Rep. David Zuckerman summed up the prospect of an override on the Governor’s inevitable veto of the recently passed budget (one which, as a political progressive, I would give a C to at best). From the Freeps:

“I voted no because I didn’t like this budget,” he said, noting that one of his objections was an $18 million reduction in the transfer of general tax dollars to the Education Fund. “But I’m fairly certain all the Progressives will vote yes to override because the alternative is an even greater property tax shift.”

The Progressive caucus was not uniform on this vote. It’s always worth noting when the Prog caucus is not uniform on anything this significant, but in this case it underscores the developing context to this budget; as a standalone piece of legislation, its a major let-down. If, though, it provokes a veto that is then overridden, it comes off looking like a perfect balancing act between what lefties might prefer, versus what we could expect to realistically get.

The veto stakes, then, are higher than usual. The momentum for a real power shift in Montpelier is on a precipice, and this override vote will determine whether or not we’re still basically at status quo, or whether there’s a new sheriff in town after all. And the prospects look good, just not great.

A second override of a gubernatorial veto would be huge. First because, up to this session, Douglas hasn’t been overridden once. Second, this wouldn’t be any veto – its the freakin budget – the grandaddy of all veto override votes. And third, coupled with the forward-thinking vote of conscience and leadership that the marriage equality override vote was, the two will couple into a narrative of vision, ethics, pragmatism and power that will have ripple effects into the next election season.

Moderate “democrats” of the Frank Cioffi set (who have not, as Cioffi has, essentially sold their souls in a reputation-restricting manner to Jim Douglas republicans) will organically reconsider their alliance with the Governor, as their confidence in his politically supremacy will loosen. Some may come back.

Also, some constituency organizations and activists who work with the Dem leadership during the session but seem to hardly be able to wait to throw them over for untested politicians or token Republicans will see a newly relevant legislature as newly relevant to their own interests.

Both these dynamics have not insignificant electoral overtones.

And both could be undone by whatever happens between any successful override vote and the end of next year’s session. If successful (and we’ll all have to work hard to make that happen), lawmakers would be well advised not to read their success as a mandate to go further to the economic right, as I suspect some powerful legislators would like to see happen. In fact, it would be a golden opportunity for the usual lefty suspects in the Senate as well as the House to cobble together some sort of little-p progressive sub-caucus, like the one on Capitol Hill.

After all, bargaining collectively is a good and powerful thing everywhere else, no? And can you think of a better way to start building more bridges between the Progs and the Democratic left?

I have no details, but that negotiations were going on all day – not with the Governor, where they broke down, but within the caucus. According to Hallenbeck, at least some of the focus returned to unhappy Dems – particularly over the impact on the education fund and the hit to the Current Use program.  No word on who the 7 non-voters were and why they didn't put their votes where their mouths were. There may be perfectly good reasons, but that is a significant amount.

It seems, though, that House leaders were able to win back over some waverers, so perhaps the tweaks were worth it. I haven't had time to look over it, but below the fold are two documents from the Speaker's office, the first a longish one that summarizes the budget (its in very "go team!" terms, so you have to read through the rhetoric) and another that details the cuts.

More to come, but I want to highlight a couple things. One – the state personnel cuts are far from fully laid out. Most of them are itemized in a $14.7 million line called "State employee savings" under "Other Misc Cuts." This strikes me as a rather crude, even heartless way to write off so many people's livelihoods in such a scary economy. "State employee savings" sounds like a new banking plan, rather than what it really is. "Job reductions" would have been blunter, but less yucky.

Also within is a chart laying out the projected overall tax impacts on different income levels. Yes, the marginal rates are still dropped, but the budget makes the case (as you see below) that overall progressivity of the tax code is enhanced. I'm not sure what these numbers are based on, but hopefully there'll be more information to come.

This will get vetoed, but looking at those numbers, an override may not be out of the question. I'm looking at the "52" number, rather than the "91." It'll be telling to find out which 2 could be persuaded, and who exactly the missing votes are. As I say, if this is enough of a right-left balance within the caucus to override a veto, then all its weaknesses become strengths, and the new House leadership can come out of this smelling like roses after all. We'll see.

The files arrived from the House damaged in some way that's causing me to tear my hair out, so at present I'm forced to save them below as image files, rather than text. 

 

Now this chart is a bit deceptively selective, as Shay pointed out this morning, along with some background as to who is falling on which side of what:

The leadership’s plan doesn’t take into account the increased taxes people will pay when they buy booze, tobacco, satellite TV, digital downloads and gas – or when it comes time to pay property taxes. Those taxes will go up under the Democrats’ plan. The governor’s original budget, it should be noted, would have raised property taxes by $65 million, and had more layoffs and program cuts, as well as plenty of fee increases (rather than gas taxes) to pay for repairs to roads and bridges.

A number of Progressive lawmakers, and liberal Democrats, do not like many aspects of the legislative leaders’ package – they argue the budget still puts much of the burden on low-income Vermonters, as well as others including the disabled, elderly and children…

…Of the 10 in the Senate who voted against it, five were Democrats: Sens. Doug Racine, Ed Flanagan, and Tim Ashe of Chittenden County joined Dick McCormack (Windsor) and Mark MacDonald (Orange) to oppose the plan.

Documents below:

I’m driving home from a long ways off late at night. I’m tired, strung out on too much coffee, and I seem to be catching my kids’ cold (either that or Swine Flu). I tune around the AM dial and I pick up station after station from the greater NYC-ish area, all bemoaning the 5th straight loss by the Yankees, while at the same time the Mets hot streak is being widely praised. Lots and lots of comments from callers.

There are plenty of questions. How can they leave so many runners stranded? Why aren’t their hitters coming through in the clutch? When they do get run support, why is the bullpen underperforming? Is the manager overplaying some pitchers? Underplaying others? On the other side of town – solid team play. Good starting pitching, consistent bats. Feels good.

Next week, of course, it could all be a different story. Strong feelings from people who feel very invested in the success of their teams.

And I’m thinking to myself – this is what we do here, isn’t it?

Add Diane Lanpher (Add-3) to the growing list of lawmakers on the left indicating she likely won’t support the budget emerging from the legislature. It’s becoming clear that, not only will this budget not pass with a veto-proof majority, it won’t pass with many from the progressive end of the caucus.

Listening to reactions to this budget have been like watching a new film release’s tomatometer ratings drop as the reviews come in. So much of the growing frustration among the left and the constituency groups has been about the pointless political posturing/packaging of an income tax cut (particularly the cuts on the top tier) that – lets face it – is going to come at the cost of jobs. The legislature has done an exemplary job finding revenues and making careful cuts, but coming out with the income tax cut against the backdrop of the growing revenue hole strikes me as an act of self-sabotage.

The question is why. The last legislature seemed to live in terror of the political power of the governor, while this one has gotten over that terror in a resounding way (for the latest example, read about the VY decommissioning bill here). Why, then, are they negotiating on the Governor’s behalf, given that he keeps refusing to negotiate in good faith? Senator Shumlin has said “We have tried to strike a balance between what we hate and what they hate,”.

Dude – why make a point of looking out for his interests if he won’t give you the time of day?

Dunno. There is a strong, free floating fiscal conservative streak among the triumverate that seems to call so many of the shots in the Senate (Shumlin, Campbell and Republican Illuzzi). It’s a streak that seems to buy into much of the right wing line about taxes without having a clearly articulated ideology behind that buy in. As such, it feels far more to come from a simple fear of being outflanked politically. And that fear feeds a gamesmanship.

Fair enough. There is gamesmanship here, and it may well be that the weakness in the House (and to some extent, the Senate), is an honest desire not to play games with the people’s business. A desire to try and create a genuine compromise that people dealing in good faith who disagree can meet halfway on. The problem, again, is that assumption that they’re being dealt with in good faith by the Governor. They’re not. As such, going for a split-the-difference compromise at the expense of the serious concerns of members of their own caucus is a big loser. All you do is end up inadvertently sticking it to your own team – and where do you fall back to next after the Governor throws it back in your face?

So I respect the impulse to nobility, but its the wrong impulse in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And for god’s sake, if I hear one more time the “well, why aren’t you riding the Governor about this – it’s all his fault cop out one more time, I’m gonna turn large, green and dangerous. Open your eyes folks – we beat up on this Governor every day. But the colossal shortcomings of our chief executive do not translate to a get out of criticism free card. Criticism and scrutiny come with the job, just as praise does (and I haven’t seen anyone asking us to take back the significant amount of that we’ve been handing out this session – this aint a cafeteria, folks – this is politics).

In the Senate, Shumlin and company seem to recognize the game of it all, but not only are they working from a completely ungrounded and uncoordinated fiscal conservative narrative, they’re playing the wrong game. I get the feeling that Shumlin is playing chess, working out clever feints and subtleties of positioning, while the Governor is playing football. You can play some misdirection in football, but generally nothing more nuanced than a draw play. If you play it all as chess, by the time you’ve set up your Lasker-Bauer combination, Douglas has just run his fullback right over the board.

(It’s worth noting as well, that playing football would mean moving to a team sport, rather than one player moving pawns based on a secret plan, but I digress.)

In any event, its clear that – with the insistence of this cut of the most progressive of revenue sources in play against the painful program cuts and job losses – the legislature has opted for an approach to get the Governor on board, rather than to try and keep the whole caucus on board – or at least keep the left on board. And it kinda sucks, after all the great stuff this session, to feel planted right back in captive constituency land again. It may well be that this caucus simply can’t be held together, so working with the Governor is the only option (I’m not convinced of that, as this approach of half of what we hate vs. half of what the other team hates could just as easily be applied within the caucus across the progressive/blue dog divide, where at least you have a much better chance of having all parties play honestly).

There is one longshot scenario, though, that wouldn’t be so bad. If (when) the Governor rejects this budget, rather than go back and bend to his desires further, the legislature says fine, we tried this in an equatable way, but you wouldn’t play in good faith – now we’re doing it our way, and work – as I suggested in a previous diary – to craft a generally progressive budget to keep the left on board, with a couple big ticket gimmes to the blue dogs that they can hang their hats on. In fact, that’s the only reason I can see to continue to do the Governor’s negotiating for him after he’s picked up his toys and gone home. And actually, such a strategy would probably play quite well in the media and the public – and would certainly recapture the position of strength this legislature seems to be walking away from (as well as re-energize its traditional allies and constituency groups).

But that’s probably wishful thinking.

Sorry. I’d really like to feel less cynical about this. Maybe I will tomorrow. If I’m wrong and the Governor plays honorably and signs this pre-packaged compromise, I promise I’ll eat my computer. Figuratively, at least.

I was just treated to an interesting and unexpected phone call from the Citizens for Fire Safety, a well-known industry front group for bromine flame retardant manufacturers. It was an automated invitation to a conference call in progress, hosted by an individual whose name I didn’t catch (but who seemed to have a Vermont accent) as well as a fellow by the name of Thomas Brace. Brace was identified as a founder of the “National Association of State Fire Marshals” (more on them below), and identified himself as a former state Fire Marshal (the state of Minnesota, as it turns out).

The call concerned S.109, which passed the Senate unanimously. The House couldn’t get to it in the scramble, but it will likely find its way onto health legislation in conference committee. The bill would ban bromine as a flame retardant in furniture and textiles, as has been done already in Maine, Washington and Europe. The treatment includes chemicals known as PBDEs which build up in the environment. The class of PBDE’s of particular concern are called Decas. They accumulate in the body and can act as an outright toxin, as well as impact the endrocrine system not unlike PCBs, which are similar. It’s bad stuff:

“They can affect the developing brain and they can affect the developing reproductive system,” said EPA senior toxicologist Linda Birbaum…

…”I am very concerned for the human population,” Birnbaum said.

The call was an interesting strategy for a persuasion attempt. It must have cost an awful lot, and I can’t imagine that many people followed through and participated in the conference call. I did because I was curious, and what I was treated to was an extraordinary barrage of deceptions from an organization with close ties to bromine manufacturers – and which has previously spent hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying against similar legislation in other states.

The thrust of the call was to scare people and get them riled up against what the lead speaker called “the environmental lobby” which was getting “too strong” by virtue of this bill. Brace, acting as an expert, implied that fire fighters were united against this bill (until asked directly, when they got a little vague and changed the subject). The argument was that this was the only proven, effective such additive and banning it would cost lives.

I checked with the Chair of the Senate Natural Resources, Chittenden Senator Ginny Lyons, who knew exactly who these folks were and didn’t take them too seriously.  

For one thing, their argument is completely phony as there are non-toxic alternatives, such as RDP and polystyrene. Also, the unanimous vote in the Senate underscores the virtual unanimity among the players in this debate, including Robert Howe, the Vermont Fire Marshall, who testified during hearings on the bill. According to Lyons, these chemicals are 100 times more prevalent in breast milk in this country than in Europe, where they have been banned for some time, and its presence in the environment is increasing by 100 times a year in light of an industry working hard to expand their use. In her words, CFFS is “not citizens for fire safety, it’s citizens for more deca.”

In fact, the “star” of the call (Brace – who avoided a question about where he gets his own paycheck, saying that he did “consulting”), is a particular star of the industry effort, and was singled out by Friends of the Earth in a letter sent to state Governors last May.

From the letter:

CBS Evening News also reports that NASFM (National Association of State Fire Marshals) receives direct funding and pro bono services from the bromine fire retardant industry, raising further concerns about the credibility of the NASFM’s positions on a variety of fire safety issues.

These concerns are exacerbated by the fact that, for many years, the NASFM has shown an unwillingness to discriminate between funding sources, as evidenced by Maryland State Fire Marshal, Rocco J Gabriele, who as NASFM president in 1999, acknowledged to the Baltimore Sun, “Quite frankly, I don’t care where we get the money. I’m not proud. I’ll take money from whoever wants to give it to us.”

Inadequate internal policies against conflicts of interest are also apparent with respect to lobbying by former NASFM members, such as co-founder and Minnesota State Fire Marshal, Thomas Brace. Over the past year, Brace, while consulting to fire retardant manufacturers, testified in legislative hearings in both California and Washington State against restrictions on toxic fire retardants. Unfortunately, his testimpny contradicted that of state fire associations and officials who support fire retardant restrictions due to serious toxicity concerns.

The call specifically targeted Shap Smith, was crude, ham-handed, and probably won’t get too far. If you want to call them and tell them to keep their noses out of Vermont, here’s a phone number:

In the meantime, here’s a few greatest hits from the call. Sorry the quality is poor (and Chrome doesn’t seem to run the embedded audio script – here’s a link)…

First up, the evils of the environmental lobby:

Next up, entertaining stammering after a question about who they represent, and whether or not it includes any Vermonters or Vermont fire authorities (link):

Finally, a caller asks what the concerns are. Brace “wants to answer that question as clearly as he can” before completely avoiding the question and claiming that no recognized studies suggest any problem at all (link).

Simply put, these guys are pretty scummy. After sitting on that call, I felt like I needed a shower.

(A note on this diary: I’m not good with tax policy particulars, and I’m admittedly attempting this on the fly. By all means, feel free to chime in with corrections of fact or interpretation…)

The legislature continues to move at breakneck speed to adjourn this week. Not thrilled about the intense focus on working to a date certain, but it is what it is. Nobody wants to be accused of spending more money than necessary in this environment.

In any event, the package that’s emerging would rejigger the tax structure to close the growing budget hole in a variety of ways. Among them is an actual cut in income tax, including the marginal rates, which amount to a (yep) tax cut for the wealthy. In this environment, no less. Arg.

It seems crazy, but its in the context of a package that will likely make the overall tax system more progressive. In this way, its easier to give the complete picture higher marks than the individual parts. The marginal cut, of course, is to do two things: shore up “fiscal moderate” bragging rights for some lawmakers, and make it more palatable to the governor (not necessarily in that order, depending on who you’re talking to). As I’ve said before, I don’t think any idea that will get credited to anybody but the Governor will move the Governor away from a veto, but we’ll see I guess.

The proposed changes reduce the rates at the middle level most significantly, and upper incomes will be additionally hit by dropping the state tax payment from the deductions, and the so-dubbed cap gains loophole – a 40% exclusion for capital gains would be replaced by a $5,000 a year exemption for capital gains income, which will hit upper incomes hardest (although will have an impact on some middle-income taxpayers as well).

Sin taxes (both alcohol and cigs) are up. There is a a $19.8 million hit to the Education Fund and $26.5 million of further reductions that aren’t entirely clear yet (at least, I haven’t gotten that far, although the media is reporting it includes $600,000 in reduced benefits for low income, elderly, blind and disabled Vermonters).

More bad news is that more revenues will be pulled via the property tax (a tax I personally rather loathe). What’s not being talked about either is a tax on all digital downloads (up to and including ringtones) which is estimated to bring in a scant $1m next fiscal year. Love to see how they’re gonna pull that one off. In any event, its a sales tax which is, again, regressive.

In terms of big picture, there’s an eye towards rearranging the overall tax structure here, rather than targeting specific revenue sources in a case-by-case way. Clearly the desire is to appear balanced (a word repeated in the press release) and pragmatic, while maintaining an overall progressive directionality – if only barely. It’s a gamble, and one that doesn’t pay off:
a) if the Governor vetoes it anyway – where are they going to go for Negotiations Round 2? I shudder to think.
b) when people start demanding a Schindleresque accounting of state jobs lost and workers displaced against individual parts of the plan, such as top-tier income tax reductions.

If the Governor signs this, maybe it will all be worth it. If he doesn’t (and I’m betting he won’t, if for no other reason than just to make mischief), then some of these approaches will have to be seriously called into question in hindsight.

The Center for American Progress hosted a conference call for the media yesterday with Senate Finance Committe Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), and the President and co-founder of Doctors for America Dr. Vivek Murthy. The two, along with CAP President John Podesta, discussed strategies for moving towards comprehensive health care reform by this fall against the backdrop of studies released by CAP detailing the fact that, in Podesta’s words “the relationship between employment and health care is breaking down.”

The following is a map from the CAP site presenting some of their data:

Dr. Murthy’s organization is a year-old “grassroots” organization of doctors (by grassroots, I – or rather he – means completely member-funded and member-organized and not supported by an outside interest) which is prepared to be closely involved with the discussions over and promotion of reforms it sees as meaningful. His presence underscored the intention of Baucus, in cooperation with Senator’s Kennedy’s Health Committee, the House, and the White House, to depend heavily on the support of the medical community to promote their ultimate plan, whatever it may be. Some details on what is informing those discussions after the flip…

Baucus sounds likely to be the Senate point man on this, given Kennedy’s ailing health. But he expressed a strong commitment to seizing the opportunity to make significant changes in the American health care (non)system. He indicated that they are breaking out their analysis of the problem into three parts: delivery system reform, expanding coverage, and financing the system.

Delivery system reform is the main piece they have been engaging with up to now, with their approach on increased efficiency and cost savings informed by the work of Dartmouth’s John Wennberg, who has found dramatic differences in treatment between American hospitals, and advocates for more uniform, conservative, patient-focused treatment to cut costs. Baucus suggests that some of those savings could even be passed to providers in the face of declining medicare and medicaid reimbursements, given the drop-off in recent years.

But today, the committee starts holding roundtable discussions on the coverage issue, which is likely to kick the profile of these early discussions up a few notches.

Of course the big subtopic in this debate has been the matter of the “public option.” Presumably, the uninsured will be presented with a menu of options from a variety of insurance payers. A fundamental pillar of this approach among all the Democratic candidates for President last year was that one of these options would be a publicly funded one like medicare or medicaid. The pretense for opposing this from Republicans and some Democrats is that any public plan will just be too appealing and will draw participants away from the private plans.

(Yeah, that’s right – it’ll be too good. Can’t have that, can we?)

And of course, the GOP has reason for concern. During the campaign, John Edwards made no bones about the fact that such an approach could grease the wheels to a single payer system by creating the opportunity and the impetus for more and more citizens to buy into public coverage voluntarily, rather than imposing it by federal fiat. Realistically, I’ve seen little evidence that this administration would see that as a desirable goal, and as such would not be likely to encourage such a process, as Edwards would have (and Baucus is certainly not interested, pronouncing as he did that “we are not Canada, we are not Switzerland” and will be crafting “an American solution”). In fact, many observers have been concerned by some administration signals indicating a backing away from the public option entirely, although Obama himself recently affirmed his support for such an element to an eventual reform package.

For Baucus’s part, he indicated “it (the public option) wasn’t off the table, but it wasn’t at the center of the table,” which he further explained to mean that none of the most controversial aspects to an eventual package are being discussed at this point, as there’s a desire to attempt some degree of bipartisan consensus on some of the more peripheral elements and principles before moving to the divisive ones (notice, for example, that funding the system was the last thing on his list for discussion above).

In fairness, its hard to read the depth and quality of the commitment to bipartisanship at this stage. Given the intense take-no-prisoners partisanship of this Republican caucus, any absolute devotion to bi-partisanship would seem to amount to a policy suicide pact. But in any event, at this stage of the game, the open hand must be extended. We just have to hope that, given recent history, Baucus and his colleagues have some understanding of what they’re in for in the real world of Washington, and that’s not necessarily a safe bet based on this caucus’s history.

But the good news is that there does seem to be a clear intention to move quickly, and that the grassroots groundwork is already being laid to support change. Baucus stated his desire to have a bill out of his committee by mid-June.

And, of course, none of this could happen a moment too soon as, according to Podesta, the economic crisis is causing a bad situation to get worse quickly. Since 1999, the average employee contribution for health care has gone up over 80% when adjusted for inflation (well over 100% if left unadjusted). He quoted a recent survey which indicated that 19% of employers are planing to stop offering benefits in next 2-5 years. And nationally, 320,000 Americans have lost employee-sponsored health care in March alone.

In other words, there’s no time like the present.

Seen on a Facebook profile: "It's been said that a black man will be President when pigs fly… sure enough, 100 days into Obama's Presidency, swine flu."

Recently spotted Facebook groups:

• The Shap Smith Fan Club. Looking forward to the inevitable Shap Schwag on Cafe Press. 

• How Josef Stalin was a 'puppet' by the vermont cheese workers union. Hmf. As if everybody hasn't heard that one a million times… 

• And you gotta love this one: Woodstock Vermont Police Need Something Better To Do, with a total current membership of one high school student. Ah, no doubt there's a story there that many of us could've written at one time or another.

Update/addendum: LOL! Hard-right Vermont Tiger economist Art Woolf is apparently terrified of being economically "asphyxiated" by organic farms. Seriously. It's a growth industry nationally, so Mr. laissez-superfaire Woolf would be ecstatic, one would think – at least if he pretended to be a neutral economic observer. Somehow, I feel confident his telling choice of imagery would be a little bit different if it were a cluster of, say, defense contractors or coal-fired power plants we were experiencing.
 
After all, as we've noted in the past (yesterday, even), these guys are hardly neutral observers when it comes to anything smacking of environmentalism, which gives them the kneejerk, reactionary heebie-jeebies.

Update 2:

Vermont Tiger is, as usual, scolding politicians (well, Democrats and Progressives, at any rate) for deviating from laissez-faire absolutism. There’ve been a few times in the past where the “evidence” to support their arguments has made me raise an eyebrow, though… and this time its particularly the case. From VT Tiger:

There’s a great deal of data on this available, if our elected leadership chooses to look at it.  Spain, for instance, has long been touted as an example of a robust “green” economy, yet the data shows that, at least in Spain, the green economy costs more jobs than it creates.  In this study, it’s estimated that for every 4 jobs created, 9 will be lost.  This new Green Math simply doesn’t add up.

This is a study getting a lot of internet coverage across right wing websites and publications – and has been pushed repeatedly on Fox News. This is where it caught the eye of Media Matters, however:

(Study author) Calzada is reportedly a founding member of the Prague Network, which, according to Radio Prague, is “an international grouping of institutions aimed at countering panic connected with global warming,” or that Calzada is reportedly a fellow at the Centre for the New Europe, an organization that has reportedly received funding from ExxonMobil.

Now, birds of a feather, right? I’m not necessarily going to throw out somebody’s work because they get money from sources with an agenda – but it certainly does raise eyebrows. And Calzada cannot be reasonably considered a truly neutral party, given his close association with the Prague Network and the far right Ludwig Von Mises Institute. Also, VT Tiger (as well as Fox News) makes no mention of critics of the study – critics such as (gasp) the Wall Street Journal (!?) (after the flip):

But the study doesn’t actually identify those jobs allegedly destroyed by renewable-energy spending. What the study actually says is that government spending on renewable energy is less than half as efficient at job creation as private-sector spending. Specifically, each green job required on average 571,000 euros, compared with 259,000 euros in “average capital per worker” in the rest of the economy.

So how does that translate into outright job destruction? It’s simply a question of opportunity cost, the paper says: “The money spent by the government cannot, once committed to “green jobs”, be consumed or invested by private parties and therefore the jobs that would depend on such consumption and investment will disappear or not be created.”

On paper, that makes sense. But Spain’s support for renewable energy came out of existing tax revenues — there were no special levies on corporate activity designed to underwrite clean energy.

The money the government has spent on clean energy may have edged out other government spending, but it’s hard to see how it could have edged out private-sector spending, especially when the Socialist government there has reduced corporate income-tax rates, most recently this past January.

And just where did that study come from? Professor Gabriel Calzada is the founder and president of the Fundacion Juan de Mariana, a libertarian think tank founded in 2005. He’s also a fellow of the Center for New Europe, a Brussels-based libertarian think thank than in recent years apparently accepted funding from Exxon Mobil.

One doesn’t even have to engage with Tiger’s (and Calzada’s) underlying premise that any job that comes through government investment is inherently bad to realize that this one study is nothing anybody should be hanging their hat on.

Very big turnout. Biggest I’ve seen in a while (and, obviously, without the benefit of a nationwide media push via Fox News playing in every McDonalds, and the associated buzz… not bad at all). Please note that the video is… er… rated ‘R’ for language, in case your kids are nearby.