Here’s a brilliant move. The Vermont Republican Party, which (by its own leaders’ admission) needs to attract younger voters and refresh its image, have taken a nice big step — in the other direction.

The VTGOP is holding its spring dinner on March 16. And its keynote speaker?

That guy.

Steve Forbes. 65 years old. Was briefly a compelling figure in Republican politics, back in the 1990s. Spent vast amounts of his (inherited) fortune on two spectacularly unsuccessful runs for President — the most recent of which was twelve years ago.

Steve Forbes, who still spends his days trumpeting the glories of the free market, the flat tax, and voucherized Social Security.

Steve Forbes, whose most recent book is entitled “Freedom Manifesto: Why Free Markets are Moral and Big Government Isn’t.”

Steve Forbes, just the man to change the VTGOP’s bitter-old-white-wingnut image.  

Steve Forbes. A new voice for Vermont.

Sometimes this stuff just writes itself.  

My sympathies to Senate Majority Leader Phil “Philip” Baruth. Because, to paraphrase Jean-Paul Sartre, “Hell is needing Peter Galbraith’s vote.”

As I’m sure you know, the state Senate voted 17-13 yesterday to proceed with the “death with dignity” bill. Technically, they were voting to reject the Judiciary Committee’s stand against the bill. More debate today and final votes either today or tomorrow. The vote was good news for supporters of the bill, but final passage is not assured; it’s possible that a couple of Senators will change sides, with would kill the bill.

One of those fence-sitters is our friend Peter Galbraith (D-Hambone), who voted with the majority yesterday but wants to completely rewrite the bill before the final vote. (Link goes behind the Mitchell Family Paywall. Sorry.)

Galbraith… is at work on an amendment that would essentially replace the current legislation with language that “decriminalizes” the prescribing of lethal doses of medication to certain eligible patients.

Galbraith favors assisted suicide, but he opposes “a state-sponsored process.” As far as I can tell, he’s a one-man army on that position. And given the fact that a critical mass of Senators want even more control on the process than the current bill would establish, it’s safe to say the bill would be in danger of defeat if Galbraith’s amendment is accepted.

But Galbraith? He don’t care. Peter “All By Myself” Hirschfeld of the Vermont Press Bureau caught this little exchange:

As Galbraith made clear to Senate Majority Leader Philip Baruth after the vote, “the issue is, are there 15 votes to pass this bill without Hartwell and me?”

“And the answer is ‘no,'” Galbraith said.

At least he didn’t add “Neener neener!”

Maybe that sounded different in person, but in print it reads like an outburst of narcissism. He has his own idea, and he’s openly holding the legislation hostage. In public, in the presence of a reporter, no less. So much for collegiality.

Bob Hartwell voted with the majority yesterday, but he has very different concerns with the bill: he wants to require that patients seeking to end their lives, talk with family members and consult with experts in palliative care before proceeding. If both men stick to their positions, it’s hard to imagine them voting “yes” on the same bill.

Hartwell can be mollified with a couple of tweaks. If Galbraith insists on his rewrite, then he appears to be in a position to single-handedly kill it, because of a concern that is his alone.

Which isn’t how lawmaking — or diplomacy — is supposed to work.  

A House committee appears to be backing away from a bill that would restrict the ability of third parties to submit absentee ballot requests. Leaders of Vermont’s three largest parties all spoke against H.21 at a hearing of the House Government Operations Committee, and their testimony appeared to be persuasive. By the end of the hearing, the bill’s primary sponsor, Randolph Democrat Larry Townsend, openly talked of killing his bill in favor of “some good ideas” brought up during the session.

The bill would require a voter’s signature on any absentee application submitted by a third party who is not a relative or health care provider. It was inspired by reports of voter confusion around Election Day 2012; some voters were unsure whether they had applied for an absentee ballot or not. Some claimed that applications were submitted without their knowledge. In writing H.21, Townsend was seeking to block outsiders from filling out applications for unknowing voters.  

All three political parties testified in opposition to the bill, on the grounds that helping voters with the absentee process helps build turnout. It’s common practice for party workers and candidates to help voters submit absentee requests, or even fill out and submit the requests on behalf of voters.

The witness list for the hearing was short: Progressive State Rep. Chris Pearson, followed by Jake Perkinson (Democratic Party), Jack Lindley (VTGOP) and Robert Millar, the new executive director of the Progressive Party.

Pearson spoke first, started his case clearly, took a few questions, and left to attend to his legislative duties elsewhere. Then Perkinson testified, followed by Lindley. After that, a sort of general colloquy broke out, with several questions directed at both Perkinson and Lindley.

Meanwhile, on a bench along the wall, sat Robert Millar.

After the jump: MIllar finally gets a shot, and Angry Jack is never far from the surface.

I guess no one on the committee knew what he looks like. (Someone actually gestured in my direction, as though I was the Prog Party chair. I took it as a compliment.) Eventually someone noticed Millar, and he was belatedly invited to give his testimony.

It was an unfortunate moment. His presentation was brief and punchless, and he was an uncompelling figure. Admittedly he faced difficult circumstances: Pearson had presented a Progressive case already, then Perkinson and Lindley gave very similar testimony, which didn’t leave Millar with much to add. He may have been understandably deflated because the committee kept him in the on-deck circle too long.

I don’t know Robert Millar. He may be a very effective party builder, which is what the Progs need right now. But judging by today’s appearance, public speaking is not his strong suit. The Progs would have been better served by letting Pearson represent them on his own.

Okay, enough inside baseball. As for those “other good ideas” that might actually find their way into legislation, the focus was on transparency and disclosure. Perkinson called for “accountability for those requesting a ballot for someone else,” by openly identifying the requestor and his/her affiliation. (Party, candidate, advocacy group, etc.) He said it’s standard practice for Democratic volunteers and candidates to offer clear identification. He also called for a statewide database of absentee-ballot requests.

All three party leaders agreed with one lawmaker’s suggestion for unmissable disclosure on any mailer or brochure that includes absentee materials: the name of the sender and other pertinent information would be printed in the largest type font used anywhere else on the material.

Lindley echoed his colleagues’ concerns about the bill’s potential for limiting voter participation. But he took advantage of the occasion to rattle off some Republican bumpf on the mythical plague of voter fraud. He called for increased penalties for violators of election law — a $1,000 fine instead of $100. He spoke ominously of those “who play on the dark side.” When asked what he meant, he said “People using techniques that we would find foreign in terms of manipulating elections.”

Ooh, “foreign.” Any particular country you have in mind, Jack? Kenya, perhaps?

When asked if there was any sign of voter fraud in Vermont, he admitted “Not yet.” He even acknowledged that the VTGOP lost the 2012 election “fair and square”; he simply wants to keep it that way.

Since the actual topic of H.21 was disposed of in short order, the discussion drifted onto unrelated campaign issues — specifically, the rise of PACs and Super PACs. Lindley spoke of a day in the future when lawmakers would represent PACs, not districts or constituents. And here’s where Millar staged a brief rally on behalf of Progressive principle. Perkinson and Lindley joined arms (metaphorically) in a call to lift limits on individual donations to candidates and parties — in order to level the playing field with Super PACs, which operate without limits.

That would, of course, “level the playing field” at a much higher dollar figure. MIllar insisted the right course is to refuse entry into this financial “arms race,” and instead focus on overturning the US Supreme Court’s infamous Citizens United ruling.

Tomorrow (Wednesday) afternoon, by the way, the Senate Government Operations Committee will hold a hearing on campaign finance reform — a measure that has generally attracted support from all three parties and VPIRG. We’ll see if it sails through, or if lawmakers exercise their creative skills in finding areas of disagreement.  

The President of the Portland-Montreal Pipeline Corporation brought a clear message to the Statehouse today: He has every hope of transporting tar-sands oil from western Canada in an existing pipeline that runs through the Northeast Kingdom. Currently, the pipeline carries imported oil from Portland to Montreal.

“Some have said we may have a reversal project,” Larry Wilson told the House Fish, Wildlife, and Water Resources Committee this morning. “We don’t have one at this time. We hope to have a project to revitalize our company and use these assets to provide for energy needs.”

(Wilson’s company actually has two pipelines on the same route; one is currently mothballed due to lack of demand.)

Wilson spent most of his testimony offering reassurances (or bromides, if you prefer) about his company’s safety record, maintenance procedures, and environmental orientation. He claimed that oil pipelines are built to handle flows in either direction, and that “pipeline companies routinely change the direction of flow.”

Wilson is trying to beat back proposed legislation that would require a fresh Act 250 permit for any substantial change in use of an existing oil pipeline. Under current law, it’s unclear whether a fresh permit would be required.

Wilson also sought to minimize concerns about the nature of tar sands oil. He never said the phrase “tar sands oil”; instead, he referred to “heavy crude,” and said his pipelines were fully capable of carrying any kind of oil, heavy or light. He denied that carrying tar sands oil would require heating of the pipeline or an increase in pressure.

But mostly, over and over again, he referred to his company’s “outstanding,” award-winning, diligent, constant, continuous dedication to safety and maintenance.  

Funny thing. Thanks to US Judge Garvan Murtha’s ruling in the Vermont Yankee case, lawmakers must tread carefully when talking about “safety.” As with nuclear power plants, the safety of oil pipelines is solely a matter for federal regulators. More than one member of the committee expressed concern that, if they talked too much about safety, they might be providing evidence for a Yankee-style lawsuit. Would it sound too conspiratorial to infer that Wilson was hoping to drive the conversation onto safety, in hopes of building a trail of evidence for future legal action?

Wilson slammed the bill, saying “it seems discriminating to me.” I think he meant “discriminatory,” but we’ll go on. He argued that the pipeline industry is already heavily regulated, and added “If you tell me I have to secure permits I don’t need today, it seems unnecessary and difficult for me to move [oil] to markets.”

Environmental groups (scheduled to testify on Wednesday) plan to focus on global warming rather than concerns about oil spills. The extraction of tar sands oil is a very carbon-intensive process, and has been called “the dirtiest form of fossil fuel.” Western Canadian oil producers are looking for pipelines to major ports — through the central US and through western Canada to the Pacific — and the Portland-Montreal pipeline would provide a ready outlet to overseas markets.

(If, of course, states like Vermont don’t erect new regulatory barriers.)

The enviros’ larger goal is to make tar sands oil a financially unattractive proposition, in hopes of limiting production operations and the resulting carbon emissions.

If Wilson was hoping to kill or delay the legislation, he may have done his cause more harm than good. His frank admission that he hoped to reverse the pipeline certainly adds some urgency to Deen’s bill. And given the partisan makeup of the Legislature, Wilson can’t hope to prevail by appealing solely to the free-market crowd. Most lawmakers, IMO, will probably remain unconvinced by the practiced blandishments of a professional oilman.  

First, let’s stipulate that the resignation of Pope Benedict was the biggest news story of the day yesterday. (It even swamped the Ellen/Katy encounter at the Grammys.) And of course, any responsible news organ would give it some coverage.

But the Freeploid went absolutely batshit. The front cover of today’s ‘Loid is dominated by a huge profile photo of Ratzy, wreathed in smoke (as if he was singing “It Was a Very Good Year” at Karaoke Night) with the giant headline ‘A SHEPHERD STEPS AWAY.” Plus three full pages of coverage inside.

Seems a bit over-the-top, since (a) the Freeploid generally focuses like Gov. Shumin’s laser on local and state news, and (b) isn’t Burlington kind of a liberal hotbed? The kind of place that’d have Pope Benedict crossing himself every ten seconds and bathing in Purell at the end of the day?

This is the second time in less than a week that the Freeploid has morphed into The Burlington Catholic Reporter. The first time was last Thursday, when its front page was given over to Bishop Salvatore Matano’s opposition to the death with dignity bill. Giant (and uninteresting) photo of the Bish testifying in the Senate, headline BISHOP IMPLORES STATE painting Matano as the last guardian of morality, begging Vermont to foreswear the path of darkness.

Hey, a lot of other folks testified too, y’know. But the Bishop  — the guy who has consistently been more concerned with the finances of his diocese than the well-being of pedophilia victims — gets the big splash, as if he has some unique and monumental status in Vermont.

So, Freeploid, what’s with all the Cathoholism?

Yes, I know this feature is putatively entitled “Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down, and a Poke in the Eye,” but I’m having too much fun playing the field. So… Special Clown Edition!

VTDigger, the state’s best online news source, for taking home a $75,000 grant that will help it build a solid foundation. The matching grant comes from the Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation; the money will help pay for two new positions — publisher and database developer — and efforts to create databases aimed at increasing political transparency and accountability.

Technically, the money goes to VTDigger’s nonprofit parent, the Vermont Journalism Trust. And the Trust does have to raise a matching $75,000. But this grant will make a huge difference in terms of making VTDigger as stable organizationally as it is reliable journalistically. Getting a good publisher will be especially helpful in that regard; until now, founder Anne Galloway has been wearing approximately six hats — chief editor, writer, publisher, fundraiser, etc., etc. If she can doff a hat or two, that’ll be a very good thing.

The State of Vermont, for apparently failing to live up to its bargain on Montpelier’s proposed district heating system. And a lesser Sad Clown to the city government, for  launching a big, ambitious program with extremely little margin for error. Last week, we learned that the state’s portion of the system would come in $2.3 million over budget. The state then asked the city to pay one-quarter of that overrun. And the city declined.

Even if the city had agreed, it’s questionable whether the Legislature, in a tough budget year, would be willing to appropriate another $1.8M for the state’s portion. On the other hand, the city and state have already spent about $5M on the project, and cancellation would cost millions more. Given that unhappy prospect, the two sides are talking about some sort of work-around that would keep the project on track.

The larger part of the blame would seem to fall with the state, for trying to squeeze money out of the city beyond the terms of the contract. But the city decided to proceed with the project even though it knew there was almost no wiggle room for unforeseen contingencies. And on a project of this scale, there are always unforeseen contingencies.

After the jump: the Shumlin switcheroo; a small college stands on principle; chainsaws and coffee; and a nuclear humanitarian.

The Shumlin Administration, for its stout defense of welfare recipients and denial of the oft-repeated canard that too much help fosters a culture of dependency. In a January report, the Administration said that imposing a five-year lifetime limit on “Reach Up” benefits “could leave families destitute and at risk and will create a large hole in the fabric of Vermont’s safety net for those most in need.”

Wait, what?

Ohhhhhh, that report came out in January 2012, you say? And Shumlin’s new budget imposes a five-year lifetime cap on Reach Up? Exactly the kind of program cut it opposed only one year ago?

To quote the great Emily Litella, “Never mind.”

The teeny-tiny Republican minority in the Legislature, for continuing to prove that the VTGOP has failed to learn the lessons of 2012. I don’t know how many times Vermont Republicans have to be utterly rejected by the electorate before they start to understand that their right-wing, free-market policies are firmly opposed by a solid majority of voters.

I guess they need at least one more painful lesson, considering the clueless and pointless “No” vote cast by Republican members of a House committee on a bill that would provide free school lunches to students who currently qualify for reduced-price meals. The bill was obviously going to pass, and it’s probably the Grinchiest stance the Republicans could have taken.

Hey, VTGOP: if you want to pretend to be the Guardians of the Public Purse, please find yourself a more arguable use for taxpayer funds, and then go to town. The more you keep doing this stuff, the longer it’ll take for your party to regain even a hint of relevance.

Sterling College, for taking a meaningful stand against global warming with its decision to stop investing its endowment in the fossil fuel industry. Sterling is the first college in Vermont, and only the third in the nation, to heed the call of Bill McKibben to stop profiting at the expense of the planet. School trustee Rian Fried noted that short-term return is not the only way, or even the best way, to evaluate one’s portfolio.

“With this action, not only will the social return of the portfolio increase, the safety of the long-term financial returns will also be significantly enhanced by shielding the College from direct exposure to companies whose production levels are unsustainable.”

Sterling is a little tiny place, to be sure. But from small acorns do mighty oak trees grow.

Those black marketeers (knowing or otherwise) at Maple Grove Farms, for buying large quantities of maple syrup stolen from a Quebec warehouse. How large?

How about 12 tanker truckloads?

Company flack Matthew Lindberg insisted the company “purchased the maple syrup in good faith with no reason to believe that it was coming from Quebec or that it may have been stolen.” He denied media reports that the syrup was bought at well below market rates.

That’s as may be, but it’s a big blow to a company that trades heavily on its homespun Vermont charm. And you do have to wonder how tight their purchasing and sourcing operations really are, when they somehow managed to buy 12 tankers full of maple syrup from one of the alleged warehouse thieves without knowing its provenance.

The unknown thief who pulled off a smart perfecta at a seasonal home in Bradford. The burglar broke in sometime over the last several days and stole two chainsaws, a coffee maker, and several boxes of coffee.  

It’s a rare thief with the foresight to plan heists in accordance with well-known public safety tropes. (“Do not operate heavy machinery while drowsy.”) Plus, the coffeemaker was a Keurig single-cup model, so the thief is also patronizing local business. In his or her own way.

ABC’s “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition,” exploiters of human misfortune, for pushing another family to the brink of bankruptcy. For those blessedly unfamiliar with the more rancid outposts of reality TV, EM:HE is a sappy, over-the-top descendant of early TV weepie “Queen for a Day.” It finds deserving families living in substandard conditions and builds them a BRAND… NEW… HOUSE!!!

A house that’s obscenely large and aggressively overdecorated, and proves very difficult to maintain. And sure enough, there have been several cases of families being unable to keep up the financial commitment of their “free home,” and either gone bankrupt or sold off. This time, it’s the Vitale family of Athens, Vermont who are desperately trying to hang onto their home, which was custom-designed for their severely disabled son. However…

The family struggled to keep their new home once it was built, Vitale said. He also said he and his wife failed to read through the entire contract. When they did, they realized they were responsible for financing the house, a total of $220,000 for a 30-year mortgage with Chase Bank.

The property taxes and heating bills were also beyond their means. And when they tried to sell the house last year, they found no takers for a handicap-accessible rural home designed for the specific needs and interests of the Vitales at a price of 600 G’s.

Can somebody please give obnoxiously cheerful EM:HE host Ty Pennington a good hard kick in the nuts? Tell ”im Green Mountain Daily sent you.

J. Wayne Leonard, erstwhile utility magnate and budding Citizen of the World. Wayno stepped down at the end of January as head of Entergy, just in time to leave his successors holding the bag of the embarrassing Super Bowl brownout. He also leaves his company in a perilous cash flow situation that may force it to abandon one or more of its reactors — possibly Vermont Yankee. And leaves his successor to desperately explain away the “challenging economic situations” of its aging nuclear power plants:

“We have not made any decisions to shut down any of our merchant nuclear plants,” Entergy CEO Leo Denault said on the company’s fourth-quarter earnings call.

But, he said, “We are continually assessing our businesses and investments.”

…”Near-term power prices are challenging for some merchant nuclear generating units in certain competitive markets,” Denault said, noting the company was “bullish longer-term relative to the current forward curve.”

Which, I believe, is CEO-speak for “Oh God, oh God, somebody HELP!”

I haven’t been able to find information about Leonard’s retirement package, but I’m sure his parachute is a rich warm shade of gold. And in addition to great personal wealth, he also gets to play Junior League Bill Gates on his former employer’s dime:

A $5 million endowment for the creation of the J. Wayne Leonard Poverty, Climate Change and Social Justice Fund was announced Friday by Entergy Corp. in honor of J. Wayne Leonard, retiring chairman and chief executive officer of the company.

… The money comes from shareholder-funded donations to the Entergy Charitable Foundation, which means the corporation will make donations to the fund periodically until it reaches $5 million.

It may come as a complete surprise to Vermonters who only know Wayne Leonard through his stonewalling PR and his scorched-earth legal tactics, but in Entergy’s back yard, Leonard is known as a real humanitarian — at least, compared to his ethically challenged colleagues in CEO-land. In fact, Leonard is seen as something of a rebel in the energy business because of his outspokenness on climate change. Which, of course, plays into Entergy’s status as owner of several “carbon-free” nuclear power plants. But I’m sure that’s mere coincidence.

One final note. The Leonard Fund will make grants in the states where Entergy owns nukes and other major facilities, including Vermont. So we can look forward to getting a few crumbs from Entergy’s table, lavishly trumpeted in press releases I’m sure, even as the corporation itself continues to marshal legions of attorneys in its fight for the right to keep Vermont Yankee open.  

Late last week, the Department of Homeland Security’s civil rights watchdog (now there’s an oxymoron) released a summary of its report on standards for searching and seizing electronic devices carried by travelers at America’s borders. And here’s a real shocker: it says everything’s okay.

…travelers along the nation’s borders may have their electronics seized and the contents of those devices examined for any reason whatsoever – all in the name of national security.

,,, “We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits,” the executive summary said.

Yeah, right. Requiring “reasonable suspicion” before seizing your iPhone is too burdensome and provides no benefit to civil liberties. Whoever wrote this obviously attended John “Torture Memo” Yoo’s popular seminar, “How to Say Ridiculous Shit About the War on Terror With a Straight Face.”

This is obviously bad news for people who cross the border. But in theory, it’s bad news for pretty much everybody who lives in Vermont. That’s because, as we all know, DHS has Congressional approval to set up checkpoints far away from the border — up to 100 miles away. And that applies to ocean (and lake) boundaries as well as borders with other countries. Which means that pretty much all of New England is within what the ACLU has called the “Constitution-free Zone.” Indeed, over half of all US residents live within the zone.

A picture of the Zone, after the jump.

So if you leave your house with an electronic device, best make sure it doesn’t contain any naughty pictures or texts in Arabic or pictures of Middle Eastern street scenes, as a New York man taking the train to Canada discovered in 2010:

At an Amtrak inspection point, Pascal Abidor showed his U.S. passport to a federal agent. He was ordered to move to the cafe car, where they removed his laptop from his luggage and “ordered Mr. Abidor to enter his password,” according to the lawsuit.

Agents asked him about pictures they found on his laptop, which included Hamas and Hezbollah rallies. He explained that he was earning a doctoral degree at a Canadian university on the topic of the modern history of Shiites in Lebanon.

Abidor was handcuffed, jailed, and questioned for three hours. His computer was not returned until 11 days later, and then only after his attorney complained.

Oh, one more thing about this “watchdog.” What it released, more than three years late, was merely a two-page summary of its findings. It has refused to release the full report. The ACLU has filed suit seeking its release.

Which begs the question: who is the watchdog watching?  

Watch out, Vermont — our favorite Wall Street skrillionaire Bruce Lisman is on the prowl!

The co-founder and sole funder of the putatively nonpartisan Campaign for Vermont is scheduled to appear on WDEV’s Mark Johnson Show Monday morning at 9. For those desiring a few pearls of Lisdom, WDEV broadcasts on 96.1 FM and 550 AM. The AM signal has quite a wide reach. WDEV offers a live stream of its weekday morning programs. Otherwise, Mark posts podcasts of selected shows — and I’m sure this will be one of them — at his own website.

Will Mark ask Lisman why the Democrats are so mad at him? WIll Bruce be forced to explain his inexplicable description of the 2008 crash as “this thing that happened”? Tune in and find out!

And on February 19, Lisman continues his Cookies and Condescension Tour with a stop in Middlebury. There will be a panel discussion including local businesspeople and representatives of nonprofit organizations — the latter, seemingly, an attempt to slap the Lipstick of Compassion on Lisman’s economic pig. Because although charitable concerns will have their say, Lisman says,

“My ultimate goal for these forums is to lead a discussion about advancing non-partisan policies that will help us build an economy where no one is left behind and everyone can prosper.”

Yep, it’s all about the money. And about “leading the discussion.” And convincing as many Vermonters as possible to drink the Lisman Kool-Aid with their complimentary cookie:

“This inclusive statewide dialogue is another step toward building a larger, more diverse and independent grassroots coalition to advance much-needed, non-partisan reforms to build an economy where poverty steadily declines, wages steadily rise, and everyone has the opportunity to prosper.”

We all know Lisman has very strong opinions on how to build an economy where everybody is happy: loosen the shackles binding the free market, lower taxes on “job creators,” and let the prosperity flow.

Sounds too good to be true.  

Earlier this week, the federal government delivered some bad news for Gov. Shumlin’s health care plan: the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare decided not to provide matching funds for the Gov’s plan to fund health-insurance subsidies for low-income Vermonters.

(The subsidies were needed in order to minimize the transition from VHAP/Catamount to the new health care exchange, which would have hit many Vermonters pretty hard.)

Shumlin had budgeted $10.3 million to cushion the blow of rising premiums and out-of-pocket costs, including a 20% federal match. Well, that 20% ain’t coming.

And Shumlin’s response, you’ll never guess. He’s cutting the subsidy program from $10.3M to $7M. (Yes, I know that’s more than a 20% cut, and I don’t know why. I’m just reporting what I read on VTDigger, which is the first with this story.)

Those with no patience for details can skip this para: Shumlin had asked CMS to fund 55% of two subsidy programs. CMS decided not to fund the program aimed at people earning 300-350% of the federal poverty line; it was willing to fund the program aimed at those earning up to 300% of the FPL. The CMS decision meant a loss of $2.1M in federal dollars.

Because the worst thing we could possibly do, y’know, is raise taxes. Health Access Commissioner Mark Larson:

“Without the federal funds that we had requested, we simply can’t support the gross expenditure within the general fund dollars we have available,” he said.

The operative phrase being “within the general fund dollars we have available.”  

The revised proposal will hurt the people in the 300-350% range, who will not get any cost-sharing subsidies. In addition, subsidies for those in the 200-300% range will be cut by $300-500.

In real dollars, that 200-300% range is $23,000-34,500 in annual income. $500 is a lot of money for these people. Especially when many of them would also see a cut in the Earned Income Tax Credit thanks to a separate Shumlin proposal.

Larson expressed a willingness to work with the Legislature on ways to improve the revised proposal — but with the constant caveat, “with the general fund dollars we have available.” In other words, forget any notion of raising revenue; Governor Shumlin wants it all to be borne by the working poor. Who, I guess, have more money to spare than the wealthy.

There are two big problems with this. Beyond the obvious, I mean. First, the more expensive the coverage is, the more people will simply go uninsured. Which kinda defeats the goal of health care reform, doesn’t it, now?

And second, according to Peter Sterling of the Vermont Campaign for Health Care Security, “If we don’t get this right out of the gate, we’ll be stuck.” That observation arises from his experience advocating for the Catamount program several years ago. After the Catamount startup, he spent a lot of time lobbying for improvements in the program, to little avail. He fears the same thing will happen once the health care exchange is up and running. And that’s why he wants to get it right the first time around.  

If you have access to the Mitchell Family Organ, you must check out the latest missive from Peter “Marathon Man” Hirschfeld, captain and crew of the Starship Vermont Press Bureau. The story, “Lawmakers Pondering New Taxes,” nicely encapsulates a trend in the Legislature: widespread dissatisfaction among Dems and Progs with Governor Shumlin’s 2014 budget, especially some of his revenue-producing gimmicks; and a search for creative ideas to raise revenue more effectively or fairly without raising the Gov’s ire.

The story provides a lot of evidence for the notion that the real fault line in the legislature won’t be between the Dems and the GOP; it’ll be between the Governor and legislative lefties.

Last Friday, House Republicans made it clear that They Still Don’t Get It, with their self-immolating stance on a bill that would provide free school lunches for students who now qualify for reduced prices. The bill won’t cost that much money and it’s clearly going to pass, so the only thing Republicans accomplish by opposing it is to look like Ebenezer Scrooge before the ghosts came a-calling.

But still, Republicans on the House Education Committee voted NO. And their clueless vote was cast, not because they actually opposed the bill, but for the sake of a stupid, stubborn idea. House Minority Leader Don Turner:

“There’s a lot of talk about education reform, and it’s all down in bits and pieces,” Turner said. “We don’t want to get caught voting on it in bits and pieces. We don’t have a big picture view of what the whole change is going to cost.”

Well, gee, Don, isn’t it standard practice for the Legislature to tackle multifaceted reforms in “bits and pieces”? Different committees get different bits, don’t they? What did you expect — that the entire package would be delivered as a whole to the Legislature for a single up-or-down vote? That’s kinda-sorta not how legislatures are supposed to work. As you well know.

It’s sad, because in the post-election period, Turner showed signs of a rare Republican leader capable of some self-examination in the wake of the VTGOP’s Titanic v. Iceberg defeat. But this committee vote came right out of the John McLaughry/Lenore Broughton playbook, and it’s the kind of thing that will prevent the party from returning to relevance.

I didn’t mean to take so much time on that vote… but the point is, the Republicans are not an effective minority in the Legislature, and they won’t be as long as they keep trying to reanimate the corpse of last year’s VTGOP. Instead, if there is a legislative debate worth watching this year — a debate that might actually affect government policy — it’ll be between Shumlin’s fiscal conservatism and the more liberal attitudes of many lawmakers.  

Back to Hirschfeld. His article begins by noting that “legislative support for… Shumlin’s new revenue proposals continues to deteriorate,” and then reports:

In the coming days and weeks, Montpelier will see bills that would raise tax rates on top earners, eliminate tax exemptions that benefit the wealthy, add a 1-cent-per-ounce tax on sugared drinks, and double the gross receipts tax on heating oil.

… Leaders in the House and Senate have begun calling into question both the wisdom and viability of Shumlin’s new revenue streams. And legislators eager to retain the governor’s array of new state programs say they’ll come up with their own ways to support the spending.

Hirschfeld unhelpfully points out that the self-described fiscal conservative Shumlin has actually “recommended nearly $70 million in tax increases.” In that context, it’s not hard for Progs and Dems to go looking for better options for raising revenue. And already, they’ve come up with quite a few:

— Rep. David Sharpe (D-Bristol) is the lead sponsor of a penny-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, with the funds going to help ease the transition from VHAP/Catamount to the new health care exchange, plus a stronger anti-obesity education effort.

— Rep. Paul Poirier (I-Barre) has proposed a bill to raise income tax rates on top earners, an idea almost certain to be vetoed by Shumlin. Rep Chris Pearson (P-Burlington) is hoping to bypass the Gov’s no-tax-hikes stance by raising revenue from top earners without raising tax rates. He’s working on “a laundry list of options” that he hopes to present within the next week.

— Rep. Margaret Cheney (D-Norwich) is writing a bill that would raise taxes on heating fuels. This proposal would supplement or replace Shumlin’s idea for a tax on break-open tickets; many lawmakers don’t buy Shumlin’s revenue estimate for that tax, and they’re looking for other ways to fund weatherization and energy efficiency programs.

Lawmakers are also unhappy with another of Shumlin’s revenue work-arounds: a 1% tax on health insurance claims. This tax is a funding mechanism for the Catamount health plan, which will disband at the end of 2013 in favor of the health care exchange. But Shumlin wants to continue the tax anyway. Some legislators disagree, and will be looking for options they like better.

Of course, all of this may be sound and fury, signifying nothing; at the end of the day, the threat of a veto casts a wide shadow even if it’s never deployed. On the other hand, it’s worth noting that House Speaker Shap Smith has expressed significant doubts on some aspects of Shumlin’s budget plan — most notably the $17M transfer from the Earned Income Tax credit to child-care subsidies and the projected revenue from the break-open ticket tax. Plus Smith’s initial reaction to Shumlin’s budget speech in January: “…many of the proposals that have been put forth, people might have some skepticism about.”

If the Speaker lends his weight to the back-benchers’ budget revisionism, things could get pretty interesting under the Golden Dome. And the Republicans will be reduced to the role of spectators booing the home team.