About a month ago, I posted a diary about pro-choice groups’ mounting dismay with Vermont’s own Senator Patrick Leahy, usually a liberal stalwart. But in this case, he’s putting Senate comity above the interests of liberal activists. My post was followed by surprising silence in the rest of the Vermont media, which are usually quick to chronicle every jot and tittle of Leahy’s career.

Do they not like cribbing from GMD? Or do they not like reporting bad news about St. Patrick? I don’t know. But now comes Politico.com with a further report, including the Obama Administration’s rising impatience with Leahy, described by Politico as “the one and only man who could peel away the next layer of Senate control over [judicial] nominations.”

For those just joining us, Leahy is chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which makes him the key player on judicial nominations. He has made a point of honoring a Senate tradition of “blue slips,” which allows any single Senator to block a judicial nominee from his/her home state. Which allows Republicans an effective filibuster on any judicial nominee from any of the 32 states with at least one Republican Senator. Which includes the vast majority of federal court vacancies.

The odd thing about Leahy’s insistence is that his Republican predecessor at Judiciary, Orrin Hatch, did not uphold the blue-slip tradition.

And, with a good chance the Republicans will retake the Senate this November, they are in no mood to approve any new nominees. As White House Counsel Kathy Ruemmler told Politico, the blue slip policy “assumes a level of good faith on behalf of the Republican senators.”

You might say that Leahy is playing croquet while the Republicans are fighting a back-alley brawl.  

Also, The Nation’s Katrina vanden Heuvel wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post in which she decried Leahy’s adherence to the blue-slip policy while highly qualified Obama nominees sit on the sidelines.

Judgeships matter, as the president and Leahy know well. Is it too much to ask – is it anything to ask at all – that the president nominate judges who share his values? That is, after all, what Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush did.

But to our dear St. Patrick, a hoary — and inconsistently enforced — Senate tradition is more important than getting more Obama judges onto the federal bench. Usually, he’s pretty well grounded in reality, in spite of his nearly four decades in the World’s Most Distinguished Boy’s Club. But in this case, it looks like our Senior Senator is identifying more with his cloakroom buddies than with his party or his loyal supporters.

If anyone from Senator Leahy’s office, or the Senator himself, would like to offer an explanation to GMD’s readership, I’m happy to listen.  

Not unexpectedly, Keurig Green Mountain has received initial approval for yet another Vermont Employment Growth Initiative (VEGI) — its fourth in the VEGI program’s seven-year history. This time, KGM is set to receive up to a million dollars in incentives. (Its four successful grants total nearly $7 million.)

In itself, this is not cause for outrage. VEGI is aimed at producing good-paying jobs, not necessarily green-friendly ones. The incentive grants are targeted at specific firms, and companies must meet job-creation targets to receive the payments. KGM may act like a corporate shark in the marketplace, and its core product (non-recyclable, non-biodegradable K-Cups) is bad for the environment, but the jobs are a good thing. If I lived in Waterbury, where KGM is headquartered, I’d be rooting for the company to succeed.  

(Of course, I don’t live in Waterbury. And K-Cups are not only environmentally unfriendly, they’re also seriously overpriced and make “painfully mediocre coffee.” So no, I don’t have a Keurig machine and never will.)

Which is not to say that there aren’t problems with the VEGI program — both in the details and in the basic concept.

Details: The “but for” test, and a possibly unbalanced playing field.

Basic concept: Do incentives like VEGI actually work?  

The “but for” test. VEGI grants are supposed to help create jobs that would not be created “but for” the VEGI funds. A company only qualifies if its growth would not occur without the incentive. It’s a sound idea, but it’s inherently subjective. How can you really know?

There’s also a flaw in the current formulation of “but for.” Judgments are based not on a single company’s growth projections, but on its entire industry’s. This is sensible in the case of, say, Commonwealth Yogurt (recipient of two VEGIs), which operates in the fast-growing Greek yogurt marketplace; state incentives would help it keep pace with larger competitors. It arguably makes a lot less sense in the case of KGM, which is the dominant force in its core market — single-serving brew technology. KGM may well continue to grow, but its prospects have little to do with a state incentive.

This isn’t the fault of the Vermont Economic Progress Council (VEPC) which awards VEGI funds; it’s only following the standards in the law. It has been argued that the law needs to be tightened, which is a matter for the legislature. Then-state auditor Tom Salmon argued as such in a 2008 report; his successor Doug Hoffer is currently taking a fresh look at the program.

Unbalanced playing field. So why is it that KGM has gotten four grants, while no other Vermont company has received more than two (Dealer.com and Commonwealth Yogurt, by my count)?

Well, it’s been a fast-growing firm for several years, and it’s created a whole lot of good jobs (along with a whole lot of mediocre, overpriced coffee in earth-unfriendly packaging). But I see two other advantages that have nothing to do with job creation or intrinsic merit.

First, as a sizable company, KGM has the resources to pursue every possible dime in VEGI money. It has the staff and experience to write grant proposals and see them through. A relatively new company at the beginning of its growth curve would have a harder time allocating time and expertise to a grant proposal.

Second, again as a sizable company, KGM has options. Such as the unspoken threat of moving to another state — not really an option for, say, fellow VEGI recipient Westminster Cracker Company. And don’t think the VEPC is unaware of that.

“It’s a fast growing company and the issue is do we want some of that growth to occur here,” says Fred Kenney, executive director of VEPC.

Which is the nice way of saying, “We don’t want KGM moving out of state.” I’m sure the good folks at KGM didn’t even have to hint at a possible move; everybody knows it could be an option.

The basic concept. The bigger question is, do programs like VEGI actually accomplish anything? Do they spur job growth, or are they just giveaways? Let’s turn to University of Massachusetts economist Jeffrey Thompson, who studied economic development incentive programs across New England:

Rigorous studies of these incentives and subsidies, however, suggest that their impacts are modest at best. As much as 96% of the jobs and most of the investments used to claim these tax credits would have been created without the incentives. Some studies do find an impact on economic growth, but much of that activity, is simply employment and investment that would have otherwise occurred in a neighboring city or state, mak-ing the investment a wash for the region as a whole.

… The real harm done by corporate tax incentives and subsidies is that they deplete resources that could be spent on real public investments. For example, one analysis finds that a long-term $875 million annual incentive program in New England would produce just 9,000 jobs, compared to over 130,000 jobs if that same amount of money was invested instead in high-quality universal preschool in the region.

Stick that in your back pocket the next time some conservative wails about Vermont needing to match the new Start-Up NY program of tax-free zones for job creation. No, we don’t.

Also, for a more common-sense version of Thompson’s argument, here’s our friend Paul Cillo of the Public Assets Institute:

…jobs are created by the private sector when there is a demand for goods or services, not because the state paid a business to hire someone.  An incentive of a few thousand dollars is not enough to justify spending $40,000, $50,000, or $70,000 on an employee you don’t need. And if a business does need more workers to meet increased demand, it doesn’t need the incentive.

And, going back to Thompson, wouldn’t a state with robust infrastructure and educational systems be a real draw to companies looking for a good place to grow a business? Of course, most business groups (and politicians) are too short-sighted to see that; if Vermont tried to end VEGI and other incentive programs, we’d hear cries of dismay over our alleged “anti-business environment.”

VEGI is better-structured than many incentive programs. But still, there are serious questions to be asked about it on both the micro and macro level. Call me cynical, but I think the best we can hope for is a legislative review of the detail issues. I doubt there’s any desire to take a radical and fundamental look at whether incentive programs are really a good public investment.  

I was just idly trolling about the Campaign for Vermont (now with less Lisman!!!) website, when I clicked on the “CONTACT” button at the top of the page. Y’know, actually thinking it might be nice to meet the new executive director Cyrus Patten sometime. And I discovered something that shines a new light on CFV’s oft-repeated claim to be the “fastest-growing advocacy group in Vermont.”

Which is nonsense to begin with; all it means is that CFV is the youngest advocacy group in Vermont, so it started from zero in the relatively recent past.

Anyway, the “CONTACT” page does not provide an address and phone number; it’s just one of those “submit your question or comment” forms. But with a twist.

At the top, it doesn’t say “Submit your question.” It says “Add me to your growing list of Campaign for Vermont supporters.” Below that are two check boxes: “Lend my name to your growing list of supporters,” and “Please just add me to your weekly eNews list.”

Then come the spaces for name, address, etc., and a “Submit” button. And below that, way at the bottom of the page, you’ll find this disclaimer:

Submit Note: Unless you check the box above (E-News LIST ONLY), once you submit this form you have given Campaign for Vermont Prosperity, Inc., your approval to add your name to the growing list of Campaign for Vermont supporters listed on the website who believe prosperity and economic security for all Vermonters must be a priority.

Aha. The default setting is “become a supporter.” In other words, if you try to contact CFV and don’t pay close attention, you’ll find yourself publicly identified as a member of Campaign for Vermont. And if you do pay attention and opt out of membership, you’ll still be on CFV’s email list.

This isn’t a “CONTACT” page — it’s a registration page. There is no way to simply contact CFV without signing yourself up for something.

I wonder how many of CFV’s thousand-plus “members” inadvertently volunteered themselves through this webpage.  

In the grand scheme of things, this isn’t a huge deal. Deceptive webpage or no, CFV’s membership claims are bullshit. Until it actually costs something to join CFV, “membership” is meaningless. Especially coming from a group founded by Bruce Lisman, who has talked about the importance of “having skin in the game” with regard to taxation. His “members” have no skin in the CFV game, and until they do, the group is more Potemkin village than grassroots movement.  

And on top of all that, CFV’s bogus “CONTACT” page is yet another sign of the organization’s bad faith.

Also, note the reappearance of CFV’s full legal name: Campaign for Vermont Prosperity, Inc. CFV generally omits the “Prosperity” part, as it tries to position itself as a group with broad centrist concerns (rather than a group founded and funded by a Wall Street millionaire with strong free-market beliefs). But the group’s full name should not be forgotten; it’s a sign of where their priorities really lie.  

Last Saturday, I attended a meeting of the Vermont Democratic Party’s state committee. As I reported in this space, it was a positive experience — with one exception: “a heated confrontation with one attendee who vehemently disagrees with me on a couple of issues.”

Well, now it’s time to tell that story. I’m not identifying the other person because it’s not my intention to drag an individual through the mud. What I want to do is illustrate a first-class example of How Not To Make Friends and Influence People. If this person hoped to convince me, she did an absolutely piss-poor job of it.

After the meeting ended, I wandered around the room introducing myself to people. At one point, this person struck up a conversation by asking who I was. Fair enough; I gave her my card. (Yes, I had some bargain-basement cards printed up with my name, GMD handle, and contact info.)

She glanced at the card and immediately asked me why I’m so mean to Peter Galbraith.

My first thought was, “Wow, there’s at least one Peter Galbraith fan in the world.” (Er, that is, one fan not named Peter Galbraith. He is definitely his own biggest fan.)

I was briefly struck silent by surprise, and also by the plethora of possible ways I could have replied. “Most hated person in the Legislature” would have been good — although obviously she wouldn’t be able to see that. “Bursting with arrogance”? That wouldn’t get through her filter either.

“Willing to block the Senate’s workings over minor points of principle that matter only to him”? “Willing to thwart the obvious will of the chamber as much as he possibly can”? “Willing to derail good legislation over issues visible only to him”? Nah, too procedural.

“An oil millionaire who bought his way into the Senate by self-funding a campaign war chest that no one else could match, and now seeks to write campaign finance legislation that will cement his rich-man’s advantage”? Maybe.

“Single-handedly tried to destroy End of Life legislation and, when that failed, forced a complete rewrite into a joke of a bill”? I thought about that, but the way things were going, I thought she might well be against death with dignity.

But what I went with was, “I disagree with his opposition to wind power.”  

Wrong thing to say.  

Turns out she’s anti-wind, and she set off on a verbal assault that, if harnessed to a generator, could have provided enough energy to power a smallish town. Every time I tried to reply to one of her questions or statements, she cut me off partway through. I constantly felt the urge to take a step back, as she pressed forward into my personal space.

She trotted out all the anti-wind arguments with bewildering speed, and asked me how I could possibly support ridgeline wind. I started to reply that most of her points were unsupported by the weight of scientific research. And she quite literally brushed aside the whole notion of science, instead insisting that the only thing that mattered was the personal experience of people. And she asserted that I was duty-bound to visit communities near wind projects and experience the alleged effects first-hand.

And insisted over and over again, until I said “Yes” just to get her out of my face.

She hasn’t followed up with an invitation yet, but if she does, I’m going to say “No.” My “Yes” was induced by verbal coercion, and I see no reason to voluntarily subject myself to more of the same.

All in all, it was a thoroughly unpleasant experience. But I’m a big boy, and I expect a certain amount of heat in response to my writings in this space. My point, as I sad at the beginning, is that this person did a horrible job of influencing my beliefs. She actually reinforced my opinion that the anti-wind crowd is full of zealots and ideologues who refuse to consider any evidence that refutes their point of view and continue to make claims and charges that are unsupported by science.  

This is no way to influence public opinion. This is no way to gain adherents to the cause. Rather, this is a way to wall yourself off from public discourse, and show yourself unworthy of intelligent conversation.

Anyone who dismisses science out of hand has abdicated any claim to my consideration. I just hope this person doesn’t represent the Democratic Party the same way she represents her anti-wind crusade. All she can do is repel the very people she is trying to convince. And harm the image of the party she represents.  

(In honor of the Vermont Law School’s “Sex, Gender, Expression, and the First Amendment Project” (SGE1), which officially opened on March 20 and continues through April 10.)

Friend of mine* just got a new driver’s license. New terrible picture, same old information — with one exception: a gender change from F to M.

*Yes, I do have friends. Shut up.

My friend is not fully comfortable in either gender, but to the casual observer, clearly looks more male than female. Which has led to all kinds of fun encounters in, for instance, public women’s restrooms. (Even before the official change, my friend often used the men’s room just to avoid unpleasantness. In men’s rooms, nobody looks at anybody else.) My friend describes the new gender identification as a “flag of convenience” to avoid these kinds of awkward moments.

But that, plus the opening of SGE1, raised a question in my mind.

Why do we need to include gender on driver’s licenses anyway?

The kneejerk answer, I suppose, would be that it’s the same as the photo, height and weight: helpful identification markers.

But what if it’s not? What if that woman over there, just for the sake of argument, is packin’ a penis? What if that man has a vagina? Some of them do.  

Indeed, more and more of them do: sex-change surgery used to be the norm, but today there’s a whole range of options — surgery, partial surgery, hormone therapy, and just plain talkin’ therapy, among others. Transgendered people are feeling more and more free to choose the path that suits them best. After all, gender isn’t a matter of one or the other, black or white: it’s a spectrum. Or a rainbow if you prefer. A lot of folks are somewhere in the middle.

Indeed, if you accept the tired notion that men are from Mars and women are from Venus, maybe that means the transgendered are the only real Earthlings.  

Back to my point: how does it help the police or the border patrol or a bank teller to think they know the gender of a person but they kinda don’t? If a strip search might be in order (well, not at the bank, obvs) and the driver’s license says the subject is male but he has female genitalia, did the license really help? Or did it lead you down the wrong path? (I worry a bit about what might happen to my friend if such a situation were to develop in a closed room at a police station.)

The photo is the most important identifier. The height and weight are helpful (although my license weight is, ahem, roughly 10% below my actual), but does the M or F really do anything useful?

Is there any legal or social purpose served? Or is it just a matter of “We’ve always done it this way”?

If anyone in GMD-land has a good argument for keeping gender on licenses, I’m happy to listen. For now, allow me to take a provisional stand: Get gender off our driver’s licenses!

p.s. As part of SGE-1, Governor Shumlin will be giving a talk on April 2 at VLS. If there’s a Q&A period, maybe someone can ask him this question.

Nothing to worry about, move along folks.

A Vermont Yankee employee reported in November that security management “detonated a suspicious item” that resembled a pipe bomb inside the nuclear power plant compound.

According to VTDigger’s Anne Galloway, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said “the situation was not handled appropriately.” And by that, Our Guardians Of Safety mean…

Against the advice of the police, Entergy employees duct taped a piece of string to the pipe, stood back and pulled the string to see if it “went off,” according to the report.

Oh lord. I don’t know if Homer Simpson himself would’ve tested a possible bomb on the grounds of a nuclear power plant with a piece of string and some duct tape.

And the nuclear industry wonders why we don’t trust them.

But don’t worry. Our friendly reassuring voices, Yankee spokesflack Rob Williams and NRC spokesflack Neil Sheehan, both say there was no danger to the plant or the public. Which is no thanks to the Einsteins of the Vermont Yankee Amateur Bomb Disposal Team; there was no threat because the “pipe bomb” turned out to be a piece of trash.

The suspicious item… was a well pump that was being thrown away.

And in the process of “being thrown away,” an item that looked like a pipe bomb was casually left laying around. Might I suggest, ladies and gentlemen, a wastebasket?

After all, a neat nuke plant is a happy nuke plant.  

… Writing those tiresome press releases denouncing Governor Shumlin for taking a goddamn vacation. Please stop.

Sunderland… says Shumlin is more interested in “jetsetting around the nation raising millions of dollars so he and other politicians can keep their jobs or setting sail to the Caribbean island where he owns property.”

I get it, I get it. Shumlin is a rich lazy traveling salesman, ignoring the plight of hardworking Vermonters as he gallivants around the country and beyond. Good God, this stuff is so tiresome and repetitive that I suspect the VTGOP has a “Shumlin vacation press release” template: just add the location and the local problem he’s ignoring, and ship it out.

Also, too: It never works, and it’s complete hypocrisy coming from the mouth of any Republican. Aside from all that, yeah, it’s a political masterstroke.

Let’s start with the hypocrisy. Well, it’s hypocrisy unless David Sunderland spent equal amounts of time criticizing the two Modern Masters Of Political Vacationing: Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

Veteran CBS correspondent Mark Knoller has compiled all kinds of presidential data, including vacation days. As of mid-August 2013, President Obama — who gets slammed by Republicans every time he takes a few days off — had taken 96 vacation days. At the same point in their respective presidencies, Reagan had taken 180 days… and George W. Bush had taken a whopping 349.

Three hundred and forty-nine. That’s almost one out of every four days. And yet I don’t remember the Republicans begging their President to please, once in a while, put in a full week’s work.

(Pet peeve: Bush’s favorite vacation activity was theatrically “clearing brush” on his Texas ranch in full cowboy regalia. By the end of his Presidency, was there a single tree or shrub left anywhere on his 1,583-acre spread? Hadn’t it been reduced to stumps and wasteland?)

Okay, let’s talk about Governor Shumlin’s travel on behalf of the Democratic Governors Association. Maybe you’d prefer a single-minded focus on his home state; but the VTGOP eagerly welcomed an out-of-state political fundraising trip by Shumlin’s Republican counterpart, Chris Christie. I don’t recall Mr. Sunderland canceling the event and pleading with Christie to stay home and attend to the continuing Hurricane Sandy recovery efforts or the looming Bridgegate scandal. No, he took full advantage of Christie’s pre-Bridgegate star power to replenish the VTGOP’s empty coffers.

I also don’t remember any Republican howls of outrage in 2009-10, when Governor Jim Douglas became chair of the Republican Governors Association. Did the VTGOP tell him to step down and stay home, as they apparently want Peter Shumlin to do?

Late addendum: Apparently the link to the Mark Knoller story about Presidential vacations doesn’t work. I’ve tried it, and indeed it doesn’t. I tried re-entering the link, and it still doesn’t work. However, you can find the story by Googling “Reagan vacation days.” The Knoller info, as reported on Yahoo! News, is the first match.

Reminder to Mr. Sunderland: each major party has a Governors Association. One sitting Governor acts as chairman, and takes on broad responsiblity for fundraising, party-building, and candidate recruitment on a national level. It’s actually a badge of honor for the chosen Governor and even his/her home state.

Now let’s turn to “This never works.” Has there ever been any outcry in Vermont — except from VTGOP headquarters — when Governor Shumlin goes out of town? Has it dented his popularity in any measurable way? Did President Bush’s constant — and well-publicized — vacationing ever change the mind of a single voter? Not so’s you could tell. It just made us liberals grind our teeth a little harder.

It also never works to point out a politician’s wealth. And look, I hate it as much as anybody that politics has become a rich man’s game (yes, still predominantly “men”). But it doesn’t matter to the vast majority of voters. If they see a wealthy candidate who seems to connect with them, or who espouses policies that help all Americans, then they’re happy to ignore the candidate’s bank account. Just look at all them Kennedys.  

Of course, if a wealthy candidate seems out of touch, a la Jack McMullen or Mitt Romney, then the voters turn away. But it’s not because of their wealth, it’s because of their policies or perceived lack of empathy.  

Oh, and one more thing for Sunderland to ponder. Why does he hate the rich?

I mean, look at Peter Shumlin. In the language of Republicans, he overcame a learning disability and turned himself into a wealthy, successful entrepreneur. It’s an inspiring story, illuminating what Republicans like to think of as America The Land Of Opportunity where anyone who works hard can get ahead.

Well, that’s their mythology anyway. So why don’t they applaud Governor Shumlin for having the means to afford vacation properties in two other countries? As any Republican would say about any One-Percenter not named “Peter Shumlin,” he’s earned his wealth and shouldn’t be criticized for enjoying the fruits of his labor.

All right, I’ve emptied my elephant gun killing a fly. But please, Mr. Sunderland: the next time Governor Shumlin goes on vacation or hobnobs with the rich and powerful on behalf of his party, Don’t Press Send. Your complaints are doing you no good, and they just make you look like a hypocrite.  

I always look forward to the Thursday Freeploid; one of its features is a weekly droplet of wisdom from the sweaty brow of Art Woolf, Vermont’s Loudest Economist. His “How We’re Doing” column, typically short on insight and long on the obvious, can usually be counted on for an unintentional laff or two.

But this week? This week, Art takes a leap over the boundary between obviousness and obliviousness, and lands deep in the heart of absurdity. His column, for reasons that will soon become apparent, hasn’t been posted (yet) on the Freeploid’s website; but subscribers can see it, precisely as printed, in its E-Newspaper. Below is a screenshot — with the type deliberately too small to read, so we don’t run afoul of the ‘Loid’s jealous copyright enforcement practices. But all you need to see is the headline and the accompanying chart.

As you can see, the title concerns housing prices in Vermont, while the chart is about our driving habits.

I skimmed through the column, expecting that at some point the subject would shift from housing to driving. But it never did. The entire column is “The Vermont Real Estate Market for Dummies.” No mention of cars or trucks or freeways.

Yep, they printed the wrong chart.  

Now, I don’t know — and, given the Freeploid’s total commitment to transparency EXCEPT when it comes to its own operations, I will probably never know — if the Freeploid screwed this up*, or if Art Woolf himself submitted the wrong chart. I kinda suspect the latter, if only because (as of 4 pm Thursday) the Freeploid hasn’t posted his column on its website. It’s only in the E-Newspaper. If the ‘Loid had possession of the correct chart, it’d be pretty simple to post the column online with the appropriate graphic. But if that chart is safely ensconced on Art Woolf’s own computer, then the ‘Loid wouldn’t have access to it.

*Err, should I say Gannett’s cheapskate consolidated out-of-state page design staff?

Just one of life’s little mysteries, and a lovely moment of surrealism in the normally Dada-free pages of Vermont’s Fattest Newspaper.  

America’s Dreamiest Former Senator, Scott Brown, is coyly approaching a candidacy for U.S. Senate from his verrrrrry recently adopted home state, New Hampshire. And, shades of Bruce Lisman, he’s on a statewide Listening Tour. Y’know, trying to learn stuff about the place. Maybe avoid Jack McMullen-style mispronunciations. (Hot tip: it’s BURR-lin, not ber-LIN, New Hampshire. They changed the pronunciation during one of the wars that made Germanic heritage less than palatable.)

He’s begun his tour with the requisite token ride North Of The Notches, where the land is empty and the votes are few. As the campaign heats up, he’ll spend more and more of his time in the southeast, where there are lots of voters (good) who are close enough to Massachusetts to have some awareness of his political record (bad).

A couple days ago, Scotty 2 Hotty and Friends found themselves in tiny Lancaster, just across the Connecticut River from the Northeast Kingdom. Looking for a place where lots of people might gather, his advance team chose a local gift shop.

Which, as it turned out, was closed. Bwahahahahaha.

A candidate tracker from the liberal group American Bridge was on hand, and recorded a short excerpt of Brown and his team standing around a chilly parking lot peering inside the shop and wondering what the hell to do, while the proto-candidate struggled to keep a plastic grin on his face. (Follow the link to view the 57 seconds of cringeworthy hilarity.)

Priceless.  

For purposes of this diary, let’s leave aside the moral and ethical dimensions of providing more Americans with health care security. Let’s omit any consideration of health: preventive as opposed to emergency care, longer lifespans, more productive citizens. Let’s forget about the fact that the current “system” is a complicated, costly failure that puts America embarrassingly low in the rankings on various measures of national health.

Instead, let’s talk about reform as a stout new weapon in the war on poverty.

A couple of experts have conducted a massive review of family financial data in Massachusetts which, in 2006, enacted a reform measure very similar to the Affordable Care Act. They looked at data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Consumer Credit Panel covering the years 1999-2012 in Massachusetts and other New England states. They looked at a bunch of measures of personal financial stress:

…including credit card balances, credit balance past due (over 29 days), fraction of debt past due, third-party collections, credit risk score, and bankruptcy.

And they found that, in Massachusetts…

…the reform significantly improved credit scores, reduced the total amount past due, reduced the fraction of debt past due, and reduced the probability of personal bankruptcy. We find particularly pronounced reductions in the probability of having a large delinquency of over $5,000. These effects tend to be larger among individuals whose credit scores were low at the time of the reform, suggesting that the greatest gains in financial security occurred among those who were already struggling financially. Furthermore, our analysis yields some suggestive evidence that the reform may have also reduced total debt and the amount of third party collections.

The authors point to several ways in which health care reform contributes to financial security:

First and most obviously, coverage expansion directly decreases exposure to the cost of care for the previously uninsured. Second, more generous coverage (e.g., for those previously underinsured) also offers greater protection against health care costs. Finally, these two effects can spillover to others whose coverage didn’t change by reducing the need for them to pitch in when under- or uninsured family members require costly care.

Need further amazement?

Gaze upon the following chart, which shows that the likelihood of personal bankruptcy began to drop immediately after Massachusetts enacted health care reform — and continued to drop through the first two years of the Great Recession!

Health care reform may be a struggle; it wasn’t implemented as well as it should have been; and the way forward is full of obstacles. But here’s one more reason that reform is worth every bit of struggle.

And it’s a big reason we should give Governor Shumlin some credit for pursuing reform, and pushing ahead in spite of all the setbacks. I ding him for his hardline stance on taxes, and for the Dems’ timidity about helping the poor and working poor; but he’s a steadfast advocate for health care reform, and I’m grateful for that.