Hey all. Pesky candidate again, coming back to ask for help from the GMD community. Remember, the sooner I can win this City Clerk race, the sooner you all will be rid of my stale, uninspired blogging of late.

The long and the short is that I need another $150 to reach my goal from last week, which will enable me to mail to everyone I want to mail to (for now) in town. If you were thinking about helping out with a contribution, now’s the time (with only 3 weeks left to go!)

Thanks all. Promise to stop bugging folks soon.

So Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell has declared H.97 – the bill passed last session by the House that would provide limited collective bargaining rights to home-based child care workers (and a bill I did some work on) – dead. He does not intent to let it come out of committee. Barring some last minute intervention from the Governor, it’s likely to stay dead (and Shumlin has already picked his controversies for this election year… this bill is not on the list).

It should never have come to this, and has because of self-destructive behavior on both sides.

On the union’s side, it’s no secret in the Statehouse that AFT has continued to wield a strategic sledgehammer, even those times when finesse has been called for. Vermont legislators are more prickly than most on that regard.

On Campbell’s end, it seems to be simply about pique. He’s not able to see beyond some of that strategic clumsiness to judge the issue on its merits, simply because bill proponents have dared to cross him. And when you dare to cross Campbell, apparently, political reality becomes an afterthought.

Putting aside the ethics of the bill and the right to collective bargaining – a right Democrats are supposed to stand for – consider the more politically crass implications. Campbell is assumed to be eyeing higher office – possibly the governorship after Shumlin moves on. He’ll inevitably face a primary, and this move won’t play well in that arena.

But more than that – consider the general election. In its earliest form, this bill could have unionized 8,000 low-income Vermonters, mostly women. That’s 8000 union members who would get mailings endorsing candidates – and most of those would be Democrats.

This is why I have little doubt that Republican insiders are laughing their butts off at Campbell’s decision to let his personal pride overcome his common sense.

This just in from the Guv:

Gov. Peter Shumlin today appointed Jill Krowinski of Burlington to replace outgoing state Rep. Rachel Weston for the seat representing Ward 3.

“Jill has worked hard to get young people involved in the political process and registered to vote,” Gov. Shumlin said. “She also knows how the House and Senate operate from her time working as assistant to former House Speaker Gaye Symington, so she’ll hit the ground running.”

“I want to thank Governor Shumlin for giving me this incredible opportunity to represent Burlington in the House of Representatives,” Krowinski said. “I’m ready to get to work with a great group of legislators from Burlington and excited to work for a great community.”

Among her priority issues are health care reform, education, and empowering young people to get involved in their communities. Krowinski graduated from the University of Pittsburgh with a BA in Urban Studies and Political Science in 2002. In addition to her work for Symington, she has served as Executive Director of the Vermont Democratic Party and founded a non-profit dedicated to registering young people to vote. She is currently the Vermont Director of Public Affairs for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.  Krowinski serves on the Board of Directors of the Montpelier Chamber Orchestra, Begin Blue, Vermont Access to Reproductive Freedom, and is a Commissioner for the Fletcher Free Library in Burlington.

It’s probably a reflection of the overwhelming Democratic majorities in the House and Senate (or rather, a resignation to that fact), but the word on redistricting out of the House is all smiles and kumbayas.

Last time (as reflected on in this diary), it was a protracted, contentious process. Republicans had the House, Democrats had the Senate. Progressives were working with Dems, until GOP Speaker Freed made them a better deal for their support. Then, in conference committee, the Progs got squeezed out of their deal altogether and it came down to Rs and Ds. It was all very dramatic, if you’re into that sort of thing.

Different story this time around. Here’s from the Speaker’s press release:

Montpelier, VT- On Wednesday, the Vermont House of Representatives advanced a bill that redraws House districts to reflect changes in population as reported by the 2010 U.S. Census.  The redistricting bill-often known across the country as the most partisan bill of the decade for state legislatures-was approved on a bipartisan vote, 138-4.

[…] “We appreciate the effort of the majority leadership to work with us to obtain a reasonable solution to the redistricting puzzle that, although not perfect, meets many of the objectives our caucus set forth prior to beginning this process,” said House Minority Leader Don Turner. “This plan keeps towns whole and provides most Vermonters an opportunity for fair representation in the Vermont House of Representatives.”

[…]”Today, we watched the legislative process at its best. The committee faced a formidable challenge and answered it swiftly and with an undeniable sense of fairness. If only Washington would follow our lead,” concluded Progressive Leader Chris Pearson.

The Senate will take a little longer, and may get more… interesting – but not that much. And of course, the tri-partisan Legislative Apportionment Board (in which we were treated to a flashback of the Republican-Prog alliance), is proving to be an irrelevance, as predicted.

The final redistricting bill will show up nearer the end of the session.

Burlington Representative Jason Lorber just tweeted that the local Democrats are forwarding three names to Governor Shumlin to consider as a replacement for the (sadly) outgoing Burlington Representative Rachel Weston: Jill Krowinski, Autumn Barnett, and Curt McCormack.

I have no doubt that any one of those three would make an excellent Representative.

…but…

GO JILL!

(Weston is leaving Vermont for a new position in Jordan promoting women’s political participation.)

Just a quick update for anyone who might be interested (this is a blog, after all – you’re supposed to talk about yourself on a blog). I filed my signatures to get on the Montpelier ballot today. Very exciting. Also, I hear a rumor that I may have opposition, so I’m gearing up for a full-on campaign after all!!!

Blogging on GMD about my own campaign is something I never expected to do. Maybe it’s an appropriate way to say goodbye as I count down my last weeks as a front pager.

Here is Governor Shumlin’s complete reaction to the President’s State of the Union address, as sent out in a press release:

“I am proud to stand by a President who fights for the middle class. In tonight’s State of the Union address, President Obama made it clear that jobs are his top priority and he is committed to strengthening an economy where everyone plays by the same rules and everyone gets a fair shot. President Obama has worked hard to put Americans back to work and we are already seeing signs of growth, with 3.2 million private sector jobs added over the past 22 months. We have work left to do, but I am confident that President Obama understands what we know here in Vermont, that if we focus on education, lead through innovation and work together, we can accomplish great things.”

That’s all well and good, but it completely ignores the part of the State of the Union that is receiving all the attention. You know, the part where the President said this (by way of TPM):

“When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it’s not because they envy the rich, It’s because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don’t need and the country can’t afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference – like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet.”

[…] “If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes.”

Given that many of the super-wealthy paying far less that 30% (such as Mitt Romney), Obama is now calling for them to pay more.

Yeah, that Obama. The economic moderate-to-right one. And he’s using a clear-spoken, straightforward statement of Democratic values to make his case.

Contrast this with Shumlin’s State of the State:

we require our wealthiest citizens to pay their fair share of income tax. But, we cannot correct the tax failures of Washington from the State House in Montpelier, and we must be always mindful that every day, we compete with our neighboring states for jobs. Therefore, I remain determined not to increase broad-based taxes on Vermonters as we begin to see signs of modest economic growth.

Yeah, it’s no mystery as to why the Governor is trying to change the subject. His determination not to even discuss raising taxes on wealthy Vermonters before cutting many social services is rapidly becoming a peculiar Democratic anachronism.

Suddenly, he’s left standing with no one but the likes of Ben Nelson at his side, as even his moderate President has abandoned such nonsense.

State Auditor Tom Salmon Jr. makes me wince. Not the kind of wince you do when you hear the sound of nails dragged on a chalkboard, the kind of wince from being really, really embarrassed.

Salmon continues to demonstrate very little understanding of the nature of the Auditor’s office. Nor does he seem to understand his own responsibilities, or even his own audits. Couple with that a… challenging… relationship with the english language, and… well, like I said. It’s cringe-inducing.

But over at vtdigger, Salmon’s opponent from last year – Doug Hoffer – is not simply (once again) challenging Salmon’s statements, he’s raising an issue of professional and ethical conduct.

Hoffer notes that Auditor Salmon was approached by Entergy executives – not simply when policies surrounding Vermont Yankee were being discussed in the legislature, but while Salmon’s office was auditing the VY decommissioning fund. Since that time, Salmon has wasted no opportunity to step way outside his official duties and throw himself into the debate, using language every bit as strong in Entergy’s favor as any official corporate spokesperson.

Hoffer comments in his response below the press release:

We will never know what transpired in those conversations between Tom Salmon and Entergy officials, but it’s not unreasonable to ask if Mr. Salmon was biased or personally impaired in the matter. Government Auditing Standards make it clear that “auditors…must be free from personal impairments” to carry out their duties objectively.

Some of Salmon’s outspoken advocacy, of course, tends into the ridiculous, as in the above-linked vtdigger piece which includes the supremely goofy “Vermont is not some kind of renewable energy utopia.” (wha…?) followed after a few rambling sentences by “Address Yankee swiftly without a lot of nonsense.” (presumably, there was no irony intended).

(NOTE: Stating that Hoffer has a better understanding of economics in general, and the state’s numbers in particular is kind of like saying that The Muppet Movie is maybe a little more appropriate for children than Deep Throat.)

Fortunately for all of us, word is circulating that Hoffer will likely challenge Salmon to an electoral rematch, so stay tuned for that and cross your fingers.

Uber-blogger and Essex Junction resident Steve Benen has a new gig. From his latest post at “Political Animal”

I’m going to be a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show” and an MSNBC contributor. Don’t worry, I’ll still be blogging; I’ll just be writing at a new online home.

[…] I always said I wouldn’t leave this job unless something truly special came along, and fortunately for me, something did. The chance to work for Rachel and MSNBC is a dream gig that I couldn’t be more excited about.

Congratulations Steve! You’ll have a blast.

Steve and Eve are not planning on moving (according to Eve’s Facebook page). That’s gonna be a hell of a commute.

If anybody’s curious, below the fold are my first two statehouse columns. Focus was on the “Super Senators,” and the what’s at stake in the health care wrangling.

This week’s will focus on a couple different groups working in the Statehouse to get lawmakers to look at the state’s economy in different ways (and in different ways than each other).

1/8/2012 column:

The first week of the 2012 legislative session had a very distinct flavor from the first week of last year’s. As opposed to 2011’s sense of uncharted territory in the face of a new Governor, this year lawmakers, lobbyists, and activists all had a sense of the lay of the land, going into an election year where the battle lines are already being drawn.

As such, the week was dominated by message-sending. Political actors were moving with blazing speed to establish themselves either as policy agenda-setters, or as players who were not-to-be-ignored in the coming months. All of which suggests that the hopes of some to have a speedy session focused only on the budget and Irene rebuilding may not be realized.

Here are some examples:

Governor Shumlin’s State of the State Address. Many have already noted the exuberant delivery of the Governor’s address’s persistently positive “Vermont Strong” message. By acting as cheerleader-in-chief during the ongoing tropical storm recovery process, Shumlin can raise morale as well as remind Vermont voters of the universal acclaim he has received for the state’s response to the crisis.

But Shumlin also used the opportunity to lay down some lines in the sand to both sides of the political spectrum, and try to send the message that he intended to remain the sheriff in town. To the right, he made it clear that he would not deviate from those parts of his agenda they deplore – such as health care reform. To the left, he repeated his commitment to resist calls for increased taxes on wealthy Vermonters.

With the political capital he has accumulated in the disaster recovery process, he may well prove one tough sheriff indeed.

Senator Randy Brock. Brock, who is all but certain to be the Republican gubernatorial candidate in November, sent a clear message that he has no intention of allowing Shumlin to take the tax issue – which has long been the meat and potatoes of GOP electioneering – off the table. In citing last year’s increase of the Hospital Provider Tax, Brock is letting Shumlin know that he will challenge him as vigorously on taxation issues as he would any other Democrat.

Activists. It usually takes a few weeks of committee deliberations and bill-wrangling before the activists in various-colored shirts and buttons show up in the halls of the State House. This year they were there on Day One. Red-shirted supporters of the Vermont Workers’ Center were out in force, and coalesced around a noontime press conference.

The VWC worked hard on Shumlin’s behalf during the last election, focused as they were on the health care reform plan championed by the Governor. This year, however, they were there to make it clear that they could not be taken for granted. The red shirts in attendance loudly proclaimed their intention to muster what grassroots energy they could on behalf of a budget that would fund social programs adequately – even if that meant increased taxes on upper income citizens, putting them in potential conflict with Governor Shumlin.

Individual lawmakers. Lawmakers have been an orderly lot of late, but there are signs that may be changing.

Case in point: Senator Peter Galbraith (D-Windham). Galbraith – a prominent international diplomat – objected to a motion from Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell to move the issue of redistricting out of the Government Operations Committee and into a new committee specifically created to address the issue.

Galbraith raised eyebrows when he accused Campbell of not having “confidence” in the Gov Ops committee, even though the Senate took the same approach the last time redistricting came up.

Despite support for the move from Gov Ops Chair Jeanette White, Galbraith held firm and cast one of two votes against the move (the other was cast by Senator Anthony Pollina of Washington County).

Galbraith was sending a message. In his objection to the new committee, he took a swipe at “the old boys’ club who run the Senate.”

Everybody knew who he was talking about.

It’s an unwritten rule in the Senate that, to get anything done, you have to have one of four Senators on your side: Campbell, Senator Dick Mazza (D-Grand Isle), Senator Vince Illuzzi (R-Essex-Orleans), or Senator Dick Sears (D-Bennington). Sears and Illuzzi sit on the new redistricting committee.

This is not to say that those four “Super-Senators” always get their way, but there is a clear hierarchy in the Senate, and those four inhabit a stratum all their own. It is a situation many of the newer members bristle at.

Galbraith’s message (as well as the message sent by Chittenden Senator Philip Baruth in casting the lone vote to overturn a gubernatorial veto the same morning): don’t expect me to obediently do what I’m told this year.

All told, Vermonters may be in for a lively legislative season.

1/15/2012 column

Capitol Notebook

Week of 1-15-2011

John Odum

Week two of the legislative session saw the players, agendas, and actual bills starting to take shape. From the controversial (S.134 decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana) to the consensus (S.173, which would make it simpler to start a new business). From the technical (S.162, clarifying power-of-attorney rules) to the ideological (S.237, which would replace the state’s “gross domestic product” figure with a measure of social and economic well-being).

A minority of the total number of bills proposed will proceed, and it’s the maneuvers among the lobbying crowd now that will determine which bills that aren’t “must pass” will be among them. This being the case, the Statehouse was consumed more with quiet conversation than outright debate, making for a fairly buzz-free week.

All the heat under the dome for the week, then, was generated by Governor Shumlin’s budget address – not so much by what was in it, but what wasn’t.

It’s no accident that the budget address came early, nor was it an oversight that the specifics were spotty at best – non-existent at worst. What direction the legislature will take in any given session is disproportionately determined in the first few weeks, and the “bully pulpit” of the gubernatorial budget address is an opportunity to seize control of that direction. Moving the budget address up was an implicit recognition of that fact. Expect all future Governors to follow suit.

In an election year, this is even more important, and these first couple weeks have had their share of positioning for this year’s gubernatorial election. Shumlin got much of his ambitious agenda underway in the last session. Now, he wants to keep the ship of state steady enough to win re-election as its Captain, while his opponents will want to derail his prospects by suggesting he’s about to run us into an iceberg.

Whoever’s message wins is off to a big head start for the November election, and – as always – the advantage goes to the incumbent Governor. His presumed challenger -Franklin County Senator Randy Brock has his work cut out for him.

Listening to the budget address, it’s clear Governor Shumlin wants to talk about the state’s recovery from Tropical Storm Irene – and why wouldn’t he? By all accounts, the response of the state under his leadership has been good – almost astonishingly so.

Shumlin also shrewdly repeated the slogan he so strongly pushed in his State of the State as a collective motto: “Vermont Strong.” If he says this enough (and he will), it becomes a state-sponsored, omnipresent re-election slogan.

And that’s why Republican leaders – with the help of the occasional frustrated Democrat – are so eager to recast the debate based on what wasn’t in the address: health care reform.

It’s a high-risk topic for Republicans with high-reward potential, and could tip the debate over the summer and put Shumlin on the defensive. That’s why so many Republicans are talking about it, and why they are pushing the topic into friendly media outlets.

At first glance, it may seem counterintuitive. Governor Shumlin ran for office on his health care reform ideas, more than on any other issue – and it worked. Why, then, wouldn’t it work again? Shouldn’t this be a topic his electoral opponents would want to avoid?

That depends on how it’s talked about.

It’s a truism in politics that it’s always easy to get broad consensus on general ideas and principles. But when general ideas become specific policy proposals, you inevitably lose some people – and given that Shumlin defeated Brian Dubie by a razor thin margin, Republicans know it may not take very many changing sides to tip the next election to Brock.

Under Shumlin’s timetable for reform, there is no need to bring up the specific hows (and how much) of his health care reform plan until next year – indeed many, such as House Health Care Committee Chair Michael Fisher – suggest it would be irresponsible to bring out details before the overall roadmap is complete.

But the GOP is demanding just that – and is backing its demand with a pair of bills to force Shumlin to present the cost of his plan before Election Day.

If the Republicans succeed, the controversy will go up to 11 – which is precisely why these bills will die in the Democrat-controlled legislative committees. Expect, then – in coming weeks and months – to see Republicans putting out their own worst-case scenario numbers as a basis for debate, while at the same time promoting the idea that Shumlin is afraid to come clean on the real costs of his proposals.

But until then, we have a legislative session to play out, and as the nuts and bolts of that session become clearer in the coming weeks, expect the early jockeying for position in the Governor’s race to subside – for a time, at least.