I’ve got a number of video segments up on my YouTube channel now, covering issues you’d expect like Vermont Yankee, education and corrections, etc, but there are two that I’d like to highlight.

First, responses to our crisis in agriculture:

Second, responses to our crisis in healthcare:

Um…does anybody notice differences between the unknown independent and the three incumbents (I include Ron Allard in the rightmost chair because he had served several terms before)?  I think we face a stark choice in Fletcher, Fairfield and St Albans Town next Tuesday.  No matter what, being a 2 seat district, we’re going to have at least one conservative Rep who is mired in the failed ideas of the past.  I hope people will help me be the balance to provide forward thinking solutions.

todd

Well, here’s my first very short clip from On The Hot Seat:

More stuff coming to the Todd4VTHouse channel as I can upload…

todd

[Update: for those of you who get Comcast up in the St Albans area, Channel 16 is running more of the Franklin-2 candidate forum and my appearance with Dave McWilliams this week:

• Sunday, October 24, 2010, 1:00pm – Franklin-2 Candidate Forum
• Sunday, October 24, 2010, 9:00pm – Franklin-2 Candidate Forum
• Wednesday, October 27, 2010, 8:00pm – Franklin-2 Candidate Forum
• Thursday, October 28, 2010, 9:00pm – Franklin-2 Candidate Forum
• Friday, October 29, 2010, 11:00pm – Todd Pritsky – On The Hot Seat
• Saturday, October 30, 2010, 7:00am – Todd Pritsky – On The Hot Seat
• Saturday, October 30, 2010, 4:00pm – Todd Pritsky – On The Hot Seat

Tune in at your convenience!]

A couple wonderful supporters have arranged a little gathering next Sunday:

I am excited to have the opportunity to introduce you to two fine fellows running for state office! Please see the attached invitation and mark your calendars! Both Mike McCarthy, State Senate candidate and Todd Pritsky, State House candidate Fletcher, Fairfield, St Albans Town, are looking forward to meeting you and discussing your concerns about Vermont.

So please join us, Sunday – October 24th – 3:30 – Sunrise Cafe, for some homemade cookies, a good cup of coffee and a guaranteed great conversation!

Any questions feel free to contact Kelly @ k2s2@together.net or 644-2606.

Come on, people: COOKIES!  Anyway, please RSVP by the 21st, or you'll be getting yet another phonecall from me…

todd

PS–Mike's got a Facebook page.  Go become a fan!

WHAT:   MASSIVE HONK & WAVE ! !

WHO:  YOU and ALL YOUR COOL FRIENDS & FAMILY ! !

WHEN:    

FRIDAY   OCT 22  3:30 – 5:30

FRIDAY   OCT 29  3:30 – 5:30

MONDAY   NOV 1  3:30 – 5:30

WHERE:   EXIT 19  –  ST ALBANS, VT

COME HELP SUPPORT PETER SHUMLIN AND OUR

FRANKLIN COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES !!

WHY:  BECAUSE  IT MATTERS !!!!

2 TO 6 HOURS OF YOUR TIME COULD CHANGE THE WORLD!!

BELIEVE IT !!

CALL KELLY @ 644-2606

AND SAY “YES” !!

signs will be available

dress warm – !!

(Apologies for the formatting–this is an email I got from a Democratic supporter of mine.  I will be there supporting Peter…will you?)

The Messenger (not online, just in the Weekend Edition):

From the outset, the moderator of a lackluster legislative forum held at the Franklin County Senior Center Thursday night warned the panel of candidates they would listen more than talk.

She was right.

About 35 people sat in folding chairs and listened for 90 minutes as 14 legislative candidates–with all but one from Franklin County–skimmed the surface of two hot-button issues: health care and early childhood education.

…

The structure of the night did not leave any room for candidates to debate, and many of them could not elaborate on their views during the one-minute time limit they had to respond to a short list of prepared questions.

…

Todd Pritsky, an independent House candidate from Fletcher, said the state should readopt the “Snelling model”–an allusion to the late Gov Dick Snelling–that protected the social contract while seeking new revenue streams.

First of all, I'm pleased I made it into the article, and with a fair summary of my few minutes of answers.  I brought up Snelling twice, as well as the need for stimulus and the Vermont Constitution.

Second of all, I very much appreciate the three groups who organized this forum–and the series of 15 statewide–and the Senior Center for hosting it.  I also applaud the folks who attended, especially those who stood to give their witness to pressing issues and asked questions of people who want to work in our citizens' legislature.

Third of all, I think Leon's right that overall the forum was a bit lackluster.  Sometimes friends need to provide honest, constructive feedback, and I have to say that the format was quite a problem.

I understand and totally support the basic notion of a “people's forum” wherein citizens get to present their concerns and ideas to their (prospective) representatives.  It's a very powerful and important part of engaging in effective self-government.  That said, I think the introductory statements were overly long and the questions were not entirely clear.

As a result, there really wasn't enough time for candidates to share their views, nor for audience members who weren't delivering the prepared comments and questions to actively participate.  I think it was valuable, though wonder if it would've been more so had the opening speeches been more succinct, and candidates had perhaps an additional 30 second answer round for rebuttal, summing up, etc.

Anyway, I'm happy these events are going on and that I was able to participate.  We need more of this sort of thing not just during campaign season, but during the legislative session as well.  That's how we get better feedback, transparency and accountability.

todd

(cross-posted at Todd for Vermont House)

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

October 05, 2010 – Fletcher, VT: Independent Todd Pritsky is very proud to have received an endorsement from the Vermont League of Conservation Voters.  “I'm thrilled to be listed among so many Republicans, Progressives, Democrats and other Independents who are dedicated to a conservative approach in preserving Vermont's unique character while building a sustainable 21st century economy,” Pritsky said.  Referring to the diverse slate announced today, he also remarked, “it shows that conservation goes beyond party lines and is just a traditional Vermont value.”

The VTLCV endorsement comes on the heels of Todd's earning a nod from the non-partisan group Progressive Push last week.  “I was very pleased to receive that one, too,” he said, noting that “the folks there accepted my position that fiscal responsibility and progressive policies go hand-in-hand.”

“Our discourse has really divided us for so long into Right and Left we tend to forget that we all have to work together to solve Vermont's tough problems,” Pritsky continued, lamenting the tone of recent campaigns.  “We are real people, not one-dimensional cartoon characters, and have a lot more in common than the usual labels allow.”

Pritsky offered healthcare as a prime example of an issue that can transcend political rhetoric.  “I do see it as a human right and mandated by our state constitution,” he admitted, specifically pointing to the first and seventh articles of Vermont's Declaration of Rights.

“And it just so happens that a Medicare-for-all type plan is the most fiscally conservative,” which Pritsky asserts will save Vermont money, cut labor costs, and create a more productive workforce with less absenteeism.  “It's a win-win-win that so-called conservatives and so-called progressives can get behind, but you wouldn't know that with all the spin and misinformation out there.”

His reception on the campaign trail is very encouraging to Todd.  “I'm getting support across the political spectrum because I'm not beholden to one party or rigid ideology and can consider solutions in a fresh way.”  That could explain why he garnered an endorsement early in the campaign from Full Court Press, a Democratic organization committed to holding their party accountable to the grassroots.  Pritsky is also faring very well in voting by members of the more conservative New American Independent Party, which will decide whether to endorse him in the coming weeks.

One of the most important things about canvassing isn't trying to get somebody's vote or a great spot for signs: it's having the chance to listen to constituents.  As Ericka remarked to a supporter yesterday, I have opinions on everything and I can filibuster with the best in the history of the US Senate!  What I need is opinions, concerns, and ideas from the people I aim to represent–not just during the campaign, but all the time.

(x-post at Todd for Vermont House)

I am primarily a stay-at-home-dad, but during the school year I teach a few telecommunications classes at Champlain College.  This semester is the first we've needed daycare, and we're very fortunate to have found a provider about four hundred yards down the road from us whose schedule fits our needs of a few hours a week while I'm on campus.

Though this is actually a new operation, the owner has been involved with child care for a long time and previously ran another type of business.  In her current capacity, she really represents a “perfect storm” of elements that are key to Vermont's economic fortunes: startup, small biz, daycare.

As I've observed before, startups and small businesses are our real jobs engines.  And finding people to watch over their precious ones is hugely important for parents who are trying to provide for their families: the absence of reliable and affordable child care is a barrier for many employees entering the workforce.

From the business perspective, there are benefits as well:

Many companies…believe that there are substantial benefits from offering child care services: 62% of respondents reported higher morale, 54% reported reduced absenteeism, 52% reported increased productivity, and 37% reported lower turnover.

That all sounds like providing childcare is a Good Thing all around.  It also turns out to have an average multiplier of 1.91 across the 50 states (Vermont is smack dab in the middle), so is clearly an economic contributer.

So I support universal access to childcare and agree with those who recommend we expand our provider licensing capacity. That, along with perhaps some sort of childcare subsidies, is an investment that will have fairly immediate positive impact by enabling the establishment of new small businesses and allowing more people to be able to work as jobs are created thanks to increased demand.

In a related vein, I like the idea of universal pre-k education for similar reasons.  Studies have shown that every dollar we invest ultimately gets us a return if anywhere between 4 and 17 dollars.  It carries myriad health, education and other social benefits and contributes greatly to economic growth.

It might seem counterintuitive since we've been bombarded with overly-simplistic analysis and rhetoric about the economy and budget, but it's clear that we must increase spending where we get the biggest bang for our buck.  It generates economic activity now and prevents more costly spending down the road.  Business people know you have to spend money to make money, and childcare/early ed is a great investment opportunity that will help us out of our current slump and secure a more prosperous future for Vermont.

todd

(x-posted at Todd for Vermont House)

Before I post about last night's excellent talk by Jeffrey Carr at the Franklin County Chamber of Commerce mixer, I wanted to revisit Vermont Yankee and the economic report that Jeff and Thomas Kavet put together earlier this year.  The way I read it is that two of the presented scenarios are really good from the economic perspective, both in terms of employment and energy bills: the Green option and the Hybrid option.

The Green option assumes VY is shut down and:

Provides, on average, comparable employment levels relative to the VY Relicense scenario during the first decade of the analytic period and then rapidly outpaces the VY Relicense scenario over the final 17 years. Annual employment differentials relative to the VY Relicense case exceed 2,600 jobs by the end of the forecast horizon in 2040.

Retail power bills in the Green scenario are generally higher than most other scenarios in the initial 5+ years, but are substantially lower in the out years…[Through] 2023, beneficial power bill impacts will eventually result in more than 1,000 jobs per year by 2040.

The Hybrid assumes relicensing and aggressive investment in renewables:

Relicensing VY and adopting aggressive renewable energy policies yields the largest average positive employment and other economic impacts, with immediate job gains, no job losses and lower longer term power bills.

By the end of the forecast period in 2040, this scenario results in more than 2,600 jobs per year and nearly $400 million in Gross State Product per year (in 2012 dollars) than the VY Relicense case.

The best option for people concerned solely about safety and environmental impacts actually still is a net economic positive solution.  Given concerns about unemployment in the short term during our current slump, the Hybrid approach shows that we still need to invest in sustainable energy if we're to get the biggest bang for our buck.

From where I sit, the Green scenario is the first best, as it addresses job and cost concerns while also continuing with the planned decommission.  However, that might still be politically untenable.

The Hybrid scenario I think would qualify as a second best approach because it keeps VY open, contrary to the pro-shutdown folks, and requires money to be spent on renewables, which seems contrary to what most pro-nuke people like.  Does that, then, make this the most likely to work?

Is there a potential third best option?  I honestly don't know what all is entailed with recommission in terms of the NRC, economic models, etc, but is it possible to grant VY a shorter license?  Like 7-10 years?  I need to research that but just don't have time right now, so maybe somebody could help me out.

I'd be willing to consider that compromise.  While I still question the plant's safety, I'm not so sure it's an immediate danger (given any contamination has already hit the ground water, another 3 Mile Island or Chernobyl is unlikely), so maybe continued operation for an additional brief period could help us transition better to a post-Yankee, renewable regime without overly deleterious health risks.

I hope people can back away from their rhetoric and ideology a bit to consider non-binary solutions to a complex issue.

todd

(x-posted at Todd for Vermont House)

I lamented to Leon yesterday about some of the campaign's tone, wherein candidates' messages are sometimes overly simplistic and resort to fear mongering.  Certainly we have to differentiate ourselves from the rest of the pack and part of that is showing the downsides of the other ideas floating around, and appealing to emotion is perfectly natural and not inherently a bad thing–you're trying to persuade people. 

That's why I make comments about job-killing, budget-busting Voodoo Economics, for example, or that anybody who claims to be fiscally conservative ought to support single-payer.  Of course I'm trying to create frames so things I support look better in contrast to what's being offered by “the other side.”

Yet it seems there's a fine line between disagreement, differentiation, etc, and just plain cynical manipulation of our lizard brains and insults to our intelligence.  Brian Dubie's attack on Peter Shumlin's early release plan was apparently supposed to make me fearful for my son's safety, but it just made me angry.

Similarly, I'm a bit annoyed by the “sky it falling” stuff surrounding Vermont Yankee.  Primarily I direct this at people I fundamentally agree with: those who support decomissioning VY and looking ahead to our safe energy future.

Two of my fellow candidates in Franklin-2, Lynn Dickinson and Ron Allard, want to keep VY running another 20 years.  Does it mean that they, along with Dubie, are in the pocket of Big Energy or hate Vermont's environment or are stupid?  I don't think so.  They have different ideas about what Vermont needs to be competitive and secure in economic, fiscal and energy terms.

There are not easy answers to some of our biggest problems, and people need to be willing to consider a variety of alternatives, able to look at complex and nuanced relationships between issues, and ready to put aside idelogical dogma.  Education is an easy target for our more conservative candidates, VY is an easy target for the more liberal.  Both deserve serious discussion instead of rhetorical clubs.

It's interesting to me that education and VY advocates both will harp on the job losses for their cause.  Some have raised the specter of losing over 600 jobs if we go the consolidation route to save money in our educational system.  Others have raised a similar concern over the 600+ jobs that would be lost if VY were to shut down as planned in 2012.  Everybody should acknowledge that these job losses are significant: if Franklin C0unty saw 600 people become unemployed our rate would jump from 5.7% to 5.9%.

Personally, I'm not convinced VY is safe.  I'm not convinced its operators have been forthright.  I'm not convinced we need its output in our energy portfolio.  I'm also not convinced that its employees will be without job prospects if we take action on boosting the economy and planning a good transition to a post-Yankee environment.

You know what ad I'd like to see come from the anti-Yankee folks?  Something that acknowledges the plant has helped our economy since 1972, now that it's past its prime needs to be safely retired, and as we plan for that future we will help its employees move on as we commit to a more secure economy and environment with renewable energy.

We have so many opportunities to do positive, constructive work, and we should start taking them now during the campaign.

todd

(x-posted at Todd for Vermont House)

 Loading ...