Just the kind of thing you like to peruse over brunch. From the Saturday Feb. 4 Brattleboro Reformer:

Entergy demands $4.6 million from the state

Yup, they want to be reimbursed for legal costs associated with their lawsuit over Vermont’s denial of a license extension. Oh, and in case you were thinking about causing any more trouble?

“(The $4.62 million) amount is likely to increase if the fee petition is extensively litigated and/or Defendants appeal the Judgment,” wrote Entergy’s attorneys.

Been quite a couple of weeks for our good neighbor and provider of safe, clean, reliable power. They win the suit, they try to limit tritium testing, they demand that the Public Service Board immediately approve the 20-year extension. Can we look forward to 20 more years of corporate intransigence and bullying? Mebbe so:

…because Entergy prevailed against the state, the legal relationship between the two parties was “materially altered and was judicially sanctioned.”

There’s a marker for you. The Entergy/Vermont relationship has been “materially altered.” Which seems to be a lawyerly way of saying, “You tried to f*ck with us, you lost, we own you.” So says Pat Parenteau of the Vermont Law School:

“If there was any doubt about Entergy’s scorched-earth policy toward the state of Vermont, it’s been resolved,” he said. “When you couple this motion with the motion to the Public Service Board, which is ‘Give us our certificate of public good and give it to us now,’ it’s an in-your-face kind of move.”

I guess we won’t be seeing any more touchy-feely “I am Vermont Yankee” ad campaigns. Let’s just hope the “scorched earth” stays completely in the rhetorical realm.  

I’m relieved to see that the Susan G. Komen Foundation has reversed course on funding for Planned Parenthood. Not only because PP can use the money, but also because it’s a strong indicator that the right wing doesn’t have a monopoly on effective action. It also might prevent other mainstream charities from taking similar exclusionary steps.

But I’m not entirely convinced that Komen has changed its stripes. For one thing, there does seem to be a significant conservative cohort in the organization,which might seek to influence Komen policy in other ways. For another, there are some weasel words in Komen’s apologia/retraction. To wit:

We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood…

That’s fine, until the “existing grants” run out. This wording is very similar to Paul Ryan’s (and Mitt Romney’s) on Medicare and Social Security — they say benefits will be unchanged for current recipients. This is true, but leaves out future recipients, who would see their benefits voucherized. Back to Komen:

…and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants…

And there’s the other side of the Ryanesque promise. Sure, go ahead, apply all you want. Of course, you might not get any future grants. Tough luck there. And finally:

…while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

Which leaves the door open for local Komen chapters to freeze out Planned Parenthood if their local donor base leans pro-life. You could see a dramatic difference between red states and blue states in who gets Komen dollars.

Maybe I’m paranoid. But I have little trust in an organization that makes such a move in the first place, and then changes course because of intense public reaction. In architectural terms, Komen looks less like a cornerstone and more like a weathervane.  

It now appears that The Donald will be endorsing Mitt Romney, not Newt Gingrich. Politico has seamlessly (and shamelessly) updated its earlier post to reflect the latest tidings, including this poorly-written and almost unbelievable sentence:

But by this morning, other sources said that Trump’s endorsement may actually go to Mitt Romney, who Trump has been lobbied heavily to endorse for the last few weeks.

Just think: the person who wrote that gets paid to write for a living. But leaving aside the kwazy konstruction of that sentence, let’s look at the message. People have been heavily lobbying Donald Trump for weeks? To land his endorsement???

WHY?????????????

Donald Trump is a walking, talking caricature. He has no influence on the political process, aside from his talent for attracting cameras. From CNN:

Sixty-four percent of definite and likely GOP voters in a Pew survey last month said an endorsement from the reality television star would make no difference to them. Thirteen percent said it would make them more likely to back a candidate, while 20% said it would actually make them less likely.

So, a net negative — even among likely Republican voters! Sheesh.

And beyond that, a Trump endorsement of Romney is a walking, talking validation of Romney’s budding reputation as a rich guy who doesn’t get it. What do these two people have in common? They both like to fire people.

If Romney or his advisers have any sense, they’ll keep him far, far away from the Trump event. Which, dollars to donuts, will be held at some overblown Trump property decorated in late Saddam style — pointlessly expensive and tasteless.

Of course, Mitt put in a personal appearance to collect the endorsement of Dan F’n Quayle, so he’ll probably swallow what’s left of his pride, paste on that fake smirk of his, carefully stand upwind of Donald’s hair, and bask in the reflected glory of America’s Favorite Fake Billionaire Clown.

Update, 1:55 pm February 2: Yep, expect the worst of Mitt and he’ll deliver. Per Talking Points Memo:

Mitt just can’t resist. Tone-deaf, absolutely tone-deaf. Here’s hoping Trump says something stupid for the Dems’ attack ads. Not that they need any more material. And please, somebody start asking Mitt what he thinks of Donald’s persistent Birtherism. He wants the endorsement, he should have to answer for it.

Well, here we go again: another proposal for a one-day state sales tax holiday. This time, from the fertile mind of Lt. Gov. Phil Scott, and already attracting bipartisan support. Found in the Jan. 29 Bennington Banner, but first published in the Brattleboro Reformer:

Senate Bill No. 250, known as the Irene Economic Stimulus Bill, directs tax relief and incentives both to Vermont consumers and to those disproportionately affected by the storm. According to the legislation, Vermont’s 6-percent sales tax would be put on hold on Aug. 28 (the anniversary of the storm) to stimulate economic activity and promote the weatherization of homes.

Aside from the one-day sales tax holiday, there would be a one-week sales-tax holiday on home-weatherization supplies, and a 10-month sales tax holiday on mobile homes purchased to replace Irene-damaged units. That holiday would begin in the past — August 28 — and expire on June 30, 2012.

Now, my general view of sales tax holidays is that they’re gimmicks. They don’t do much to stimulate the economy; no more than your typical Presidents’ Day sale. And that’s exactly what they are: state-declared one-day Big Sales Events. On the other hand, they aren’t terrifically harmful either; the state loses some sales-tax receipts, but (in the immortal words of Mitt Romney) “not very much.” Most of the benefits are misdirected, to be sure; the people who can take advantage of sales-tax holidays are almost entirely those with enough $$$ to make discretionary purchases. But there are lots of worse ideas out there.  

However, the idea of tying a sales-tax holiday to the first anniversary of Irene seems… well… a bit tone-deaf, no? Are we going to have somber remembrances interspersed with mad dashes to the mall? A moment of silence for the victims of Irene just before Wal-Mart opens its doors? August 28 is a Tuesday; why not schedule the sale on Wednesday the 29th? Or the nearest Saturday, if you really want to goose sales.

The only part of Bill 250 that really has anything to do with Irene is the mobile-home tax holiday. That, I can sort of understand — although your average mobile-home resident left homeless is gonna need a whole lot more help than a tax holiday.

The rest of it can be marked down as political pandering.  

A sales tax holiday is popular with voters and with retailers. It’s kinda fun. But it has nothing to do with helping Vermont recover from Irene, and it has precious little to do with helping those devastated by Irene. They’re not going to wait until August 28 to replace lost possessions; by then, they will have already replaced everything they can afford to replace.

So if you want a sales tax holiday because we’ve sorta gotten used to them, go ahead and propose it. But please don’t tie it to Irene.

One more note regarding our beloved Lieutenant Governor. Phil Scott has — with a few exceptions — tried to maintain his image as a good guy who’s not particularly partisan (at least not by current Republican standards). In this case, it looks like he’s taken an idea of his own to Legislative leadership without Governor Shumlin’s knowledge. It looks like that, if you believe the Governor’s cautious response:

“We need to balance our desire to reduce the sales tax with our need to balance the budget, so one critical issue is how the state will pay for this $1.5-million package,” Shumlin said. “But I like the idea and look forward to learning more about this proposal.”

Now, I don’t know whether Shumlin really had no idea about this proposal or not. But if not, he can’t be very happy about Phil Scott going behind his back.

One more thing. If this is Phil Scott’s idea of bold, creative leadership — recycling an old pander from the Douglas Administration — then color me underwhelmed.  

This came out a couple of days ago, but my eagle eye only spotted it today. Press release from the state Ag department, as seen on Vermont Digger:

The Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets announced today that the Mobile Poultry Processing Unit has been sold to Lila Bennett and David Robb of Tangletown Farm in Middlesex. The unit was sold via an online auction site, and after a competitive bidding process, the final sale price was $61,000.

Lila and David are regular vendors at the Montpelier farmers’ market, and they also do a meat CSA program. Their purpose is to raise and sell local, humanely-raised meat, and they do a really good job.

I’m happy to see the state’s processing in their hands, because I’m sure they will use it to further their mission and help other similarly-minded farmers get their products to market. I wish them all the best.

The definition of “liberty” — a concept much beloved of our Founding Fathers* — has undergone a severe narrowing in recent years. Free-marketers, Randians, Tea Partiers and Wall Streeters, the Koch Brothers, big-haired Congressmen Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor, and their local brethren such as El Jefe General John McClaughry and the oleaginous Rob Roper, have done their level best to take this noble and free-flying concept and shackle it to the pure pursuit of financial advantage.

*Mothers having been persona non grata in the smoky taverns of Revolutionary-era discourse, and considered — along with any person of dark-hued skin — fundamentally ineligible for the blessings of liberty).

If these folks had their way, we’d all be “free” to make as much money as we could. Let loose from burdensome regulation and taxation, we would rise ever upward on the Ladder of Success. (And somehow, the LoS won’t topple when all of our weight is gathered on the top rung.) The flood tide of capital would right all wrongs, cure all ills, and allow humanity to reach its full potential.

Color me unconvinced. In their definition of “liberty” I see oppression. And lest you think me overwrought, let’s look at what a lifetime of such “liberty” would entail.

(After the jump: life on the hamster wheel, the big lie of “the opportunity society,” and the true meaning of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

We begin in grade school, where Newt Gingrich would have our children learn “the dignity of work” by cleaning toilets. In high school, you’d better keep up that GPA so you can get into a top college. Take courses (plus privately-offered test-prep services) tailored to get you the requisite high scores on achievement tests. And load your spare time with productive activities that look good on an application.

In college, f**k the humanities. Best pursue a major that will maximize your income. If you don’t, you’ll be crushed under the weight of student loans. And you’ll fail to get an early start on building a retirement plan sufficient for your “golden years” in a post-Social Security, post-Medicare, post-defined-benefit world.

So yeah, get a good job. Top law firm or investment bank would be nice. If you have a yen for helping people, go to med school. But don’t become a family doctor, pediatrician or psychiatrist; you need a flashy specialty to pay off those med-school loans.

As your adult years fly by, be careful not to alienate your employer. Put in as many hours as it takes, including unpaid overtime. In the words of Dilbert’s pointy-haired boss, “work like a frightened idiot.” Many employers regularly fire the bottom 10% of their workforce, so the pressure is always increasing. In your spare time, develop work skills unrelated to your current job in case your employer becomes obsolete, crashes, gets outsourced, or goes through bankruptcy in order to shed its old wage scale, union contracts, and obligations to retirees.  

Don’t forget to keep a sharp eye on your investment portfolio! Since the great Reagan deregulation, we’ve been averaging a major financial scandal/crisis/meltdown about every five years, so you’d better stay one step ahead of the next one, whenever and wherever it might happen. Otherwise, pffft goes your retirement.

A house is always a good investment. Unless you buy it in the wrong place, or there’s an unfortunate correction in the housing market. Try not to be stuck with a hefty mortgage when your employer offers you the chance to either move to Sheboygan or, ahem, “pursue other interests.”

In retirement, you will require a lawyer’s mastery of fine print in order to navigate the rough seas of post-Paul Ryan Medicare and Social Security, and the devious and unforgiving health-care marketplace. Try not to get a lingering illness. Be healthy until you die. And whatever you do, don’t stay alive past the expiration of your retirement funds.

Oh yeah, that sounds like liberty to me. But this is the reality of what the latter President Bush liked to call “the opportunity society” — a society where the giant hand of government is removed, freeing the people to reach their full potential. Which is always defined in strictly financial terms.

And there’s the rub. Some of us (Mitt Romney, come on down!) are good at finances and actually enjoy it. The rest of us would rather undergo minor surgery than rebalance our investment portfolios, go into deep daydream mode whenever we try to read financial news, and get the heebie-jeebies when we have to do our taxes.

To people like me, “liberty” means, as much as possible, not having to worry about such stuff. And having, thanks to a strong social safety net, a backstop in case things go sideways. “Liberty” does not mean spending all our time and energy on financial matters and making every decision with revenue-maximization in mind.

There’s a concept at the foundation of modern economics called homo economicus — basically, the idea that each human being is a rational and self-interested creature who makes decisions based on his or her financial interests. Economic modeling depends on a society of these creatures acting in predictable ways.

Well, look at yourself, or at any person you know. How often do you make decisions based  on financial interest? Is that how you choose your friends or your spouse? Is that why you have children? Or decide where to live, or what career to pursue? Or what to eat for dinner? If you’re anything like me, the primary factors are things like happiness, love, security, and comfort.

Now, even economists who are critical of the H.Econ. idea still say it’s a useful tool for building economic theory. Maybe, but I think it leads to bad ideas and bad policies. And it’s certainly a necessary precondition for “the opportunity society.”

The downside of “the opportunity society” is that with opportunity comes responsibility. I don’t want to have to make all those choices. I don’t want to have to be H. Econ, to constantly have an eye on finances, to spend much of my life reading the fine print and trying to outwit bankers, brokers, and insurers in order to be successful and secure.

I want a government regulatory system robust enough to keep an eye on all those guys, with the resources and expertise to keep an eye on their ever-more-complicated schemes and, when necessary, shut down the tricksters.

I want a guaranteed Social Security benefit, even if it’s not the highest possible rate of return. I want guaranteed Medicare waiting for me when I retire, not a voucher and a hearty push into the insurance marketplace. I would gladly trade some of my freedoms in return for security — and by that I don’t mean airport patdowns, I mean paying enough taxes to maintain the social safety net.

To be clear, I don’t want a free ride. I’m not expecting to be coddled so I can navel-gaze or smoke all the pot I can score. I do want the freedom — the liberty — to seek personal fulfillment rather than sheer financial maximization. It’s that other thing in the Declaration of Independence: “the pursuit of happiness.” My personal fulfillment might well entail a great deal of work. But it will be work on my terms, in pursuit of my goals, not those of some distant corporation or venture capitalist.

“The opportunity society” isn’t liberty in action; it’s the commoditization of every aspect of our lives. It’s a life sentence on the hamster wheel of commerce. It’s “liberty” of a cramped and narrow sort which makes us all subordinate to the interests of big business. (Thanks to widespread personal investing, particularly for retirement, we are all dependent on a rising stock market for our own individual security.)

And unless you’re Mitt Romney or someone like him, this is the very antithesis of “the pursuit of happiness.”  

Well, our good neighbors at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant are at it again. Report from the Associated Press, which came to my computer by way of the Huffington Post:

Energy Corp.’s Vermont Yankee nuclear plant once again is refusing the state’s request that it conduct more tests for radioactive tritium ikn a former drinking water well on the plant grounds.

Christopher Wamser, site vice president for plant owner Entergy, says in a Jan. 20 letter to Public Service Commissioner Elizabeth Miller that such testing would be inappropriate because it could contaminate the bedrock aquifer at the bottom of the well and might not produce reliable results.

Well, all righty then. The fine folks at Entergy are simply trying to protect the environment. (Not that they haven’t argued all along that tritium poses no danger to public health and safety, so a bit o’tritium in the groundwater shouldn’t be a problem, should it?)

Read further in the story, and you discover that the problem isn’t necessarily with testing the well water — it’s with the type of testing VY wants to do. Its preferred method involves purging the well, which could force tritium-tainted water into the aquifer.

The state’s preferred method is to take a “grab sample” from the well. No purging, no pumping, no danger of spreading contaminated water. Wamser argues that this sampling technique might produce inaccurate results: “vertical flow within the well and insertion of the sampling equipment could cause mixing within the well column…”

But state geologist Lawrence Becker says he checked with the EPA, who assured him that the “grab sample” method is perfectly fine, and should produce a representative result.

Oh, and one more thing.

Wamser’s Jan. 20 letter came one day after a federal judge in Brattleboro issued a ruling saying Vermont may not force its lone nuclear plant to shut down when its initial 40-year license expires March 21.

Pure coincidence, I’m sure.  

Yesterday, I wrote a post about the mysterious affair in Waterbury Village: police officer Andy Hubacz was in line to lose his job because Washington County State’s Attorney Tom Kelly refused to handle any of his cases. My complaint was about the complete lack of information made public by local officials.

Well, Burlington Free Press to the rescue. The Freep obtained much of the documentation regarding the case. So now we know that Hubacz applied for a job with the St. Albans police and was given a lie-detector test. And during the test, he admitted to a series of legal and ethical violations. Some of them were penny-ante, some were more substantial, and some are still unknown — the material given to the Freep had “several lengthy passages removed.”  Kelly based his decision on the results of the polygraph.

Which seems reasonable to me. One thumb up to the Burlington Free Press for getting the goods on the case.

The other thumb goes to Patrick Flood, Vermont’s Mental Health Commissioner.

On Tuesday, there was a legislative hearing on Governor Shumlin’s plan to replace the Vermont State Hospital with a beefed-up community-based system plus a few small inpatient facilities. At the hearing, numerous mental-health professionals testified in support of better community-based services but also in support of a larger central inpatient facility.

This post isn’t about the merits of that argument. I’m simply noting a comment by Commissioner Flood after the hearing, as reported by Vermont Digger:  

Mental Health Commissioner Patrick Flood, who sat in on the hearing, has said he finds the testimony in support of community services “very affirming” about the state’s direction. But he insisted despite the criticism Tuesday that the state’s proposal for acute-care replacement beds is “on the right path” and at this point said there was no plan to change it.

Well, Christ on a cracker. Thank you, Commissioner, for highlighting the parts of the testimony that support your plan while completely dismissing the rest of it. Why not just give the finger to all those who took the time to go to Montpelier and testify?

Now, I can’t say whether Patrick Flood is a weasel or not. Insufficient evidence. But that was a profoundly weasely thing to say. One thumb down.  

Little contretemps before the Waterbury village trustees Tuesday night, as reported by the Burlington Free Press:

Police Chief Joby Feccia testified before Waterbury village trustees Tuesday night that he recommended the firing of officer Adam Hubacz because the Washington County state’s attorney refused to prosecute Hubacz’s cases.

State’s Attorney Tom Kelly “wasn’t accepting his cases,” Feccia said. Hubacz is “kind of like a watchdog without teeth. There’s no way to enforce the law.”

Every way I look at this, my rational, left-brain response can be stated colloquially as WTF??? A police officer who has so alienated the State’s Attorney that he might as well not try to catch criminals? It gets worse when you read through the details…

Kelly informed the WPD of this in late September, a good four months ago. Hubacz was put on unpaid administrative on October 1. On January 9, he was shifted to paid leave. Why did he start drawing paychecks again? “The reason was not immediately clear,” sez the Freep.

Also not immediately clear — well, absolutely opaque, really — is why Kelly refuses to have anything to do with Hubacz’ police work. Kelly failed to return “multiple messages” from the Freep, seeking comment.

This isn’t some big-city PD with hundreds of blueshirts on hand. Since Hubacz went on leave, Waterbury Village has had two full-time police officers including Chief Feccia. That’s two. T-W-O. A 50% reduction in staffing. I have to think that either law enforcement in Waterbury Village has taken a serious hit, or there was some substantial featherbedding going on before September.

(To clarify, Waterbury Village is a subset of Waterbury Town, including about 40% of the Town’s population and less than two square miles of land. The Village comprises most of downtown Waterbury. Some governance is shared, and some is split between town and village.)

So now Waterbury’s (town and village) manager recommends Hubacz be fired. Solely because of Kelly’s decision. Which has gone unexplained in public.

After the jump: legal gymnastics and unanswered questions.

At Tuesday’s meeting, Hubacz’ lawyer Dan Seff pulled off a masterful display of oratorical loop-de-loop. First, he filed a motion to dismiss the case because it relies entirely on Kelly’s decision, with no finding of actual wrongdoing by the officer. Village attorney Steve Cameron replied that Kelly’s reasons had been stated in a December 5 letter to Chief Feccia, and added that village trustees are “entitled to assume that there are serious reasons” for Kelly’s refusal to deal with Hubacz’ cases. (So, the trustees don’t know either.)

Then Seff objected, asserting that “Cameron had promised not to discuss the Dec. 5 letter at the hearing.” Cameron noted that he did not disclose the contents of the letter, simply its existence. So… Seff argued that the case against Hubacz hasn’t been specified… and then he objected to any specification whatsoever. This is one example of why I could never be a lawyer.

The meeting ended with a 20-minute closed session, after which the trustees announced they would issue a ruling later.

Now, I’ve written before about the widespread tendency in Vermont to sweep unpleasant things under the rug. It’s one of Vermont’s least attractive attributes. And this is a good example of why I feel that way. The skids appear to be greased for a quiet resolution: Hubacz will lose his job, probably with some kind of severance package (just a guess), and nothing further will be revealed. Privacy issues, y’know. We don’t discuss personnel matters in public.

Well, horse feathers. If I lived in Waterbury Village, I’d have some serious questions. How exactly did Hubacz lose the trust of the state’s attorney? Beating suspects, mishandling evidence, arresting the wrong people? How long has he been doing it? How long did Kelly complain about it before he finally put his foot down? How many prosecutions were compromised because of Hubacz? Why didn’t village officials do anything before the situation got so dire?

So many questions. So many brooms. Such a big, lumpy rug.  

Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is, that’s a straw, you see? You watching? And my straw reaches acrooooooss the room, and starts to drink your milkshake.

I… drink… your… milkshake!

(sucking sound) I drink it up!

(from Newt Gingrich’s victory speech, Columbia, South Carolina, January 21, 2012)

Man, I have never been so happy to be dead wrong in my entire life.

Eleven days ago, I wrote a little post on GMD called “Yeah, so it’s Mitt,” proclaiming that Mitt Romney had the Republican nomination sewn up.

And by all rights, he should have. He had a big lead, he had momentum, he had big money, and he had the GOP establishment closing ranks behind him. He was widely seen as the most electable of the Republican candidates — or, to be more precise, the least unelectable, given the obvious shortcomings of the other contenders.

But then, he spent the last seven days projectile-vomiting all over his Guccis. Inept debate performances, hamfisted handling of the tax-return question, blithe ignorance of the Grand Canyon-sized gap between his finances and those of everyday Americans, and an air of boarding-school arrogance that even most Republicans find distasteful. Let’s just call him Nigel Incubator-Jones (“his best friend is a tree, and in his spare time he’s a stockbroker”) blindly firing his shotgun.

So I was wrong. Still, I think he has an edge in the race, because Newt doesn’t really have a campaign — he just has his own, 100-proof, bottled-at-the-source egotism. But Romney’s gonna have to stop making stupid mistakes immediately or he’ll go down in history as the most incompetent person to seriously contend for the Presidency since his forerunner as overly entitled Republican patrician “can’t miss candidate,” Thomas E. Dewey.

And even if Mitt does manage to pull out of his self-induced death spiral, he’s been exposed as a much weaker challenger to President Obama than he was thought to be this time last week.

So whoopee, the Republicans are set up for a long, painful, beautiful bloodletting. And if Mitt keeps going like this, we’ll actually see Newt Gingrich capturing the Republican nomination for President.

I was wrong, and I couldn’t be happier. Bring it on!