Oh, it was a happy day in Barre, as local and state officials put the “dig” in “dignitary” at the groundbreaking for City Place, the new office/retail building on Main Street. (If Jim Douglas earned the nickname “Governor Scissorhands” for his frequent attendance at ribbon-cuttings, could we call his successor “Shovelin’ Shumlin” for his eager participation at groundbreakings?)

There were speeches, congratulations, and lots of back-slapping to mark the occasion, which was legitimately momentous for the city of Barre. City Place will bring hundreds of office workers to the heart of downtown, meaning plenty of new business for downtown shops, restaurants, and a certain gentlemen’s establishment.

But those of us in the jaded Statehouse media corps were mostly there to grab a few minutes with the Governor, since this event was in the time slot set aside for Shumlin’s weekly news conference. And he did give us a fair bit of time, standing outdoors on a disconcertingly warm midwinter day of the kind that never used to happen in Vermont before global warming, cough.  

Shumlin did his usual ducking and dodging and sticking to his (bolt-action) guns. On a few key issues, there was an interesting combination of holding firm to principle while also leaving some wiggle room. Highlights:

— He stood his ground on broad-based tax hikes — and took it one step further.

— He offered a more nuanced definition of “broad-based taxes.”

— He refused to consider alternatives to his proposed cut in the Earned Income Tax Credit to fund improved child care for the working poor.

— He also brushed off criticism of the proposed transition to the health care exchange, and insisted that no Vermonter would be too badly hurt.

— He offered conditional support for President Obama’s gun control package.

Details after the jump.  

Acceptable and unacceptable tax hikes. Some (induing yrs truly) have questioned Shumlin’s definition of “broad-based taxes” — why, for example, does “rooms and meals” qualify while a gas-tax increase would not? Well, his more nuanced but no more convincing definition went like this:

When I refer to broad-based taxes, I am talking about the general fund, not the transportation fund, and I am talking about taxes that support the general fund, which happen to be income, sales, and rooms and meals.

Which leaves him plenty of room to impose new taxes for special purposes and increase taxes that don’t go to the general fund — even if the taxes are extremely broad-based. But it closes the door on many of our more progressive forms of taxation.

He also took a step further in his opposition to tax increases he doesn’t like. Some lawmakers have been talking about trimming tax deductions and other “tax expenditures” rather than raising tax rates — but Shumlin isn’t buying.

As I’ve said many times, Vermont’s biggest challenge is not that our taxes are not high enough, it is that they are too high.  …Now they can call it something else, like playing with deductions — you’re asking people to pay more income tax, and I’m not willing to do that.

That EITC cut. Many lawmakers, up to and including House Speaker Shap Smith, have balked at Shumlin’s proposal to shift some funds out of the Earned Income Tax Credit to pay for more generous child-care benefits for the working poor. Shumlin took a hard line today:

I feel very strongly that the education package for prosperity is just that — a package. And we need to pass every part of the package. … And if you pull one leg out from under it, it falls apart. If you don’t do the Earned Income Tax Credit reinvestment — it’s not a cut, it’s reinvesting the same dollars with the same population but putting them to better use.

Health care exchange. When the exchange opens on 1/1/14, the Catamount and VHAP programs will, by federal mandate, end. The transition would hit some Vermonters with higher premiums. Shumlin’s budget was said to include enough money to “hold them harmless.” But as it turns out, that’s not really true: everyone would be “held harmless” on insurance premiums, but some Vermonters (especially those between 200-300% of the federal poverty level) would be liable for much higher out-of-pocket costs. If they stay healthy, they come out ahead; but if they have significant illness, they’d have to pay more.

The Governor today tried to limit the damage, by (a) shifting the blame to the feds, and (b) trying to explain how this really won’t hurt anyone – -at least not too badly.

I don’t think they’re going to be hit “pretty hard.” I think the package that we came up with will ensure that the federal bill that is less generous than our current plan will make sure that no one is asked to stretch beyond their ability to pay.

He added that someone would “have to have pretty extraordinary circumstances” to face a big increase in medical bills under the exchange. Which is almost reassuring, no?

Gun control. Shumlin reiterated his desire for a 50-state solution, and he qualified his previously stated support for President Obama’s proposal for an assault-weapons ban:

Depending on how they define an assault weapon. One of my concerns is that they’ve got a bunch of city boys down there trying to define an assault weapon.  …And some of the definitions of assault weapon I’ve seem coming up in Washington would impinge on a Vermont sportsman’s ability to use the weapons they’re currently using. I don’t think that’s smart.

He also addressed a gun-control measure proposed by State Rep. Linda Waite-Simpson. He stopped short of a veto threat, but he made it clear he doesn’t want new state law — he wants only federal action.  

Ruh-roh. At his press conference today, Governor Shumlin betrayed his true allegiance in mildly-alcoholic libations.

Budweiser.

It went down like this. Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz asked Shumlin if he’d ever played the break-open tickets that would be taxed under the Governor’s budget plan. Here’s the key exchange:

Heintz: Do you ever play the break-open tickets?

Shumlin: Oh yeah, anyone who drinks beer has played break-open tickets.

Heintz: I drink a lot of beer, and I haven’t played any.

Shumlin: Oh yeah? Well, you’re not drinkin’ in the right place.

Jeb Spaulding: You’re drinking those five-dollar beers.

Heintz: Where do you buy them?

Shumlin: Oh, you can get ’em at any club or bar in Vermont. I’m a Windham County boy, so I’ve played ’em in Windham County. Rockingham, the Elks, the Brattleboro Legion. I can take you there if you want, I’ll even buy you a beer. But you’re not gettin’ that Gucci beer. We’re drinkin’, you know, Budweiser.

There you have it, Vermont brewers. Your stuff is “Gucci beer,” and real Vermonters drink out-of-state pisswater.

Why do I suspect that sometime soon, Shumlin will make time for a photo-op at Heady Topper or Hill Farmstead or Lawson’s Finest? Hell, I’ll invite him for a five-dollar beer at the Three Penny, anytime. I’ll even buy the first round.

Stay tuned for more on the serious stuff from Shumlin’s presser.

Let us take a moment to commiserate with Sen. Peter Galbraith (D-Petrobucks), the honorable and self-funded public servant who innocently entered Tuesday’s Senate Natural Resources Committee hearing on the proposed wind moratorium, not realizing that he was about to suffer a case of first-degree hurt fee-fees.

The dastardly perpetrator: Paul Burns, head of VPIRG, testifying against the moratorium. He faced an unfriendly audience; three of the five Senators on the committee are co-sponsors of the moratorium bill. (Way to pack the panel, John Campbell!) Senators confronted him with a comment he’d made earlier, to the effect that supporting a wind moratorium was equivalent to rejecting the reality of climate change. As Peter “Marathan Man” Hirschfeld* of the Vermont Press Bureau reported, “The senators didn’t appreciate his tone.”

*Hirschfeld, now the VPB’s sole reporter, somehow managed to cover the wind hearing, the Democrats’ campaign finance press event, AND the death-with-dignity hearing, all in a single day. Whew!

Galbraith asked Burns if it wasn’t possible to believe in climate change and still oppose ridgeline wind development.  Burns’ reply, in Hirschfeld’s words: “It’s difficult to know which is worse – not believing in climate change and opposing wind because you think it’s unnecessary, or believing global warming is real and fighting against wind anyway.”

After another back-and-forth, Galbraith advised Burns to “consider adopting a more civil tone,” and added,

“I guess there are at least three flat-earthers here in this committee, in your view. I wouldn’t characterize your position in an extreme way … And you owe to be respectful to people on the other side and not characterize them in such an extreme way.”

Mmm, yes, “respectful to people on the other side.” Let’s consider that.  

Paul Burns and his colleagues in the Vermont environmental movement have been ruthlessly pilloried by the Tinfoil Hat Brigade of the anti-wind crowd.  VPIRG, VNRC, the Sierra Club, and the other pro-wind environmental groups — who spend long hours for low pay trying to defend our environment — have been accused of selling out their principles to some sort of vaguely defined Blittersdorf/Iberdrola big wind cartel.

Those accusations extend to, of all people, Bernie Sanders. In a comment thread below the VTDigger article on Bernie’s opposition to the moratorium, he is accused of being “energy-illiterate, on the take from Big Wind, or both” (Mary Barton), “violat[ing] truth and public trust” and “attempts to manipulate through outright misrepresentation of facts”  and cronyism (Peggy Sapphire), doing favors for the wind industry and not knowing “how wind energy actually works” (Will Amidon), “a raging hypocrite” (Ellin Anderson) and of selling out for a campaign contribution from David Blittersdorf (our ol’ buddy Patrick Cashman).

“Respectful,” indeed. The vast majority of the vituperation in this debate has come from the anti-wind crowd.

Now, let’s talk about corruption and the appearance thereof, in the person of Peter Galbraith. Here we have a wind-moratorium supporter who made a huge pile of money — as much as $100,000,000 — from oil fields in the Kurdish region of Iraq.

Which probably makes him Vermont’s biggest fossil-fuel magnate.

Hmm, and he supports the wind moratorium.

I’m not saying he’s corrupt, but I am saying there’s a hell of a lot more appearance of corruption in his case than in Bernie’s.

There’s also the question of how Galbraith landed this incredibly lucrative deal. The former diplomat was an adviser to Kurdish leaders in Iraq from 2003-2005, a time when he was an influential voice in the American debate over the Iraq War and an advocate of Kurdish separatism. During that three-year period, he also had business dealings with oil companies in Iraqi Kurdistan. The biggest deal was with a Norwegian oil company; it gave him a 5% stake in a very productive Kurdish oil field.

Galbraith told the Boston Globe that there was no conflict of interest because he was working as a private citizen at the time and besides, “The business interest… was consistent with my political views.”

Yeah, it’s nice when you can cash in bigtime on your political views.  

In a way that Bernie Sanders has never done. The anti-wind crowd demonizes Bernie, not because they have any evidence, but simply because he disagrees with them. And the anti-wind crowd eagerly accepts the support of Galbraith, in spite of his vast oil wealth.

As for Galbraith, he’s throwing stones and he appears to live in a glass house.  

A cluster of top Democrats gathered today to unveil a campaign-finance reform plan that’s long on disclosure and transparency — and, by necessity, short on actual spending limits. That’s because of the restrictions on campaign finance law imposed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Citizens United and Western Tradition Partnership v. Montana cases. In a post-Citizens United world, said Secretary of State Jim Condos, the only avenue for reform is “better, stronger, and more frequent disclosure.”  

“I wish that we could end the current system of essentially unlimited money,” added House Speaker Shap Smith, “but we have to understand that’s not going to happen. We are controlled by the precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. But I do think transparency will make a huge difference.”

The plan is essentially identical to those proposed by VPIRG and by a group of Republican lawmakers — a fact not only acknowledged, but celebrated, by those in attendance today. “It’s hugely encouraging that both parties are coming together over [this] issue,” said Bob Stannard, head of Priorities PAC, the anti-SuperPAC SuperPAC. “They all appear to be on the same page, and I think that’s great.”

(Pictured, left to right: Secretary of State Condos, VDP Chair Perkinson, Senate President Campbell. Speaker Shap Smith hidden, Valerie Jarrett style, behind Campbell.)

There was one significant difference in the Democrats’ plan, and it was delivered with an unsubtle slam against one of GMD’s favorite bete noires — Bruce Lisman’s Campaign for Vermont. The Dems have vivid recollections of CFV’s thinly-veiled attack ads, and they really want to prevent a repeat. They want to impose new reporting requirements for organizations that “hide behind slick names” (Condos’ words) and engage in “public issue spending.” CFV was mentioned by name (repeatedly), but the requirement could also target groups like Vermonters for Health Care Freedom and Wake Up, Opt Out which engaged in issue advertising in 2012.  

The mood of tripartisan celebration (yes, they praised the Progs as well) was tempered by the rather curious fact that the lead speaker was Jake Perkinson, head of the Vermont Democratic Party. And the news release was printed on VDP letterhead. The assembled Dems didn’t really have a good explanation for that; they referred to the necessity of including political parties in the reform process, but didn’t address Perkinson’s central role in the event.  

The Dems’ reform proposals include:  

— In the last 45 days before an election, all PACs and Super PACs would have to disclose all donations and expenditures over $250 within 24 hours.

— If a single individual contributes 25% or more of a PAC’s or Super PAC’s total bankroll, that individual must be identified by name in every advertisement. (Call that the Lenore Broughton Clause, although it could also apply to Lisman; see next point.)

— Full disclosure of political spending by “nonpolitical” groups. The Dems specifically and repeatedly cited Lisman’s CFV as their example.

— Penalties for candidates and organizations that fail to meet filing deadlines.

— Mandatory electronic campaign filing, and a searchable online database for all campaign finance information. This is the only item that would require funding — perhaps as much as $1 million for new technology in the Secretary of State’s office.

The only available cost estimate was crafted a few years ago by Condos’ predecessor, Deb Markowitz; it pegged the technology cost at between $600,000 and $1M. The cost may be lower than that, if Vermont can make use of software already used by other states. And even in a tight budget year, legislative leaders voiced a commitment to finding the money: “These are things we really have to do,” said John Campbell, Senate President Pro Tem. “Everyone across the board believes that we need more transparency in campaign finance.”  

Reform advocate Bob Stannard was generally pleased, but he’d like to see one more addition to the plan: some basic biographical information.

I don’t think it’s enough that we just name the donors. We have to get to the motives for the donation — and you can set a limit on that, maybe anybody over $2,000. When you start giving major money, then it’s important to find out what’s that person’s background? What’s the motivation behind the money? Is the person the head of a large company or an employee?  I think that would make it more transparent and take it to a different and better level.

Although there’s substantial agreement across the political spectrum, there are some issues to be resolved — and some of them could lead to extensive debate. The biggest is how to define “public issue spending” — the Dems all agreed that Lisman’s CFV was obviously political in 2012, but beyond that, there’s a substantial gray zone. And unresolved questions about how far Vermont can go.  “I think that’s to be determined,” said Condos. “That’s some of the debate the Legislature needs to have. They need to bring in the Attorney General to talk about the constitutional law. We’ll have to look at that, and there may be nothing we can do.”

Other unresolved points: what kinds of penalties to impose for late filing (“We need to make it hurt,” said Condos), and the exact frequency of filing deadlines. Example: under current law, the first deadline during a campaign year is July 15, which I’ve argued is too late. “I would personally agree with you,” said Perkinson, “and that’s an issue that’s up for debate. There is broad agreement that there should be more frequent filings. As to the exact dates, that will have to be discussed.”  

The last word goes to State Sen. Ginny Lyons, who put the entire issue into context:

This will not end until the federal government has a dialogue about what money means in our democracy. This is the beginning of a conversation in this state, but ultimately, Congress is going to have to consider the Citizens United decision and all those other decisions that have brought us to this point.

Several environmental organizations will hold a news conference Tuesday morning to announce legal action to ensure that Vermont has a say over any plan to move tar sands oil through the state.

I provided a lengthy background in a June 2012 post about tar sands oil, but here’s a shortened version: There’s an existing oil pipeline that runs from Portland, Maine to Montreal, by way of the Northeast Kingdom. Currently, it carries imported oil to Canadian markets. A few years ago, the Canadian pipeline operator Enbridge developed a plan to reverse the flow so the pipeline could carry tar-sands oil from Alberta to Portland for export. That plan was shelved, but there are signs it’s being revived.

Enbridge has gained approval from the Canadian government to reverse the pipeline from Sarnia, Ontario to Montreal. That could simply be a move to carry western oil to eastern Canadian markets; but it’d be awfully tempting to make the oil available for export, and Portland is by far the closest option.

The issue at the core of this lawsuit: since it’s an existing pipeline, would the operator be able to simply adjust its existing Act 250 permit, or would it need to start from scratch and seek a new one? If the former, the state and Vermonters would have little say.

The environmental groups plan to seek court action to ensure that the reversal would require a fresh Act 250 process.

On a separate track, State Rep. David Deen has introduced a bill that would mandate Act 250 review for any change in use for existing oil pipelines.

Tar sands oil is truly nasty stuff; it’s sludgy and corrosive, and a 2010 pipeline break in western Michigan caused a major amount of damage, which is still being cleaned up. (Details in that same June post.)

The groups holding tomorrow’s presser include the Conservation Law Foundation, VPIRG, 350.org, and the National Wildlife Federation.  

As if I needed to tell you, it’s the Special Memeface Edition of “Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down…”

Two milestones on the road to recovery from Tropical Storm Irene. On Saturday, there were public celebrations in Duxbury and Bartonsville. The former marked the closure of Rebuild Waterbury, an Irene recovery effort for Waterbury and surrounding communities.

And in Bartonsville, a new wooden covered bridge was dedicated. It replaces the old Bartonsville bridge, which was swept away in post-Irene floods. The ribbon-cutters included the usual suspects, Gov. Shumlin and U.S. Rep. Peter Welch; but the brightest face belonged to Sue Hammond, the Bartonsville native who caught the bridge’s collapse on video, complete with her unfiltered cries of dismay. She recounted for WCAX her childhood memories of crossing the bridge and swimming in the river below. Its reopening is a positive sign for all Vermont, but it’s most welcome for the people who live in and around Bartonsville.

Devoted environmentalist Skip “Gasoline” Vallee, for continuing to fight the self-interested fight against a proposed Costco gas station off I-89 Exit 16. Last week, the Costco plan won a land-use permit under Act 250 — and Vallee immediately promised to appeal the ruling.

Not that we would ever question the environmental bona fides of a guy who made his bones selling fossil fuel… but let’s be real: the only reason he’s fighting Costco is that it would provid stiff competition for his Exit 16 Maplefields station, and threaten Burlington-area profit margins that are among the highest in the nation. It seems certain that Skippy will spend plenty of those profits on lawyers, as he takes his battle to every possible tribunal in an effort to delay the inevitable as long as possible.

After the jump: One fond farewell, one good riddance, and Jim Doesless saysless.

Avram Patt, General Manager of my electricity provider, Washington Electric Co-op, who just announced he will retire at the end of June after 16-plus years on the job. The Co-op has been a pioneer in renewable power generation, and they go out of their way to help their customers. At least I think so.

But there’s a lot more to Mr. Patt than a career spent in utilities and public service. In his younger days, he spent two years performing with the Bread and Puppet Theater, and he’s the singer/storyteller/drummer of the Nisht Geferlach Klezmer Band. And hey, a touch of Yiddish is just what Vermont culture needs.

 Wayne Leonard, CEO of Entergy Corporation (owner of Vermont Yankee), on the occasion of his much more welcome departure. Leonard is retiring at the end of this month after 14 years at the top of Entergy. If you read the New Orleans Times Picayune, you learn that Leonard helmed the company through some very tough times to a much more prosperous present.

Guess the Times Picayune hasn’t heard about that grim UBS Securities forecast on Entergy’s cash-flow troubles.

But here’s the best part:

Leonard… has developed a reputation as a chief executive with a conscience, who’s relied on a range of personality traits to motivate others and promote his vision of a better society.

Oh yeah. This is the same guy who let Yankee’s decommissioning fund dwindle, who’s failed to bolster Yankee’s poor reputation in these parts, who tried to pull off a financial shell game by spinning off Yankee (and Entergy’s other nukes) into a new corporation with no assets, who continues to fight tooth and nail against Vermont’s efforts to enforce the terms of its operating license, and who’s stoutly defended Yankee throughout its myriad technical and maintenance troubles. “Chief executive with a conscience,” my Aunt Fanny.

The Brookfield floating bridge, which is finally on the road to reopening. The unique bridge carried Route 65 traffic — and many a curious tourist — across Sunset Lake for decades has been closed to vehicles and pedestrians since 2008 due to a loss of buoyancy.

Last week, an Agency of Transportation official told Brookfield residents that the bridge was on the AOT’s budget for 2014. If all goes well, construction would begin in the spring of 2014 with a projected opening in the fall of that year. The new bridge should have a life expectancy of 100 years. The feds will cover 80% of the estimated $4.7 million cost of the new bridge, with the state picking up the remainder.

Noted socks and underwear connoisseur Peter Shumlin, for staging a photo-op today at the Northfield mill that produces Darn Tough Socks less than two weeks after he trumpeted a proposed new Walmart in Derby.

Why does he get dinged for two random promotional events, you may ask?

Well, on the one hand, Shumlin seeks to highlight local manufacturing; on the other, he talked of Newport-area residents’ need for a place to buy socks and underwear — at a mega-chain retailer that doesn’t carry Darn Tough Socks. Oopsie.

Governor-turned-pundit Jim Douglas, for a series of VPR commentaries that are either dreadfully shallow and bland, or completely self-serving.

Last week, I wrote a post about Douglas’ latest VPR emission — an ego-driven bleat about how Gov. Shumlin stole all his education-reform ideas. And how the cretins in the Democratic Legislature torpedoed all those ideas back in the day. In response to my post, frequent commenter “terje” noted that all of Douglas’ VPR commentaries are pretty much like that.

So I checked, and terje is right — sort of.

Douglas’ commentaries basically fall into three (equally useless) categories:

— The grumbling-in-his-drink stuff, wherein he explains how he would have solved all our problems if only the shortsighted Democrats hadn’t stymied him.

— The shallow and uninteresting recitations of historical and political trivia.

— Complaints about the divisive partisanship of today’s politics. He usually leaves unspoken the obvious undercurrent: “It’s not like things used to be when I was in office.” The problem is that Douglas was the one who first imported the corrosive carpet-bombing political playbook of the Karl Rove types.

Remember a guy named Jim Barnett, last seen driving Scott Brown’s campaign off the cliff? (Barnett ran a harshly negative campaign against Elizabeth Warren, in spite of the fact that his candidate’s only real asset was likability.) Well, Jim cut his political teeth in the mid-Aughties as Jim Douglas’ pit bull. Or, as Peter Freyne called him, “Mad Dog.”  

Here’s another Freyne nickname: the Nasty Boys, given to Barnett and Neale Lunderville for their relentlessly negative approach to partisan politics. They did the dirty work, while Douglas enjoyed plausible deniability as he pretended to be a nice-guy conciliator.

And now he’s mounted his high horse to condemn all the angry partisanship he sees around him.

To sum it all up, there’s a bit more variety to Douglas’ VPR commentaries than terje said. But terje’s underlying point is certainly true: they’re a waste of perfectly good airtime.  

Uh-oh, Jeff Wennberg, head of the right-wing Vermonters for Health Care Freedom, has found himself some statistics. And they’ve led him to a really creative conclusion:

Vermont is in trouble because we’re too generous to the elderly and the poor.

That’s the grim takeaway from his latest opinion piece, posted on VTDigger.

The stats in question show a population shift among young adults; Vermont suffered a net loss of educated people and a net gain of those with less than a high school diploma. The numbers come from the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. Well, actually, they’re not really statistics; they’re estimates. And they date from the years 2005 to 2007 — according to Wennberg, “the most recent period available.”

I don’t necessarily accept these statistics as the final word on Vermont demographics, but just for the time being, let’s play along with Jeff. The shift, according to his chosen statistics:

Vermont suffered an estimated net loss of 704 people between the ages of 22 and 39. Among those with a high school degree and some college the loss was 44 individuals. But within this same age group Vermont suffered a net loss of 1,044 people with associate’s degrees or above. Over the same period Vermont imported a net 498 22- to 39-year-olds with less than a high school diploma.

To put it another way, smart people move out, dumb people move in. And why is this, pray tell, Mr. Wennberg?  

The first culprit is Vermont’s insistence on “community rating,” which bars health insurance providers from charging different rates to different age groups. See, by Jeff’s calculus, young people with good jobs are so weighed-down by the burden of subsidizing Grandpa’s health care that they flee the state. And if we only adopted VHCF’s free-market approach to health care, we’d stop losing young people.

Ignoring all other factors, such as greater opportunities elsewhere for many professions. And ignoring the moral and ethical dimension of letting insurance companies charge ultra-high premiums to senior citizens.

Also ignoring the other problems with ending “community rating,” like discouraging employers from hiring older workers and imposing ultra-high premiums on businesses in riskier fields, such as logging or granite carving or road contracting or manufacturing.

But that’s not the most outrageous thing in Wennberg’s piece. That would be his assertion that Vermont’s antipoverty programs are too generous, drawing poor people to our state like a hot pie on a windowsill:

Young families with children who rely on public assistance for health care, housing or basic subsistence would be hard pressed to find a more attractive state.

Great. Let’s impose Wennberg’s Galtian regime. Let’s get rid of those whiny old people and those poverty-ridden parasites, and watch Vermont thrive.

And feel your soul wither.  

*For those just joining us, “Bunched Knicker Syndrome” — a condition of extreme irascibility as a result of relatively minor provocation.

Old friend Angry Jack Lindley, the perpetually dyspeptic captain of the Tita– er, that is, chair of the VTGOP, has found a great way to keep warm during our first big cold snap of the season: working up a great big fit of outrage. Call it the Angry Jack Workout Program.

This time, his knickers are in a bunch over the release of the Shumlin Administration’s report on single payer health care. The study was commissioned from experts at the University of Massachusetts at a cost of $300,000; it concluded that Vermont could, indeed, offer better quality and universal access for slightly less money than the current system. But in Jack’s eyes, the report is so badly flawed that he wants the state to take a stand:

Refuse to pay the bill.

That’s right: welsh out on a legally incurred obligation.

Remember when the GOP used to be the party of responsibility — of sober, efficient, workmanlike government? Well now, as embodied in the person of Angry Jack, it’s the Party of Rage. Its stock in trade is the out-of-control overreaction to anything (however great or small) that offends its sensibilities.

But wait, there’s more. Just to show how far Angry Jack is removed from reality, he contrasts the Shumlin plan with the allegedly superior positions of failed candidates Randy Brock and Wendy Wilton. Obviously, Jack still blames the voters for turning their backs on Republican wisdom, rather than looking at his own party to figure out how it got so far out of the Vermont mainstream, and how to get back into it.

And we encourage this myopic approach to rebuilding a moribund party. Keep it up, Jack, and we’ll be in for an unbroken era of liberal dominance.  

One of the issues with Gov. Shumlin’s health care plan was how poor and working class Vermonters would fare in the transition from Catamount and VHAP to the new health care exchange. As things stand, their health care costs would increase substantially; the state would have to spend an estimated $18 million to hold those Vermonters harmless.

Well, the Governor’s 2014 budget provided $10.3 million — a little more than half the needed funds. But at a media briefing on the budget, Administration Secretary Jeb Spaulding practically leaped out of his chair in his haste to explain that the $10.3M was more than enough to close the gap. That’s because FY 2014 runs from July 1 to June 30, and the exchange goes online January 1, 2014 — halfway through the fiscal year. And since $10.3M is more than half of $18M, nobody would suffer in the transition.

Case closed, right?

Well, not quite. VTDigger’s Andrew Stein went digging, and found some significant holes in the Governor’s plan. The article is very wonky, but well worth your time and attention if you want to stay informed about the Shumlin Administration’s top priority.

(This story is a terrific illustration of why we need a robust Statehouse media presence, and why anybody with a spare shekel or two should consider a donation to VTDigger.)

In January 2014, some 110,000 Vermonters who aren’t enrolled in Medicaid will have to buy health insurance through the exchange. The $10.3M will hold many of them harmless — but not all. And some could be hit hard by out-of-pocket expenses.  The two issues, as explained by Digger:  

1. The Shumlin plan includes a new way of calculating health care premiums based on income. The change, according to Administration officials, is designed to match the methods used in the Affordable Care Act. As they say, the old system is going away, and therefore we can’t hold onto the old formulas.

The new calculations will benefit some, while others will see premium increases. Those hikes are very modest, but for the working poor, every dollar is precious. Example: An individual earning 150% of the 2013 poverty line would see a premium increase of $35 a year. Without the $10.3M adjustment, the cost increase would have been $294 a year, so the Shumlin plan closes virtually all of that gap.

The bigger problem is…

2. Higher out-of-pocket expenses for those who actually need health care. This affects Vermonters earning between 133 and 300 percent of the federal poverty line. Example: A couple earning 300% of the poverty line would enjoy a $1250 decrease in their annual health care premiums — but their annual maximum out-of-pocket expenses would rise from $2100 under Catamount to $5,000 in the exchange.

In short, as long as you stay healthy, you win big. If you get sick, you could be stuck with substantially higher bills.

One more thing. Remember that $18M figure? The amount needed to hold the working poor harmless? Well, apparently that’s no longer the actual number:

…Mark Larson, commissioner of the Department of Vermont Health Access, replied, “Our estimates have evolved.” He wasn’t sure, however, exactly how much money would be necessary to hold all of these Vermonters harmless.

He “wasn’t sure,” or he “didn’t want to say”? It’s hard to believe the Administration really doesn’t know.

To be fair, the Administration has gone a very long way to ease the transition. The proposed system is a lot better than it would have been without the $10.3M. But, as always, the devil is in the details, and it’s best to read the fine print.

Yep, ol’ B.S. is up to his old tricks: clearing the police of wrongdoing in a high-profile case. He announced today that no criminal charges would be filed in the death of Macadam Mason of Thetford last June. Mason died after being Tasered by state trooper David Shaffer.

In a classic Friday news dump, Sorrell issued a statement this morning (no press conference; Profiles in Courage) issuing his findings, which came after an investigation by a State Police detective. All very cozy. And maybe the Tasering was justified, I frankly don’t know; but Sorrell’s track record does nothing to inspire confidence. Nor does the completely internal nature of the probe.

Nor does Sorrell’s opposition to a change in state law that would allow greater access to records of criminal investigations. Makes you think he’d just as soon keep the details of this one under wraps. But maybe I’m too cynical.

Here’s how Sorrell sets the stage for his finding:

Under Vermont law, a police officer is entitled to use a reasonable amount of force to defend himself or herself or others if he or she reasonably believes that he or she or others are in immediate danger of bodily harm, that the use of force is necessary to avoid the harm, and that the amount of force used was reasonable under the circumstances. In a criminal case, the State bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer’s use of force was unreasonable under the facts and circumstances of the case.

Yes and no, Bill. In a criminal trial, the State must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not required to do so when simply filing criminal charges.

Allen Gilbert of the Vermont ACLU offered this response to Ken Picard of Seven Days:

“It’s hard to know when, if ever, criminal charges might be brought in a law enforcement shooting death,” Gilbert said. “A trooper fired a weapon that killed a man. The weapon was used in a way that’s contrary to the guidelines from the weapon’s manufacturer. The stark fact of this case is that a Vermonter is dead who ought to be alive today.”

Sorrell’s narrative of the case includes an interesting passage that I hadn’t heard before. The state police first arrived at her home in response to calls from Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center requesting a welfare check at an address in Thetford. Troopers arrived at the scene and encountered Mason’s partner, Theresa Davidonis. She found Mason hiding in some nearby woods; she spoke with him, then told the troopers they should leave because their presence was upsetting to Mason.

Then, Davidonis went back to work. And troopers returned to the scene, in spite of her request.

That’s when the fatal event occurred. Sorrell describes the encounter exactly as the State Police have previously done: Mason refused to comply with orders and began to approach Shaffer and, when the two men were six to ten feet apart, Shaffer fired his Taser.

That is not how Davidonis has described the standoff, but it’s not surprising that Sorrell has chosen to believe the police account.

Davidonis is still pursuing civil action against Shaffer and the VSP. This finding won’t prevent her from winning in civil court, but it doesn’t help any either.