shap. Thanks for sharing.

To me, the bill itself isn’t that big a deal. But its quick and unexplained demise? I’d think Our Glorious Leaders would feel some responsibility to explain their actions — err, inactions — to the people they supposedly represent.  

Well, well. Earlier this week, the State Senate passed a tax bill including a provision that would impose property taxes on fraternity and sorority houses. The action has sparked a tizzy in Greek circles: We can’t afford it! We’ll have to close our houses! A couple dozen frat boys and sorority sisters descended on a House committee meeting to try to kill the provision.

And, given the predilection of Our Glorious Leaders to run away screaming from any sudden outbreak of controversy, I fully expect that the Greeks will win this one.

My first question upon reading the story was: Wait, so frat houses are tax-free? We’re all helping to subsidize the Greek system?

Yep, we sure are. But as part of a wide-ranging review of tax exemptions, the Senate decided to pull the Greek giveaway. Senate Finance Committee Chair Tim Ashe says it’s a matter of fairness: non-Greek students have to cover the cost of property taxes, and his committee couldn’t come up with a reason to give preference to the Greeks.

But wait, say the brothers and sisters. We are nonprofit organizations that conduct charitable activities and perform thousands of hours of volunteer work every year. We deserve a tax break.

Snort. Yeah, it’s true that the Greeks do some good things. But according to the student life office at UVM, fraternity and sorority members will raise $140,000 for charitable causes this year. That includes the nine with actual houses, plus five others without. And according to Ashe, the estimated annual tax on those nine houses would be about $160,000. Hmm: investing $160,000 to get roughly $90,000 in support for charities? Sounds like a bad deal to me.

And that’s leaving out the other side of the Greek balance sheet: its long and unstoried history of hazing, substance abuse, and sexual assault. Let’s look at the record:  

Earlier this year, UVM fraternity Alpha Epsilon Pi received a five-year suspension over failure to abide by an interim suspension over alleged alcohol and hazing violations last fall. Frat brothers also “refused to cooperate with the police investigation.”  

In 2011, UVM frat Sigma Phi Epsilon was first suspended and later shut down over a survey that

included the question “If [you] could rape someone, who would it be?”

Also that year, four officers of Phi Gamma Delta were fined for violating the state’s anti-hazing law.

Now let’s turn our attention to the Rogues’ Gallery that is the Dartmouth Greek system.

In 2013, Dartmouth suspended Beta Alpha Omega for hazing violations and providing alcohol to underage students.

Also that year, Dartmouth suspended Theta Delta Chi for five violations including alcohol abuse. TDC had been suspended in 2012 for similar violations, and in 2005 for a hazing incident involving a members of a campus sorority.

2013 also saw the infamous “Bloods and Crips Party” thrown by two Greek houses, in which members — predominantly from the cloisters of white privilege — dressed up as inner-city gang members. Hilarious, right?

The year before, an ex-Dartmouth frat brother named Andrew Lohse blew the whistle on hazing rituals that included making pledges “swim through a kiddie pool of vomit, urine, fecal matter, semen and rotten food products; eat omelets made of vomit; chug cups of vinegar, which in one case caused a pledge to vomit blood; drink beer poured down fellow pledges’ ass cracks… among other abuses,” and described a culture of “pervasive hazing, substance abuse and sexual assault.”

After Lohse went public, a former Dartmouth sorority sister wrote an account of her hazing: a night of extreme alcohol consumption that ended with her in the Intensive Care Unit with a blood alcohol level of .399, a nearly fatal dose.

And in case the Greeks among us would shrug off these incidents as aberrations, I direct your attention to Bloomberg News’ devastating series on fraternity abuses including the deaths of more than 60 people since 2005 in incidents linked to fraternities, plus an “epidemic” of injuries, hazings, assaults, sex crimes, and substance abuse that seems to reveal a deeply dysfunctional culture in the entire system.

In light of all this, the question about the Senate-passed bill is not “Why should we force these groups to pay property taxes?” Rather, it is “Why should we subsidize their existence?”

But leading House liberals are already sounding the retreat. The Freeploid quotes the usually reliable Rep. Kesha Ram as urging “a step back” from what she says is the “targeting” of the nine Greek houses. Which ignores Tim Ashe’s sound reasoning. But then, Ram’s district includes many of those houses, so her political antennae are twitching.

There’s also Janet Ancel, chair of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee; she doesn’t want to consider the idea on its merits, but rather “whether we are completely out of the mainstream.” In other words, what do other states do?

That’s my idea of leadership.

Not.  

(Hey, didja miss me? Been gone a couple of weeks. Lots happened while I was out, and I’ll try to catch up as I go along.)

This month has brought us the new, improved Burlington Free Press. Not only are subscribers unwillingly subjected to a section of USA TODAY content, but the Freeploid website has been dumbified in USA TODAY style, banishing serifs, emphasizing pictures and minimizing text, and inducing more page-clicks per visit.

And the rest of the newspaper has been embiggened through the strategic use of generous margins, supersized fonts, and gigantic photos (some by actual photographers, but many shots from other Freeploid staffers or no-cost sources).

Clearly, its new slogan oughta be “The Paper For Folks Who Don’t Like to Read.”

The New Era of Freeploid Stupididity was launched on March 30 with another brimming-over-with-happy column by Jim Fogler, Grand Poobah of FreePressMedia. And as all astute Freeploid readers know, when Jim Fogler writes a column, it’s time to duck and cover.

His column was all about MORE! More national news and other USA TODAY “content.” “More information and more pages” … “as we nearly double the amount of local content.”

Please note that he said “content,” not “news.”

(There was also this subtly alarming sentence that should have Terri Hallenbeck and Nancy Remsen updating their resumes:

See what’s missing? The State House and state politics. The Freeploid has been diminishing state news for quite some time, but here’s Jim Fogler saying it out loud. Heck, I give ’em credit for keeping a two-person State House bureau as long as they have. But if I were Hallenbeck or Remsen, I’d be watching my back.)

To see how this commitment to MORE plays out in print, let’s take a look at a few pages from today’s Freeploid. (I’ve made the images small enough so the text is unreadable. I hope that mollifies the ‘Loid’s aggressive copyright enforcers.)  

Here’s page B1, the front of the Vermont section. (Mistakenly labeled as C1 on the website’s E-newspaper, oopsie.) The cover story is a brief writeup of high water on Lake Champlain, whose text is dwarfed by photos. (The half-page photo, worthy of supersizing or not, is a staple of The New Freeploid’s layout.)

This page contains 148 words of text — but look: thanks to the purty pitchurs, it’s a full page of CONTENT. The story jumps to an interior page, also including gigantic photos and an additional soupçon of text.

And all the photos were taken, not by an actual photographer, but by Freeploid editorial writer Aki Soga. Presumably he sauntered down to the waterfront on his lunch hour and snapped a few shots on his smartphone. Who knew photojournalism was so easy? Take that, Margaret Bourke-White!

Next we have the first page of the sports section, with a timely piece about the Boston Bruins’ quest for the Stanley Cup, which begins tonight. The page is, credit where it’s due, artfully arranged. But it’s one page of “content” that includes a mere 116 words.

Written, not by a Freeploid scribe, but by an Associated Press reporter.

There you go, “readers”: Another page of “content.” I don’t know if this is counted as a page of “local content” even though there’s absolutely nothing local about it, but the Bruins are the home team for most Vermonters. So I suspect that this does qualify as “local” in the minds of Freeploid bean counters.

And now, for your very brief reading pleasure, we present a half-page of “content” containing four stock photos plus an incredible 241 words about selected upcoming events in the Burlington area.

This is the sort of thing that, in a real newspaper, would be accompanied by actually relevant local images. For Record Store Day, maybe a photo of Pure Pop Records or Burlington Records (‘sup, Jacob). For the theatrical production, maybe a shot from a rehearsal. If that’s too much effort for the downsized Freeploid staff, you can usually get decent pix from event organizers or publicists. It’s not hard. But instead, we get uninspired and uninspiring stock photos. Most likely the layout was done in some central office in New Jersey or Mumbai or some other non-Vermont location. Sheesh.

Finally, we have the second Opinion Page. No text at all (except for word balloons and captions), just three shamelessly oversized cartoons. None of them local.

Hey presto! An entire page of “content” with no pesky words to vex the uneducated. And brightly colored cartoons, perfect for attracting the youthful, presumably text-averse audience.  

These pages are all too typical of the new, “improved,” bigger-but-not-better Burlington Free Press. Indeed, there are worse offenses, like half-page blow-ups of photos submitted by readers, and a “food column” consisting of a single paragraph, a recipe, and an oversized photo, and a local-history feature Hamburger Helpered with pix and illustrations.  

I can’t complain too much if the ‘Loid’s subscription rates stay the same. But the Gannett brass has already foreshadowed price hikes to go with the embiggened “content.” Well, Jim, your paper is definitely larger — but it’s not any better. Not at all.

 

Senate Penitent Pro Tem John Campbell’s had a fun week, trying to walk back his unfortunate remarks about the prospects for single-payer health care. Or, should I say, trying to obfuscate his remarks with a blizzard of verbiage which appears designed to include every conceivable position while providing deniability to any position that proves untenable.

For those just joining us, Campbell stepped in it when he told VPR’s Peter “Mr. Microphone” Hirschfeld that single-payer health care “may not be… politically viable in this legislative body, due to the costs involved,” and that he believes it’s time to develop an alternative. Or, as he put it, “I want to make sure that we have a place to go if this doesn’t work out, you know, the single-payer itself.”

Ruh-roh. Governor Shumlin reacted noncommittally in public, but I’ve heard he was privately peeved. And on Friday, Campbell made an appearance on WDEV’s Mark Johnson Show, (audio podcast at link) where Mark attempted to pin him down. It was like grabbing for a greased octopus; Campbell thrashed vigorously this way and that, laying down a thick inky cloud of verbiage in response to Johnson’s every sally.

It was amazing, and not in a good way. After hearing it live, I had no earthly idea what Campbell’s position actually was. And I’m sure that’s exactly what he had in mind.

So I went back and listened again, thanks to Johnson’s podcast archive, and I transcribed a big, bleeding chunk of it. I hoped to achieve some clarity on his position, and I thought it would serve as a cautionary example for future statesmen: please don’t talk like John Campbell.

As for his actual views… when I first listened to the interview, I thought Campbell was backtracking in a purposefully clumsy way: tossing verbal smoke bombs this way and that, covering his retreat. But when I listened again, carefully, I became convinced that Campbell was actually doubling down on his doubts concerning single-payer health care.  

Of course, he laid down such massive clouds of rhetoric that he could probably deny or confirm that he said or didn’t say almost anything. In effect, he said it all, and he said not a damn thing. But I think — and I emphasize here, I think — he gave an extremely conditional endorsement to single-payer: he’s in favor of it, but only if it doesn’t cost a dime more than the current system. He’s willing to shift revenues around, but not to add any new ones.

And he has a very broad definition of success on the health-care reform front. He is not — at all — committed to single-payer health care. He would be happy with any system that provides universal access to health care. Which is a creditable statement in itself; it goes substantially farther than the current round of reform.

But it isn’t necessarily single-payer. And the Governor shouldn’t count on John Campbell as an ally or a Senate vote-herder.

Okay, let’s take a look at what Campbell actually said. Johnson’s first question was, more or less, “You dropped something of a bombshell this week that you want to start pursuing an alternative to the Shumlin health care plan. Why?”

And here, word for dreadful word, is Campbell’s answer. Buckle up, kids.  

First of all, I guess it’s a question of how you define what my “bombshell” is. I think some people have taken it to mean what they really, what they want to hear from what I said. And basically, my, uh, my position is this, is that we are headed right now as far as the Legislature, we are going to be focusing on making sure that we have a publicly-financed, universal access to health care in this state, and that’s known as Green Mountain Care. As far as I’m concerned, I consider it Green Mountain Care, it’s a universal access program. Um, um, I charged my, in fact we spoke about it here on this program at the beginning, I think at the beginning of the session, how I had asked all of my committees with jurisdiction to start doing their due diligence under Act 48, which was the, back in 2011, which actually started Green Mountain Care or our, ah, our, ah, move to that.  And so what I did was, I asked each one of the committees that would have jurisdiction, which were five of those committees, and they were to um look and see what exactly is in Act 48 and can we actually achieve what our goal is?

And if they found things that um, through their, uh, their research and through taking testimony, that could either change this into a direction and put us in a direction that we were going to uh have this Green Mountain Care would be sustainable, then I wanted to hear about it and I thought that’s really what the Senate is doing now. So uh the fact of the matter, uh, I believe there was a statement was, um, regarding the funding, and whether or not I believed that, I think I said that, uh, the $2.2 billion dollar package that’s been put on there right now, I said I do not think that that was sustainable or viable in this, uh, current legislative — uh, Legislature. And I stand by that.

And what it, what I’m talking about in that, and people always take that $2.2 billion dollar figure, and they believe that that’s all new money. And it’s not new money. What it is is partially savings that would be found, uh, by way of not having the premiums, um, by cost savings, and so I stand by the fact is that once we find out what this financing package is, which would also first identify what the product is gonna be, um, if we do not have sufficient — if that money, um, is new money, then there’s gonna be a problem. But if we show, and we’re able to demonstrate that the money in that $2.2 billion is currently already in the system, and that Vermonters are already paying, uh, and on top of that, that we find those costs for any new money that’s — cost savings for any new money that’s coming in, then we’re, we have, I think, ahh, what we envision, all of us envision, that is to make sure that every Vermonter has full access, or access to. uh, uh, to great health care here in the state.

Feeling a little dizzy? Or completely lost?

How I interpreted that: Campbell thinks single-payer is politically feasible “if we show… that the… $2.2 billion is currently already in the system.” Or if the cost turns out to be less than $2.2 billion.

Johnson’s next question reflected the natural befuddlement of someone who just tried to fight his way through Campbell’s wordcloud: “So do you want to create a contingency plan now, or not? I’m not clear.” Campbell:  

I think what we’re doing is, we’re going through and looking out, at for Green Mountain Care. And we’re going to be looking at what the plan is. I, you know, I don’t care if you want to call it the contingency plan or, um, different from what the, ah, the Governor or the Administration envisioned to begin with. Um, I think it’s clear that if you look at from when we began back in 2011 till now, you already have seen some machinations, some changes in what the scope was going to be or how we were going to deal with it.

Uh, to me it’s a constant evolution. This is not a — this is not something that’s been done before, as you know.  So it is new. We are reinventing the wheel, ah if you will. So, ah, it cannot, as far as I’m concerned, it has to always be flexible, it has to be, it cannot be um so stagnant that we are, um, set on one, on one, um, course. We have to, it’s fluid. And that’s the way I want to make sure that we continue to look at it.

What I take from that: Campbell isn’t committed to any single policy or program. I think I can fairly infer that he has doubts about the political viability of single-payer. He’s certainly not personally committed to it, not if it costs any more than our current system.

Back to Johnson: “Have you concluded that the way that the Governor wants to do this can’t work, politically or economically?” Campbell:

No, because the fact is that right now, um, as you know, we have, uh, right now just a, the bottom framework, and that is what, what the goal is. Uhh, the, as you know we did not, um, have not arrived at a financing plan, and that is because I don’t believe that we actually have had, um, the entire. ahh, uhh, you know, definition of what the plan will look like. And that’s really where the key is, and that’s what we’re doing in our Act 252, our, our, the Senate bill that we passed yesterday, um, 252, and that is to set the framework as to looking how we’re going to develop the, the, what the plan is gonna look like itself.

And once you have a definition of what the plan, what we really want to be able to offer to, to Vermonters, uh, taking into consideration all of the individuals that will be in the plan and then, of course, all of them that will not be in the plan, we take a look at that, and we make a determination of what that will cost. And until then, I don’t think anyone can, can sit there and say that this is a grand slam.

Well, I don’t think anyone is claiming that it’ll be a grand slam. But Johnson tries again: “Okay. But on the other hand (sigh) I’m just not really clear here, John, where you’re coming from. Are you saying that while, before you make that determination, whether that’s going to work, that you also, on a parallel period of time here want to develop a contingency plan? Another bill, another system?”  Campbell:

No, ah, Mark, I, I, you know, this is the issue, is, the fact is, the Senate, or the Legislature is the one who is going to come up with the Green Mountain plan. We’re the one that’s going to pass the law to, if we’re going to enact a universal, a publicly-financed system. Um, and right now we have, the Governor has, the Administration has put forth their idea of what they feel would be in the best interests of Vermont, and that would be a single-payer health, publicly financed system. What I’m saying is, while we’re doing our homework, ’cause we’re the ones who are going to have to put it together. We’re gonna be the, the designers, we’re gonna be the mechanics, ah, we’re gonna be, those people who make sure that every screw is tightened and every bolt is riveted down tight. And so we’re the ones who are going to have to determine what that final product is going to look like.

Which would seem to be a very processy way of saying, “The Governor might not get what he wants, and we will have the final say, not him.” But I’m sure Campbell would deny that that’s what he’s saying.

I’m going to skip the next question and answer, and move on to my final excerpt.

Johnson: “So are you looking more at how — you’re not challenging the goal, but you’re looking more at how you make the money work, how you put that together?”

Exactly. Exactly. The goal, the goal has been the same. Um, now, you know some people call it single-payer, I call it Green Mountain Care. I call it universal access. Um, I think if you look at the pure term of, of single-payer, it’s, it’s something that that’s where I might have a divergence. Maybe that’s because of the fact that in my profession as an attorney I’m, you know, words mean things, um, and I want to make sure that we are, uh, when I say something, I, I’m talking about, uh, the system, what I consider to be, you know, Green Mountain Care, publicly-financed insurance, health care coverage for all.

And there you pretty much have confirmation of Campbell’s words to Hirschfeld. He is not committed to single-payer. He is committed to universal access, which is certainly creditable; he wants universal access, which is a big step beyond Obamacare. But Campbell is holding back from any endorsement of single-payer; to him, it’s whatever keeps costs down and accomplishes the goal, even if it’s some sort of tweak of Vermont Health Connect.    

Finally, I’ll point out a great moment of irony: “In my profession as an attorney… words mean things.” Bwahahahahaha. Words have rarely seemed less meaningful than in this interview.  

Republicans know they’ve got to do a better job of “wooing” female voters. Their prescription, of course, is completely inadequate: don’t change the policies, just stop saying really stupid shit. And even that is beyond their capabilities; almost every day, some male Republican officeholder or party official somewhere says something colossally ignorant about women. They can’t help themselves.

Our latest entry in this sad little ledger is from the city of Barre, where local Democrats are choosing nominees to serve out the remaining term of the departing State Rep. Tess Taylor. (Reminder: the local party chooses up to three nominees and forwards the names to the Governor, who can choose any of the three or anyone else, for that matter.)

As reported in the Mitchell Family Organ (North) — behind a paywall, as usual — the Dems’ clear choice was Tommy Walz, chair of the Barre Democrats. There seems to be only one problem: he’d be a man replacing a woman, and this raised some concerns.

So the Barre City Democratic Committee added two women to their list of three, Gina Galfetti and HIllary Montgomery.

Fast forward to The Mouth That Roared, Barre’s Republican Mayor Thom Lauzon, who wrote a letter to the Governor urging the appointment of Walz. And, when asked about the idea of giving preference to a woman, he scoffed:

“What’s next? Are we going to replace a brunette with a brunette? That’s just silly.”

Open mouth, insert foot.

No, Mr. Mayor, we won’t be considering hair color in present or future nominations. Nor will we insist that you be succeeded as Mayor by a real estate investor with a Napoleon complex and temper-control issues.

And by cavalierly dismissing the notion that gender is a factor worthy of consideration, Thom Lauzon becomes the latest Republican male who just can’t help himself. It’s not in the same league as Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” or Mike Huckabee’s “helpless without Uncle Sugar”, but it’s yet another sign of something deeply wrong, and deeply sexist, about the 21st Century Republican brain.  

So, one of the louder Republican voices in the Legislature is talking of a run for Governor. Heidi Scheuermann of Stowe is telling one and all that she is “considering” a candidacy.

The Republicans could do tons worse. (See: Brock, Randy; or Vallee, Rodolphe.) Scheuermann is young, active, relatively moderate, and female, which is a pretty big deal for a party known as a refuge for bitter old white men. Also, she’s putting forward the best possible mix of issues for a challenge to Governor Shumlin: economic growth, property tax relief/school funding reform, and Shumlin’s plan for a single-payer health care system. She is wise, IMO, to de-emphasize the troubled rollout of Vermont Health Connect, and to forego any talk of repeal. VHC is likely to be an established and accepted fact by this fall, and a Republican candidate would be smart to turn that page.

All that being said… no. She’s got no shot. Shumlin remains popular; he’s got a million dollars in the bank and he’s just getting started; it’s awfully late for Scheuermann to begin a run; she has no statewide profile; and Vermonters hardly ever boot an incumbent anything. (See: Sorrell, Bill.) She’d also be saddled with a weak party structure that’s years away from competing with the Democratic machine.

And although she’s chosen the right issues, they aren’t weighty enough to build a case against an entrenched incumbent. The economy could be stronger, but it ain’t that bad; single-payer is an unknown, and it’s hard to make a convincing case against an unknown; and Democratic lawmakers are taking positive steps to defang the property-tax issue by moving to cut the statewide levy and push school reorganization.

Which begs the question: Why is she even thinking about a candidacy almost certain to fail? She’d seemingly be better off continuing to raise her profile in the Legislature. She’s young enough to bide her time until Shumlin tires of being Governor and the VTGOP can fully regenerate. So why run now?

Here’s where the Bruce Lisman Conspiracy Engine huffs its way onstage.  

In addition to being one of the more vocal Republicans in the Legislature, Scheuermann is a high-profile member of Campaign for Vermont (Prosperity), Now WIth Less Lisman. She was one of the Founding Partners of CFV, way back in the fall of 2011. She has repeatedly touted her relationship with Lisman and CFV and brought its issues into the Legislature. CFV’s top issue for 2014 is ethics reform; and Scheuermann is the lead sponsor of H.846, an ethics bill “modeled after CFV proposal,” in the words of a VTDigger headline from February 16.  

According to one of my sources, Lisman was actually thinking about a run for Governor this year, but realized he’d have to spend a boatload of money (check) and probably lose anyway (double check). Now that he’s backed away from active CFV leadership, he could inject himself more personally into Vermont politics… but if not as a candidate, perhaps as a Lenore Broughton? With a fraction of the capital needed for a campaign of his own, he could effectively jumpstart the candidacy of an established Republican… a Republican with ties to CFV and its agenda… a Republican who would establish the CFV agenda as a force in the VTGOP…

Sounds like Heidi Scheuermann to me.

In this scenario, Scheuermann is a stalking horse for a future Lisman candidacy, say in 2016 or 2018*. She wouldn’t gum up the works by actually winning, so the field would be open next time around. And if she managed a respectable finish — beating Randy Brock’s 38% by at least a few percentage points — she’d provide a shot of credibility to the CFV agenda, and show the VTGOP that this is the best way to win back the corner office.  

* Argument for 2018: it’s a non-Presidential year, better for Republicans; and Shumlin is likely to be leaving office by then. Argument for 2016: Lisman is entering his late 60s, so time is not on his side.

As for Scheuermann, she’d sacrifice her House seat — but how much fun is it to be a Republican in a Democrat-dominated legislature? And plenty of rewards would be available. She could be given a gig at CFV if she needed a job. And if Lisman were to actually become Governor, she’d be at the top of the list for Cabinet posts.

Is all of this excessively conspiratorial? Probably. But it’s plausible nonetheless.

More plausible than Scheuermann honestly believing she can beat the Governor this year.  

1. Put one foot ahead of the other.

2. Carelessly let gun point vaguely downwards.

3. FIRE!

Today’s metaphorical practitioner of this Second Amendment-protected activity is John Campbell, Vermont’s Senate Penitent Pro Tem. He forgot to engage the safety catch on his mouth before speaking with VPR’s Peter “Gotcha” Hirschfeld about the prospects for Governor Shumlin’s #1 issue, single-payer health care.

“The governor and the administration have their sights set on this single-payer, and one that is publicly financed through a myriad of different way (sic),” Campbell said Tuesday. “I believe that right now, …that may not be something that would be politically viable in this legislative body, due to the costs involved.”

…Given the challenges ahead, Campbell says the Legislature needs to begin putting together an alternate health care reform plan, in the event single-payer fails.

Which seems to be a long-winded way of saying “Ding dong, single-payer is dead!” A curious sentiment coming from one of Shumlin’s top two legislative allies. Er, should I say, “a person who should be one of Shumlin’s top two legislative allies”? It sounds a lot like Lt. Gov. Phil Scott’s position. Indeed, it’s arguably to the right of Vermont’s top Republican: Scott has adopted a wait-and-see attitude toward single-payer, while Campbell is giving it little or no chance of passing the Senate.

This is a nice little giftie for the Republicans. I can just imagine the press release: “Even the Senate’s top Democrat doesn’t think single-payer will work!” And if they can get hold of the audio, it might well make its way into a bunch of campaign ads this year.

But let’s turn to the big issue: Campbell going off the reservation on health care.

There are a couple ways of interpreting this. Well, three: the conspiratorial; the et tu, Brute; and the (relatively) benign. Unfortunately for purposes of snarky political blogging, the third is most likely the case. But let’s go through ’em all, shall we?  

Conspiratorial. Many liberals and progressives, and some in the media, don’t believe that the Governor really wants single-payer. They think he’s holding it out there to mollify the left as he, generally, steers a centrist course. In this scenario, Campbell is laying the groundwork for a potential retreat from single-payer.

I don’t buy it. For one thing, if I were Governor Shumlin and I wanted someone to put out a stealthy political message, I think I could find a better choice than John Campbell. For another, and this may be unfashionable, but I actually believe that the Governor is totally serious about single-payer.

But on a very practical level, he’s talked about it so much that it’s become the linchpin of his tenure in the corner office. If he leaves office with a workable single-payer system in place, his Governorship will be seen as a success. If he falls short, it’ll be a lasting stain on his legacy no matter what else he accomplishes.

Et tu, Brute? In this scenario, the notoriously centrist Campbell is drawing a line in the sand (or, if you prefer, sticking a knife in the back), putting pressure on the Governor to give up on his legacy issue. This would be treachery of the first order — especially since the Governor was one of those who helped save Campbell’s bacon in 2012 when there was widespread dissatisfaction with his performance as Senate leader.  

To believe this is to credit Campbell with enough political courage to risk alienating his party’s power structure, and enough verbal dexterity to thread a needle with his words. Personally, I don’t think he has that much of either quality. Which brings us to…

The self-inflicted wound. So, Peter Hirschfeld corners Campbell and asks him about the prospects for single-payer health care. Campbell hems and haws, allows his abundant political caution to take over, and emits a blizzard of tortuous verbiage that casts some doubt on the launch of a huge, expensive social engineering project. I put my money here. I mean, just read this entire paragraph. Or at least try to, without your eyes rolling back into your head:

“The governor and the administration have their sights set on this single-payer, and one that is publicly financed through a myriad of different way,” Campbell said Tuesday. “I believe that right now, after the due diligence that has been done by not only the Legislature, but also by some of the people in the administration, to me it demonstrates that that may not be something that would be politically viable in this legislative body, due to the costs involved.”

Sheesh.

Another sign of verbal ham-fistedness: why’s he talking about an “alternate reform plan”? If single-payer doesn’t work out, wouldn’t we just stick with Vermont Health Connect? Why try to devise yet another system?

Not exactly Daniel Webster-level stuff. To me, the tone and style of his response points to the real explanation: John Campbell tried to go Full Waffle and failed.

I bet the Governor’s not happy, though. (A call to Shumlin’s office for comment went unreturned as of this writing. If I hear back, I’ll let you know.)