Shap Smith came back from a 2012 Alaska vacation a changed man, with a newfound dedication to fighting climate change. So the Speaker told House Democrats in December, as reported by “The Ubiquitous” Peter Hirschfeld: (Warning: you may encounter the Mitchell Family Paywall.)

“I was really profoundly influenced by my trip to Alaska, and seeing the impact of climate change and hearing from people what it’s going to mean there,” Smith said. “And it just made me realize we’re not putting enough focus on something that could completely change our planet.”

…”We can’t shy away from it because other people are. We can’t say that because the rest of the country is deciding not to take action, that we will not.”

For his part, Governor Shumlin — who repeatedly refers to global warming as a “hair on fire” situation — promised a new push on renewable energy and efficiency.

“We’re doing abysmally on thermal efficiency,” Shumlin said. “Let’s find a way to work together in the next two years to catch up and do better so we’re not sending our oil and heating fuels out of our windows and doors and the dollars to countries that mostly do not like us.”

Yeah! Go Democrats! Let’s take our veto-proof majorities and show everyone how big a difference we can make!

Or not.  

Fast forward to the (almost) end of the Legislative session, and what do we have to show for those December dedications?

Jack diddly squat, if you ask me.

The tonsorial conflagration took a back seat to the Governor’s push for education and welfare reform — and, especially, to his abhorrence of “broad-based tax increases.” (Meaning tax increases he doesn’t like.)

The Legislature, having rejected Shumlin’s break-open ticket tax (and his unbelievably high revenue estimate) as a revenue source for new energy programs, has squeezed out a bit of new money for low-income heating assistance and weatherization, but nothing meaningful. And to the best of my recollection, nobody in the Executive or Legislative branches ever considered any real expansion of renewable energy.

Scalp feeling a bit tingly, Governor?

How about a trip to Antarctica, Mr. Speaker?  

Good morning, class. Today in “American Government,” we’ll discuss how a budget is passed.

First, the executive — the President or Governor — proposes a budget, including tax and spending plans. His budget goes to the Legislature, where Representatives and Senators examine the budget, take testimony, and consider the Governor’s plans. Changes can be made in various committees, or in the full House and Senate. There is debate and discussion in each.

If the House and Senate approve different versions of the budget, then three guys go into a small room, toss everything out, and make a deal amongst themselves. And that’s how we get a budget, boys and girls.

Well, at least that’s how it worked this year in Vermont.

Gov. Peter Shumlin and Statehouse leaders announced Tuesday afternoon that they will scrap all new tax proposals this legislative session.

This explains the Governor’s persistent optimism that, in the end, the Legislature would pass a “sensible” budget with NO NEW “BROAD-BASED” (cough*except gas and property*cough) TAXES.

This 2013 Legislative budget process? A mug’s game, fixed from the start. Push comes to shove, Smith and Campbell told their caucuses to take a dive. And they will.

I’m not writing here about the merits of the budget agreement (hint: a damn disappointing batch of weak tea, considering that us voters gave the Democrats veto-proof majorities to work with), but about the process. Which stinks.

If I were a member of House Ways and Means or Senate Finance, I’d be royally pissed. Because, as Anne Galloway points out, the House and Senate plans “had been carefully calibrated over the course of months of testimony, discussion and compromise.”

And after one closed-door meeting of the Three Kings? Poof, it’s gone.

And that, boys and girls, is how Democracy works.  

Doesn’t happen very often, but this time I have to admit it: I agree with Angry Jack Lindley, chair of the Vermont Republican Party.

For months, Angry Jack has been calling for an independent probe of outside campaign spending on behalf of Attorney General Bill Sorrell. Lindley alleges collusion between Sorrell and a Super PAC funded by the Democratic Attorney Generals Association. That group’s last-minute infusion of $180,000 probably saved Sorrell from defeat in last year’s Democratic primary. Sorrell has rebuffed Lindley’s calls for a special counsel; instead, he’s told Lindley to ask one of the county State’s Attorneys to take up the case. Lindley made his request to Addison County State’s Attorney David Fenster.

And that’s where things have been stuck ever since.

Fenster told VTDigger his office is still reviewing the request.

“None of our offices are structured in such a way where we have a ready staff to engage in these types of investigations,” Fenster said. “I don’t think that means we’re incapable of doing it, but it’s outside of our normal duties.”

“Still reviewing the request.” After months have passed. And Fenster isn’t terribly sanguine on the prospects for any action anytime.  

Still, Sorrell refuses to reconsider appointing independent counsel. He called doing so a “gross waste of $20,000 to $50,000” in taxpayer funds, partly because there’s no incriminating evidence to be found, he said.

In other news, the fox has searched the henhouse and reports that no chickens are missing.

Bill Sorrell is probably right. A Super PAC representing Attorneys General is smart enough to spend its money within the (generous) bounds of the law. But I’m on Angry Jack’s side here: it’s worth spending the money to eliminate all public doubts about whether our top law enforcement official broke the law.

That’s kind of important, no? $20,000 — or even $50,000 — is a small price to pay.

Besides, I wouldn’t be surprised if Sorrell is exaggerating, since his argument is based entirely on cost.  

Apparently the Governor is losing faith in the legislative process, and in his “very good relationship with the leadership in the Senate and the House.” Because after the Senate passed its tax bill yesterday — with the support of moderate Democrats and Republicans and over the opposition of Senate liberals, by the way — he blasted it as way, way too liberal. With the same kind of angry, overheated, misleading rhetoric that seems designed specifically to meet the needs of Republican campaign operatives:

“Now is not the time to raise more taxes on hard-working Vermonters,” the governor said in a statement. “Lawmakers this session have now voted to raise taxes on Vermonters’ income, clothing, meals, vending machine purchases, water, soft drinks, candy, satellite television and cigarettes. …Vermonters expect us to control spending by using existing tax dollars more efficiently. We must protect our fragile economic recovery.”

I excised about half of the blah blah blah (or should I say “quack quack quack”), but if you’re curious you can read the whole thing at VTDIgger.

I’ve already addressed the “hard-working Vermonters” nonsense, but he throws a nice new curveball into the mix with a line straight out of Vermonters First: his laundry list of tax increases approved by lawmakers. It includes absolutely every item approved by the full House or Senate or any legislative committee. Most of those items are no longer on the table, and Shumlin knows it. His statement gives lawmakers zero credit for their efforts to meet Shumlin halfway.

And it fails to make a coherent case against the specific tax increases that could actually land on his desk.  

Well, I guess that’s understandable, because the Governor’s gonna look bad if he has to argue specifics. Capping mortgage interest deductions at $12,000? Imposing a 3% minimum tax on wealthy Vermonters who avoid paying their share thanks to overly generous tax deductions? There are no good arguments against those proposals, so the Governor has to change the subject.

Even if it means providing excellent campaign material for the Republicans and Vermonters First. And even if it means a smaller Democratic majority in the next biennium.  

If Lenore Broughton had actually hired a smart political operative to run her Big Bucks Bonfire, Vermonters First, the op’s first move would be to start sending camera crews to Governor Shumlin’s news conferences.

Because the Governor is making the conservative anti-tax argument as well as, or better than, any Vermont Republican in sight. Can’t you just see the 2014 Vermonters First attack ads, with Shumlin railing against Legislative Democrats for trying to “raise every single broad-based tax in Vermont,” aiming to “stall our economic recovery,” and “asking Vermonters to pay more taxes than they need to pay”? (Quotes are all from last Thursday’s presser.)

Great stuff. It oughta be far more effective than the warmed-over Tea party crapola that wasted a million bucks of Broughton’s inheritance in 2012.

This is why I hate it when Democratic politicians adopt Republican talking points. They help make the opposition’s case, lending it credibility that the conservatives could never muster on their own. When Democrats talk like Republicans, they allow the battle to be fought on Republican turf.

And when a Democrat characterizes other Dems as irresponsible spendthrifts, well, I think we all know who gets the benefit of that.

As the Legislative session nears its end, top lawmakers have been compromising in the Governor’s direction on taxes. Shumlin, meanwhile, continues to express optimism in the process…

I have a very good relationship with the leadership in the Senate and the House, and I know we’ll come to the end of this process with a thoughtful bill…

…while simultaneously refusing to give an inch on taxes:

…that gets the job done without asking Vermonters to pay more taxes than they need to pay.

The Governor’s rhetoric is undiminished, even though the actual tax measures currently under consideration are relatively minor and intelligently targeted.  

Shumlin rails against lawmakers who want to “raise every single broad-based tax in Vermont.” There are two problems with this:

— Lawmakers went scrounging for money because they knew the Governor would reject any big tax hikes. So instead of taking one simple approach (raising taxes on the rich, for instance), they tried to nickel and dime their way to a balanced budget, hoping to fly under Shumlin’s anti-tax radar.

— Some of the tax increases are minuscule. For instance, the Senate Finance Committee’s proposal to make bottled water subject to the sales tax. Technically, that’s an increase in a broad-based tax — but it’s a narrowly focused increase on a product that almost nobody actually needs.

The Governor also continues to repeat his “hardworking Vermonters” line — “This is not the time to raise income taxes, sales taxes, meals taxes on hardworking Vermonters.” Which would be relevant if the Legislature were really threatening “hardworking Vermonters” with big tax hikes. In truth, the tax hikes and shifts that are happening or that would happen if Shumlin had his way — the gas tax, the Earned Income Tax Credit cut, the increases in property taxes — hit “working Vermonters” hardest, while Legislative proposals try to minimize the pain on the middle class and working poor.

Shumlin’s ire even extends to Sen. Tim Ashe’s brilliant proposals to cap the mortgage interest deduction at $12,000 and impose a 3% minimum tax on those earning more than $125,000 a year.

To the former, my thought was, “How much property do you have to own, in order to pay more than $12,000 a year in property taxes? And to the latter, my response was: “Wait, there are top earners who are paying less than 3% in state income tax?”

They are not paying their fair share. Not by a longshot.  

The Legislature has tried to meet the Governor halfway, and he has refused to budge. In the process, he’s created a whole lot of potential campaign material for Vermonters First.

If they ride his material to some measure of electoral success in 2014, then remember to thank our Governor, Peter Shumlin, for lending a helping hand to some of our most downtrodden citizens — Vermont Republicans. And for contributing to the defeat of some fellow Democrats.  

Vermont’s craft beer scene is red-hot. Breweries like Hill Farmstead, Lawson’s Finest, and Alchemist (Heady Topper, sigh) can hardly keep their product on the shelves. They’re winning national acclaim, and Vermont “beer tourism” is becoming quite a thing.

So wouldn’t it make sense to allow our craft brewers to ship directly to customers? Vermont wineries can do it; why not beer makers? Vermont’s brand (and brew) would get broader distribution, potentially creating opportunities for even more microbrewers and nanobrewers to enter the market.

As it happens, there’s a bill before a House committee that would do just that. Said committee took testimony yesterday, and you’ll never guess who spoke against the bill. Yep, retailers and distributors, who apparently fear the minuscule loss of sales they might suffer.

And boy, did they have to dig deep to find arguments against the bill.

A retailer and a distributors association testified Wednesday before a House committee that they are concerned about being shipped to underage consumers.

Really?

America’s thirsty teenagers are just waiting for the chance to mail-order high-priced specialty brews with complex flavor profiles?

Naah. They’re gonna keep on trying to buy Old Mil at their local party store.

But wait, there’s more!

They say that if Vermont allows beer to be shipped in state, then it would have to open itself up to out-of-state breweries shipping beer to Vermont customers.

To that, I say (and I’m sure Hill and Lawson and Alchemist would agree), “Bring it on!”

And one more specious argument, this from George Bergin of Vermont Wholesale Beverage in Winooski:

Selling alcohol in stores helps the Department of Liquor Control monitor who the beer is sold to and what condition they’re in when they buy it, to ensure they’re selling it safely, he said.

Wait wait wait. So you’re telling me that if this bill passes, somebody might drunk-order beer over the Internet.

Uh, there’s a small problem with that scenario: the delay between order and delivery. More than enough time to dry out, even if you pay the extra for overnight express.

Three strikes, the opposition is out.

Besides, I really don’t know what they’re so worried about. The only people who are going to mail-order beer are those who are (a) seeking a specialty product not available in their area, and (b) willing to pay full price plus shipping. That’s a small and devoted clientele. Hardly a threat to retailers and distributors, but to specialty brewers, it’s a significant new opportunity.

I hope the Legislature ignores the groundless pleadings of middlemen and retailers, and passes a bill that would open new markets to some of our best entrepreneurs.  

Governor Shumlin had a news conference today; his first in two weeks. It came at a time when the Legislature is in high gear, trying to plow through its most contentious issues before adjournment. But the Governor’s topic today wasn’t taxes, or the Earned Income Tax Credit, or the Reach Up lifetime cap, or any of the other issues where he’s been at odds with most of his own party.

No, it was education. With a dual focus: the not-terribly-controversial elements of his education program*, and the not-at-all-controversial celebration of Vermont’s semifinalists for the 2013 Presidential Scholars Program — six high school seniors of remarkable intelligence and achievement.

*His press release omitted his proposed EITC cut to fund child care.

It was a nice event, but there was one false note. It was like going to a top-notch classical concert where there was one notable blunder: it’s unfair to judge the whole event by one discordant note, but it’s also difficult to ignore.  

The six semifinalists, two of whom will be chosen as Presidential Scholars, are Abigail Dutton of South Royalton, David Fickes of Peacham, Julia Gilbert of Montpelier, Sossina Gutema of Essex, Timothy Rizvanov of Essex Junction, and Lucy Rogers of Waterville. The Governor announced each of them in turn (except Gilbert, who was out of town) and read a list of their achievements.

And when he got to Gutema, whose father is Ethiopian and whose mother is originally from East Germany, and who is a lovely young woman with a well-tended Afro, the Governor referred to her as “one of the great students that helps Vermont be a more diverse and extraordinary state.”

Which immediately made me think, Why is the brown one always the Avatar of Diversity?

Especially since there was another perfectly good Avatar on hand: Timothy Rizvanov, child of two Russian emigres. But he’s white, so he doesn’t count, I guess.

It’s a small point, and I don’t want it to overshadow the entire presser or the accomplishments of these six students. But it’s a point worth making. It speaks to the way Us White People tend to unconsciously pigeonhole those of other races and ethnicities. And even though it was meant in a perfectly positive way, it was a false note in an otherwise pleasant performance.  

It’s amazing what a deadline can do to the legislative process. In the blink of an eye, deliberation becomes action. Today’s Exhibit A: the hastily-arranged House/Senate compromise on raising Vermont’s gas tax, which could be signed into law as soon as tomorrow. As reported by the Freeploid’s Nancy Remsen (who, as far as I can tell, is the first with the story), the chairs of the House and Senate Transportation Committees had a late-afternoon meeting yesterday with Governor Shumlin, which produced a compromise between the two chambers’ competing versions of the bill.

After an hour of intense talks. One… single… hour.

I won’t reproduce all the details, but suffice it to say the compromise bill accomplishes two things: it provides enough revenue to give Vermont its full draw on federal transportation funds, and it gradually begins to shift the gas tax from a per-gallon levy to a per-dollar tax.

The House and Senate are likely to vote on the bill today, and the Governor may sign it tomorrow. Perhaps at his weekly press conference, scheduled for 11 a.m. Thursday.

So why the sudden rush? It’s the money, honey.

… time was short to enact the law changes so the new assessment could take effect next Wednesday. If lawmakers had failed to deliver the bill to the governor in time for the intended May 1 start date, the expected revenues would fall short by $1.6 million.

Which would have caused an additional shortfall in federal funds. Powerful motivation. Enough to make even the pokiest of lawmakers sit up, take notice, and do something.

Thumbs up to Remsen for getting the story. From my brief scan of other news outlets, it seems to be a Freeploid exclusive.

OTOH, thumbs down to the Freeploid for feeding the trolls.  

In its unbridled pursuit of multi-platforming, social media, consumer engagement, or insert your own Digital Age buzzword, the ‘Loid posted a question on its Facebook page:

Get ready for higher gas prices. Vermont lawmakers reached agreement late this afternoon on a plan to hike fuel taxes, which they say is needed to compensate for falling revenue as driving habits change. What do you think about the plan?

It’s like waving a red flag in front of a bull. And it produced the predictable cascade of conservative ranting. A small sample:

Y’know, the Comments under news articles in the Freeploid and other MSM outlets are toxic enough. Why encourage the trolls on your Facebook page?

Yeah, I know. Pageviews.  

Well, well. Peter Hirschfeld’s article on the internal strife in the Vermont Republican Party continues to provoke reaction — most of it within Republican circles. (Full article behind the Mitchall Family Paywall; short version available free here. My summary with commentary available here on GMD.) The gist of the piece is that a group of (relatively) moderate Republicans led by Lt. Gov. Phil Scott is making a serious bid to take control away from the pack of far-right losers who have led the party into the political wilderness.

And now, VTGOP chair “Angry Jack” Lindley has sent an e-mail to “My Fellow Republicans” in which he tried to reframe the internal debate, to whit:

— Portraying the VTGOP as a big-tent operation with its own identity.

— Defending his own track record as party chair.

— Providing a list of all the great things going on in Republicanland.

— Giving Lt. Gov. Phil Scott a good smacking around.

(I’ve appended the full e-mail to the end of this diary.)

Let’s start with the last bit first, shall we? In his message, Lindley ignores Scott’s concerns about policy and focuses on process: It’s not proper, says Jack, for an elected official to “dominate or run the State Party.”

Jack’s got a point, but only a technical one. Of course, a single officeholder shouldn’t “dominate” his or her party. But I don’t think Phil Scott is trying to do that. He simply sees a party that’s gone seriously off the rails, and is trying to assemble a group of like-minded Republicans to chart a new course. And methinks Lindley is being a bit too dismissive of Scott, considering that he’s the only statewide Republican with a record of success and proven appeal to independent voters. At the very least, Lindley ought to welcome Scott’s advice and input. He’s the only winner you’ve got!

Lindley admits the 2012 results were “disappointing,” which is about the kindest possible characterization. But he points out that he’s pulled the party out of debt — mainly by not spending any money whatsoever —  and begun “building for a successful 2014.” Don’t know if he managed to write that with a straight face, but never mind.  

So, what exciting work is being done to build a successful 2014? Lindley lists 12 “things we are working on”:

1. New Political Director hired and on the job

2. Strategic Planning Committee is drafting a plan for success

3. A new more modern VTGOP website

4. More active social media (are you following us on Twitter and Facebook?)

5. Weekly Chairman’s Newsletter (coming next week – every Wednesday)

6. The annual summer Boat Cruise

7. A special event with a notable GOP leader (mid-summer)

8. Recruiting of candidates (we already have 7 interested candidates!)

9. Social Media Training

10. Candidate Body Language Training

11. Candidate Messaging Training

12. Women for VT’s future

My favorite is “Body Language Training.” I think Jack Lindley himself ought to enroll in numbers 10 and 11. And I can hardly wait to start receiving his weekly Chairman’s Newsletter.

None of this addresses the VTGOP’s fundamental problem: its ideology. Whether or not it’s a captive of the national GOP, it has thoroughly demonstrated a complete lack of appeal beyond a hardcore 35% conservative electorate. And if it doesn’t find a way to broaden its appeal, it is doomed to failure after failure.

Lindley’s e-mail also includes the entire text of Hirschfeld’s article, which would seem to be a pretty profound breach of copyright. And a curious move from someone who supposedly respects property rights and entrepreneurship. I wonder if anyone from the Mitchell Family will protest. And if they do, I wonder how Lindley will react.

And now, here’s the Lindley e-mail to his fellow Republicans. (The lack of proper spacing is taken straight from the original.)

____________________________________________________________

Greetings!

You may have heard, that earlier this week, the Times Argus and Rutland Herald published

an article about struggles within our Party. I’ve included the article below for

anyone who hasn’t seen it first-hand.

As you know, this is not my first rodeo. I was State Party Chair from 1978 to 1981

and in 1988 I had the honor of being chosen to be State Chair for Bush 41. I also

served as our Republican National Committeeman from 1992 to 1996 and as Party Treasurer

from 1976 to 1978. These struggles within the GOP have existed for decades and will

continue long after I’m gone. I believe these struggles can be healthy and productive

discussions and that we as Vermont Republicans will be better for the open debate

we are having about our future.

I want to be clear about two things:

1. We are VERMONT Republicans and while we are affiliated with the Republican National

Committee, they do not define us. Our Vermont Republican Party has a set of principles

and our platform defines our beliefs in a broad way and we welcome people with a

wide and diverse view of public policy. It is the responsibility of individual

candidates to articulate their beliefs. As a Party, our job is to provide a thoughtful

overall framework for candidates with a wide range of beliefs.

2. I do not believe that one candidate or potential candidate should dominate or

run the State Party. As per our Party Rules it is the State Committee and the Ex

Committee, working with the County and Town organizations that set our goals and

activities.

When Dick Snelling tried to run our Party in the late 70’s, I opposed that notion

and eventually

convinced him that the State Party needs to be open to ALL candidates who wish to

participate. Only after primaries or in cases where a candidate is unopposed, should

the Party begin to focus on helping individual candidates or office holders.

We must all come together to discuss, think, and work together to rebuild our party.

The Republican Party has contributed great leaders to Vermont in search of improved

lives for all of Vermont’s citizens. Our work is important and considering the news

this week, I am even more motivated to rebuild the Vermont Republican Party with

your help.

The election results for 2012 were disappointing, but we are building for a successful

2014. Since I was first elected Chair, I retired several long standing debts and

have kept us in the black ever since. Going forward, here are some of the things

we are working on and will be launching in the coming months and weeks:

1. New Political Director hired and on the job

2. Strategic Planning Committee is drafting a plan for success

3. A new more modern VTGOP website

4. More active social media (are you following us on Twitter and Facebook?)

5. Weekly Chairman’s Newsletter (coming next week – every Wednesday)

6. The annual summer Boat Cruise

7. A special event with a notable GOP leader (mid-summer)

8. Recruiting of candidates (we already have 7 interested candidates!)

9. Social Media Training

10. Candidate Body Language Training

11. Candidate Messaging Training

12. Women for VT’s future

Please always remember being Vermont Republican is about:

Respect for the US and VT constitutions

Respect for life (even in pro-choice positions)

Belief in a constitutionally limited government

Belief in personal responsibility

We as Republicans should and must unite on the principles that bring us together

and work together to grow our Party and elect all Republican candidates in 2014!

Now, let’s come together to work hard and win in 2014! Thank you each and every

one of you for your work and effort on behalf of Vermont’s future.

Sincerely,

Jack

Awww. Vermont’s Worst Senator™, Peter Galbraith, is feeling all butthurt. The Slummin’ Solon was on the short end of a (cough) 29-1 vote Thursday on one of his most dearly-held issues: campaign finance reform.

The State Senate, after going back and forth and back again on Galbraith’s pet cause, a ban on corporate contributions, finally decided to pass a bill without the corporate ban. In the end, Galbraith was all by himself.

Naturally, he took his defeat with all the grace you’d expect from a former diplomat. He called the bill a “sham,” accused his fellow Senators of “hypocrisy,” and added these thoughtful reflections:

“The Senate voted to allow wealthy people to cheat,” Galbraith said Friday. “It was not a great day for the Vermont Senate, that’s for sure.”

He oughta know about wealthy people gaming the system, since he self-funded his two Senate campaigns to the tune of $50,000 a pop — more than enough money to scare off any candidate who didn’t happen to be fabulously rich. Banning corporate contributions may be a good thing in general, but it’d have the happy side-effect of closing off one possible fundraising avenue for potential Galbraith challengers.

All I can say is he deserved what he got.  

He screwed up the Legislature’s campaign finance reform effort last year with his insistence on a corporate ban, and he did his best to screw it up again this year. And I haven’t even mentioned his ham-fisted intervention in the death with dignity debate, which killed Claire Ayer’s thoughtful bill and substituted his back-of-a-napkin version.

Given the fact that there are several Senators who agree with Galbraith on banning corporate money, I suspect the 29-1 tally reflects a deep disdain with his antics. Jeanette White, sponsor of the campaign finance reform bill (who must feel like she’s been on a two-week roller coaster ride), chided Galbraith for comments that were “not respectful to the 29 other senators or to the process itself.”

What we’re left with, after all the Senatorial sturm und drang, is a pretty darn good bill that had the solid backing of all three major parties and STILL had all kinds of trouble getting through the Senate, which is quite a remarkable feat. In the worst possible way.

The bill now goes to the House, where it may or ;may not run into more trouble, but at least it won’t have to deal with the Slummin’ Solon anymore.

The thing about a prophet without honor in his own country is, sometimes it’s because the prophet is too far ahead of his time to be recognized by those closest to him. And sometimes it’s because he’s so bumf**k crazy that he alienates everyone around him..