Changes are afoot in Dem-land.

First, Democratic Party Executive Director Robert Dempsey, is vacating the position after shepherding the party to historic heights last November. After the David W. Curtis awards in mid-March, Mr. Dempsey is off to pursue other opportunities.

Also leaving is Vermont Organizing For America Director Jesse Bragg as of Monday. No word through the rumor mill on why, and I haven’t approached him for comment. Word is that OFA is pulling staffers from smaller, less contested ‘markets,’ and funding them in the usual swing states. OFA wanted Bragg to go elsewhere, he didn’t want to leave Vermont. It is the time of year/election-cycle to move onto to other things in politics-world if one is so inclined, though.

Also, State Committee changes are already afoot on this reorganization year. James Valente, a young man who is reading law for the Vermont bar with former Lieutenant Governor candidate Tom Costello, is seeking to become the VDP Secretary, as Linda Weiss, the current Secretary, is seeking to replace former treasurer Ed Clark, who resigned as of Dec. 31. Rumor has it that Valente can expect competition for the post (Valente was unanimously selected, as per the comments below.

And it’s widely assumed that VDP Chair Judy Bevans will step down this year as well. Bevans is very popular with the rank and file, but many in the upper echelons of the Democratic Party political class have been known to grumble over their view of her effectiveness. A classic elite-vs-grassroots conflict?

Under traditional scenarios, Governor Shumlin becomes the de facto leader of the Party, of course, and would likely fill the Chair slot with someone of his choosing. Today’s Democratic Party, however – especially the Vermont Democratic Committee – is a lot less inclined to just fall in line, as the VDP is far less of a command-and-control operation than its counterparts the Republican and Progressive parties.

In other words, this could get interesting.

On a personal note, I have considered putting my name in for VDP Chair in the past… hmmm….

“For the thousands of early educators like me who work every day to teach and care for our kids at this critical early age, it means SO much to have the support of so many of our elected leaders,” Said Dawn Gieseke, Director of Rainbow Playschool in Woodstock. “This legislation is an important step to our being able to deliver quality, professional education to all kids under five, which is so important for our families and our economy.”

The legislative effort to create a new regime enabling early childhood educators and caregivers to unionize received a big affirmation from Governor Shumlin today.

The bills – H.97 and S.29 – have 53 and 11 co-sponsors respectively, and that list includes Ds, Ps, and Rs. Expect this one to move forward quickly.

In a press release from the union, Shumlin was also quoted as saying “I would like to recognize and thank the thousands of Early Educators who work in both centers and homes across Vermont. I understand that in order to build a world-class education system in Vermont, the input of these hardworking women and men is invaluable. I support legislation that gives them a seat at the table as partners with state officials who design and implement our education system.”

Complete list of co-sponsors follows the flip (Full disclosure: I’m doing some communications consulting with VEEU/AFT on this effort)

Full list of sponsors

H.97

Larson, Mark

Ancel, Janet

Andrews, Margaret

Bissonnette, Clem

Burke, Mollie S.

Buxton, Sarah E.

Cheney, Margaret

Christie, Kevin “Coach”

Clarkson, Alison H.

Consejo, Michel

Copeland-Hanzas, Sarah

Davis, Susan

Deen, David L.

Edwards, Sarah

Fisher, Michael

Font-Russell, Herb

Frank, Bill

French, Patsy

Grad, Maxine Jo

Hebert, Michael

Hooper, Mary S.

Jerman, Tim

Kitzmiller, Warren F.

Klein, Tony

Lanpher, Diane

Lorber, Jason P.

Macaig, Terry

Marek, Richard J.

Martin, Linda J.

Masland, Jim

McCullough, Jim

Mitchell, Mark B.

Mook, Anne H.

Moran, John

Morrissey, Mary A.

Mrowicki, Michael

Nuovo, Betty A.

Partridge, Carolyn W.

Pearson, Christopher

Poirier, Paul N.

Ram, Kesha K.

Shand, Ernie

Sharpe, Dave

South, Robert

Spengler, Kristy

Stevens, Tom

Stuart, Valerie A.

Taylor, Tess

Townsend, Larry

Webb, Kate

Weston, Rachel

Wizowaty, Suzi

Young, Sam

S.29

Snelling, Diane

Ashe, Tim

Cummings, Ann

Fox, Sally

Lyons, Virginia “Ginny”

MacDonald, Mark A.

McCormack, Dick

Miller, Hinda

Pollina, Anthony

Sears, Dick

White, Jeanette K.

Hunh. Writing “Governor Shumlin” still feels pretty wild.

Here’s the text of the budget address as sent out to the media, complete with Willem Lange-style close (after the flip):

Governor’s Budget Address

January 25, 2011

Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Mr. President Pro Tem, Members of the General Assembly, distinguished guests, fellow Vermonters:

Two weeks ago, we gathered here to commemorate a new day in our state’s long and rich history. In my inaugural address, I laid out my vision for Vermont – a bold and ambitious agenda for job growth whose success depends on our ability to work together to get big things done.

That was a day for Vermonters to challenge our own imagination for what we must make possible: a new and innovative economy, quality health care for all Vermonters in a cost restrained system, broadband and cell service to every corner of the state, and educational excellence for a new century of job creators.  

I stand here today to present a budget that is as sobering as it is necessary, matching state spending with our state revenues, in keeping with the long tradition of frugality and common sense that is the lifeblood of Vermonters. My budget puts Vermont on a solid and sustainable path to fiscal responsibility. Facing our fourth consecutive year of budget shortfalls, I am committed to making the painful choices today that will help ensure that we are not back here next year making drastic cuts. We must match the promises government makes with the capacity of Vermont taxpayers to support those promises.

To meet that responsibility, I am proposing to close a $176 million shortfall in the next fiscal year by imposing roughly $83 million in General Fund reductions, raising $36 million in additional federal funding through provider and managed care assessments, utilizing $27 million in unanticipated receipts and $30 million in Global Commitment carry forward and federal matching grants.

I would like to take a moment to acknowledge what our state has done to address projected budget shortfalls in the past three years.  Hundreds of state employee jobs have been eliminated, many agency and department budgets were reduced several times, state employees took a 3% pay cut for two years, and teacher retirement was recalibrated to save $15 million in this fiscal year.  Compared to other states, Vermont’s Governor and legislature responded quickly and wisely to crisis, and you should be commended for that response.

Some might be wondering why we have a $176 million problem rather than the $150 million shortfall that we have all heard about. Here’s why: if we were to continue to book all of the hoped-for “Challenges for Change” savings, the shortfall would be $150 million. While “Challenges for Change” was a well-intentioned initiative, we simply cannot budget $26 million in savings that may not likely be realized, and I won’t.

This budget also includes over $120 million in unavoidable increases resulting from statutory commitments to the Education, Unemployment, and Pension Funds, as well as rising human service caseloads resulting from the Great Recession. Even with these increases, when adjusted for temporary federal aid, the budget that I propose today represents a General Fund spending reduction of over $25 million from last year. This is the first time in a decade in which state spending is lower than the previous year.  

The top contributors to the $83 million in reductions are the following:

·        A $23 million ongoing reduction from the General Fund transfer to the Education Fund. This reduction, which I announced last month, will require continued spending restraint by our hardworking school boards and local communities to hold back property tax increases. The $19 million in one-time federal funding that I am releasing this year will give our local communities additional time to make further spending reductions, but they must be made.

·        $12 million in government labor, private contract, health insurance, and retirement savings.

·        $7.2 million in savings throughout the corrections system.

·        $5 million from folding the Catamount Health program into the Vermont Health Access program, otherwise known as VHAP, to create one single health care pool for Vermont.

·        $4.6 million in reduced funding for our regional mental health agencies.

My administration takes no pleasure in delivering this budget, and we will work in partnership with the mental health, health care, and human service community to ensure that vulnerable Vermonters are protected.

Critics will observe that some of the budget reductions that I put before you today are the same reductions that I worked with you to protect when proposed by the previous governor. They will rightfully ask, “What has changed?”  

My response is simple: what we face in this budget year is the reality that the hundreds of millions of stimulus funds that were allocated by the federal government to cushion the blow of the worst recession in American history are now gone.

We all knew that this day would come. It is now our responsibility to make difficult choices, and to find a balance between compassion for our most vulnerable citizens and the imperative to put our state on solid fiscal footing. I believe this budget achieves that balance.

In addition to reducing spending, my budget maximizes federal dollars available to our state. For over 20 years, Vermont has asked our hospitals and health care providers to cooperate in a partnership that has used ingenuity to utilize federal dollars to support health care services for Vermonters. My administration understands that in these difficult times, every dollar that we draw down from the federal government is a dollar saved for Vermont taxpayers.  

Therefore, I am expanding upon what is an imperfect but effective revenue stream. We do so first by applying the same assessment to health insurance companies and dentists that we have been applying to our hospitals and nursing homes. This will net 9.2 million new dollars for the General Fund.

Second, we increase the current assessment on hospitals and nursing homes, which will net $18.7 million.

Some recent good news about our revenues from fiscal year 2011 has helped our effort.  My budget utilizes $27 million in General Fund unanticipated revenues to bridge our shortfall.  

Some might ask why I am not utilizing the state’s rainy day fund. There are two simple answers: first, we must minimize the use of one-time money to meet ongoing financial commitments. Second, we must preserve the rainy day funds until we can project with confidence that we will be able to replenish that fund in the out years. My budget team cannot provide me with that assurance for fiscal years 2013 or 2014, and therefore we must not tap into those funds this year.

In light of the hundreds of millions of dollars in budget shortfalls that we have had to endure over the past few years, it should be abundantly clear that the current reserve of five percent of our state budget is not adequate to withstand tough times. I call upon the legislature to join me in raising our reserves to eight percent as soon as we return to better times.

Critics might also ask: why are we not raising taxes?  After all, Illinois recently raised its top income tax rate from three percent to five percent. But remember: Vermont is not Illinois, and our situation is vastly different. Our top income tax rate is not five percent; it is nearly nine percent. Our tax rates must remain competitive with other New England states to grow jobs.

Others might say, “Well, forget Illinois and remember Governor Snelling.” When facing a less severe shortfall, he temporarily raised income, sales, and rooms and meals taxes. But I would remind my friends that Governor Snelling was working in economic times less dire than our own and he started with income tax rates that were lower than our rates of today. The sales tax was four percent; today it is six percent. Our rooms and meals tax was seven percent; today it’s nine percent. The Snelling solution made sense then, but it would be counterproductive now.

****

As difficult as this budget is, our spending priorities also reflect my belief that the choices we make here will lead to extraordinary opportunities for all Vermonters. To achieve long-term budget discipline, we must be innovative and go where the money is.  

Health care is the largest area of growth in our state budget and we must bring it under control.  As taxpayers, we are the largest source of health care payments for our state, and we are paying twice as much in taxes today to keep Vermonters healthy than we were just a decade ago. That is yet another reason why it is so important that we pass a single payer health care plan that Dr. William Hsiao estimates will save Vermonters over $500 million in the first year alone.

We will work together to pass a bill that takes the first step in putting Vermont on a solid road to single payer health care, and we must do it before we adjourn this spring.

****

In addition to bringing health care costs under control, I am committed to replacing the State Hospital and treating our most vulnerable citizens with the dignity and respect they deserve.

To do that, I recommend first that we suspend current plans to build a 15-bed facility that cannot be expanded. Short-term planning will only lead to long-term problems.

Second, I have directed my administration to work diligently with our hospitals and the Brattleboro Retreat to finalize plans for partnerships and deliver to me within six months both the treatment and financial implications of those partnerships. This summer, my administration will determine whether any of the partnerships are clinically and financially prudent, and that date will represent a deadline for determining the number of beds that could be provided from such partnerships.

Third, my budget proposal next January will include a plan to build a state of the art new State Hospital to meet Vermonters’ needs for the next 50 years. We have waited long enough.

****

The second fastest area of growth in the state budget is corrections.  A decade ago we spent $71 million on our corrections system.  Today, we spend almost $131 million, an increase of nearly 100 percent.  On any given day, of the 2,100 prisoners that taxpayers are currently supporting, 180 are in prison because they have no other place to go. Sixty-nine percent of our female inmates and 45 percent of our male inmates are non-violent offenders.

What do we know about these non-violent offenders? Many of them have difficulty reading and writing, and most have drug and alcohol related addictions. When their time is up, a lack of adequate housing, adult basic education, drug and alcohol counseling, mental health services and job options leave them on our Main Streets with the same lack of skills and substance abuse challenges that led them into prison in the first place.  As a result, half of our non-violent offenders end up back in prison within three years, costing us an average of $45,000 a year per inmate.  

Therefore, we are proposing to move the women inmates from St. Albans to Chittenden Regional, and the men to St. Albans to maximize unused bed space and save money.  Since roughly one third of our incarcerated women are from Chittenden County this will help them transition back into their home communities. We will create a parent-child visiting space for these parents and their children. This will not only help mothers bond with their children, it will also help them learn better parenting skills for when their time is up and they are reunited with their families.  

By implementing these reforms, we will save $2 million. At the same time, I ask the Legislature to join me in investing $1 million in prevention and alternative justice in community based programs across Vermont to help keep non-violent offenders out of jail.

My Administration will also re-allocate an additional $300,000 to unlock the waiting lists for methadone treatment.

These choices represent the first steps in my administration’s war on recidivism.

****

There is a direct link between our non-violent offenders and early childhood education. Most primary school teachers can identify which of their students will run into problems later in life. The evidence is irrefutable: the years up to age five are a critical time for brain development. It should come as no surprise that one dollar spent on early education saves seven to sixteen dollars later in life. To give all of our children a bright future and bring long-term fiscal discipline to corrections, special education and human services spending, we must take bold preventative action.  

Today I am calling for expansion of the state’s pre-kindergarten program for ages three, four, and five, by lifting the cap on the number of students counted in Pre-K funding. Vermonters will be able to exercise local control and vote to spend money without the heavy hand of Montpelier preventing them from doing so.

When this cap is lifted, over time, if half of Vermont’s eligible children are enrolled in a Pre-K program – an optimistic goal – the cost to the state’s Education Fund would be about $14 million.

Let us make Vermont the national leader in early childhood education.  

****

We must also invest in workforce development. My budget proposes $4.8 million for fiscal 2012 to assist Vermont workers and employers with high quality job training.

As Vermonters grow older, we must keep more young people in our state in order to have a workforce to train. Ensuring that young Vermonters pursue post-secondary education is critical to our economic future. Vermont students and families have one of the highest education debt loads in the nation. I propose a sustainable higher education income tax credit that will enable Vermont students who stay here and work here to reduce their college debt.

****

Two weeks ago, I launched Connect VT, an ambitious plan to deliver broadband and cell service to every corner of Vermont. Vermont cannot succeed in creating jobs or competing in our global economy if we fail.

To get this essential project done, in addition to using federal funds and private investments, I propose spending $13 million from our two-year capital budget and fully utilizing the $40 million revenue bond capacity of the Vermont Telecommunications Authority. These investments will expedite the build out of fiber optics lines and wireless networks across our state, including the most rural areas that for economic reasons are least likely to attract private providers.

We will also need to address three regulatory areas that have the potential to hamper, if not derail, our progress. These are utility pole regulations for fiber and telecommunication attachments, consolidated land use and environmental permits for the placement of poles, and long-term telecommunication lease agreements to erect infrastructure on state land and buildings. It could cost as much as five times the cost per mile to string fiber on poles if the regulation for our utility companies and providers are not clarified from the start. Rapid build out could be delayed and millions of dollars could be wasted if we fail to act.

Shortly I will submit legislation to expedite these actions so that we can deliver broadband and cell service to every last mile by 2013.

****

A clean Lake Champlain is also critical to our quality of life and our attractiveness to tourists, anglers, boaters and birders who share our love of our lake. Although we protect our great lake with Quebec and New York, much of the water runs through our state, and its cleanliness is as crucial to our economic vitality as it is to our culture and our health. Lake Champlain provides drinking water for more than 200,000 people, while the state’s reputation for environmental quality and lake stewardship reflects upon all of us.

We must make faster progress in cleaning up the lake. I will work together with our Congressional delegation and President Obama to seek waivers that will enable us to place federal dollars in a central pool that would give our communities and farmers the flexibility to maximize our efforts and get results.

The time for talk is over; we must clean up Lake Champlain.

****

Increasing investments in energy efficiency is a top priority of my administration. Vermont spends over $1.5 billion a year on electricity and heating, and many of Vermonters’ hard-earned dollars go to oil-rich countries that will do just fine without us. To protect both our pocketbooks and our environment, we need to transition away from a dependence on fossil fuels and move toward more efficient, affordable, and cleaner renewable energy. Vermont can be a leader in the fight against climate change and at the same time save money and create good paying jobs that cannot be exported to China.

By investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy development in state buildings and lands, we will save taxpayer dollars. I have asked the Lieutenant Governor to work closely with the Commissioner of Building and General Services on this initiative and have allocated $3.5 million to help us achieve this goal. The budget also increases state support for our weatherization programs, investing $7 million for weatherizing low-income Vermonters’ homes.

However, we have much more to do in order to make Vermont the energy efficiency state. Our challenge is to give all Vermonters, not just those in the lower income brackets, incentives to make their homes and businesses more efficient. I ask you to stand with me in this legislative session to make this happen.

****

I am recommending a new approach to the Capital Budget this year by using an unprecedented two-year authorization of over $150 million. This two-year approach will enable us to accelerate important capital projects, borrow at historically low interest rates, take advantage of comparatively low construction costs, and put Vermonters to work.

****

My budget also includes full funding for the Vermont Housing and Conservation Trust Fund.  This will be the first time in many years that the Governor has included full funding for this extraordinarily successful partnership that creates affordable housing and conserves precious agricultural lands that help ensure a bright future for our farmers.  

****

Finally, my budget addresses the deteriorating condition of our roads, highways and bridges. We need to bring our transportation network into the 21st century, and to support this effort I am proposing to spend $106 million on improvements to more than 65 bridges and culverts, and preventive maintenance work on dozens of other structures.  Additionally, the Morrisville Truck Route will finally begin construction this year and work will continue on the Bennington Bypass.

Expanding passenger and freight rail in Vermont is also a top priority. My budget invests in rail upgrades to the western corridor, with the goal of returning passenger service from Bennington to Rutland to Burlington to Montreal as soon as possible.  These investments, coupled with improvements to our rail line on the eastern side of the state, bode well for Vermont’s rail future.

As some states reject federal money for high-speed rail, I am also committed to working in partnership with my colleagues in New England and the Premier of Quebec with a vision of a high-speed rail line from New York to Montreal, with a spur to Boston.

High speed rail is the transportation of our global future, and it is high time that Vermont gets on board.

****

Having been immersed in the difficult choices of the budget that I present today, I understand that my proposals may lack perfection and invite disagreement. The best Governor from Putney, George D. Aiken, in his first address to the joint assembly in 1937, said, “With some things I have said today, many of you will disagree. This is inevitable. But when we disagree on a subject and express our viewpoints openly, then we are in reality making progress.”

Aiken continued, “Let us forget our political differences, forget that we may not attend the same church, or that we belong to different occupational classes, but remember that we are all Vermonters working to promote the welfare and prosperity of the people of our state.”

In that spirit, let us make the hard decisions that this work requires of us, always mindful that balancing our budget gap is one step in our climb to a brighter economic future for the people that we serve.

Let us never lose sight that at this time of economic hardship, our best days are still ahead of us.

If we allow the need to put our fiscal house in order to divert us from our once in a lifetime opportunity to connect Vermont by 2013, begin to build a single payer health care system, reduce recidivism by giving hope and dignity to our non-violent offenders and use the dollars saved to help make Vermont the Education State, we fail those who put their faith in us to get tough things done.

By putting the state that we all love on a fiscally responsible path, we do more than just serve as responsible stewards for our children and grandchildren; we create opportunities to put Vermonters back to work, one job at a time.

Governor Aiken often said, “Nothing makes me happier than to see a Vermont family with a good job.”

With boldness and courage, we will make it happen today.

Let’s get back to work.

Thank you.

Human beings are reactive creatures. We’re simply wired for crisis management rather than crisis prevention. I think that, more than any other event/message/policy is driving the post-election rebound in the Commander-‘n-Chief’s approval ratings. Very simply, it’s already water-splash-in-the-face time for those who checked out of last year’s elections (and the new House of Representatives hasn’t even gotten going yet.)

Let’s get one thing out of the way; Obama’s speech in Arizona at the service for the victims of the recent shooting was terrific. It was articulate, sorely needed, and absolutely vintage Obama. The American President at his best. And, as others have repeatedly commented, Obama’s speech was an opportunity for him to express and embody the kind of nonpartisan, collegial politics he believes so strongly in.

The danger for the upcoming policy struggles is that the President fixates on this particular example of a time when that favored approach was appropriate and needed, and glosses over the dozen or so times during the last two years when it wasn’t. This wouldn’t be a danger if Obama were as pragmatic as he, his aides, and most of the political observer class insist he is. In fact, his problem is that he is quite the opposite of pragmatic; he is dogmatic.

Before going further, it’s important to remember what the definition of pragmatic actually is, versus how it’s come to be defined by the punditry and the Washington elite. Go to dictionary.com and the first definition that appears is “of or pertaining to a practical point of view or practical considerations.” What it does not mean is political moderate or centrist. Those are ideological qualifiers.

But they are reflective of the most common political ideology among the pundit classes, most of whom themselves are centrists. The thinking from their point of view, therefore goes “I’m practical, I’m a centrist, therefore pragmatism equals centrism.” Simplistic is the word for that kind of thinking. Lazy is another one.

The simple fact is that the President has approached the challenges of governing a bitterly divided Washington in a profoundly non-pragmatic way. With occasional minor deviations in rhetoric when speaking to the partisan crowds that worked to elect him, Obama approaches every policy challenge by applying his transcendent, nonpartisan vision. It is his only tool, and like any tool, sometimes it is the right one for the job, sometimes it isn’t. And when it isn’t, the President has seemed incapable of acknowledging that fact, and instead continues futily to pound the square peg into the round hole.

A pragmatic approach would be to assess each political challenge on its own merits, weighing the individual dynamics of any given situation and choosing the best course of action. There are challenges that call for the President’s preferred, idealized method of partisan transcendence. On the other hand, there are plenty of circumstances in governing that call for a more hard-edged, combative approach.

This is the essence of pragmatism; choosing the right political tool for the right political job, irrespective of ideological preference. Insisting on a one-size-fits-all approach, as the President does, is pure dogmatism.

President Obama should not misconstrue the universal praise he is receiving for rising above the fray and bringing people together over the grisly events in Arizona as a vindication of his political dogma. Instead, the secret to success is what it’s always been: it’s time to become a genuine pragmatist.  

Coming to a bookstore near you:

The Dec. 10 one-man filibuster that propelled Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) to folk-hero status on the left is about to be published for the ages.

That’s right. The Vermont socialist’s eight-and-a-half-hour attack on tax cuts for the rich will be released by Nation Books in mid-February, with an e-book edition available Jan. 28. It will be titled, “The Speech: A Historic Filibuster on Corporate Greed and the Decline of Our Middle Class.”

Mixed feelings. Is this overselling it, especially since it wasn’t really a filibuster (given that it didn’t impact the voting on cloture or the bill itself), but was rather a marathon speech. It was a good thing, as I argued at HuffPo, but I’d hate to see it retroactively cast as some sort of sales gimmick. That would be a shame.

On the other hand, it could also be seen as a creative way for our Junior Senator to launch his message into a medium with more staying power than the mass media’s lens on Washington, which is a fleeting thing. Bernie’s points deserve to be more than fleeting.

So I’m agnostic about the move to the bookstore racks, for now, but I’m dreadfully curious to what readers here think. Hey, at least the audiobook is already recorded.

It’s a serious question (if admittedly hyperbolic…).

Small minorities in both legislative bodies. No “Rs” aside the names of our federal delegation. Yes, there are two GOP-ers with statewide offices, but one of them is notoriously flaky, and gearing up to commit political suicide with a doomed run against the popular incumbent Senator Bernie Sanders. He’ll likely be replaced by a Democrat in the Auditor’s office because the Republicans have almost no political bench after the years of attrition and decay of their legislative caucuses.

That leaves popular new Lieutenant Governor Phil Scott, who is a strong political force to be sure, but part of the reason for his broad appeal is the perception that he’s a moderate, even liberal Republican.

And who is arguably the most powerful Republican in the state today? That would be close ally to Governor Shumlin and Senate President Pro Tem Campbell, Kingdom Senator Vince Illuzzi. What kind of a partisan Republican is Illuzzi? Well, let’s see, he endorsed Democrat Peter Welch for Congress and is close to many of the Vermont unions…

The Vermont Republican Party is in as bad shape as any major political party I’ve seen. There’re no two ways about it.  

If this were 2013 instead of 2011, it’d be easier to talk about rebuilding, but coming off a mid-term national GOP wave that completely missed Vermont leaves us looking towards the inevitable pendulum back during a presidential year, which always brings out more Ds to the polls.

For Republicans, they have a real branding challenge. Defining themselves is going to be next to impossible. In fact, they’ll be left to define themselves as alternatives when Shumlin screws up – which is going to be tricky because he’s probably not going to screw up – at least not in any way that they’ll be able to use. Early signs are that he’s going to feel freer to piss off the left than the right and the center, figuring he can keep liberals onboard with a full-on push to single-payer healthcare. That won’t help the Republicans.

The bottom line for the GOP, then, is that if Shumlin proves to be the kind of ideological eclecticist he’s looking to be, defining him reactively and using that definition as an elections platform is going to be a miserable failure.

A lot can happen, obviously. Being so firmly in the drivers seat will cause Democrats to begin fracturing – that’s human and political nature, and it could change the playing field. Perhaps more dangerous is if Shumlin decides to be the same kind of party leader that Jim Douglas was. It was through Douglas’s single-minded interest in his own re-election that the Vermont Republican Party whithered under his watch, as it gave little support to legislative Republicans and candidates.

Shumlin could easily fall into that trap, and the Vermont Democratic Party could atrophy if it becomes exclusively tasked to his re-election. If so, that too could change the playing field. For my money, though, I’m betting Shumlin is too smart to give into that impulse.

It was a pitch from the Republicans – especially Jim Douglas – for votes for Brian Dubie; that you can’t have a Democrat as Governor if Democrats are also the majority in the legislature. And it resonated with enough of the media that I was asked about it on Vermont Edition before Election Day. Implicit in the argument was the suggestion that a certain amount of stasis in government is needed, which is an odd argument considering the times.

Here’s a not-insignificant piece of evidence as to what can be done with the uncharacteristically non-antagonistic relationship currently enjoyed by leg leadership and the Governor. From a press release:

Gov. Peter Shumlin, Speaker Shap Smith, Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell and lawmakers unveil government transparency plan

[…] Among the significant provisions, the legislation would give the public records law more ‘teeth’ by designating a state office to enforce the law, and make it easier for those wrongly denied public records to recover attorney fees if they have to go to court to get access.

[…] The plan includes two parts. The first, an executive branch change, requires awareness throughout state government of the need to provide public information and training on how to comply with the open records law.

“The single biggest complaint we’ve heard is not that the law as written doesn’t go far enough,” the Governor said. “It’s that in some cases state employees have not complied with the spirit or letter of the law as written, often due to inadequate training.”

[…] Secondly, the administration has been working with lawmakers to develop a public records bill to ensure the state follows the letter of the law in providing public information. One of the key provisions of the legislation would designate a state office that has the authority to review disputes about public records requests and to issue binding orders.

In addition, the legislation would:

o   Bring together stakeholders from across the spectrum to engage in a serious, individualized review of the more than 200 exemptions built into our public records law.

o   Eliminate search time fees, whether requests for copies or inspection, for all requests that take no more than two hours to compile, while keeping those fees for the most onerous requests for copies or inspection-about 2 percent of all requests.

o   Make it clear that when the state denies a request for a public record, the burden is on the state to show that the denial is warranted.

o   Provide that if a public agency appeals an order, the person who requested the records is presumed to be entitled to attorney’s fees if he or she goes to court and wins.

“The combination of administration training and legislative changes should ensure that almost all requests for state documents are handled promptly and at no charge to the public, other than the cost of state-worker time,” Gov. Shumlin said. “And the very small number of requests that could cost taxpayers inordinate sums will be handled in a different – but fair — manner.”

Sarah Palin and her followers among the Tea Party are bobbing and weaving in the wake of the shooting in Arizona, outright denying their use of violent rhetoric targeting political opponents in some cases (casting the now-notorious “crosshair” targeting imagery as surveyor’s marks rather than gun sights, for example). Palin herself has, of course cast herself as the victim rather than step up and confront the relationship between violent political rhetoric and violent political action herself.

Please. Either own your words and your rhetoric, or use different words and rhetoric. From my perspective, it seems like a pretty obvious connection and a pretty obvious degree of responsibility in play (not responsibility for the action of the shooter, just responsibility for feeding the political petrie dish that nourishes such nutcases). I don’t necessarily expect the Tea Party crowd to see it the same way, but is a less craven response really too much to expect from someone like Palin, who plays the role of leader to a large segment of the population?

Apparently in this universe it is. Fortunately, I’m on a lot of email lists, and I received the following press release from the Mirror universe. In the Mirror universe, our doubles have, in many ways, the very opposite qualities of their counterparts here. Sometimes it’s a scary thing. Other times it’s… refreshing.

Here, then, is the press release from the Mirror-Sarah-Palin, responding to criticism of her rhetoric surrounding the equivalent event in the Mirror-universe.

I would like to take a moment to respond to some of the discussions currently underway in the wake of the tragic and horrific attack in Arizona this weekend.

A federal judge has been assassinated. A US Congresswoman is in critical condition. Others have been murdered for simply being nearby, including a 9-year old girl.

At this point, it seems clear that the shooter had political motivations for his horrific actions, and while those motivations are not what can reasonably be considered “conservative” in the context of mainstream political debate, it must be said that his anti-government ideology, given the peculiar commentaries on currency and the like, is most likely a product of the extreme political right. As a result, many are now questioning whether or not some of the strong-worded rhetoric from the Tea Party movement, and some of my own words on behalf of the American people, should be considered as a causal factor in the actions of this individual.

This is an understandable reaction in the face of tragedy. As much as some of my supporters would defensively try to cast the crosshairs on our legislative targeting map as akin to surveying marks, this is, of course, not accurate. We specifically and intentionally used words and symbols that evoked warfare and firearms, and indeed we are hardly the first. We are, as a nation, engaged in what has been called by both sides as a “culture war,” and it is hardly an escalation to speak of political and electoral strategizing in that context, using the weapons and rehtoric of war.

So while I understand the objections – even the angry ones – to the use of this kind of rhetoric, I must respectfully disagree with the conclusion that such rhetoric can be considered in any way responsible for the tragic events of this weekend. First of all, I hope it goes without saying that our rhetoric was never intended to be taken as a call to violence. I honestly believe that no sane, reasonable person could see it as such.

Which brings us to the point that the shooter, I believe, was neither sane nor reasonable, and was almost certainly predisposed to such antisocial and violent behavior.

Let me be clear once again – and I hope my supporters understand this – I understand the strong reactions and the finger-pointing towards the uncompromising rhetoric of the Tea Party, and out of respect, I would never condemn or disparage anybody for reacting angrily towards myself or others who have chosen to express our views so passionately. But the simple fact is that we cannot allow our speech – especially our most passionate political speech – to be captive to what the dangerously violent or unstable elements in our society may do without ceding some control of our political process to them. I certainly do not intend to do so, even as I understand and appreciate that I may be subject to criticism for that view.

So let me close by once again expressing my deepest condolences to the victims of this horrible attack. My thoughts are with the families, and my prayers are with all the wounded. I and my family join with all Americans of all political stripes in hoping for a complete and speedy recovery for all.

A shame we can’t trade up.

Oh for god’s sake. From Totten:

One key appointment hasn’t been announced publicly, though: chairman of the Governor’s Council of Economic Advisors. This person assembles the 18-member advisory panel that, in turn, shapes the governor’s economic policies.

Since the reign of Gov. Madeleine Kunin, one man has chaired this council – Harlan Sylvester, the political kingmaker and consummate insider I wrote about last October in a story titled “The Man Behind the Throne.”

Sylvester backed Republican Brian Dubie for governor, raising questions about whether Shumlin would keep Sylvester around. Question no more: Despite Sylvester’s support for his rival, Shumlin has decided to keep the 77-year-old on as the council’s chairman.

This is appalling. Sylvester is a paper tiger: a self-appointed kingmaker who has made himself legendary in Burlington political circles. His only real power has come from the perception of his power, and his consistent talent at presenting himself as a big shot.

Economically, he espouses just the kind of big corporate, trickle-down, discredited supply side nonsense which has crippled the US economy, limited real prosperity (except among those with the highest incomes) and threatened much of our safety net. He is the failed past – and a Dubie/Douglas supporter to boot. Further empowering him in this way does we, Shumlin’s allies – particularly in Burlington – no favors whatsoever. On the contrary, Sylvester should be politically marginalized.

It was one thing when Shumlin acknowledged political opponent Bill Stenger of Jay Peak fame – the same one who was instrumental in the legally questionable (at best) RNC television ad against him – during his inaugural speech. That looked kinda noble.

By re-promoting Sylvester to his appointed lordship (and squandering an opportunity to get some new blood and new ideas where they are desperately needed), Shumlin doesn’t look noble. He looks like an eager-to-please puppy dog. And in retrospect, it makes the Stenger acknowledgment look a little less rosy. Stenger, after all, apparently stood him up in the actual inauguration, as it sounded as though Shumlin couldn’t find him on the floor.

I don’t know about you, but I’d be more interested to see the big-shot moneybag Republican supporters looking eager to please the new Governor, rather than have him looking quite so eager to play the role of corporate old boy network groupie.