Congrats to ace reporter Nancy Remsen of the Freeploid, for “breaking” a story only three days after GMD broke if first.

Did a health care bill really die Friday when the House Health Care Committee neither its supporters nor its opponents mustered a majority?

Nope. It’s way too early in this legislative session to declare any bill dead…

Good one, Ms. Remsen. Me, last Friday:

…the truth is, nothing is dead. Any member of the committee can seek reconsideration of the bill on Tuesday. Dr. Till’s vote would break the tie and move the bill onward.

[and] Even if the Health Care Committee fails to pass the soda tax, the health care bill goes to the House Ways and Means Committee…

So yeah, committee chair Mike Fisher’s lament that “everything’s dead”? Either he’s criminally ignorant of parliamentary procedure, or he was deliberately exaggerating. And the media, at least for a few days, bought it.  

But apparently Fisher hasn’t recovered from his snit, because as of today, the Health Care Committee had no meetings scheduled for this week. And when asked if his committee would reconsider the bill, as it has every right to do, Fisher left it at “I don’t know.”

Sheesh.

For those just joining us, the committee deadlocked on the health care bill after Democrat George Till was called away. In Till’s absence, Fisher knew (or should have known) he faced a tie vote. But since, for reasons unknown, he chose to proceed with the vote, reconsideration of a bill is standard practice. And if he called a new vote tomorrow and Till was present, Fisher would win 6-5.

I’m glad to see at least one reporter has caught up with reality.

p.s. I’m also glad that Remsen was able to get an important fact on the record — one I was only able to get through “sources.” Which is that Chris Pearson and Paul Poirier, who voted “no” on Friday, would have voted “yes” if only one minor change were made to the bill. It would have cost $800,000, which is pocket change in terms of the overall bill. But the Democratic majority didn’t give them what they wanted, and last Friday’s (temporary) setback was the inevitable result.

Hey, remember a few weeks after the November election, when VTGOP chair “Angry Jack” Lindley talked about starting a youth movement in his party full of old angry white guys?

Vermont Republican Party Chairman Jack Lindley, admitting he wasn’t the hippest guy, said the GOP plans to get more hip. He said they are looking for an intern who can help the party appeal to younger people. “We need to be relevant to young people in the state,” he said.

I dunno if A.J. has found his magic intern yet, but he has found himself a Vice Chair to help carry the load:

St. Johnsbury attorney Deborah Bucknam was unanimously elected as vice chair of the Vermont Republican Party at the Vermont Republican State Committee Meeting on Saturday, February 23, 2013.

Deborah Bucknam. Well, she’s a woman; that’s a start. But is she the person who can spark a Republican youth movement and plot a course toward a new, relevant, and winning future.

Er, not so much.

For those unfamiliar, Bucknam is an attorney based in Saint Johnsbury. I couldn’t find her age (ladies don’t tell) but she has 11 grandchildren and her husband is 69 years old. No youth movement there.

She’s been active in Caledonia County Republican circles for a decade or so, and “helped her husband Charlie Bucknam run his campaign for State Senate in 2010.”

Charlie finished a distant fourth in a race for two Senate seats. Pretty damn thin resume for a top state party official.  

After the jump: a trail of dogma, and a Facebook scrubbing.

The VTGOP news release also credits her with founding a women’s group called POWW. Don’t know what it stands for; if you Google POWW you’ll find two pro-wrestling promotions, but no mention of a women’s group in the Kingdom. Somehow I doubt that she had anything to do with Powerful Women of Wrestling. (Yeah, I know that should be PWOW, but creative license.)

Well, if she’s not youthful, perhaps she has a forward-looking perspective that can make the VTGOP more relevant to an electorate that’s clearly rejected the archconservative, family values, pseudo-Ayn Randian dogma of the current Republican Party.

Er, sorry, no.  

The Bucknam Brood (Charlie, Deborah, their two daughters and sons-in law) run a group blog called Bayley Hazen Blog. It’s chock full of Tea Party/Rand Paul ideology. For instance, its explanation for the Republicans’ embarrassing defeat in 2012? The public school system has indoctrinated the American sheeple to believe that America is evil, that God is dead, and that they should rely on government to provide their every need. The site’s “Blog List” includes the usual suspects: the Ethan Allen Institute, True North Reports, Yes Vermont Yankee, and the late lamented Vermont Tiger.

In sum, Deborah Bucknam is a far-right conservative who will bring nothing new to the VTGOP — not even a bit of cosmetic “rebranding” — because she’s just another one of the Ethan Allen/Ayn Rand/Fox News/Rush Limbaugh true believers who is absolutely convinced of the rightness of her cause, and who (if the Bucknam Blog is anything to judge by) has no idea how to communicate with anyone outside of their ideological bubble.

p,s, Earlier today I scanned Bucknam’s Facebook page and found some rather incendiary entries. Nothing as bad as Darcie Johnston’s tasteless antigay, anti-Vermont slur, but some hard-right opinionating, some Benghazi truther bullshit, a bit of George W. nostalgia, and a lot of ranting about the liberal media.

Well, sometime in the last few hours, after her appointment was announced, somebody got busy and scrubbed the most outrageous entries from her Facebook page. She still clearly reveals her ideological colors, but there’s nothing really offensive anymore. I guess the party learned something from Darcie’s embarrassment.  

Well, it’s town meeting season again in Vermont. And with it comes a journalistic revisit to the prayer controversy in the town of Franklin that was finally resolved last year, when a judge ruled that the town couldn’t open its annual meeting with a prayer. It was a victory for local resident Marilyn Hackett, after years of protestations.  

The good people of Franklin, being solid Christian folk, have responded with all the love, charity, and forgiveness– ahh, who am I kidding? As the Mitchell Family Organ reports, they’re still angry.

End of story? Not for Hackett, who’s still taunted by critics in the mail and on the street.

“I’m a little afraid I’m going to go to town meeting and there’s going to be anger,” she says. “People are ruing the loss of a tradition.  …The majority of people still don’t get the constitution.”

The town’s annual report even notes that the court decision came “to the disappointment of the Select Board.” Nice of them not to hold a grudge. Real Christians, they are.

And Hackett fears that, in line with their views on what it means to be a good Christian, the Select Board might try to sneak the prayer in the back way:

She recalls a past suggestion simply to change the order of proceedings – from gavel/prayer to prayer/gavel – and has heard talk of a gathering beforehand at the meeting site, the Franklin Central School, for some sort of invocation.

Yup, vindictiveness, anger, and deception. Just like Jesus!  

From Governor Shumlin’s public schedule, Feb. 23 to Mar. 1:

Wednesday, Feb. 27

8:30 a.m.              Legislative Open Door, Ceremonial Office, State House

11:00 a.m.            Press Conference, TBA (note: this will be held outside Montpelier)

1:00 p.m.              Governor’s Tree Tapping, State House Lawn

The Governor usually holds his weekly “press conference” on Wednesday morning at 11. The customary location is a conference room next to his Pavilion Building office, two doors over from the State House.

Well, this week he’ll be at the State House at 8:30 and again at 1:00 — but he’s holding his weekly presser at a remote location, which will require zipping back and forth and forth and back between events, instead of simply holding the presser at one of his two Montpelier offices. In other words, he’s going literally out of his way to avoid a real “press conference.”

The remote location means one thing: there’s gonna be a dog-and-pony show. Some kind of announcement or groundbreaking or unveiling, with a nice picturesque backdrop designed to get him more time on the TV news. (The cameras don’t like his conference room.)

And also designed to minimize the amount of actual “press conference.”  

Whenever the Guv holds his pressers out of town, it means a gaggle of distinguished guests and a bunch of short speeches eating up at least half of the available time. Then, the media feels bound to ask a few token questions about the announcement/groundbreaking/unveiling before getting to the actual issues.

All while the distinguished guests stand in a semicircle behind the Governor, hands awkwardly clasped, trying not to yawn, look bored, glance at their watches, or pick their noses while providing a high-powered and high-priced backdrop. (Really, it’s a bit of a dick-swinging move by the Governor to hold all those people hostage while he takes questions. If I were one of the human mannequins, I’d resent the hell out of it. And I’d never, ever tell anyone I felt that way.)

I’ve only been attending the Governor’s pressers for a couple of months, but apparently this is a longstanding pattern. Way, way back in July of 2011, six months into Shumlin’s first term, VTDigger’s Anne Galloway wrote a column on this very subject:

Week after week, Shumlin has held press conferences off campus and his staff has orchestrated events that are long on dog and pony show (show and tell time) and short on Q and A sessions with reporters.

…What has been consistent is the extremely limited amount of time reporters are allowed to pose questions (we’re lucky to get 10 to 15 minutes in), and most of the time, the short grilling is conducted in, say, an adult day care center, a mini mart or basement teen center, and the honored participants are treated to an inside baseball game they appear to care little about witnessing.

When “press conference” time is limited, reporters don’t get a chance to drill down beneath Shumlin’s pat answers. There are so many issues to bring up, that there’s seldom an extended exchange on a single issue.

Galloway’s column drew an angry response from Shumlin spokesflack Sue Allen, who’d apparently been timing all the pressers with the gubernatorial stopwatch, and asserted that Shumlin gave reporters plenty of time to grill him rare, medium, or well done. (And VTDigger honorably posted her response, in full and without rebuttal.)

Maybe Allen was accurate. I don’t know; I’ve never timed a Shumlin presser. I can tell you that whenever  a presser is held at a remote location, the Q&A time feels limited, and I have a strong sense that it’s a deliberate strategy by the Governor’s people.

Especially when he has to zip in and out of Montpelier so he can hold his weekly presser somewhere else.

I’m not saying he should never double up like this. I am suggesting that he should hold a couple of pure press conferences per month, instead of trying to set the agenda virtually every single time. And somehow I think that if Sue Allen were still on this side of the scribe/flack divide, she’d feel the same way.  

Awww. Apparently, I missed a world-class clusterfrack at the Statehouse today. An episode blending high drama and low comedy, the kind of thing that serves as a reminder that Our Leaders Are People, Too. Just like the rest of us, they put on their pants one leg at a time. And just like the rest of us, they occasionally step on a rake and konk their noggin. It was, as one observer told me, “bad planning but good theater.”

The scene was a Friday meeting of the House Health Care Committee. On Tuesday, the panel had somewhat surprisingly approved a health care bill that included the so-called Soda Tax, a penny-per-ounce levy on sugar-sweetened beverages. Today the panel was poised to give final approval.

And then, Democrat George Till, a doctor in real life, was called away to a medical emergency.

The vote was called anyway. And it was a 5-5 tie, with three Republicans joined by Progressive Chris Pearson and Independent Paul Poirier voting “no.” The bill failed for lack of majority support.

A tizzy ensued.

“It’s frustrating,” said Rep. Mike Fisher, D-Lincoln and chairman of the House panel. “The committee spent a lot of time and took majority votes on a number of steps along the way and there were a few members of the committee who couldn’t support the bill because of how much it did, and there were a few members of the committee that couldn’t support the bill because they … wish it had done more. … I think right now everything’s dead.”

Before we all go tearing our hair out, a couple of points. Three, actually.  

First: Mike Fisher knew damn well that Pearson and Poirier didn’t like the bill as it stood today. They had sought changes — relatively minor changes, at that. Their “no” votes should not have been a surprise. Couldn’t the committee chair count the votes? When Dr. Till was called away, a 5-5 tie was all but certain. Couldn’t he have shelved the vote until Tuesday?

One person who was in the room agreed with my suggestion that Fisher had “screwed the pooch.” Remember that, if Democrats try to blame Poirier or Pearson for “killing” the soda tax or imperiling health care reform.

Second: Fisher’s lament notwithstanding, the truth is, nothing is dead. Any member of the committee can seek reconsideration of the bill on Tuesday. Dr. Till’s vote would break the tie and move the bill onward.

Third: Even if the Health Care Committee fails to pass the soda tax, the health care bill goes to the House Ways and Means Committee, which could put the tax right back in.

So if you pick up your morning Freeploid tomorrow and read the following passage…

The vote creates a new cloud of uncertainty over efforts by the Legislature and Gov. Peter Shumlin to solve what has become one of the key riddles of the current legislative session: how to move to the new health care marketplace, or exchange…

… remember that the reality is far less dramatic than today’s moment of dramedy. Unless Fisher is so mortified that he refuses to allow further consideration.

He’s got until Tuesday to cool off.

The core of the bill concerns the transition from Catamount and VHAP to Vermont Health Connect, the insurance exchange mandated by Obamacare. Pearson and Poirier object that the working poor will see higher premiums and/or out-of-pocket costs under VHC. As Pearson told VTDigger, this is not only a matter of fairness, it’s also crucial to the success of Governor Shumlin’s ultimate goal, a single-payer health care system.

Pearson has repeatedly said that leaving lower income Vermonters with less coverage could jeopardize the state’s ability to implement a universal health care system in 2017, when Vermont would be eligible for a federal waiver to deviate from the Affordable Care Act.

“I’ve said from day one that I want to do more to insulate people shifting from Catamount or VHAP into the exchange,” Pearson said. “We came back with more and more modest proposals. There wasn’t the desire to (provide higher subsidies) even though we included new sources of revenue that would have alleviated pressure on the budget. It seemed really shortsighted to me.”

Affordability issues already keep some eligible Vermonters from enrolling in Catamount and VHAP.  If the cost of VHC is even higher, it stands to reason that more people might opt out. And that creates a big problem: If the number of uninsured go up, Vermont will lose out on federal premium assistance funds. That, in turn, would jeopardize the financial stability of the whole system.

In short, Pearson’s “no” vote wasn’t a matter of pique, or a display of bleeding-heart progressivism. It was a very practical vote, aimed at solidifying our single-payer future.

And it didn’t kill a damn thing.  

Previously in this space, we have expressed our awe and wonderment at the ability of Tayt Brooks, International Man of Mystery, to hold onto his position as Rasputin to Czarina Lenore Broughton, absolute ruler of the Imaginary Kingdom of Ethanallenistan (the free-market, libertarian haven known in reality as Vermont), After all, the Tayter squandered a million or so Broughton Bucks in a fruitless attempt to elevate Wendy Wilton to the Treasurership and elect a few more Republicans to the Legislature. Anyone with that kind of track record should rightfully find himself quickly unemployed, his golden parachute-pack stuffed with assorted dirty laundry.

But despite all logic, he still has a job. And since Miss Daisy is rather unlikely to follow my advice, I direct her to those other would-be purchasers of democracy, the Koch Brothers. They know what to do when an investment goes south:

Take the billionaire businessmen Charles and David Koch who are spending their 2013 figuring out why they the money they spent in 2012 was such a waste. They have already fired most of their 100 staffers at Americans for Prosperity, and they’re now conducting an audit.  

Yeah! Away with you, incompetent flunkies! You waste the Koch Brothers’ money, you hit the bricks pronto.

Of course, when you’re talking about egotistical gazillionaires, the self-examination can only go so far:

The Kochs have delayed their twice-a-year meetings with big conservative donors until they’ve finished their audit, Politico’s Kenneth P. Vogel reports. The results of the audit will be presented at an April seminar, Vogel writes, adding, “Early indications suggest that they’ll continue playing in politics but will tweak their approach to reflect 2012 lessons.”

“Tweak,” eh? That’s the ticket. Make a multi-million dollar bet, come up snake-eyes, and then “tweak” your approach. Y’know, firing the staffers and then “tweaking” the approach is a lot like the captain of the Titanic firing the deck chairs.  

In fact, the Kochs are just as clueless as Lenore Broughton; they’re just meaner to their employees. And their “tweaking” isn’t going to suddenly add wisdom to a political operation that has more to do with the extreme self-regard of two spoiled rich kids than with any connection to reality. (Pictured at right: the gold coin David Koch minted in honor of his 1980 candidacy for Vice President on the Libertarian ticket. I kid you not.)

The Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity has drawn particular grumbling for ads whose goal, critics say, is more about ideology than victory in November, its daily message determined, one rival SuperPAC operative jabbed, by “whatever the Koch brothers had for breakfast.”

… “These fat cats are never politically informed. A good percentage of them are very politically naive – politics are not their thing,” said Richard Born, a professor of political science at Vassar College, who cited the growing sophistication of political consultants at separating donors from their money.

Hey! Finally, a kind appellation for Tayt Brooks! He may be a complete political hack with no clue about winning, but he’s obviously sophisticated “at separating donors from their money.”  

One of Governor Shumlin’s very favorite statistics is the 49% rise in the state’s portion of the Earned Income Tax Credit. He cites the magic number every time he talks about his proposed massive cut in the state’s EITC — from $25 million to $8 million, so he can boost child-care funding for working families by $17 million.

See, $17 million seems like a lot — but look: the EITC has gone up so rapidly that it’s not really a cut at all. It’s just a return to normalcy. Here he is, citing his favorite number in a recent opinion piece on VTDigger:

Our current EITC allocation is among the highest in the nation, and has risen 49 percent in the past eight years because it is federally indexed.

Problem: That number is technically accurate, but it’s grossly misleading. The individual benefit hasn’t risen by 49% — it’s the total cost of the program. And most of that increase isn’t due to federal indexing; it’s due to a rotten economy that’s driven more working people into poverty. So notes Jack Hoffman of the Public Assets Institute:

Much has been made of the 49 percent increase in the cost of EITC between 2003 and 2011. During that period, the number of people claiming the EITC increased by 27 percent. And in the last five years-from 2007 to 2012-real income for the bottom two quintiles has dropped. In other words, the cost of the EITC has increased because of a growing need, much of it driven by the Great Recession.

That remark comes from Hoffman’s testimony to a state House committee on January 29. And yet, Shumlin has gone on repeating his favorite number — “49%” falls from his lips almost as often as Rudy Giuliani says “9/11.”

And yet, no one in the media has pointed out this discrepancy. Nor have they challenged the Governor.

But wait, there’s more.

Let’s visit our old friend The Inflation Calculator and learn the difference between a 2003 dollar and the 2011 model.

Hmm. It says that what cost you a dollar in 2003 would cost you $1.22 in 2011. Well, that pretty much eats up the actual increase in an EITC credit, does it not? Indeed, when Shumlin uses the phrase “federally indexed,” what he means is that the EITC is adjusted with the inflation rate. If you don’t believe me, believe the IRS:

The income amounts and the amount of EITC are adjusted for inflation each year.

In other words, two factors are responsible for all, or virtually all, of that infamous 49% increase: the growing numbers of the working poor in Vermont, and the inflation rate. Nobody’s getting fat and happy off the EITC. The Governor insults the working poor, and our intelligence, by continually repeating that bogus 49% figure.

U mad yet? Read on.

Shumlin insists that his EITC raid is not a “cut” because the money is going into a child-care program that will help EITC recipients. They’re getting the same benefit, just in a more targeted way.

Er, no. We turn again to Hoffman’s January 29 testimony.

The proposal has been described as a “trade-off,” but it is difficult to see it that way. It raises income taxes on 44,000 poor working tax filers to expand a program that supports about 7,000 families.

And it gets worse:

…about two-thirds of the families in the child care program-about 4,000 families-now receive a 100 percent child care subsidy-because they are at or below 100 percent of the federal poverty level. …They don’t pay for child care now because they can’t afford to, and they won’t pay under the expansion. However, they will lose much of their EITC making these families poorer.

Governor Shumlin keeps on saying the same stuff about EITC and the expansion of child care. And it keeps on being untrue. I would hope that the Governor’s plans are solid enough, reasonable enough, that he wouldn’t have to mislead us to win our support.  

Governor Shumlin made quite a bit of news at his February 14 news conference. There was his actual policy announcement: a new effort to allow high-school students to take college courses (and earn up to a full year’s worth of credits), and open up new opportunities for workplace experience through internships and apprenticeships.

Then there were all the questions about the more controversial elements of his budget plan: slashing the state’s share of the Earned Income Tax Credit; imposing a lifetime cap on Reach Up benefits; his newfound insistence that his reform ideas for education, tax, and welfare are all part of one big indissoluble package; and his depiction of tax hikes and benefit reductions as “compassionate” while opponents of his vision are the “cruel” ones. Quite a few verbal missteps and overstatements, frankly.

Lots of big issues swirling around the Governor’s office and the Legislature’s consideration of his budget. Major questions about the veracity of Shumlin’s assertions, and whether his plan is big enough or sufficiently funded to achieve his goals without screwing the working poor.

So, what did the Vermont political media choose to focus on?

The goddamned airplane.

The state’s 50-year-old airplane — and the Transportation Department’s proposal to replace it — was brought up at the news conference. And Shumlin, bless his li’l ol’ pea-pickin’ heart, rolled out one of his “Vermont boy” anecdotes. And, as was the case with his naked bird-feeder rescue and his disavowal of “Gucci beer,” this one backfired on him.  

He told us that he’d flown the ancient Cessna a few times; and once, in midair, the door flew open. Our Fearless Leader, of course, didn’t panic — he simply pulled the door shut. Hahaha.

What he didn’t realize is that his cutesy anecdote opened the door to the question, “How often has he flown in the plane, and why?”

The first answer came three days later, when Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz wasted some space on the Seven Days politics blog “Off Message” by revealing — horrors! — Shumlin used the plane five times. FIVE TIMES! And on one occasion, he took the plane to a campaign fundraiser and failed to reimburse the state. The cost: $65.80.

Quite possibly the tiniest “scandal” in history.

And, naturally, it became the story du jour in the political media. The second lemming over the cliff was the Freeploid’s Terri Hallenbeck, who wrote a lengthy piece on February 18 whose title referred to “Shumlin’s high-flying,” which seems a bit over-the-top for FIVE PLANE TRIPS compared to God knows how many times the Governor has traversed the state by car. And again, only one short hop of one of those trips was campaign-related. And cost $65.80.  

WGOP — er, WCAX — has been all over the state-plane brouhaha, filing at least five stories in the past two weeks — about the AOT’s budget request for a new plane, the shocking revelation of the unreimbursed $65.80, the subsequent reimbursement, and the removal of the plane from the budget.

By now, the story has gained enough momentum that every other news outlet gets that instinctive urge to follow the herd right over the cliff.

This morning, my tastefully slim Times Argus brought me yet another exploration of this pointless kerfuffle. I sincerely hope Peter “Marathon Man” Hirschfeld was ordered by his editors to pursue the story; I’d like to think better of his own journalistic instincts.

Hirschfeld’s story gave VTGOP chair Angry Jack Lindley a chance to blow off some steam:

“Vermonters need to be concerned when they see the governor begin to use his office to access state resources and use them for his personal benefit,” Lindley added in a phone interview. “It’s a scary mentality to see taking hold.”

Oh yeah, Jack. One day it’s a short ride in an old airplane. Next day, FASCISM.

At least Hirschfeld included the only real bit of actual news in this entire waste of our precious journalistic resources: whether the state actually needs a new plane and, more to the point, whether it needs an expensive one. A point also addressed by GMD diarist BP, and by VTDigger’s Anne Galloway.

How expensive? $117,600 per year on a ten-year lease-to-own deal — a total of $1.2 million.

Now, the state has given reasonable justification for having an airplane. But does it need a million-dollar plane? A plane with a flying range of 1500 miles? Seems excessive for a state that’s about 200 miles from top to bottom.

But still, the primary focus of all this coverage was that one unreimbursed campaign trip worth $65.80. We got story after story about that, at a time when the Legislature is up to its neck in big important issues. Every f’n day, there are multiple stories worth telling at the Statehouse. Many of them go untold. There are huge questions about Gov. Shumlin’s budget, and for the most part, nobody is trying to answer them.

But those are complicated, and a gubernatorial plane ride is easy.

Bit of advice. Next time you’re looking for some direction — in the Arctic tundra or under the Golden Dome — don’t follow the lemmings.  

One week after his inauspicious Statehouse debut, professional oilman Larry Wilson was back under the golden dome today, trying to convince the House Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources Committee that his company doesn’t need any more regulation, thank you very much. Photo: Wilson explains his position to an apparently skeptical Rep. Kathryn Webb (D-Shelburne).

Wilson is President and CEO of the Portland-Montreal Pipeline Corporation; his pipeline carries imported oil from Portland to Montreal for sale in Canadian markets. On the way, it traverses the Northeast Kingdom. Last Tuesday, he told the committee that his company has no current plans to reverse the flow of the pipeline in order to carry tar-sands oil from western Canada to Portland for export — but, he quickly added, his company fervently hopes to develop such a plan.

(A development I reported the day it happened, one week ago. Congratulations to VPR’s John Dillon for reporting on it yesterday — a mere six days after my posting. Dillon’s report apparently prompted Channel 5’s Stewart Ledbetter and the Associated Press’ Dave Gram to attend today’s hearing. Because, y’know, it’s not really news until someone in the “real media” covers it.)

The subject of the hearing was, again, House Bill 27, which would explicitly require Act 250 review for any substantial alteration in an existing oil pipeline. If the bill passes, Wilson’s company would have to go through the permitting process as if from scratch.

Wilson arrived at the hearing with a full posse at his back, a Southern drawl oozing from his mouth, and a satchel of patent medicines at his side. Well, not really, but he sure had plenty of bromides on offer. Wall-to-wall assurances that the pipeline industry is safe as houses, that transporting thick, sludgy, toxic tar-sands oil is a walk in the park, and that if there’s ever a problem, well, Ma’am, you can count on your friends in the oil industry to clean it up right quick.

And he repeated last week’s message: he has every hope of reversing his pipeline and carrying western oil to Portland by way of the NEK.  

“We do not have an active project to reverse the pipeline. We hope to have a project to use the pipeline.  Moving western Canadian heavy crude* is one possibility. We are confident we can transport heavy crude very safely and efficiently. …We are aggressively pursuing projects to use our resources.”

*WIlson never once uttered the words “tar sands.” To him, tar sands oil is simply heavy crude, nothing more, no worries, move right along, folks.

His tone was consistently polite and measured. At least it was until after his testimony was put on hold so the committee could hear from Jim Murphy of the National Wildlife Federation. (The hearing got started late, and Murphy was on a tight schedule.)

Murphy spoke in favor of the bill. He noted that although the pipeline industry has a good safety record, “Pipelines do fail, and when they fail, they fail catastrophically.” He pointed to the 2010 disaster in southwest Michigan, in which a pipeline carrying tar-sands oil failed and “it took 17 hours before the operator realized there was a spill.” More than a million gallons of heavy, gucky oil spilled into the Kalamazoo River. The river and surrounding waters are still tainted by the oil.

Murphy then spoke about the broader implications of tar-sands oil, which he called “dirtier and more carbon-intensive than any other fossil fuel.” He gave his opinion that Act 250 already applies to a pipeline reversal, but he endorsed H.27 as adding clarity to the issue.

After Murphy’s departure, Wilson returned to the stand and allowed his contempt for environmentalism to show through his veneer of Southern charm. Wilson asserted that Murphy “had several things wrong,” and accused “the environmental movement” of deliberately stretching the truth and “throwing anything at business to delay” new projects.

The rest of his testimony featured some thinly veiled threats. He said H.27 “would impede our ability to access open markets” by imposing “undue regulation.” He then added:

“This bill sends a strong signal to the Canadian government that ‘We (Vermonters) don’t want their oil,’ and it sends a message to companies like ours that ‘We (Vermonters) don’t want your business.’

“If this opportunity does not present itself to us, we will have to determine the best use of our pipeline. It’s been a wonderful run since 1941, and we’d like it to continue.”

In other words, be nice to us or we’ll take our pipeline away.

Gee, Larry, if that’s how you feel, I think we’re more than prepared to tell you exactly where you can stick your pipeline and then reverse the flow.  

One week after his inauspicious Statehouse debut, professional oilman Larry Wilson was back under the golden dome today, trying to convince the House Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources Committee that his company doesn’t need any more regulation, thank you very much. Photo: Wilson explains his position to an apparently skeptical Rep. Kathryn Webb (D-Shelburne).

Wilson is President and CEO of the Portland-Montreal Pipeline Corporation; his pipeline carries imported oil from Portland to Montreal for sale in Canadian markets. On the way, it traverses the Northeast Kingdom. Last Tuesday, he told the committee that his company has no current plans to reverse the flow of the pipeline in order to carry tar-sands oil from western Canada to Portland for export — but, he quickly added, his company fervently hopes to develop such a plan.

(A development I reported the day it happened, one week ago. Congratulations to VPR’s John Dillon for reporting on it yesterday — a mere six days after my posting. Dillon’s report apparently prompted Channel 5’s Stewart Ledbetter and the Associated Press’ Dave Gram to attend today’s hearing. Because, y’know, it’s not really news until someone in the “real media” covers it.)

The subject of the hearing was, again, House Bill 27, which would explicitly require Act 250 review for any substantial alteration in an existing oil pipeline. If the bill passes, Wilson’s company would have to go through the permitting process as if from scratch.

Wilson arrived at the hearing with a full posse at his back, a Southern drawl oozing from his mouth, and a satchel of patent medicines at his side. Well, not really, but he sure had plenty of bromides on offer. Wall-to-wall assurances that the pipeline industry is safe as houses, that transporting thick, sludgy, toxic tar-sands oil is a walk in the park, and that if there’s ever a problem, well, Ma’am, you can count on your friends in the oil industry to clean it up right quick.

And he repeated last week’s message: he has every hope of reversing his pipeline and carrying western oil to Portland by way of the NEK.  

“We do not have an active project to reverse the pipeline. We hope to have a project to use the pipeline.  Moving western Canadian heavy crude* is one possibility. We are confident we can transport heavy crude very safely and efficiently. …We are aggressively pursuing projects to use our resources.”

*WIlson never once uttered the words “tar sands.” To him, tar sands oil is simply heavy crude, nothing more, no worries, move right along, folks.

His tone was consistently polite and measured. At least it was until after his testimony was put on hold so the committee could hear from Jim Murphy of the National Wildlife Federation. (The hearing got started late, and Murphy was on a tight schedule.)

Murphy spoke in favor of the bill. He noted that although the pipeline industry has a good safety record, “Pipelines do fail, and when they fail, they fail catastrophically.” He pointed to the 2010 disaster in southwest Michigan, in which a pipeline carrying tar-sands oil failed and “it took 17 hours before the operator realized there was a spill.” More than a million gallons of heavy, gucky oil spilled into the Kalamazoo River. The river and surrounding waters are still tainted by the oil.

Murphy then spoke about the broader implications of tar-sands oil, which he called “dirtier and more carbon-intensive than any other fossil fuel.” He gave his opinion that Act 250 already applies to a pipeline reversal, but he endorsed H.27 as adding clarity to the issue.

After Murphy’s departure, Wilson returned to the stand and allowed his contempt for environmentalism to show through his veneer of Southern charm. Wilson asserted that Murphy “had several things wrong,” and accused “the environmental movement” of deliberately stretching the truth and “throwing anything at business to delay” new projects.

The rest of his testimony featured some thinly veiled threats. He said H.27 “would impede our ability to access open markets” by imposing “undue regulation.” He then added:

“This bill sends a strong signal to the Canadian government that ‘We (Vermonters) don’t want their oil,’ and it sends a message to companies like ours that ‘We (Vermonters) don’t want your business.’

“If this opportunity does not present itself to us, we will have to determine the best use of our pipeline. It’s been a wonderful run since 1941, and we’d like it to continue.”

In other words, be nice to us or we’ll take our pipeline away.

Gee, Larry, if that’s how you feel, I think we’re more than prepared to tell you exactly where you can stick your pipeline and then reverse the flow.