The inevitable development of a relatively new organization, or the rumblings of further news on the horizon?

That’s the big question about today’s announcement from Campaign for Vermont, the Bruce Lisman-founded, Bruce Lisman-funded, Bruce Lisman-headed “grassroots” organization.

Well, no longer Bruce Lisman-headed, as it turns out.

Louise McCarren, a Charlotte resident with deep experience in public service and private business, has been elected by the board as the chair of Campaign for Vermont (CFV).

… The board also elected Mary Alice McKenzie as vice-chair and secretary, and Tom Pelham as treasurer.

The press release doesn’t say so, but McKenzie and Pelham were actually re-elected to positions they’d already occupied. The only change is McCarren in and Lisman out as board chair. McCarren is another classic CFV “outsider” type; she’s held a number of corporate positions (including President of Verizon Vermont) and has served on a brace of corporate and nonprofit boards, including National Life Group, Fletcher Allen, Vermont Public Television, and Vermont Law School. She was appointed chair of the state Public Service Board by then-Gov. Dick Snelling.

CFV spokesflack Shawn Shouldice says the election of a new chair is a natural move forward: “He [Lisman] has been saying all along that he wants the organization to become self-sustaining.” This includes the very informal beginnings of an effort to actually raise money from sources other than Lisman’s personal Wall Street fortune. Hey, there’s now a “Donate” button on the CFV website! Shouldice says the group has received “some minor contributions” so far.

Which raises the inevitable question — at least, inevitable in the minds of the political media — does this presage a Lisman candidacy for Governor?

drum roll, please…

I’d heard that CFV and/or Lisman had a big announcement scheduled for next week. But before I could even ask if that was true, Shouldice told me that there would be an announcement, and the subject would be the hiring of a paid staff person — an Executive Director. Late last year, CFV had advertised for two paid staff; they’re only hiring the one for now. I didn’t bother to ask for the new staffer’s name, because That Would Be Telling.

So unless this is all a big misdirection play, don’t expect a candidacy kickoff. “He has no plans to run for Governor,” says Shouldice.” He’s been very consistent about that.”

Yes, he has. Of course, the phrasing “no plans to run” leaves open the possibility of a new plan. But personally, I wouldn’t expect it, at least not so soon. I have no idea if Lisman is as self-deluded as other wealthy political failures (Rich Tarrant, Jack McMullen, Skip Vallee), but somehow I doubt it. He stands a better chance of influencing public policy by jumpstarting a plausibly centrist organization than by mounting (and self-funding) a longshot candidacy for Governor against an entrenched and deep-pocketed incumbent.

Still, it’s fun to speculate, isn’t it?  

The defeat of school budgets in some of Vermont’s largest (and/or most notoriously liberal) cities should provide new incentive to reform efforts in the State House. Governor Shumlin and legislative leaders have already begun tackling the issue; I expect their efforts will accelerate starting today. This is likely to be the hot issue in the 2014 elections — not health care reform.

Especially striking were the “No” votes in Burlington and Montpelier. In both cities, the state property tax imposed massive increases on otherwise tight budgets. (Montpelier’s school board proposed a spending increase of 2%, but taxes would have gone up by 13%.) And in both cities, school budgets were rejected while municipal budgets and other spending measures passed easily.

Well, the Governor did all but invite this outcome when he placed the blame squarely on local school boards. In truth, the current funding system is kind of an echo chamber, with local decisions feeding into the statewide rate, and then the state tax imposing new burdens on local districts. (Shumllin also neglects to mention some cost- and revenue-shifting by the state that’s added to the tax burden.) At this point, we’re better off fixing it than pointing fingers.

I suspect that the dynamics of Town Meeting have limited the spread of any tax revolt. My local school budget was a lot like Montpelier’s: small spending increase but a big tax hike. Plenty of people were upset over rising taxes; but when you hear the whole thing explained by your neighbors on the school board, it’s a lot harder to turn them down. Still, although our budget passed easily, there was widespread acknowledgment that the current system is unsustainable.

People like Peter Shumlin and Shap Smith are smart enough to realize this.

There seems to be a growing consensus for system-wide consolidation; I expect that some sort of consolidation bill will pass during the 2014 session. If not, the Republicans would be smart to jump on the school funding issue and put health care reform on the back burner.

There’d be some hypocrisy in that, to be sure. As one former lawmaker pointed out to me, the current Act 60/68 school funding system was promoted by Governor Douglas and the House, which then had a Republican majority. As my source recalls, majority Democrats in the Senate didn’t much like the plan, but decided to go along because many communities saw an immediate tax cut.

So when people like Heidi Scheuermann and Patti Komline call for “Repeal and Replace,” don’t forget that it was Jim Douglas, Patron Saint of Vermont Republicans, who foisted this system on us.

(Wouldn’t it be nice if our political media occasionally made use of their archives to let us know the history of issues like this? Yes, it would. But they don’t.)  

Hey look: real live 21st Century Republicanism! State Representatives Heidi Scheuermann and Patti Komline have launched an online petition drive (at change.org) to overhaul Vermont’s school funding system. Now, that’s moving the VTGOP into the digital age!

The petition bears the unfortunate title “Support the Amendment to Repeal and Replace Act 60/68.” I say “unfortunate” because it echoes the spectacularly unsuccessful Republican call to “repeal and replace” Obamacare. But hey, I guess you can’t pretend to be small-P progressive if you call for repealing without replacing. From the petition’s text:

Many school districts work hard to keep their budgets constrained but unfortunately these efforts are NOT reflected in our huge property tax increases.  Act 60/68 has become too confusing and cumbersome.  A few stalwart legislators attempted to get an amendment passed last year to abolish Act 60/68 to no avail.  Now they need your help.  

“A few stalwart legislators.” Nice touch. At GMD, we like to think of ourselves as “a few stalwart bloggers.”  

I should take a snark break here to acknowledge that the school funding system does need some fixing. Indeed, in political terms, this issue could well be the biggest problem for Democrats in this year’s election. Yes, bigger than Vermont Health Connect — assuming the remaining bugs in VHC are fixed.  

As of 7:00 a.m. on March 4 (Happy Town Meeting Day, everybody!), the petition has garnered a whole 339 signatures. So they’ve still got some work to do.

People who sign the petition are offered the option of posting a comment, and here’s where the fun begins: some of the comments are rife with mistakes in basic grammar and spelling. And yes, I know that’s a common feature of online comments sections (GMD excluded), but really, on an education petition, I hope they’d be a little bit more careful.

Then again, this could be a cleverly-concealed argument for “repeal and replace”: if these signatories are products of our public school system, maybe it really does need an overhaul.

A Festival of English Class No-No’s, with names redacted to protect the former C-minus students, after the jump.  

Here we go!

Vermont is taxing the working class out of Vermont. We have one of the highest per pupil spending in the country.

As school populations decline, school budgets continue to escalate with no end in site.

Vermont is becoming none affordable to it working class residence.

being in Real Estate, I have witnessed many people who Have had enough of the high cost of taxes in the state of Vermont.

We need to return to a time when there is direct effect of what gets approved in one Town effects that Town’s budget.

This is another un afforadable plan in Vermont to redistribute wealth of hard working and achieving Vermonters.

The present system is unstainable.

people are losing their homes because of high yaxes

Act 60/68 id blatenly unfair!

The current system supports wasteful budgets and pushes the State toward the destruction of our finest educational instattutions

Clearly, the destruction of our finest educational instattutions is already well underway. Yaxes are too high. Time to change this unstainable system! Id blatenly unfair! No end is in site! Take action now, or Vermont will become none affordable!

(Probably not, but maybe.)

Found today on True North Reports, the right-wing “news” site that’s usually not worth the time it takes to click a mouse, is an item that’s actually worth noting. It’s about the introduction of H.772, the Right To Work Act, by two Republican state representatives. It was accompanied by the usual conservative freedom rhetoric — as if the greatest threat to workers’ freedom is the tyranny of labor unions, not, say, corporate paymasters who try to keep salaries and bennies as stingy as possible.

But I digress. None of the freedomy jibjab is worth my time or yours. But the last paragraph of TNR’s story provides an extensive quote from our Lieutenant Governor, Phil Scott:

Vermont Lt. Governor Phil Scott shared his support for legislation aiming to make Vermont more competitive. “I applaud the efforts of legislators, who understand that improving Vermont’s economy is one of the most important, if not the most important thing we must address in order to keep Vermont competitive on a regional and global scale” said Lt. Gov. Scott in an emailed statement. He also identifies with the struggle that Vermont business owners have. “As a small-business owner, I know first-hand the difficult environment that businesses face in this state, and know that we all have a hand in making it better. In this light, I am repeating my call to every committee, whether House or Senate, to view each and every bill through the lens of: “How will this grow jobs and help Vermont’s economy?” I fear we may be running out of time to focus on these issues; the economy can’t be fixed overnight.”

If you skim over that paragraph in the context of the article, you could easily conclude that Scott has endorsed the measure. If you look more closely, you’ll note a passel of Phil Scott weasel-words: he applauds “the efforts of legislators” to improve Vermont’s competitiveness, and “identifies with the struggle” of Vermont business owners in this “difficult environment” for business. And he urges lawmakers to consider “each and every bill through the lens of” job growth.

Nothing he hasn’t said before. Now, did the TNR writer take a generic Phil Scott comment and creatively append it to his Right To Work article? Or was this Scott’s actual reaction to the introduction of Right To Work?

If the latter, it looks like Scott’s attempt to avoid taking an actual position while giving a hearty dog-whistle to conservatives on one of their pet issues.

Either way, it’s another chapter in Phil Scott’s Profiles In (What’s The Opposite Of) Courage.  

Apparently some folks down Putney way are upset over the lack of consistent broadband service — and over Governor Shumlin’s declarations of “Mission Accomplished” on that front.

How upset? Upset enough to send out a press release in ALL CAPS.

APPROXIMATELY 300 RESIDENTS OF GOVERNOR PETER SHUMLIN’S HOME TOWN OF PUTNEY, VERMONT, STILL LACK HIGH SPEED BROADBAND, DESPITE PROMISES BY THE GOVERNOR TO “GET HIGH SPEED INTERNET TO EVERY LAST MILE IN THIS GREAT STATE BY THE END OF 2013 ! ”

… PUTNEY TOWN RESIDENTS WHO STILL LACK (HARD-WIRED) BROADBAND WILL BE REGISTERING THEIR FRUSTRATION AND ANGER WITH THE GOVERNOR’S BROKEN PROMISES AT THIS TUESDAY’S ANNUAL TOWN MEETING,…

TRADITIONALLY, GOV. SHUMLIN… ATTENDS HIS LOCAL TOWN MEETING, TO GIVE LOCAL RESIDENTS AN UPDATE ON HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS WELL AS HIS VISION FOR THE FUTURE.

LOCAL RESIDENTS HOPE TO ENGAGE GOV. SHUMLIN, AND HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE FOR KEEPING HIS PROMISE.

Nope, not a good look for a press release. Anyway, Mr. Field may or may not be overstating Shumlin’s “tradition” of attending his local town meeting, I don’t know. But it looks like the Gov (now, famously, a resident of East Montpelier) won’t be playing ire-catcher in Putney. From Shumlin’s public-appearance schedule:

Tuesday, March 4, Town Meeting Day

9:00 a.m. Visit Richmond Town Meeting

Camels Hump Middle School

173 School Street

10:15 a.m. Visit Georgia Town Meeting

Georgia Elementary School

4416 Ethan Allen Hwy, Georgia

I doubt that Shumlin is willfully ducking a broadband confrontation; he’s much more likely to draw heat over school funding wherever he goes on Tuesday. For his part, Mr. Field could have checked with the Governor’s office before sending out his press rel — sorry, PRESS RELEASE. I suspect he deliberately failed to do so, in hopes of drawing attention to his actual Town Meeting Day gambit (and, bonus, shaming the Governor for not attending an event he had no plans to attend):

RESIDENTS PLAN TO INTRODUCE A RESOLUTION ADVISING THEIR LOCAL SELECTBOARD TO INSIST THAT LOCAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES AND THE GOVERNOR CARRY THROUGH IMMEDIATELY WITH SHUMLIN’S PROMISE…

Gah. Enough with the all caps, plz.

This isn’t Field’s first public foray on the subject of rural broadband. One year ago in VTDigger:

Some residents in Gov. Peter Shumlin’s hometown of Putney are skeptical about whether the state will keep its promise to ensure all Vermonters have access to broadband by the end of 2013, and they are doubtful about the quality of the service.

John Field, who lives on Putney’s West Hill Road near the boundary with Dummerston, estimates that 20 or so homes in his neighborhood lack broadband access.

What FIeld wants is hard-wired broadband, rather than the wireless variety that’s the only option for some sparsely-populated areas. I can sympathize, but look: that area of Putney/Dummerston is popular with white-collar professionals who choose to live out in the boonies. Like, say, John Field:

Field and his wife, Jane, both work for Brattleboro Memorial Hospital, as a psychotherapist/social worker and pediatrician, respectively.

In other words, they could live anywhere they want. Now, that’s a beautiful area, and if my family had two professional incomes (and jobs in Brattleboro), we might well choose to live there too. But, geez, don’t expect city-level services if you live deep in the countryside. Just ask the head man at Field’s ISP.

VTel’s president Michel Guité says he is also a big fan of fiber, or hardwired Internet access, but that’s a “dream that won’t happen” in Vermont, because it isn’t economically feasible in many towns.

The Governor’s promises have sparked some unrealistic expectations. But that’s what they are: unrealistic. John Field, through his ALL-CAPS PRESS RELEASE, has raised another expectation: Shumlin’s personal attendance at Town Meeting. And when the Governor fails to show, Field and his affluent, forest-dwelling friends will have another pretext for railing about broken promises.  

At the top of this week’s “Boy, do I miss Peter Freyne” column in Seven Days, Paul Heintz puts his oar in the water thusly:

Nearly two months into the legislative session, the scene at the Statehouse remains unusually slow.

Yeah, well, actually, no. It may be unusually smooth, or unusually dull. It may be low on bickering, hand-wringing, and stumblebumitude (if it ain’t a word, it oughta be), but actually, this legislative session has been pretty eventful.

It’s just that most of the events involve the legislative process at work. Bills on a variety of tough subjects — bills that have foundered in past sessions — are moving through the system with dispatch. Some of those bills are better than others (let us not speak further of campaign finance reform), but a hell of a lot of stuff is being accomplished with not much drama.

Methinks the Democrats have gotten a solid handle on how to operate with a veto-proof majority.

Maybe they learned some stuff from the difficulties of 2012, when bills were derailed by the least little bit of opposition or controversy and the State Senate was basically a disaster. (So bad that Senate Penitent Pro Tem John Campbell came thisclose to losing his job, and only hung onto it by promising to overhaul his office and whip himself into shape.) Yeah, that 2012 session was kind of a stinker. Especially since the Democrats had zero excuses.

Last year was better, but there was still room for improvement. Some things got through: end of life, marijuana decrim, drivers’ licenses for migrant workers, to name a few. But others went nowhere, or fell victim to House-Senate disputes: campaign finance reform, shorelands protection, child-care unionization. Governor Shumlin’s doomed tax proposals (Earned Income Tax Credit cut and hey, remember that zany break-open ticket tax?) sucked a lot of air out of the room, and he allowed some good proposals on child care and energy to die rather than accept alternative funding sources.

This year, a lot of formerly difficult items have been sailing along. There’s still time for the session to go sideways, but look at some of the legislature’s accomplishments to date:  

— Campaign finance reform. Yes, the bill set high contribution limits, but at least they got something through after years and years of kicking the can down the road.

— The Senate has approved a child-care unionization bill.

— The shorelands protection bill, which was blocked in the Senate last year after House passage, has cleared the Senate.

— The Senate has passed a bill to streamline decisions on hospitalization and medication of psychiatric patients.

— Lawmakers have begun taking some real steps toward water quality improvement and Lake Champlain cleanup, including the ever-nettlesome identification of potential funding sources.

— The House Education Committee is finalizing a bill to consolidate public school governance.

The Legislature is also moving on two bills (a ban on using hand-held cellphones while driving and a mandate for employers to provide paid sick time) that may face a gubernatorial veto — or a face-saving derailment before reaching the Governor’s desk. But at least they’re moving.

I can’t say I like everything that’s been done. But I like the fact that the Dems are working together in an apparently harmonious way to get stuff done. It’s better than the squabbling and vacillation that too often characterized 2012 and 2013.

What’s this? A happy blogger? Horrors!

Well, not entirely. But satisfied, within reasonable expectations.  

So the once-great IBM took another step into the Abyss of Forgotten Giants today with another round of layoffs, including approximately 150 at its Essex Junction plant. The fact that it was “only” 150 conpared to last year’s roughly 400 is, I suppose, cause for a teeny-tiny bit of celebration. Cue the Kazoo Chorus.

The numbers are all approximate and rough because IBM refuses to disclose layoff numbers or, for that matter, the size of its domestic workforce because the actual figures would be so damn embarrassing. The IBM watchdog group Alliance@IBM keeps track of the numbers as best it can; it reports that IBM’s domestic workforce peaked at 154,000 in the year 2000. That number had dropped to an estimated 88,000 by the end of last year, and will now fall even further.

But wait, there’s more. Alliance@IBM says the 88,000 figure includes more than 20,000 vendors, contractors, and supplemental workers. Which brings its actual salaried workforce to a pitiful 66,000.

(IBM’s global workforce has remained basically stable, with thousands upon thousands of new positions in India, China, and anywhere else labor is cheap and fungible, up to and perhaps including Elbonia, Freedonia, Anvilania, Yukkabukkoo, and perhaps Tatooine*, essentially displacing employees in the United States.)

*That Jabba, now there’s a guy we can cut a deal with.

No wonder the Alliance “Job Cuts” message board is littered with reports from laid-off workers whose primary emotion is relief rather than sadness. IBM has become a toxic workplace, and a lot of people are just glad to get the hell out, even if it wasn’t their choice.

In corporatespeak, the layoffs were the result of a poor fourth-quarter earnings report. Which is, if I may put it bluntly, either a lie or spectacularly poor management. You shouldn’t react to a single disappointing quarter with massive layoffs that will cost a billion dollars in reorganization charges.

Well, you shouldn’t unless your one and only goal is boosting profits, even if it means cannibalizing the company’s future — or, as technology reporter Robert X. Cringely puts it, “eating your seed corn.” Cringely has reported extensively on IBM’s one and only strategic goal: to goose its profits as quickly as possible. Preferably by growing the business; but failing that, by selling assets and slashing payroll.

And IBM has been steadily “failing that,” and resorting to corporate cannibalism. Alliance@IBM’s figures don’t lie, and neither does IBM’s stonewall on domestic workforce.

David Sunderland, head of the Vermont Republican Party, reacted to the IBM news with complete predictability:

We call on Governor Shumlin to take immediate action that will ease the burden on Vermont’s businesses and individuals by; reducing Vermont’s tax burden to encourage growth, easing Vermont’s regulatory burden by reducing bureaucratic red tape, and lowering our state’s energy costs for individuals and small businesses.

If Sunderland has a brain in his head, he knows damn well that IBM is doing what it’s doing because of its global strategy (or lack thereof). The Essex Junction plant would be slowly withering away even if we ripped off all the red tape and gave IBM free electricity and a tax rate of zero.

(Speaking of Sunderland, Bad Journalism Alert: The Burlington Free Press’ online article on the IBM layoffs puts Sunderland’s boilerplate in the headline: “Republican Chairman Chides Governor on IBM Job Cuts.” Way to thumb the scales, Freeploid!)

Now, back to our story.

Interestingly, Lt. Gov. Phil Scott, Republican Enough For Most Sane People, issued a more nuanced statement. He naturally called for more action “to grow our economy, create high-paying jobs, or make it easier to do business within our borders.” But he put the blame, not on Shumlin or the Democrats, but on “we in Montpelier.”  Classy. I’m sure it earned him no points with the Darcie Johnston wing of the party.

In any event, the takeaway from today’s layoffs is Same As It Ever Was: IBM’s circling the drain, putting short-term profit above actually building a business, As far as is practicable, it is abandoning America, it is outsourcing and cost-cutting everywhere, and selling off valuable parts of its business. Shareholders and top executives win big; everybody else takes it in the shorts.

IBM used to be a good corporate citizen and a valued source of stable, high-paying jobs. The lights may still be on at Essex Junction — well, some of ’em anyway — but that IBM is already long gone. We know how this story will end.  

This week’s issue of Seven Days (THE SEXXXXXXXX ISSUE!!!!!!! Purely for journalistic reasons, not at all an appeal to our baser instincts and our baser advertisers) includes a lengthy, exhaustively detailed look at the very combative campaign for mayor of Montpelier, featuring incumbent John Hollar and challenger Gwen Hallsmith, penned by Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz. Read at your pleasure; my attention is focused on a single anecdote buried deep within the article, and presented by Heintz without commentary. Which I will hereby provide. You’re welcome, Paul.

We pick up our story with Mayor Hollar suffering a real bad case of Bunched Knicker Syndrome over some reporting in the Times Argus that struck Hizzoner as too favorable toward Hallsmith. Take it away, Paul…

Upset with the paper’s coverage, Hollar wrote to publisher John Mitchell to complain about what he called “numerous distortions and false statements.” Mitchell, apparently, agreed with the mayor. In an email to Hollar, the publisher said that if he had not been out of town, he “might otherwise have been more involved in this story sooner.”

“I admire your restraint on this matter, and, unfortunately, share your concerns, i.e. ‘tone, directions and implications,’ about how this story has been handled,” Mitchell wrote.

And there’s the journalistic perfidy. It’s a universal, if unwritten, rule of the trade: if you run a news operation and one of your minions falls afoul of a public figure, you back your staffer. Even if you think the staffer was all wrong: you deal with it in private, and close ranks in public. You do not undercut your staff.  

Mitchell’s grovel before Hollar was craven and cowardly, and unworthy of one of the great families of Vermont newspapering. And although Mitchell saw fit to bow and scrape before the mayor, his subordinate saw it differently. And still does.

Times Argus editor Steve Pappas makes no such apologies.

“Stories such as this, where conflicts of interest are raised among public officials, have to be explored,” he says, noting that the paper has given just as much scrutiny to Gov. Peter Shumlin and Barre Mayor Thom Lauzon. “We felt that we did our due diligence.”

Steve Pappas has done yeoman’s work keeping the Times Argus semi-relevant on a shoestring budget that offers salaries barely competitive with Mickey D’s. John Mitchell should get down on his knees and thank God every damn day that he’s got Steve Pappas running his ship. The last thing he should be doing is sticking a politically convenient knife in his editor’s back.

Shameful.  

No, not that closet — the partisan closet. Peter “Mr. Microphone” Hirschfeld:

Newly updated filings at the Federal Elections Commission show that Lisman… contributed $10,000 to the Vermont GOP on Jan. 6. That’s in addition to the $16,000 Lisman gave to the Vermont Republican Party between Aug. 13 of 2010 and Dec. 8 of 2011.

… There are no records of contributions from Lisman to the Vermont Democratic Party.

Ah yes, it turns out that Bruce Lisman, retired Wall Street panjandrum and member of a fincnail-sector fraternity that gets together once a year to dress in drag and share misogynist jokes and yuck it up about how great it is to be filthy rich, has been one of the VTGOP’s biggest individual donors — even as he heads up the “nonpartisan” Campaign for Vermont.

If you need a reminder of how rich ol’ Brucey is:

As for the donations in 2010 and 2011 – they arrived in three installments of $5,000 and one of $1,000 – Lisman said, “I don’t remember them.”

A few grand? Ha, that’s chump change for the likes of Lisman. But he insists that his personal contributions have no relationship whatsoever to the “nonpartisan” organization he personally bankrolls to the tune of over a million bucks.

“I hadn’t considered it that way,” he said.

(Cough.) And if you buy that, I’ve got some subprime derivatives to sell you.

In case you still need more proof of CFV’s partisan bent, here are some figures compiled by people I know with more time on their hands and more database experience than I, showing that the CFV “grassroots” lean heavily to the Republican side of the aisle.

CFV claims more than a thousand “partners.” That list includes 66 who were members of local Republican town committees between 2011 and 2013.  

That may not seem terribly overwhelming, but look: only 2 were members of Democratic, Progressive, or Liberty Union town committees.

TWO.

Do some quick math here: a CFV “partner” is 33 times more likely to be a Republican Party official than a Democratic Party official.  

One other tidbit: 330 CFV “partners” took a Republican ballot in the 2012 Presidential primary. Compared to the entire electorate, CFV partners were three times more likely to have voted in that Republican primary.

Put it all together, you have an organization that is putatively nonpartisan but has a strong conservative lean. It’s headed (and entirely funded) by one of the leading individual donors to the Vermont Republican Party. And a man so wealthy that he “can’t remember” giving away $16,000 of his fortune.

I’d still like to see some intrepid reporter drill Mr. Lisman on his 2010 speech in South Burlington, dissected here and here.  

To sum it up: In a talk entitled “Finding Skin” (which concerned the importance of “having skin in the game” — rather ironic from a guy who doesn’t expect people to give a goddamn penny to join CFV), Lisman echoed many of the tenets of the Wall Street/one percenter crowd, including the desirability of lower taxes for rich people and capital gains and the idea that economic growth should be the “first magnitude” priority for government. And he described the 2008 financial meltdown as it if were an act of God that could not have been prevented or foreseen by his fellow Masters of the Universe.

Lisman also parroted the “47%” shibboleth: he asserted that “more than 50% of potential taxpayers” don’t pay any taxes. Which is just flat-out bullshit: nearly 50% don’t pay federal income taxes, but they are not exempt from all the other taxes. But even if you accept his argument, what he’s saying is that the poor should pay more.

This speech is almost four years old, but it’s the only time I know of that Lisman has revealed his own political views in a public forum. I’d love it if someone asked him about that speech, which is still viewable online thanks to Burlington’s community access folks.

I think those questions are fair game for someone who’s spent a million bucks (and counting) in an effort to influence public policy in Vermont.  

A sad headline to write. And unlikely, but true. Our own St. Patrick, chair of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, has stirred the ire of left-wing advocacy groups over his adherence to Senate tradition.

Credo Action, a liberal group with a mailing list of over three million, has sent an email blast targeting Leahy who, in spite of a 100% prochoice voting record (according to both NARAL and Planned Parenthood), is enabling obstructionist Republicans in their efforts to block President Obama’s judicial nominees.

As the email lays out, Leahy has thus far refused to abandon a relic of a largely dismantled patronage system known as the “blue slip,” which allows a single senator to effectively veto anyone nominated to a federal judgeship in their state.

The immediate consequence:

Georgia’s two Republican Senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, wielded the blue slip to pressure the White House into a lopsided deal that includes four judges chosen by the Republican lawmakers and only two selected by President Obama.

One of the Senators’ nominees is Michael Boggs, who has a record of opposing reproductive rights and marriage equality because he wants to “stand up for Christian values.” This week, 27 progressive groups sent a letter to Democrats on the Judiciary Committee urging them to vote against Boggs. Now, Credo is directly targeting Leahy for refusing to modify (or dump) the blue slip rule. Or, as Credo put it:

Tell Senator Patrick Leahy: We need judges who will protect a woman’s right to choose – stop allowing rightwing senators to blackball President Obama’s pro-choice nominees to the federal judiciary.

The “blue slip” tradition, according to ThinkProgress, has its origins in an earlier Senate era:

Although the Constitution gives the president power to name judges “with the advice and consent of the Senate,” for much of American history lower court judgeships were often treated as little more than patronage jobs to be doled out by senators.

… Two relics from the old patronage days remain, however. The first is that seats on the federal appeals courts are considered bound to a particular state. …The second is the “blue slip” process, which allows a single senator to prevent a judicial nominee from their home state from receiving a committee hearing, effectively vetoing the nomination.

This is one of the few shortcomings of having a Senator with a whole lot of seniority: he tends to be loyal to the arcane ways of the World’s Most August Boys’ Club.

And this, in spite of the fact that the blue slip rule was ignored the last time the Republicans ran the Senate:

In 2003, for example, when Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) took over as Judiciary chair and George W. Bush was president, Hatch largely abandoned the blue slip rule. According to the Congressional Research Service, “[a] return of a negative blue slip by one or both home-state Senators d[id] not prevent the committee from moving forward with the nomination – provided that the Administration engaged in pre-nomination consultation with both of the home-state Senators,” during Hatch’s tenure.

So Leahy has a decision to make. Support one of the Senate’s most obscure and useless rules, or clear the way for more Obama nominees to be confirmed.

The clock is ticking. The Republicans stand a good chance of regaining a Senate majority in November. Should that happen, we’ll see a whole lot of judicial vacancies lingering on and on, as the Republicans try to stall until the 2016 election.