Jeff Segal at “The Big Money” (I’d never heard of it either… hat tip to TPM) reports on continued murmurings in California about legalizing and taxing marijuana, especially in light of their massive $15 billion budget shortfall, which may rise as high as $42 billion next year.

So what are the numbers? A national legalization effort would save nearly $13 billion annually in enforcement costs and bring in $7 billion in yearly tax revenues, according to a study by Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron. Since California represents 13 percent of the U.S. economy, those numbers suggest the state could save $1.7 billion in enforcement costs and nab up to $1 billion in revenues. That doesn’t include any indirect revenues as, for example, rural farming communities grow or marijuana tourism, which has been lucrative for the Netherlands, takes off.

Of course it also doesn’t include the cost of creating a regulatory regime. And taking one nationwide study and extrapolating savings for a state based on its overall percentage of the economy is a crude calculus at best, but its probably helpful for a broad, ballpark notion of what such a legalization and regulation regime might generate in terms of revenues.

So what if we plugged Vermont, which represents a whopping .2% of the U.S. economy into that equation? Using the above logic, that would bring us down $26 million in enforcement costs, and up $14 million in increased revenue for a total budgetary impact of $40 million. Not a magic pill, but nothing to sneeze at.

Our expectations and hopes for the Obama administration should be dialed way down, as least as far as ethics and justice go. I’m too tired and revolted to write about it, so I’ll let Greenwald handle it, from a post entitled “Obama fails his first test on civil liberties and accountability — resoundingly and disgracefully”

Senate Democrats had long  vehemently opposed the use of the “state secrets” privilege in exactly the way that the Bush administration used it in this case, even sponsoring legislation to limits its use and scope.  Yet here is Obama, the very first chance he gets, invoking exactly this doctrine in its most expansive and abusive form to prevent torture victims even from having their day in court, on the ground that national security will be jeopardized if courts examine the Bush administration’s rendition and torture programs

Click on the whole link if you can stomach it. This is as well documented, horrific and frightening an abuse as you’ll find, and it puts us squarely at odds with another nation that should be our ally. This was an easy first case, if the Obama administration was truly to be a return to civilized behavior. The kind of case that makes you want to comfort yourself by believing that there’s a hell where all the people responsible could expect to find themselves in the afterlife. If, as the fanboys are insisting, Obama will turn on a dime and make this all better in time – all I have to say is it damn well better be soon.

Okay, I can't take it anymore. Here's from the editorial from the Times Argus/Rutland Herald today:

The economic crisis appears to have transformed Douglas into the kind of radical conservative that voters rejected at the ballot box in November.

Let's be clear: they endorsed this guy. They always endorse this guy. Every freaking election. They lavish him with praise in their endorsements, then play the role of opponent the rest of the year, and they think that's okay – that they don't look like complete boobs.

And why??? Because its all about posing. It's about trying to look like wise, “nonpartisan” arbiters of truth, which means going with their brains only part of the time, because going with your brains leads you to *gasp* liberalism. That's why on a few hot button issues – particularly economic – they chart out an intellectually uncoordinated “middle road” that often doesn't stand up to scrutiny from either side. On social issues, they go with their guts and brains and generally lean left – and when it comes to making an endorsement for Governor, well – that's their big chance to balance the scales in their eyes, so nobody can tar them with the dreaded liberal bias tag that the professional media is oh so terrified of.

Well, it's bunk, it doesn't work, and no, nobody's impressed when you repeatedly give a leg up to the guy who will work against most of what you editorialize as good and proper the other 364 days out of the year. It just makes you look petty and craven, and trying to pretend that Douglas has somehow “transformed” is a load of crap.

This is Jim Douglas, this has always been Jim Douglas, and everybody who works in or around the capital seems to know that except for the editorial boards of whoever does the endorsements for the Argus and Herald. You own a heaping share of responsibility for heaping this guy on us. Step up and take that responsibility.

• This week’s Tottentastic: Shay’s list of seven gubernatorial wannabes includes Windsor Senator John Campbell but not Chuck Ross, as my list did. Ross is a perennial rumor, and it will likely go no further than that, but I’d be equally surprised if Campbell steps into this dynamic primary field. Wouldn’t surprise me at all to see him go for the Lite Gov spot though, even though many folks believe that Tom Costello will make another run at it himself.
• Also on Totten-reported gubernatorial news is the tidbit that Deb Markowitz has retained Jason Powell, the Vermont Director for the Obama campaign, to run her campaign for the state’s top spot. Interesting, if true, as nobody riled both campaign staff and the activists in the greater Dem infrastructure more than Powell. He was a bridge burner among the very people Markowitz will depend on in a primary like few I’ve ever seen. Her potential primary opponents may see this as good news, frankly.

  Why the choice then? Speculation centers on Carolyn Dwyer, who has emerged as a primary ally of Markowitz’s, according to reports. Powell, along with his partner, former Coordinated Campaign Director Kristina Althoff (with whom he was seen as a sort of “team” with and who similarly got on the bad side of many in the CC and the party infrastructure), did make a point of staying on the good side of the Team Leahy crowd – including Dwyer – even as they ran afoul of many of the grunts and the rank-and-file. During the campaign season, the atmosphere at the Party became so toxic that Chair Ian Carleton was reportedly forced to parachute in for an intervention of sorts. Sources suggest that Althoff, who was brought on as “interim” Director at the VDP, withdrew from consideration for the permanent top spot after former coordinated campaign staffers were polled as to whether or not they could work for her again. No word on what the results were…

  In any event, Powell’s new position suggests that his relationship with many who call the shots is still solid, which likely means Althoff’s is as well. Given this – and given that Dwyer has already stepped up to run Senator Leahy’s re-election campaign – don’t be surprised if Althoff gets tapped to run Peter Welch’s re-election campaign, given the strong influence Leahy folks have in Welchworld.

• I’m an agnostic sort, but seeing cancer survivor Ruth Bader Ginsberg (and way-old John Paul Stevens, for that matter) hold out as long as she has on the Supreme Court so she can be replaced by President Obama and not Bush makes me wonder if the country hasn’t received a little help from on high.
• At the outset of the session, I was getting very mixed signals from leader-types in the two Houses of the Legislature regarding the path of the same-sex marriage bill. Talk in the House seemed to be of continuing to “lay the groundwork” for the future, while talk in the Senate was of moving relatively quickly and decisively to get it done. Given that the new House bill has an eye-popping 59 co-sponsors, I suppose the Senate approach is carrying the day. Expect to see action on the bill this session (and check the link for a pic of and a quote from GMD’s NanuqFC, aka Euan Bear, holding a sign that makes the point perfectly).
• Finally, I poked my head in briefly at the Seven Days mayoral debate this week. It was in the schnazzy filmhouse at Burlington’s Main Street Landing before a mostly full-house, there was a live simulcast and liveblogging and twittering and texting of questions and big giant projections and lots of cameras and promised podcasts and tigers and bears, oh my. The Seven Days crowd is using their not inconsiderable resources and really taking this new multimedia technology thing and having a field day with it, bless their hearts. It’s great to watch.

  Funny thing is, I was actually in town discussing the mayoral debate that GMD will be co-sponsoring with Democracy for America (and possibly another org or two). Look for details on that in the next couple days. I guarantee you it won’t be such a high-tech, belled-n-whistled event, but it should still be fun.

Look, anything’s possible. And I’d like to see it happen. I think Dean is a more than competent manager, has learned a tremendous amount in the last decade (making him one of those rare national-level Dems with a hands-on understanding of national and corporate dynamics, as well as rural needs), and has a real commitment to health care as an issue. Is he a single-payer proponent, no. But we’re not getting one of those. And Dean isn’t in the single-payer camp, not necessarily because he is ideologically opposed to it per se, but rather that he sees it as unattainable. In fact, I daresay there’s no one better suited on the horizon – and I say that as one who could respect (if not necessarily agree with) Obama’s decision to choose Daschle over the good Doctor.

But the reason Dean was passed over for anything and everything in an Obama administration has not changed. His arch-nemesis, Rahm Emanuel, is still Obama’s “Number 1,” and I see no reason to believe that his mood has softened. And if one would absolve Obama of responsibility for enabling such petulant grudge-mongering, recall how it was made clear that Dean would not even be welcome at the press conference where the new President introduced Dean’s successor at the DNC, Governor Kaine of Virginia. Although former-Deaniacs-turned-Obamiacs across the internet have tried to ignore or rationalize that slight away, the fact is, it was cold, cold, cold, and is part of the reason so many Washington insiders have termed Obama’s snubbing of Dean as completely without precedent.

So, although strange things happen, I’m afraid in this case its pretty unlikely. Far more likely that Obama might – oh, I dunno… maybe cut a deal with Senate Republicans to pull an arch-economic-conservative he barely knows into an empty post at, say, the Commerce Department, without upsetting the balance of power in the Senate… rather than do the right thing by the guy who deserves much of the credit for getting him into office in the first place.

If Obama suddenly decides to throw his activist base a bone (or frankly, to go for the best choice over political calculus and personal bullshit), it might go the other way, but that’s the only caveat I’ll drop.

Quick update: I’ll also add that I think those that speculate that Obama may well break out the position that Daschle was to fill into HHS Chief and a distinct Health Care Czar are probably correct. My hunch is to look for Kansas Governor Sebelius to get the former, and a congressional alum to get the latter – perhaps someone we haven’t thought of at all, like a Dick Gephardt or somesuch.

UVM needs a new commencement speaker (see kestrel immediately below). Why not be helpful and make a suggestion to Presdient Fogel?

But who could they get of the same caliber and quality of Fogel’s BFF Ben Stein, who had agreed to show, but suddenly remembered he had a lunch date that day or something…

Let’s see… comparing opponents to nazis… complete rejection of science and reality… blaming school shootings on the separation of church and state… I’m thinking John Hagee, Ann Coulter, maybe even Michael Savage fit the mold. What do you think?

Here are the results of the online poll. A few folks took the time, but once again, we’ve proved that GMD users are just not poll takers:

Look for discussion in coming days/weeks of exactly what each of these folks is doing right now to stand up to the Douglas agenda and promote progressive alternatives.

• So, tell me what you would do. Say you've just been diagnosed with possibly terminal cancer and you'll need off and on chemotherapy treatments indefinitely in order to have any hope of surviving even a year. But you have no health insurance and cant get any, so you're SOL. But then – miracle of miracles – help from on high arrives, as someone will cover your first few months of treatments. After that, though, prospects are uncertain. Do you:

a. Take the treatments to stay alive and work to change your situation over the coming months, or otherwise hope your insurance environment improves?

b. Figure, “well, I cant take this because it's just a one-shot deal, and it'll make it all that much harder in a few months when it runs out.”

If you picked 'a', you're probably a sane, reasonable person. If you picked 'b,' you have the right reasoning skills to be a member of Governor Douglas's economic team. Congratulations. No doubt a cushy, superfluous political appointment job awaits you on the public dime. As to those 600 state employees that Douglas seems bound and determined to fire? Eh, screw 'em. They're nothing more than union members.

• Of course, Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Bartlett was walking dangerously close to the Governor's rhetoric herself on the Mark Johnson Show this morning.

• And then there's Treasurer Jeb Spaulding, who we mildly took to task already for lending his name and credibility to the Vermont Tiger symposium on conservative conservativeness, thereby helping to boost the hard right wingers clout and profile. If you're wondering why that's such a bad idea, here's from VT Tiger:

   

  The executive editor of the Burlington Free Press has a personal blog on the paper's website and he used it recently to hyperventilate about the debate over the state's budgetary problems and whether raising taxes will ameliorate them.  The climax of his argument goes like this:

   

  The perennial GOP slur of all elections has been erased. The governor has embraced a tax because he must, and as a result Vermont business will pay. The times do these crazy things to our senses. The times make us eat our words. The times make even the hardest anti-taxer an old softie. The VermontTiger reactionaries must be stunned.

   

  I've e-mailed the following:

  
  

  Dr. Mr. Townsend,

  
  Jeb Spaulding, Art Woolf, Daniel Fogel, Mary Powell, and many other “VermontTiger reactionaries,” will be gathering this Monday at the Burlington Sheratonwhere we will be listening to speakers from California's Silicon Valley, the Albany Nanotechnology Center, and the Atlantic Monthly and discussing, among ourselves, strategies for returning Vermont to primitive 19th century economic arrangements.  Please join us as my guest.

   

  There it is, Mr. Treasurer. You're now Vermont Tiger's beard of moderation and respectability.

  Let's just make something clear to all those who might like to get through a Vermont Democratic Primary for a run at the Governor: you go Republican lite, or otherwise showcase your uberhipness by promoting Republican ideas at the expense of progressive policies, this site won't be the only group of primary voters determined to insure you come in dead last.

• Nope, can't have cwazy Howard Dean anywhere near an Obama administration, but Judd Gregg at Commerce is just fine. Excuse me while I go vomit.

• Auditor Tom Salmon seems to be the only one who isn't going to voluntarily accept a 5% pay cut among State employees making more that sixty grand. Salmon rejected it loudly and clearly, calling it a “gimmick.” Well, no duh its a gimmick, but that doesn't change the fact that by not going along with it in this economy, to 99% of Vermonters the $95k-a-year Salmon will look arrogant at best, like a total ass at worst. Between this and the ski resort-casino idea, methinks this younger Salmon is still in the learning curve of the political big leagues. Better learn up quick, buddy. They're coming after you next time for sure.

• You've probably read this elsewhere by now, but just in case – “S.O.S.(Save Our State)-VT” is the new blog set up by Chris Curtis and other advocates for low-income and working Vermonters to focus on those issues and try to drum up some activist energy in the face of major potential cuts. Among other things on the site, the blog announces a series of rallies and vigils for Monday, Feb. 2nd statewide. Click over and get involved.

I wonder if I should start blogging in vague, unknowable quatrains that could mean anything. Like Nostradamus did. So everyone can look back in a few months and decide (in whispered awe) that I had mystic insight.

I. The gavel tolls the darkness of the day

Acts 60, 250, and Catamount?

Shumlin and Smith? Or Douglas’s way.

Veto proofing is a sport of the count.

I’m just gonna put it out there, and I’m not the only one thinking it:

In 2010, Vermont will elect a Democratic governor. And it will most likely be one of these people:

There. You heard it here first. It’s a different world out there now. Dems are energized by new leadership in Washington and Montpelier, clear ideological battle lines are drawn with Douglas going on a full-bore attack against education and the environment, and high profile Democratic pols are falling all over themselves to step up to the plate (there are so many names being floated, I hope they are all kicking themselves for not stepping up so early last year when they could’ve cleared the field). Despite what has been repeated of late, Douglas showed weakness in the polls last year, as his positives (still in the 60’s) deviated from his re-elect numbers (in the low 40s), suggesting that – while Vermonters still by and large like him – beyond the GOP faithful, they question whether he is the right man for the job.

So – I’ve now heard seven names being bandied about. Some may simply talking about a run, some may still only be being talked about. One has announced (Racine), one has all but announced (Markowitz), another has an active Facebook group promoting their not-yet-campaign (Spaulding). But the game’s afoot already, regardless, and the dynamic will only help draw more clear lines of policy distinction between the Governor and the Governor-wannabes – something we’d all like to see.

One could spend a lot of bandwidth breaking out the dynamics, here, and no doubt we will. Looking at the crowd which includes Sen. Doug Racine, former Sen. Matt Dunne, SoS Deb Markowitz, Sen. Peter Shumlin, Treas. Jeb Spaulding, Sen. Susan Bartlett, and Leahy State Director Chuck Ross, it’s clear the first tier of advantage in any primary is going to those who have appeared on statewide ballots in the last decade, putting Bartlett and Ross at an immediate disadvantage. It’s also clear that an earlier start equals early momentum, as nobody is rolling their eyes at the early announcement by Racine or the early gathering of support by Markowitz anymore. And if nobody’s rolling their eyes, that means the new bar is set and the clock is ticking.

A crowded primary field will likely help Racine most of all. His base in Chittenden County has only grown and solidified since his return to the Senate, and having the lion’s share of the County that holds a quarter of the state population is a huge leg up. Markowitz, also, has significant appeal among women statewide, but that advantage is compromised dramatically if Bartlett is in the race – especially given her far more extensive policy resume. Dunne maintains a significant grassroots network across the state from his recent Lt. Governor run giving him a more scalable potential campaign that could take advantage of a crowded field or a spartan one.

There are those who stand to lose from a crowded field as well. Ross may be well known within the Party infrastructure, but the party infrastructure itself won’t be enough – especially when even that insider group is fractured. Bartlett, as a first time statewide balloteer, will have an uphill climb grabbing the spotlight. At first glance, Shumlin would be at a disadvantage too among so many pols with built-in followings, but Shumlin is so good on the stump before Democratic faithful, he remains an X-factor in any contest.

Possibly the one with the most to lose in a primary is Spaulding. The argument could be made that Spaulding would be among the strongest in a general election against Douglas, or some other Republican should Douglas choose not to run as many seem to think (probably wishful thinking on their part). A lot of Spaulding’s potential A-list support would go to the likes of Racine and fellow Montpelierite Markowitz, but more significant are potential challenges within the primary voting crowd. Spaulding riles the Democratic education establishment with some abandon, and he continues to lend his name (and therefore his credibility) to efforts like the annual symposium sponsored by the conservative flagship website Vermont Tiger, which only boosts their cred in the state to Democrats’ disadvantage. Things like that stick in primary voters’ craws. Still, he has oodles of time to turn around that dynamic if he makes a conscious decision to get on top of it.

So who is serious? We’ll know sooner rather than later, as at least one Democratic committee has an invitation to all would-be Democratic Governors to show up and make their cases as early as next month. With the race already underway, those’ll be invitations that serious candidates won’t be able to ignore.

All of this early positioning makes one particular policy change all the more critical, however. The legislature must roll the primary date back earlier in the year (June?) to make primaries and primary candidates viable in November elections. More on that soon.

(I’ll leave the sidebar poll up ’til sometime Sunday.)