They say the true measure of someone’s character emerges during times of crisis. Well, the crisis is on, and a nervous Democratic caucus is starting to show that it’s character is, indeed, Democratic.

From the Times Argus/Rutland Herald (no link found because their websites remain maddening):

“we know there will be revenue proposals coming from the Administration,” said (incoming House Speaker Shap) Smith …and while there will certainly be additional cuts in state government “it will only be in the context of revenues as well

From the AP (I dont link to them anymore and I aint paying them their extortion fees for excerpting… sorry Wilson, it’s not you…):

“It has to be on the table; taxes have to be on the table, bonding has to be on the table, every option available to us because this is a crisis,” said Rep. Floyd Nease, D-Johnson and the incoming House majority leader. “We can’t just cut our way out of the crisis.”

From VPR (Finally! A link!):

Smith and Senate President Peter Shumlin said the administration and the legislature need to consider all options, including tax increases. Shumlin recalled that in 1991 Republican Governor Richard Snelling worked with Democrats to cut the budget and raises taxes temporarily.

Douglas, of course, is digging in, but in a phony way by steadfastly rejecting “taxes” while talking “fee” increases. Whatever. Douglas at one level clearly would like to see Government drowned, but it does gives him and a lot of his political allies a pretty good life. In any event, with the Snelling model on the table, Dems can push hard to keep it there and control the conversation.

It seems clear that the combination of Smith and Nease in Legislative leadership has the potential to be a potent collective force, and rather than looking at whether Nearly-Speaker Smith himself has the tenacity to stand up to the Governor and keep the House a full partner with the Senate, its looking like we should look at the two of them as a Lamoille County Dynamic Duo.

While the early signs coming out of the tail end of the week’s news cycle bode well for mixing it up and promoting a clear distinction between Ds and Rs, there are signs that it could be a decent combination for progressives as well. Smith has a lot going for him in this role, and we should expect great things (well, we should always expect good things, I suppose). My big concern is that his eagerness to demonstrate right off the bat to the business community and the Chamber crowd that he’s one of them could make him problematic in a lot of critical policy areas. Such eagerness could also make him more easily manipulated on policy matters. Nease as a political and policy partner will help keep him grounded.

In other words, the pair has the potential to be greater than the sum of its parts.

Until I see a comparable “Master List of Revenue Ideas” (and, yes, that includes budgeting in the Rainy Day Fund) on the Joint Fiscal site, I see no reason to accept any admonitions that we should all be patient and understanding on how the budget is being approached by the Legislative Democratic leadership. There is one tune being played right now in any meaningful way – and it is the Governor’s tune: cut, cut, cut.

Yes, there are signs that the Dems on Joint Fiscal know other tunes, they just need to start singing them when on the stage. For example, via the Banner (ht JB):

Sears said lawmakers will likely consider other methods of balancing the budget, such as raising additional revenues and tapping the state’s “rainy day funds.”

“It’s clear to me that we’re not going to raise that kind of revenue. We’re going to have to make cuts, but I also think we should look at the rainy day funds as well,” he said. “I believe that’s one thing that we’re going to have to deal with and we’re going to have a disagreement with the administration on.”

What I would like to know from Senator Sears is what we can do to help him amplify that message. A reference in his County Paper does not offset the messaging and methods that emerged from the Joint Fiscal Committee, of which he is a member (and yes, I understand the limits of what Joint Fiscal can and can’t do, but this is first a battle of ideas, and we can’t lose it at stage 1). Sears’s message is the right message, but it needs to come through the right medium. Wink, wink, nudge nudge empathetic messages to constituents on the side amount to squat, quite frankly.

Also on Joint Fiscal is incoming Speaker Smith, who’s views were characterized this way by Shay Totten:

Despite the stance of his Senate colleagues, incoming House Speaker Shap Smith (D-Morrisville) said it’s premature to rule out anything – including targeted, and short-lived, tax increases.

Again, vagueries are meaning less and less – especially given that every legislator that may be outwardly forward-thinking but is secretly afraid of promoting targeted revenue increases (and I mean carefully targeted, progressive ones… not all tax-raising is inherently dangerous in a recession, but some most definitely is) or equally afraid the tapping the rainy day fund, is going to have a scapegoat to point at if such ideas end up fizzling:  

Peter Shumlin. The Senate leader, as well as Majority Leader John Campbell, are becoming the poster boys for the “Fiscal Conservatism = Republican economics” game, usually indicative of Dems who are looking to run for higher office and want Republican support. Shumlin has not always been there ideologically (not that he hasn’t always considered himself a “fiscal conservative”), but hopes for pulling him back from the brink are pretty limited by the absolutist no-new-taxes-period rhetoric he’s been hitting the media with. He’s left very little wiggle room for a reasoned, everything-on-the-table approach (and his repeated contention that Catamount will not “survive” further suggests skewed priorities).

Liberals would be unwise to paint Shumlin into a corner, though – or, more accurately, to allow Shumlin to paint himself into a corner. Shumlin may have a reputation as a savvy operator, but he is (I think) genuinely insensitive to, and frustrated by, the effect his words have on people; what lines are heard, what gets reported, and how people respond. There is a real impulsive quality to Shumlin’s speaking. It’s what makes him an effective crowd-pleaser in stump-style settings (I recall in a 2003 Orange County candidate forum, his response to a question about how Vermont should deal with some of the more heinous mandates of the No Child Left Behind law was “I’d tell them to keep their money and go to hell.”). It’s also what makes him drop unexpected bombshells in policy pronouncements that often eclipse his main message and create backlashes.

The point is, despite what his not-always-well-considered rhetoric suggests, Shumlin is not an immoveable object in this. Advocates shouldn’t fall into the easy trap of allowing him the role of “bad cop” unchallenged, because it will make it easier for those “good cops” that are too squeamish to lead to have an out for any potential controversies over revenue increases (“I wanted to do the right thing, but there was no getting past Shumlin!”).

Damn. This was going to be, like a three paragraph diary. What the hell happened?

In any event, the mantra, it seems to me, should be: responsible cuts, progressive revenue increases, hit the rainy day fund.

• Word on the street is that Howard Dean was being considered for Secretary of the Interior. Obviously only so considered as the job went to Ken Salazar (shudder), but members of the environmental community in Vermont were reportedly contacted by Obama team representatives checking him out not long before the decision was made. Interesting. Might've been a good fit.

• Raise your hand if you saw something like this coming after yesterday: The day after President-Elect Obama kicked progressives in the groin (and the resultant explosive response which is looking likely to lead to some sort of coordinated act of defiance at the inauguration), he announces his first unambiguously progressive cabinet pick: Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA) as Secretary of Labor. I just hope to god she isn't the one who will get sent out for coffee at every Cabinet meeting.
• Progressives for Wright…? In the “holy crap” department…: According to Shay Totten, not only is longtime Progressive City Councilor Jane Knodell not supporting Progressive Mayor Bob Kiss for re-election (she says she's not endorsing anybody), she showed up at Republican Kurt Wright's announcement and praised him to the media. Excuse me while I pick up my jaw from the floor. How the Progs deal with this could say quite a bit about whether they are maturing as an institution. Will she get run out of the Party on a rail? Stay tuned. In the meantime Jane, if you need some commiseration on the ups and downs of running against the desires and demands of your Party hierarchy, feel free to ring up a GMD front pager.
• The mother of all retractions. Speaking of Shay, there are retractions, and there are retractions, but the one issued by Shay Totten regarding his characterization of embattled on-again/off-again Burlington City Parks and Recreation Waterfront Manager Adam Cate borders on self-flagellation. Ouch. It stung just reading it. Makes me wonder if there weren't lawyers and rumors of lawyers involved behind the scene. We feel your pain Shay.
• …Meanwhile, Jim Douglas and Neale Lunderville (pictured right) continue demanding the systematic deconstruction of the social safety net when Vermonters need it most. But that's hardly news. Just wanted an excuse to post the picture.

• And it's not political news, but this is the internet. Majel Barrett-Roddenberry lost her battle with leukemia and passed away today at the age of 76. Bummer.

Let me be clear: if any part of the $60 million of taxpayer money dubbed Vermont’s “rainy day fund” survives this economic downturn, it will be a moral travesty, plain and simple. A moral tragedy laid squarely on the shoulders of all those elected to care for the business of the state and the well-being of its citizens.

Against the cascade of economic disasters, $60 million dollars will not be a cure – only a bandage. But it’s a significant bandage. You can apply a bandage too early – that’s obvious. But a bandage does absolutely no good if its applied after all your blood has run out. By that time, the body is shutting down. The bandage needs to be applied before the last moment, worse-case scenario. That’s equally obvious.

And that’s because letting someone’s blood empty out entirely on the floor has a cascading effect to all the organs of the body. They shut down. Staunching that bleeding when it’s still possible to staunch some of it won’t solve the problem, but it may minimize the cascading damage and keep the patient alive long enough so that other measures can come into play, or until the body starts healing itself.

Any legislator – left, right, center, whatever – who can’t recognize that this is the reality faced by the simplistic, even heartless slashing of critical services that will themselves create an accelerated breakdown of the economy and hurt more people… well, that legislator may not be intellectually up to the task of governing, and is almost certainly not up to the moral responsibility.

As near as I can tell, the Rainy Day Fund serves one purpose and one purpose alone in the State of Vermont. It is a $60 million pot of taxpayer money that lets elected officials feel fiscally responsible. That salves their anxieties about press perception. I’ve seen no coordinated economic ethic in play in these budget-slashing discussions, but it’s clear that nobody wants to be the first to suggest even looking at the rainy day fund, ‘cuz then somebody will call them fiscally irresponsible. This despite the fact that every economist that isn’t still myopically worshipful of the joys of total deregulation and the Laffer Curve will tell you that cutting these services during a sharp downturn is dumb.

I’d like to hear at least as much talk from lawmakers about moral responsibility as we do about fiscal responsibility, although as wrong-headed as they continue to be about the former, maybe I don’t want to know what many would do with the latter.

On Douglas and Lunderville’s end, there’s a clear worldview in play. The Grover Norquist goal of getting Government “down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub” (presumably preserving just enough to continue playing taxpayer-funded sugar daddy to political croneys). On the opposition side, however, there seems to be a complete vacuum of such an ideological framework. And nature abhors a vacuum.

I’m with nature on this one.

My latest piece at the Guardian didn’t come out well being crunched down from 1000 words to 600. Ah well.

This new “angry centre” has found institutional voice in the ideology-versus-pragmatism discussion playing out in the media. Obama, to the fired-up centrists, is the champion of adulthood following eight years of screaming children, and it’s time for the children to pipe down and mind their manners, lest they find themselves expelled from the dinner table. This new centre is distinct from the old, even though it is populated by many of the same faces. The old centrism was quick to compromise and was largely defined by what it wasn’t (left or right).

This emerging, muscular centrism wants to be a force in its own right, defining itself, rather than being defined by the political poles. It’s basic tenets remain unchanged from the days of the Third Way, (with a more Keynesian bent, granted), but it stands eager to challenge anyone suggesting that taking a principled, centrist stand is oxymoronic.

In other words, the American centre has itself become ideological – and it’s pissed off.

The premise is apparently unintelligible. Basically, I believe there’s a pattern in play in the recent back and forth over whether or not voicing concerns over Obama’s center-right cabinet picks is appropriate:

1. Progressives criticize Obama, are accused unfairly of being “angry” in their criticism.

2.Many Obama defenders push back against the criticism, and do so angrily (even irrationally) themselves

3. Some Progressives counter that this angry pushback is based on kneejerk reactions from an Obama cult of personality that abides no criticism of the President Elect.

4. My thesis, then, is that much of this pushback comes – not from a cult of Obama personality – but from a new “Angry Center” that is a growing political force independent of Obama himself.

Now, in the hours since this posted, this leftist has become more than a little angry after all, but the basic thesis still stands.

From TPM:

The  news today that bigoted pastor Rick Warren is going to give the invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration is sparking an uproar on the left, with the latest being that the venerable liberal group People For The American Way is sharply condemning the decision.

…the decision really gives Warren an extraordinary platform — not to mention yet another data point supporting the bogus notion that the radical Warren is some kind of “moderate.” If the first black president doesn’t mind him giving the invocation at his historic inaugural, how bad and bigoted can he really be?

It looks like Obama did, in fact, learn something from the Donnie McClurkin fiasco during the election.

He learned that despite many recent gains, you still risk absolutely nothing politically by rolling right over the LGBT community.

In this era of unprecedented consciousness and action on LGBT issues, this is a statement (even if its “just” an unintentional one). A statement that bigotry against gays and lesbians doesn’t matter. In this way, Obama is making his already positive historic inauguration historic in an additional, ugly way, through its symbolic embrace of that bigotry.

This is worthy of demonstrating against. I hope human rights activists decide to make their voices heard at the swearing in.

Now if anybody wants to jump in and flame me in the comments for being too mean to poor, misunderstood Barack, flame away. I’ll consider each one a badge of honor.

The opponents of so-called “clean coal” have been amping up their efforts (and if you watch TV, you’ve probably seen the ads and know what I’m talking about). There is a real sense of urgency infusing the environmental community on this, above and beyond the obvious urgency over the whole climate change and destroying the environment thing (cuz obviously, potentially rendering the Earth uninhabitable only gets people so excited, but I digress…). With Barack Obama looking serious about engaging with climate change and energy issues (the likely and unfortunate elevation of Ken Salazar to Interior Secretary notwithstanding), environmentalists are at once excited about the potential for positive movement, while at the same time deeply concerned that “Clean Coal” technology will be part of the energy mix, potentially offsetting much of the good that could be accomplished.

Obama has been touting Clean (cough) Coal since well before the election season. He introduced the “Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007” while the Sierra Club was calling liquefied coal “the dirtiest, most expensive energy gamble we could take.”

During Monday’s announcement of the nomination of Nobel Prize winning scientist Steven Chu to lead the Department of Energy, Obama commented that “My administration will value science… We will make decisions based on facts.”

And now, activists of all stripes are preparing to work to guarantee Obama keeps that promise.

Among those efforts is a planned demonstration and civil disobedience action in Washington D.C. on Monday March 2 at a coal-fired power plant near Capitol Hill. Wendell Berry and Vermont’s Bill McKibben sent out an email today promoting the effort and encouraging the word to be spread.

Now I’m one of those who believes that the value of such demonstrations has diminished dramatically over the years, but this one has the potential to be meaningful, mainly due to its timing, contextualized as it will be against the brand new administration and its stated priorities. It also doesn’t hurt that its being pushed by prominent individuals such as Berry and McKibben.

The email includes an appeal to forward its content far and wide. Copy it in its entirety into an email if you’re so inclined, or just send a link (but make sure you link to the extended diary and not just the front page, as it’ll scroll off into the archives in about a week).

Complete email below the fold…

There are moments in a nation’s-and a planet’s-history when it may be necessary for some to break the law in order to bear witness to an evil, bring it to wider attention, and push for its correction. We think such a time has arrived, and we are writing to say that we hope some of you will join us in Washington D.C. on Monday March 2 in order to take part in a civil act of civil disobedience outside a coal-fired power plant near Capitol Hill.

       We will be there to make several points:

           #Coal-fired power is driving climate change. Our foremost climatologist, NASA’s James Hansen, has demonstrated that our only hope of getting our atmosphere back to a safe level-below 350 parts per million co2-lies in stopping the use of coal to generate electricity.

            # Even if climate change were not the urgent crisis that it is, we would still be burning our fossil fuels too fast, wasting too much energy and releasing too much poison into the air and water. We would still need to slow down, and to restore thrift to its old place as an economic virtue.

           #Coal is filthy at its source. Much of the coal used in this country comes from West Virginia and Kentucky, where companies engage in “mountaintop removal” to get at the stuff; they leave behind a leveled wasteland, and impoverished human communities. No technology better exemplifies the out-of-control relationship between humans and the rest of creation.

           #Coal smoke makes children sick. Asthma rates in urban areas near coal-fired power plants are high. Air pollution from burning coal is harmful to the health of grown-ups too, and to the health of everything that breathes, including forests.

       The industry claim that there is something called “clean coal” is, put simply, a lie. But it’s a lie told with tens of millions of dollars, which we do not have. We have our bodies, and we are willing to use them to make our point. We don’t come to such a step lightly. We have written and testified and organized politically to make this point for many years, and while in recent months there has been real progress against new coal-fired power plants, the daily business of providing half our electricity from coal continues unabated. It’s time to make clear that we can’t safely run this planet on coal at all. So we feel the time has come to do more–we hear President Barack Obama’s call for a movement for change that continues past election day, and we hear Nobel Laureate Al Gore’s call for creative non-violence outside coal plants. As part of the international negotiations now underway on global warming, our nation will be asking China, India, and others to limit their use of coal in the future to help save the planet’s atmosphere. This is a hard thing to ask, because it’s their cheapest fuel. Part of our witness in March will be to say that we’re willing to make some sacrifices ourselves, even if it’s only a trip to the jail.

       With any luck, this will be the largest such protest yet, large enough that it may provide a real spark. If you want to participate with us, you need to go through a short course of non-violence training. This will be, to the extent it depends on us, an entirely peaceful demonstration, carried out in a spirit of hope and not rancor. We will be there in our dress clothes, and ask the same of you. There will be young people, people from faith communities, people from the coal fields of Appalachia, and from the neighborhoods in Washington that get to breathe the smoke from the plant.

       We will cross the legal boundary of the power plant, and we expect to be arrested. After that we have no certainty what will happen, but lawyers and such will be on hand. Our goal is not to shut the plant down for the day-it is but  one of many, and anyway its operation for a day is not the point. The worldwide daily reliance on coal is the danger; this is one small step to raise awareness of that ruinous habit and hence help to break it.

       Needless to say, we’re not handling the logistics of this day. All the credit goes to a variety of groups, especially the Energy Action Coalition (which is bringing thousands of young people to Washington that weekend), Greenpeace, the Ruckus Society, and the Rainforest Action Network. A website at that latter organization is serving as a temporary organizing hub: http://ran.org/get_involved/po… If you go there, you will find a place to leave your name so that we’ll know you want to join us.

   Thank you,

Wendell Berry, Bill McKibben

P.S.-This is important: Please forward this letter to anyone and everyone you think might be interested.

Prior to the Blago flak-o, the Republicans’ first target in their attempts to regain momentum and relevance in the public eye by knocking the uber-popular Barack Obama from his PR perch was/is the nomination of Eric Holder to the position of Attorney General. Republicans think they might have something based on Holder’s role (whatever it was or wasn’t) in the controversial Clinton-era pardon of indicted financier Marc Rich. It was quite a kerfuffle at the time, but it’s hard to imagine it having any legs now.

Eyes have been on Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania as the GOP machine has tried to sputter back to life. As the Ranking Member on Senate Judiciary, he would have to be the point person on any such effort. But Committee Chair Leahy (who has set a confirmation hearing for January 8th – early, to be sure) has gone to great lengths (and even made a bit of a show) of being pals with Specter, and Specter has reciprocated in kind. The question, then, has been; would Specter toss all that over to play cynical partisan attack dog?

The traditional media narrative surrounding Specter has been one of moderation and free-thinking (maverick, anyone?), but for those of us who’ve followed Specter over the years, its been more than clear that he talks the moderate and free-thinking line quite well, but always ends up toeing the party line regardless. As such this should be no surprise:

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, wants to slow down the process of confirming Eric Holder attorney general, citing lingering concerns about the nominee’s role in the 2001 pardon of Marc Rich.

Specter said his concerns do not suggest he would oppose Holder, but said starting the hearings before Jan. 26 is “not realistic or fair.”

Leahy’s response came quickly (and is lengthy), and it goes straight for the personal, implying that Specter’s concerns are frivolous (or suspect) and fly in the face of their friendship:

Dear Arlen:

As I hope you know, I honored your request and asked Secretary Rice to facilitate your 14-day trip to 10 countries from December 25 through January 7.  Please do let me know who the other Senators are who will be accompanying you.

I also wanted to respond to your letter of last evening.  I am a bit confounded as to why you are surprised that the Holder hearing was noticed for January 8.

…Initially, our staffs discussed possibly proceeding before Christmas if the designation were made around Thanksgiving. We commence the new session on January 6, but that day will be devoted to swearing in and recognizing the returning and newly elected Senators.  When you extended and expanded your travel plan to include January 7, my staff made sure yours knew that such an extension would mean that you would miss the Holder hearing.  Your staff indicated that you would be calling me.  You did not, but sent back the message that you chose to extend your travel through January 7.  I then learned that the Senate Republicans are planning a Republican caucus retreat for January 7.  I respected your desired travel plans and the Republican Senate retreat by postponing the start of the hearings to January 8.

I have sought to accommodate your interests on many occasions.  I scheduled field hearings for you in Pennsylvania on foreclosure and health care mergers issues, and worked hard to ensure fair treatment and confirmation for nominations in which you had a personal interest.  We worked in a bipartisan fashion last Congress to investigate the politicization of the Department and to expedite nominations to restock the leadership ranks at the Department after nearly every top official, including the Attorney General, resigned in the wake of the scandals.  I hope you will now join me to complete the hard work that must be done to right the ship at the Justice Department.  I will continue, as I always have, to work closely with you and Senators from both sides of the aisle to schedule consideration of both executive and judicial nominations and to make progress on our legislative agenda.  I look forward to working with you in the next Congress.

When Michael Mukasey was designated to be Alberto Gonzales’ successor last year, you urged that we “move promptly on the confirmation proceedings.”  I did not delay in scheduling that hearing, even though many were suggesting that I do so.  Instead, I proceeded promptly with a hearing 30 days after the nomination was announced.  For that, I received criticism from my side of the aisle.

And it goes on quite a bit, reviewing other historical, bipartisan, speedy AG hearings.

But the fascinating part is how Leahy aims right for the personal, juxtaposing it against the suggestion of crass partisan politics in order to try and force the conflict out of the tactical, institutional arena and into the context of individuals. It does so a bit ham-handedly, even.

But it is effective, and makes the message quite clear – if Specter pushes this against all reason and fairness at the behest of Mitch McConnell and a GOP still addicted to political slash-and-burn, the story won’t just be about Holder, but Specter’s character as well – a concern he has to take seriously given the popularity of Obama and his own 2010 re-election, where challengers have already begun positioning themselves.

From State Democratic Vice Chair Judy Bevans via email:

On December 15, our electors, Sen. Claire Ayer, Euan Bear and Kevin Christie will finalize Vermont’s contribution to the historic election of Barack Obama to the Presidency by casting their Electoral College ballots in Room 11 of the Statehouse at 10 am. There will be a reception for in the Cedar Creek Room of the Statehouse immediately following. We hope you can come, and please invite others via GMD.

On his welcome new blog (gotta get the blogosphere beefed up in this state, y’know… h/t to Shay to pointing the way to this new resource), Jon Margolis essentially puts some meat on the bones of a key point of the discussion in yesterday’s diary. Here’s a piece:

The Free Press Montpelier operation is down to two reporters while the Legislature is in town. The paper shuts down the office shortly after the session ends, said political reporter Terri Hallenbeck.

…the Free Press is not the only news organization that has cut back on covering government and politics in Vermont. So has the Associated Press, and it was the AP’s daily coverage of routine matters that gave the other bureaus the “luxury,” as Hellenbeck put it, to probe more deeply into what was going on in state government.

Now the AP reporter who covers the Legislature is at the Capitol only sometimes, Hallenbeck said…

…Well, one might say, who cares? Isn’t this just a lot of journalistic Inside Baseball?

Yes and no. Because when news organizations don’t cover public affairs as much, or as well, the citizenry doesn’t know as much…

…when people learn less about something, they know less about it. In theory “new media” (blogs and the like) can fill in where traditional “old media” outlets have cut back. But Vermont’s blogs don’t really pretend to inform, merely to convey the blogger’s passions.

It’s good (if not revolutionary) stuff, despite the unnecessary little “conclusion” (rather reductive, no?) at the end. Obviously we on the blogs do “pretend” to inform when we’re informing, and editorialize when we’re doing that.

Still, I’m pretty psyched about this new blog. I’m sure he won’t continue to feel the need to so compartmentalize his fellow bloggers as he gets more into it. Those boxes just aren’t quite so clear cut as all that.