Anonymous scribe Fake-Rob at the Fake-Rob Williams blog reports that the Chairman/CEO of Vermont Yankee parent company, Entergy, just dumped up to 40% of his stock in his own company… and if he thinks it’s time to sell-sell-sell, watch out. From Fake-Rob:

“The rat is fleeing a sinking ship” can’t even begin to describe the epithets being hurled today at poor J. Wayne–“poor,” of course, being a relative term considering that in October of 2008 Fortune Magazine estimated his five-year income at $45.84 million. And now, just imagine the windfall on the stock sale! Whew! (It’s about $17 million, if you do the math.)

And he aint the only one. From gurufocus.com (emphasis added):

Chairman and CEO J Wayne Leonard sold 227,954 shares of ETR stock on 08/10/2010 at the average price of 79.11. J Wayne Leonard owns at least 360,683 shares after this. The price of the stock has decreased by 8.49% since. Other insiders have also decreased their positions in the company.

Expect the downward spiral to escalate quickly.

With the news that Obama has cut a “deal” with Washington Republicans to give them exactly what the want continue to demonstrate the great benefits (to Republicans) of his brand of “bipartisanship,” Vermont Representative Peter Welch is not in a mood to play good soldier. Although there may not be much he can do, it should please those that feel he may play along with leadership too much to see that this crosses the line for him. He is circulating a to-the-point letter refusing to be any part of the deal, and with any luck, he’ll get a share of his comrades to sign on.

In the letter he highlights, not simply the wrong-headedness (and the wrongness) of such a capitulation, but also the dumbness of it, as if we could actually expect that the latest Obama retreat will result in a cooperative GOP caucus.

You need to stand up to bullies, or they just keep being bullies. This may not amount to much in the end (and it may be the latest sign of how much easier it is to be a tough guy when you’re in – or headed to – the minority), but it matters. The more this stuff gets said, the more it has the opportunity to resonate nationally, and lead to a turnaround in 2012.

Dear Madam Speaker,

We oppose acceding to Republican demands to extend the Bush tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires for two reasons.

First, it is fiscally irresponsible. Adding $700 billion to our national debt, as this proposal would do, handcuffs our ability to offer a balanced plan to achieve fiscal stability without a punishing effect on our current commitments, including Social Security and Medicare.  

Second, it is grossly unfair. This proposal will hurt, not help, the majority of Americans in the middle class and those working hard to get there. Even as Republicans seek to add $700 billion to our national debt, they oppose extending unemployment benefits to workers and resist COLA increases to seniors.

Without a doubt, the very same people who support this addition to our debt will oppose raising the debt ceiling to pay for it.

We support extending tax cuts in full to 98 percent of American taxpayers, as the President initially proposed. He should not back down. Nor should we.

Sincerely,

PETER WELCH

Member of Congress

The Free Press’s Mike Donoghue has confirmed that the FBI has taken an interest in the Burlington Telecom Scandal. Bad, bad news for Mayor Bob Kiss & company.

Why? After conversing with folks who have some understanding of how the FBI works, I’m informed that the Feds simply would not engage with this matter unless the blood was right there in the water. The FBI doesn’t get involved with bad checks or broken promises – nor do they get involved in any way with state investigations, such as the one underway out of the Attorney General’s office. Given the Kiss administration’s default on the lease with Citibank, however, it’s a whole new, multimillion dollar ballgame.

The Feds take interest if they’re thinking a large corporation (Citibank) was defrauded for a lot of money. The fact that we’re talking about a bank makes it even more their kind of thing. This could mean something in the Racketeering & Corrupt Organizations area, but the Feds have been moving away from prosecutions under that broad statute. I’m told something in the Bank Fraud or Wire Fraud arena is more likely.

All of which is to say that the fantasy bubble Bob Kiss is still living in – where Citibank will simply come put their leased equipment back in the box, roll up the cables, and part with a handshake while Burlington just goes and gets replacement equipment from Radio Shack or something – is about to be burst in a serious way.

It is so past time to take up the bailout offer from the Reboot Burlington Telecom group – an offer which was recently remade. But pride, territoriality and politics still stand in the way. Given the tense Progressive/Democrat dynamics unique to the Queen City, it’s hard not to conclude that the offer hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves because the image of a bunch of Democrats swooping in to save the city from mismanagement by a Progressive administration is just too much to bear.

All of which walks dangerously close to an if we can’t have it, nobody will attitude. One wonders if even potential federal criminal charges could be enough to break through the Prog-Dem battlements in Burlington.

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

UPDATE: VPR confirms that Green Mountain Daily is always right:

Governor-elect Peter Shumlin has picked Secretary of State Deb Markowitz to run the state Agency of Natural Resources.

It's been the rumor for a while that outgoing Secretary of State Deb Markowitz was being looked at to head the beleaguered (and largely Jim-Douglas-decimated) Agency of Natural Resources, and it sounds like a formal announcement of the appointment could come at any time (maybe tomorrow? Just guessing on the timing, there, but…). From a resume perspective, it may seem like an odd fit. SoS is not a job with an environmental component. One would have to reach back into her stint as a staff attorney at the League of Cities and Towns to dig up any kind of eco-record, and that aint exactly like being a park ranger or anything. As far as her views on environmental issues during the campaign, she sounded the right notes, but many in the environmental community were concerned by the lack of specifics and what sometimes sounded like rhetoric on permitting that was overly-accommodating to the right. Really, it is her husband who is known as the big green guy. But there a couple reassuring responses to the above. First, all these agency-head positions are really management positions. If the Governor has a strong vision, the agency head understands and shares that vision, then its a function of how well they'll be able to implement that from the top.

At SoS, Markowitz ran quite hot and cold with folks – folks seem to adore her, or… not (recall, VSEA backed Republican Michael Bertrand against her some elections back… no love lost there). But the fact remains that she inspires strong loyalty (and hard work) from her deputies, and lord knows ANR could use some top-down enthusiasm. As for the issues themselves, remember: Markowitz ran much of her primary campaign as though it were a general election campaign, rhetorically speaking (a mistake, IMO – one that likely ended up costing her the nomination over the long haul). She was deliberately vague in an effort to appeal (prematurely) to self-identifying moderates and even conservatives. Many of her supporters always suggested she was more progressive than she seemed. This could be the position where she shows that. And speaking of the word “progressive,” expect more complaints from Progressive Party members, many of whom loathe her for siding against Anthony Pollina over campaign finance matters. At the time, I thought she made sense, frankly… (ducking)

UPDATE: Doug Racine will be heading the Agency of Human Services, which is an ideal fit for him. Many speculated that he wouldn’t get this position since he and Shumlin do not necessarily see eye-to-eye on health care policy, though both see universal coverage as a goal, with the government’s involvement. Some others wondered whether Racine would get any position, considering that it’s not secret that the two haven’t always had the greatest working relationship.

But this is good news, and a great place for Racine to contribute to the state. It also goes a long way to healing any lingering primary-driven tension within the Democratic base.

This is certainly turning into an interesting – and generally quite talented – administration. Good news.

---

Former Dean Transportation Secretary Brian Searles (who has since run the Burlington airport) has been tapped to return to the post in the Shumlin administration. Waterbury Representative Sue Minter will leave the legislature to be Searles’ Deputy.

Searles is both the obvious choice and a great choice for the position. Minter is also a good choice, but her move represents a real loss for the Legislature. Minter is smart, talented, and was one of those Dems that looked more than capable of climbing the ladder for higher office. As a political player, she’ll be missed.

On the other hand, Brain Dubie is to be some sort of “ambassador” to Quebec for us. From vpr:

Shumlin says the exact nature of Dubie’s role hasn’t been worked out. But he’s confident that the lieutenant governor will be a key asset in helping the Shumlin administration forge a strong relationship with Quebec.

An interesting Vermont export to be sure. I presume this will come with a big taxpayer-funded paycheck? Maybe not. Remsen suggests this is just a one-shot deal.

But if true, it starts to look as though Shumlin is handing out enough goodies to Republicans to make one wonder whether he is trying to sow goodwill to blunt his 2012 challenge. After all, early signs are that Phil Scott, unlike his predecessor, is gearing up to be a more engaged Lieutenant Governor. One has to assume that he is to be Shumlin’s challenger in two years, whether or not it actually works out that way.

More on that soon.

From VPR today:

([Governor Elect Peter] Shumlin) “I guess my biggest regret that Challenges to Change was never intended to be a way to cut budgets. It was intended to be a way to change the way that government does business.”

This statement is, of course, rather silly. Of course it was about budgets. If you don’t trust your own memory, check the media coverage at the time. The Free Press (paywalled): “a budgeting experiment”. WCAX: “a savings plan”. The AP (paywalled): “…general fund savings through a process dubbed Challenges for Change.”.

Fact: Shumlin’s statement that this “never intended to be a way to cut budgets” is an attempt at a political retcon. Couple this with the other oft-heard mythology of the last year (after C-for-C so badly blew up with nonprofits and constituency groups), also best articulated by the Governor-Elect, that “The mistake we made was by thinking we could do it with an administration who wanted to decimate many of the services of state government.”, and you have the new line: we meant well, there’s a good idea in there (that wasn’t even “ours” as it came from out-of-state consultants), but the Governor screwed it up.

None of which fully reflects the reality of the legislative leadership’s role. Challenges was borne from a budget crisis, built on budget cutting targets, and its manifestation was as a creature of the legislature – and it is in that legislature run by Speaker Smith and Shumlin that the inevitably-controversial proposals were fast tracked. The big bad Governor, of course, had no say over the legislative calendar, after all. Challenges was also a fiercely ideological creature, not the blandly clerical project it is no presented as (for example, it contained among its legislative proposals the abject destruction of the environmental permitting system).

But here’s the reality now: after relationships between advocates and legislators were damaged, after a large scale mobilization of constituency groups arose to counter it, “Challenges for Change” became an albatross. It was a mistake, and words like “failed” and “mistake” from Smith and Shumlin make it abundantly clear that they know it.

So here’s the question: given that face-saving postscripts and historical fudges are a standard element of “moving on,” not simply in the public, political arena, but even in more day-to-day interpersonal settings, should activists allow this retcon to take?

My own feeling is yes. It doesn’t hurt us any to get in on the rah-rahs in this way – in fact, in doing so we simply allow the sense that Challenges was a debacle to become even more firmly entrenched as conventional wisdom, and that’s a good thing. We also potentially feed momentum to reinvent the budget slashing process into something more akin to what our Democratic leaders now claim C-for-C was always meant to be – a push for efficiency. Who doesn’t love efficiency?

But as the man said, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. So while we may quietly acquiesce to the Challenges was just misunderstood, and it was all Jim Douglas’s fault anyway reality, there should be no mistake that the advocacy and activist community does remember how it really went down.

And we’ll be watching.

From VPR today:

([Governor Elect Peter] Shumlin) “I guess my biggest regret that Challenges to Change was never intended to be a way to cut budgets. It was intended to be a way to change the way that government does business.”

This statement is, of course, rather silly. Of course it was about budgets. If you don’t trust your own memory, check the media coverage at the time. The Free Press (paywalled): “a budgeting experiment.” WCAX: “a savings plan”. The AP (paywalled): “…general fund savings through a process dubbed Challenges for Change.”

Fact: Shumlin’s statement that this was “never intended to be a way to cut budgets” is an attempt at a political retcon. Couple this with the other oft-heard mythology of the last year (after C-for-C so badly blew up with nonprofits and constituency groups), also best articulated by the Governor-Elect, that “The mistake we made was by thinking we could do it with an administration who wanted to decimate many of the services of state government”, and you have the new line: we meant well, there’s a good idea in there (that wasn’t even “ours” as it came from out-of-state consultants), but the Governor screwed it up.

None of which fully reflects the reality of the legislative leadership’s role. Challenges was borne from a budget crisis, built on budget cutting targets, and its manifestation was as a creature of the legislature – and it is in that legislature run by Speaker Smith and Shumlin that the inevitably-controversial proposals were fast tracked. The big bad Governor, of course, had no say over the legislative calendar, after all. Challenges was also a fiercely ideological creature, not the blandly clerical project it is now presented as (for example, it contained among its legislative proposals the abject destruction of the environmental permitting system).

But here’s the reality now: after relationships between advocates and legislators were damaged, after a large scale mobilization of constituency groups arose to counter it, “Challenges for Change” became an albatross. It was a mistake, and words like “failed” and “mistake” from Smith and Shumlin make it abundantly clear that they know it.

So here’s the question: given that face-saving postscripts and historical fudges are a standard element of “moving on,” not simply in the public, political arena, but even in more day-to-day interpersonal settings, should activists allow this retcon to take?

My own feeling is yes. It doesn’t hurt us any to get in on the rah-rahs in this way – in fact, in doing so we simply allow the sense that Challenges was a debacle to become even more firmly entrenched as conventional wisdom, and that’s a good thing. We also potentially feed momentum to reinvent the budget slashing process into something more akin to what our Democratic leaders now claim C-for-C was always meant to be – a push for efficiency. Who doesn’t love efficiency?

But as the man said, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. So while we may quietly acquiesce to the Challenges was just misunderstood, and it was all Jim Douglas’s fault anyway reality, there should be no mistake that the advocacy and activist community does remember how it really went down.

And we’ll be watching.

In the news today, via MarketWatch::

The Federal Reserve’s governors and regional presidents have grown more sour on growth and unemployment, with some saying it could take more than six years for the jobless rate to return to normal levels, according to a summary of projections released Tuesday.

Also in the news today, via the NYT:

American businesses earned profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion in the third quarter, according to a Commerce Department report released Tuesday. That is the highest figure recorded since the government began keeping track over 60 years ago

Tepid action from Washington has not stopped the wealth polarization process that a full-on Depression would bring, it’s merely slowed it from would have been incredibly fast to really really fast.

While some are wondering whether further trouble in Afghanistan could cause Obama to be primaried (hey, it happened to Jimmy Carter…), I still think if anything’s going to create that kind of dynamic, it’ll be the economy. Sure, it’s a pretty unlikely scenario at this point, but one wonders…

From VPR, presented without comment for the moment:

Governor-elect Peter Shumlin has decided to retain a senior member of Governor Jim Douglas’ budget team.

Shumlin says he’ll reappoint Jim Reardon as the commissioner of Finance and Management.

That’s the official who’s responsible for preparing the governor’s budget and presenting it to the Legislature.

UPDATE: A range of people I trust are telling me not to slap a scarlet “V” on Miller from his time at VEPC. I may have had him unfairly pegged as a “West Wing” liberal. He’s well-liked and sounds like he may be open to different ideas. I’ll see if we can get him to address the GMD community soon. – JO

---

Today’s appointments from the Governor-Elect:

• Lawrence Miller: Secretary of Commerce & Community Development
• Patricia Moulton Powden: Deputy Secretary of Commerce & Community Development
• Chuck Ross: Secretary of Agriculture
• Annie Noonan: Commissioner of Labor

Annie Noonan, formerly of the Vermont State Employees Association, will help cool off tempers among organized labor after the appointment of Jeb Spaulding at Administration. Noonan is among the strongest advocates for labor interests Shumlin could have chosen. The Commerce appointments, however, continue the pronounced rightward bent of the economic team. While Shumlin may have indicated that all economic perspectives will be granted an audience, its looking like a far narrower range will actually be seated at the decision making table. Otter Creek Brewery Founder Miller was a Chair of the Vermont Economic Progress Council, and of course Powden was Jim Douglas’s Commissioner of Labor. VEPC is famously controversial among progressives due to questions around the appropriateness of giving large tax incentives to corporations, and the lack of transparency around these decisions. Miller does have more appealingly-lefty credentials as well, however, including a stint as Chair of the Vermont Clean Energy Development Fund.

Chuck Ross is notable, here. The long-time State Director for Senator Leahy has been a political presence for some time, both in his professional capacity as well as in the Democratic Party. Ross is a go-to contributor in party circles, as well as a bit of a kingmaker in Democratic politics. He’s also been the Democratic National Committeeman for some time – a position he holds rather dearly, as I discovered when I made noises on this site about possibly running for the position myself (he was none too pleased).

Ross’s move to Ag sends a signal that he intends to stay in the thick of political things after Senator Leahy retires (presumably after his coming term). This also puts him in a good position to be appointed to the Senate seat himself if Leahy unexpectedly retires before the end of his term.