Compromise is a word that often drives some of us lefties crazy. Most of us are rightfully concerned of losing ground (or of not gaining ground) to society’s ills, or just as rightfully concerned that when politicians talk of compromise, they are often disingenuously using the term to placate supporters when, in fact, they only pretend at sharing those supporters’ values.

On the other hand, our political system is predicated on the very notion of compromise. As much as we would like to think otherwise, standing firm on every issue that defines us as “liberal” or “conservative” equals stasis. Representative democracy is designed that way.

So what can we expect from a system with such contradictory forces in play, not simply during the endgame that is the budget season, but in the midst of a rapidly escalating fiscal crisis? Especially given that the opposition (in our state, at any rate) seems to have a hard time playing the game honestly? Douglas is now infamous for throwing out wacky ideas that are impractical or otherwise meaningless, and as such his primary motivation in the political process has simply been to sabotage it (see his ill-timed attempt to shoot down Marriage Equality without appearing to, that of course, blew up in his face) and lay the problems at the Democrats’ feet.

They’ve been so successful at it, and its become so routine, that Republicans aren’t even pretending at being particularly honorable about it anymore. Take this from Hallenbeck Remsen yesterday:

House Republicans called a news conference to chastise Democrats for failing to get busy sooner on budget belt-tightening. House Republican Leader Patti Komline, R-Dorset, said…

They brought out a “master list of reduction ideas” assembled last December, plus a proposal Assistant House Republican Leader Pat McDonald, R-Berlin, developed in early January. McDonald said these were ideas to explore, not ideas the caucus endorsed.

Since House Republicans didn’t have the solution in hand, what were they trying to do?

“We are hoping to inspire them (Democratic leadership, since Democrats have majorities in both the House and Senate) to become a lot bolder,” Komline said.

“Inspire” Democrats? Did anybody in the room even maintain a straight face at that comment?

Clearly they have no ideas, here, and don’t care even to pretend that they do. They just want to tear down the majority for its own sake, good government be damned.

So given all this, I was asked by a lawmaker the other day how I thought the legislature would be judged by grassroots Dems on the budget. Not a simple question.

The nexus between what must be done and what should be done is a subjective one. Lawmakers will never agree with each other on where it lies, let alone with all other Vermonters. This is why the reservoir of trust the majority has been rebuilding with voters is so important. In recent years, the collective legislative majority had lost much of that trust from seeming to place itself above many of the stated concerns of its constituents. Whether that impression sprang from reality, perception and style, or some combination depends on who you ask – but it was real, nonetheless.

Smith and Nease have managed to rebuild some of that trust quickly, and even the previously-maligned Shumlin has bounced back, not simply by benefiting from the work of his House counterparts, but by showing the public his genuine passion and commitment for the explosively controversial marriage equality law.

That trust translates to wiggle room among the base. It makes it easier to swallow a bitter pill if you trust the pharmacist.

Still, the timing is poor for a fiscal crisis. That rebuilt trust is still in a fetal stage, and if leadership moves carelessly, it could easily be stillborn, leaving voters more cynical than before.

The fact is that this legislature will be judged by the Democratic base, by the media, by independents and even by the right on two things: policy priorities and, let’s call it relevance. I’d like to say that the policy half of the equation is more significant than the political, but the real truth is, they’re probably about equal. The legislature needs to show that its every bit the power player that Douglas is – a hard thing to do when your opponent is interested in little more than sabotaging you.

An example of what I mean. I was watching an otherwise lousy episode of Star Trek: TNG the other day. A subplot concerned the android Commander Data’s frustration at losing some weird strategy/speed futuristic board game to some annoying genius alien guy with really bad skin. His solution, in the end, was to stop trying to win, and to simply play to counter all his opponents moves without any other objective. His bad-skinned opponent became so frustrated, he stormed off – and Data won by default.

It’s not precisely equivalent, but Douglas is – more or less – playing Governor under the Data strategy.

So here are some watchwords I would suggest:

Adaptability: I’m not talking fiscal, here – I’m talking political. A small example – I get concerned when I hear this concrete commitment to adjourning by a date certain. That’s painting a target on your head for Jim Douglas, as that’s an easy thing to sabotage and increase frustration and entropy within the majority caucus. Sometimes lines in the sand are not a statement of your power, so much as they are handing power to the other guy. None of this should be construed to mean that I think the end date is a big deal – its not. I just get concerned that our legislature can be as light on its feet as it needs to be.

Plan for the worst. That means – like it or not – you have to expect a veto. Getting the left and the right to stay with the caucus takes different strategies, but it simply has to be done. Despite the fact that its typical in the media to beat up on the left for being non-pragmatic, the fact is that the lefties have a clearer worldview than so-dubbed wise moderates. A such, they can keep their eyes on the big picture, as long as their priorities are respected.

Moderates, on the other hand, will need a gimme. Some specific concession they can hang their hats on.

Both will need to be placated, while at the same time showing the public a clear, forward-thinking set of priorities. Unemployment benefits and health care are more important to more people than business tax breaks and even rest areas.

Revenues – go for it. All the revenue ideas have been vetted in the media and the public. Whatever damage was to come from them has already largely been done, given that they are subtle enough that nobody’s gonna be all that aware of whether or not they get implemented anyway. Go for ’em – and stop worrying about things like offsetting marginal rate cuts. That will neither bring the Governor along (because there’s nothing in that proposal he can claim victory about, so he won’t give a damn as a notion that most recently hit the press by way of Peter Shumlin, he won’t be able to lord it over Dems as a political victory), nor win you any kudos from anybody in the public.

Transparency. Talk, talk, talk. Keep the public in the loop, always.

…and on that veto… whatever the “Plan B” is in the face of a veto – and assuming the worst (that the veto is upheld), make the headline cuts for try #2 (insignificant as they may be) on the Governor’s doorstep. Cut his office, his PR people, first and foremost. Those cuts alone won’t get you where you want to be in terms of policy, but it forces a put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is narrative onto the Governor, and that could help give you leverage to bring in wayward caucus members.

More on this later. Obviously its a big topic.

Where were you the last time a GOP Senator dumped the Party?

I was working at the Democratic Party at the time, and let’s just say Senator Leahy’s account that – “we knew [about the Jeffords switch] in Vermont. We knew it long – apparently long before anybody down here. It was well talked about. I see Bill Baroonth (ph) here from Vermont. He knows everybody was talking about it before it happened.” – falls in the “things that make you go ‘hmmm'” category for me. There were two of us in the party office at the time, and my boss (Mark Michaud) had the task (via Leahy’s Washington office) of making it all come together on the ground – very quickly – as well as keep it totally hush-hush… and let me tell you, it caught us flat-footed. We only knew a couple days out, which was problematic since I was talking mornings off that week to teach a class in Randolph. Had to do some crazy last minute rearranging.

Anyway, it all worked out so smoothly. There was some sort of right wing gathering in Montpelier and we didn’t want the event crashed, so Burlington was chosen. The evening before, the Chittenden County Dems were phone banking already (I forget why), so it was a simple matter to ask them to shift their focus to turnout for the big announcement. Big crowds, me BSing my way past the cops pretending to be a reporter with a camera (without credentials…heh)… it all came on very, very quickly, but came together perfectly

I dunno. Maybe in Leahy’s office they were talking about it a long time before it happened, but if so, they sure kept it hidden from the rest of us. But that was some fun week, I tellya.

A good read from today’s Freeps:

Vermont Yankee Oversight Panel (VYOP) report was 50 pages long, which makes it difficult to summarize in an opinion piece limited to 600 words, but as the VYOP’s first chairman, I believe it is important for all Vermonters to understand the panel’s assessment of Yankee’s reliability. Our report was a consensus report created by four individuals with many years of broad nuclear power experience.

The rumor around the state, that the VYOP gave Entergy’s Vermont Yankee nuclear plant a clean bill of health, is simply not true. With significant reservations, we concluded that Entergy’s Vermont Yankee (VY) nuclear plant might operate “reliably” for 20 more years if Entergy made all the required repairs and updates, but thus far there is no methodology in place to assure Vermonters that those costly repairs are made.

The VYOP uncovered serious and system-wide problems. We concluded that VY has both mechanical and cultural problems that Entergy must address before any license extension to 2032.

Check out the whole thing. An important read.

Jon Margolis is a smart guy, and his blog is always interesting reading. He does suffer from that most common malady of journalists, and particularly journalist-pundit hybrids; that is, the need to demonstrate his independence and objectivity by making sure he never bops right-wing silliness without smacking the left as well. As though the cosmic balance must be restored against some arbitrary, moderate-fulcrum-point. The truth is simply, of course, that sometimes right wingers just say (and believe) silly things, and silly things are silly all on their own.

But nobody’s perfect, right? Margolis is a wise fellow who knows a lot of stuff, and that’s what makes things like this such fun reading:

Conveniently illustrating the absurdity of (“the ‘businesses will run away’ delusion”), the folks at the Vermont Tiger web site recently warned against raising taxes because ” people will leave a state that is failing economically And they will head for a place where the business environment is friendly. Like North Carolina.”

North Carolina? Give us a break. The “business environment” may be great down there. The economy is a disaster. With a 10.8 percent unemployment rate (Vermont’s is 7.2), North Carolina is the state that’s “failing economically.”

Remember, these are the folks who not long ago wanted Vermont to follow the economic model of Ireland. Who, in fact, may have named their site after the “Celtic Tiger,” nickname for the Irish economic boom of not long ago.

The inanity of this comparison boggles the mind. Ireland is a sovereign nation with control of its currency. It did ease financial regulation and cut taxes in the early 1990s, but it increased spending, largely on education, mooching off the European Union and going into debt.

Oh, and its boom has gone bust, largely because it is under-taxed and under-regulated (and possibly corrupt; see here). No intent here to trash the folks at Vermont Tiger, who seem civilized and who sometimes make sense. But their economic analyses should be viewed through the filter of their Irish delusion.

No response yet at the Tiger. Maybe they’re just hoping if they ignore Margolis, he’ll go away. Or maybe they simply don’t have a good response.

In any event, Margolis has hinted he’ll restore the cosmic balance again by beating up on the left tomorrow. Heh. Maybe it’ll be GMD.

I want to make a few points, here, in response to the diaries below. If, after reading this, anyone is curious as to what I’m more specifically talking about, click here.

1. There’s a reason circumstantial evidence is not welcome in trials. It’s that circumstantial evidence alone can point you all kinds of places that may or may not actually exist. Especially when one mixes in presuppositions about motives, malice, methods and madness of parties in a case.

2. I firmly believe in the maxim “don’t rush to conclusions.” With any developing story, one wants to wait until the facts are not only in, but are clearly distinguishable from opinion, rumor, and presupposition. This is especially true when involving the quantum intricacies of a science as complex and nuanced as biology.

3. There are many kinds of logic, replete with many kinds of fallacies. God is love, love is blind, Stevie Wonder is blind, so Stevie Wonder is god presents several of them at once. But those fallacies are deceptive once you are lost in them – which is all the more reason that numbers 1 and 2 above are so important. If you run to a conclusion, its an easy thing to build the path behind you and create an entirely self-consistent argument.

Ibn al-Haytham said that “truth is sought for its own sake.” If we live under that maxim, our conclusions should be handed out sparingly – even minimalistically. That will, ultimately, make them more valuable in the long run.

A week or so back, “Turkana” posted the following user diary at dKos. It’s strongly worded, direct and well-spoken – like a good political blog post should be. And it’s very provocative. It calls the question lingering in the back of a lot of folks’ minds after the so-called “tea party” demonstrations on the 15th.

Do I think he’s onto something? Absolutely. Do I think it’s quite as straightforward as this? I’d have to say ‘no.’ Is that my discomfort talking, rather than my powers of rational observation?

You decide (reprinted with permission).

They Hate Him Because He Is “Black”

by Turkana

Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 10:34:53 AM PDT

I deliberately use the word black rather than the words African American. The latter lacks the proper emotional value. It is cultural and geographical. The former is visceral. Bigotry is not subtle. It is primal. It is not about ideas. It is irrational.

He is smarter and more educated and more articulate than they. A self-made man, he represents everything they would claim to value. But he looks different, to them. They hate him because he looks different. They hate him because he is dark. In “Western” “Culture,” the very words black and dark have powerfully negative value. They often are used as synonyms for the sinister.

Continued after the fold…

They hated President Clinton, and tried to destroy him. But one of their elected governors didn’t talk secession. They didn’t talk revolution. They didn’t attempt (and miserably fail) to launch nationwide protests against him. Bill Clinton was a lot of things. He was not black.

President Obama is no crazy liberal. He is increasing defense spending. Even Alan Greenspan is suggesting economic solutions more akin to “socialism.” Gun lovers have nothing to fear. On policy grounds, we crazy liberals have been criticizing him from day one. The radical right have been lambasting him. With the nation fighting two wars and an economic meltdown, they openly hope he fails. But they are not about policy. They are about hatred. And they hate Obama as they have never hated any president. It’s not complicated.

The Department of Homeland Security just warned:

Right-wing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.

“Extremist” is now a corporate media phenomenon. Glenn Beck? Rush Limbaugh? Ann Coulter? Bill O’Reilly? Faux News?

They hate him not because of policy or politics. They hate him because of who he is. Not like them. By the color of his skin. It’s time to stop pretending or excusing or evading the obvious. They hate him because he is black!

Update [2009-4-16 15:43:21 by Turkana]: From kos’s front page post: Georgia’s State Senate, by near unanimous vote, threatens to secede. I don’t recall that happening, under President Clinton, either…

Isn’t it refreshing to be able to talk concretely about the candidates for Governor so early in the cycle?

So its been months since the Favoritism/Voter File kerfuffle, and by all accounts, all are playing by the same rules and the Welch and Leahy offices are taking care not to get too close to it all. But to say the nascent scramble for the Democratic nomination for Governor has quieted down would be a big mistake.

Deb Markowitz supporters have been out talking down the very notion of a primary (which is so unbelievably wrong – a Primary is the medicine we need – after all, the last few cycles of anointed candidates hasn’t turned out so well… but I digress…). Meanwhile, Anthony Pollina and Doug Racine were spotted Thursday morning at a Montpelier coffeehouse discussing… well, it’s not hard to speculate. Both Markowitz and Racine are raising money (although Markowitz and a more prodigious rate, from all accounts), both have paid staffers (Markowitz a Campaign Manager and Racine a fundraiser). Peter Shumlin has managed to become an almost daily presence in the news, and almost always in a pro-active policy context, rather than playing defense to the Governor. And if all that’s not enough, the topic is also the only political subject anybody wants to talk about.

Still the better part of two years from the election, Vermonters are in uncharted territory. The old rulebook has been thrown out, largely replaced by the rulebook that the rest of the country has been using for some time, and it all makes for interesting observation, speculation and conversation.

I’ve found myself close to supporting a candidate, and then backed off again. It is, after all, very early. Still, I may well gravitate towards a clearer preference, which would limit the number and type of diaries I could really post on the matter. But like everyone, for me its about balancing an equation with roughly four variables; candidates’ stances on policy, how electable the candidate is, how serious the candidate is about the race and questions of character. Sprinkle in to that equation each candidate’s unique qualities (whatever they may be), and you’ve probably got the breakdown of the roadmap we all use – although each of us as individuals weight the value of those variables differently.

So follow after the fold and let’s take a quick snapshot of the four likeliest candidates and where they land in this equation (leaving off character, which is not only the most subjective of all the variables, its also – obviously – a touchier, more complicated one that I’d rather not encourage a flamewar in the comments section about)…

Candidate:	Bartlett	Markowitz	Racine	Shumlin
Policy:	In the right place on social issues, definitely among the more fiscally conservative of Dems. Early signs are she’d run as someone who could peel moderate Dems back from Douglas, which suggests a run to the right, but isn’t sending clear signals yet	No policy record, which is both a weakness and a strength, depending on how she and her opponents play it. Has been telling a lot of folks that she is more conservative than they think, sometimes even sounding a bit apologetic. Focusing on the middle/right end of the Dem spectrum seems to be the early election strategy.	Pretty strong lefty policy record (with some deviations) – identifies strongly with small business interests. Already looking to consolidate and shore up the left behind him	Has been piling up the policy headlines like a house afire. Will try to shore up the pragmatic, socially-liberal, fiscally-responsible meme with a record of victories and the associated alliances that come with them.
Electability:	Would likely depend on persuasion – that on the issues and in head to head comparisons, she will win over swing voters.	Money: Is already on the way to breaking fundraising records (hubbub is she wants to raise a phenomenal $250k by this summer’s reporting period). Looking to raise an amazing $2 million, which would be a massive advantage. Will present herself as a more competent manager than Douglas	Math: If he matches his previous numbers against Douglas and Hogan, but can add onto that total from his since-increased electoral clout in the Chittenden suburbs such as Essex and South Burlington (where he runs stronger than any other Senator), it’s over. Most likely to keep a Prog out of the race as well.	Has experience with a statewide campaign and will likely try to leverage relationships he’s made through high profile policy battles with the Governor into enough increased support to win.
Seriousness:	She sounds serious, but as Senate Appropriations Chair, has a particularly hard challenge in looking like a candidate until after the session. Will that be too late for her to get involved, or if she’s counted out early, does that create room for an underdog resurgence later – perhaps in the fall?	Clearly has a campaign plan and is acting week to week on it. Has called every potential major donor in the state so often, people are starting to chuckle about it (and I’m not saying that’s a bad thing – it’s impressive). Maybe gambling too much on her ability to scare the others out of a primary, where move to the right could otherwise hurt.	Has a special burden after previous unsuccessful campaign to show folks he’s serious early, and has not yet done that to the satisfaction of many who have supported him in the past. Further hamstrung by organizational/strategic comparisons to the  better-funded Markowitz, although it’s clear he’s in this all the way.	Keeping too mum on his intentions at this point to really judge, but is generating more solid press through his position in the Senate than the other three combined.
Unique qualities (good and bad):	Pro: Can have a real no-nonsense, straight-talking quality when she gets going. Could appeal to primary voters.       Con: Only one in the crowd who’s never been on a statewide ballot. Fundraising will be tough	Pro: Has a coalition of supporters from the very liberal (Linthilac/Stetson) to conservative (rumor is that Harlan Sylvester is a supporter… interesting if true).       Con: Has been chummy enough with Douglas that many legislators are annoyed.	Pro: Uniquely appreciated among both liberal constituency groups and many in the business community.       Con: Has the baggage of his failure to be promoted from Lt. Governor to Governor (and related questions of his toughness) hanging over him.	Pro: Best person in the state on the stump this side of Bernie. Can raise a lot of money quickly       Con: Generates stronger negative feelings among his detractors than the others.

UPDATE 4/22: Still haven’t gotten a response from Senator Ashe to my email asking him why he opposed this. I’ll let you know when I do.

UPDATE #2: Heh. Shortly after receiving email from a reader who is one of his constituents (stating, I think affectionately,  that Ashe “pretty much sucks at email”), the Senator got back to me to say that he hadn’t been checking his email and that I should give a call…which I will tomorrow (its too late tonight) and will report back. I’m genuinely baffled as to why a lefty like Ashe would vote against this, which a roomful of lefties at our activist meeting last year identified as a priority.

UPDATE #3 The good Senator took the time to email me and let me know how bent out of shape he is about my updates to this diary. Clearly, he’s not a reader – I don’t think the above quaifies as actual “criticism” at this site.

Of course, in the same amount of time and effort he took to bring me up-to-date on all his myriad good works in his email, he could have simply answered the question about his opposition to the primary bill, but I’m supposed to call him about that. Methinks the Senatorial learning curve has not quite been completed. I will call tonight and report back.

UPDATE #4: Very pleasant conversation with Senator Ashe. Basically, he voted the way he did because of a clear, strong distaste for the idea of a Primary in August. It was a distaste that was stronger than any positives he felt regarding an earlier Primary, which he rightfully feels would be better moved father up to some time like June. Told him I thought he was letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. At any rate, it was clear that there was nothing deeper about his vote. It occurs to me that as the only semi-sorta-Prog in the Senate, any such vote he casts that doesn’t seem to cleanly line up with what one would expect to be the left/liberal ideal will be greeted with eyebrow-raising. That probably won’t prove to be much fun for the guy.

---

As you’ve probably heard by now, the Senate approved a third reading vote for the Primary adjustment by a 21-9 vote. And yes, it was the barely-relevant 3 week shift, but that’s 3 weeks better than it was. After the pro forma final vote, which will come either tomorrow or the next day, the challenge will be in the House where, although there is interest in the House Gov Ops Committee, there seems to be little enthusiasm from leadership, as some seem to consider this a “tough” vote. Why it would be is strictly an issue for the Montpelier insider bubble, as its hard to imagine a public backlash on something so dry – given that we’re only talking three weeks, here.

The opposition was spearheaded by Sen. Doyle (R-Washington) and effectively countered by Senate Gov Ops Chair White (D-Windham). Basically, Doyle ran through a fairly silly laundry list, hoping something might stick; dismissing all legal concerns over the overseas ballots (downplaying – questionably to the point of misrepresentation – the pressure being brought to bear on other states as well as Vermont on this issue from the feds), and moaning about the irreparable harm three measly extra weeks would do to our “citizen legislature” because of all the folks that will be on fishing trips and how inconvenient it all is to candidates. It was not a particularly distinguished performance.

I’ll put the full roll call beneath the fold, but there are two points of interest. One – Republican Senator Illuzzi voting with the majority, while his Democratic seatmate Senator Starr voting with the Republicans. Sometimes I wonder if both these guys are just contrarians.

More interesting was D-P Senator Ashe of Chittenden County voting with the Republicans (shades of the Burlington City Council?). One wonders what exactly that is about, and I’ve sent an email asking him. Ashe has traditionally held office as – and identified as – a capital-P Progressive until he won the Senate by going through the Dem Primary (something I encouraged at the time and continue to today). Still, it’s an odd vote when you consider that the obvious little-p progressive stance would be to create the opportunity for healthy, meaningful primaries, to break out the calendar that institutionally shields incumbents from empowered challenges, and to therefore support the bill that overall enhances the democratic process.

So why the vote? A cynical person might see this as either a) relating to the smaller Progressive Party’s possible fear of dealing with non-hand-picked primary candidates, or b) simply an interest in making primaries more problematic (which could be simple self-interest). Am I that cynical? I’m a cynical guy, to be sure, but I’m gonna withhold any conclusions until I hear from him. Interesting, at any rate. Roll call follows…

The vote on the amendment to change the bill’s wording from the second Tuesday in August to the fourth was the same as the vote to approve a third reading:

Ashe no

Ayer yes

Bartlett yes

Brock no

Campbell yes

Carris yes

Choate yes

Cummings yes

Doyle no

Flanagan yes

Giard yes

Hartwell yes

Illuzzi yes

Kitchel yes

Kittell yes

Lyons yes

MacDonald yes

Maynard no

Mazza no

McCormack yes

Miller yes

Mullin no

Nitka yes

Racine yes

Scottn no

Searsy yes

Shumlin yes

Snelling no

Starr no

White yes  

…even if the candidate turns out to be one of them (a legislator)?

Since Jim Douglas has been in office, the Dems in the legislature have had a poor track record of providing basic support to their candidates for Governor. Many stayed as far away from Peter Clavelle as they could – in many cases refusing to even endorse him. Scudder Parker had his number one issue – health care – pulled out from under him during the Catamount Health discussions that couldn’t have been better timed and crafted to undermine him if they’d been planned that way. The teamwork and coordination typical of other states in this has been trumped by a terrified me-firstism that gets, frankly, a little pathetic.

This year could be the biggest fail of all, though, because the legislature understands that it has a responsibility, not to support that candidate in a partisan manner, but to recognize the need to act in good faith with the voters by promoting good government and a fair, functional electoral system.

They understand it, but may not act.

I’m talking, again, about the bill to move the Primary election to an earlier date. An action that would recognize that the current date is so close to the General, it is nearly impossible for a challenger to emerge from a tough primary and have the time and resources to turn on a dime and put up a meaningful November contest. Political parties are thereby motivated to quash primary challenges and anoint a winner who can get started running against the incumbent ASAP. All of this is obviously anti-democratic and amounts to an incumbent protection racket. It’s also bad government in that the state has been sued over its handling of federal reporting deadlines that are arguably impractical to meet given the increased burden placed on the Secretary of State in such a short period.

In other words, fixing this is legislators’ jobs – unrelated to partisan concerns. And yet, even under this non-partisan, good-government scenario, the majority may choose to follow tradition and stick it to their candidate.

According to Barlow, the bill to be voted out of Senate today will likely be amended to change the date of the altered primary from the second week in August to the fourth. In other words, the Senate would vote to move the Primary up by a paltry 3 weeks. Good grief. It should be June for pity’s sake. And folks can’t handle the second week in August?

Senator Jeanette White, Chair of Senat Government Operations, says “Some people felt that the second week in August was too early”. What are their concerns? Apparently legislators’ esoteric fretting about moving the filing deadline too close to the legislative session.

In other words, it is – once again – all about the legislators comfort level. Ask recent gubernatorial challengers how they feel about legislators’ comfort level.

At our activist meeting before the session, moving the primary emerged as the groups number one priority. If it doesn’t happen because legislators put an archaic sense of symmetry over what is best for Vermont, that’s not going to go over well. If that’s just a lame excuse, and legislators are simply afraid of enacting what should be a no-brainer of an improvement to our election system, that’ll go over even worse.

For a little context, here were the dates of other states’ primary elections in 2008.

From the Senate President Pro Tem's Office: 

Since January 2008, the state has cut $70 million from the state budget and the current FY10 budget contains $28 million in additional cuts. To alleviate the need to make further cuts, which would devastate essential state services and layoff over three hundred state employees, Senator Shumlin outlined a revenue package that would raise roughly $25 million. Vermont is only one of nine states that has the capital gains loophole in place.

“With the capital gains loophole, Vermont is taxing hard working people more than those who live off their investments or trust funds,” said Senator Shumlin. “This is an unfair tax policy and I am pleased to have proposed its elimination today.

By building on the House's revenue package and closing the capital gains loophole, the proposal also lowers Vermonters income taxes by lowering the marginal tax rates. The proposal would drop Vermont's top marginal rate from 1st to 5th nationally. Under this proposal, all taxpayers without capital gains (84% of Vermonters) will have lower taxes.

The following details were included:

$ 8.4 million H.442 Misc. Tax Bill – Accept Revenue Provisions

$ 4.2 million Satellite Gross Receipts Tax @ 5%

$ 2.0 million Increase the Other Tobacco Products Tax from 41% to 92%

$ 4.5 million Increase the Cigarette Tax by 25 cents from $1.99 to $2.24 per pack

$ 6.0 million Increase the Liquor Tax from 25% to 35% of gross receipts

$25.1 million TOTAL

Personal Income Tax Proposal

Lowers marginal tax rates on all types of income for all taxpayers.

Current Law     Proposed Marginal Rates     Rate Change     Percent Change
3.6%                 3.50%                                    -0.10                     -2.8%
7.2%                 7.10%                                    -0.10                     -1.4%
8.5%                 8.25%                                    -0.25                     -2.9%
9.0%                 8.50%                                    -0.50                     -5.6%
9.5%                 8.95%                                    -0.55                     -5.8%

Obviously there's a lot to discuss here, so there'll be more to come.