A knowledgable reader has written to correct the number of fuel rods I have mentioned in the post.  My information was obviously dated.  Here is the corrected information provided by the reader:

_____________________________________________________________________________

It’s not even June and already multiple wildfires pepper the coast of California following a crazy-quilt path of destruction.  

Right in the middle of it all, halfway between the huge population centers of Lost Angeles and San Diego,  is the recently decommissioned San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station with its spent fuel stockpile of 1,677 rods still sitting in cooling ponds.

Water is the only thing preventing the rods from melting down and releasing unimaginable amounts of deadly radiation into the environment; and water is the first thing to go in a boiling environment.

Friends of the Earth estimates that the spent fuel at San Onofre contains 89 times the quantity of Cesium-137 that was released from the accident at Chernobyl.

If any of the possible scenarios for loss of water from the cooling ponds due to fire were to occur, not only would an enormous human population be immediately endangered, but the impact of food security for the entire nation is unimaginable.  For better or worse, California has come to be the “breadbasket” of the United States.

Destroy California’s arable environment and we will see large-scale starvation in this country.

“Alarmist,” you say?  Yes, I am.

I am alarmed by the fact that, faced with all of this grim potential, the NRC is still in a position to grant absolution from responsibility for emergency planning  to power companies whose nuclear facilities have ceased to produce power.

One can’t help but fault the media for doing a piss-poor job of shining the bright light of attention on systemic regulatory failure over the decades at the NRC.  We wouldn’t be in the fix we’re in now with spent fuel piling up at nuclear plants all over the country and no real plan for its permanent disposal, if the public had been fully educated from the start.

The new Godzilla movie, I am told, carefully avoids the antinuclear theme of the original.  Why is this, I wonder? Post Fukushima, with every opportunity to give the giant lizard a new timeliness, why would the filmmakers not do so?

Big business enables big business.  Energy companies are knitted together with entertainment and communications giants and other energy companies, so that the interests of one can become inseparable from those of the other.

So, instead of updates on the chronic radiation release from Fukushima and our unsecured stockpiles of nuclear waste in the U.S., we get a warm-and-fuzzy about post nuclear catastrophe (“The Wolves of Chernobyl”) and twenty-four-seven coverage of “the plane.”

‘Nice knowing you, California.

So far, only one Democrat has stepped up to the challenge of facing Lt. Gov. Phil Scott, widely considered a strong favorite for re-election. And while the Party is open to more candidates, I thought it was worth getting to know the only Dem in the race, John Bauer, a little bit better. So, on a recent morning, I met him at the North Branch in Montpelier for a cup of tea and some political conversation.

Bauer knows he’s a longshot. He’s managed two statewide campaigns, but he’s never run for office himself beyond the town level. He is, again, facing a strong incumbent. On top of all that, Bauer is pursuing the public-financing route, which places strict limits on fundraising — and imposes a fast-approaching deadline. He has until June 12 to convince at least 750 Vermonters to contribute to his campaign. Each individual can give no more than $50, but any amount, no matter how small, adds one more name to his list. (As of today, his campaign is about 20% of the way there.)

The potential payoff: enough public funds to mount a competitive campaign for Lieutenant Governor. Not to mention a blow against big-money politics.

Bauer is definitely a member of what Howard Dean used to call “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.” Indeed, he refers to himself as a progressive Democrat. His focus is on growing an economy that provides a secure foundation for the working and middle classes and for small business owners. His role models: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Robert Reich, promoters of what Bauer calls “new economic theory,” which “has a lot to do with finding alternatives to Wall Street.”

Bauer supports Sen. Anthony Pollina’s proposal for a state bank — starting small, to see if the idea will work. And he sees a much larger, untapped pool of resources for bolstering Vermont’s economy:

There are a lot of retirement funds, a lot of long-term money invested. Currently, it’s very, very difficult to invest that in Vermont businesses. We have a lot of money in Vermont that goes to Wall Street. We need to find ways to put it on Main Street.

He’d also like to explore setting up a program where hourly workers could have a small amount deducted from every paycheck, “just like an IRA,” except the funds could be invested in Vermont businesses. The details remain to be worked out; mainly, Bauer wants to open the doors of government to new economic ideas. “There are so many directions we could take that would strengthen our economy, and it would cost the taxpayers nothing.”

Indeed, if he’s elected, he’d like to turn the Lieutenant Governor’s office into something of an idea lab:

I think of it as taking the desk out of the office and putting in a conference table. It’s a place where we can bring people together with different viewpoints that are not necessarily being considered by state government. Bringing people together to find ways to help working Vermonters.

Bauer is spending the month of May visiting every county in Vermont, meeting county party officials, spreading the word and soliciting small donors for his effort to gain public financing. He acknowledges the challenge: “It’s a very difficult conversation to have with people because it’s not politics as usual; it’s politics as unusual.” But, he says, the process is a key part of his message.

One of the core problems we have is money in politics. That being said, is it possible to run a campaign using public financing? Well, nobody’s tried it in ten years.  I think that once people understand what it means, that they could literally clean out their cabinets, turn in their bottles, and send in a check for $5.75 to my campaign, that that will help me qualify for enough financing to run a competitive campaign.

I’ve made a small donation myself. I see Bauer as an energetic bearer of an important message; and I’d like to see a candidate succeed through public financing, just to prove that there’s another way to do politics.

Bauer acknowledges he’s got an uphill fight:

I may lose because I have strong opinions. But that’s okay. It’s about pushing the conversation forward. And if someone wants to sit down with me and talk about how cutting taxes and regulation is good for the economy, I’m going to turn around and look at the last forty years and say, ‘Show me where that’s demonstrated to be true.’ Because we’re working harder, we’re more productive, and we’re making less money.

It’s no longer a trickle-down economy, you know; it’s a vacuum-up economy. You don’t have change in your pockets anymore because they’re suckin’ it out from between the cushions.

John Bauer is formally launching his campaign at the State House on Monday, May 19 at 11:00 am. He’s asking supporters to show up a little early “so we can arrange a group to stand behind me.”

For more information, or to add your two cents (or $5.75, or any amount of $50 or less), visit Bauer’s campaign website, www.bauervt.com.  

Two weeks ago, Art Woolf (Vermont’s Loudest Economist™) used his Burlington Freeploid column to mansplain to us all why Vermont’s low unemployment rate isn’t a good thing. Well, first off, he cast unmoored aspersions on the veracity of the number; and then he gave some half-hearted reasons why We Need More People Jobless. I compared him to a little boy who gets a pony for Christmas and starts looking around for the manure pile.

Well, Art’s back today to piss on another campfire. This week’s “effort” is entitled “Is high home ownership rate a good thing?”  

See, Vermont’s homeownership rate is 73%, the seventh highest in the nation and some 18 percentage points above the national average.

Must be good news, right? It could mean that we have a relatively stable population with the resources to invest in housing. It might be a sign that we have a strong real-estate sector, one of the cornerstones of a vibrant economy. I’d think it might reflect a better-resourced population of working poor, able to afford a home of their own. And it clearly reflects the fact that 2008’s recession hit the nation much harder than it hit Vermont; since 2008, home ownership has declined nationally, while Vermont’s rate shows a slight increase.

So, good news? Naaaah, sez Art. He’s lookin’ for the manure pile. And he’s ever-ready to shovel it out.  

First of all, he trots out the right-wing canard that the housing bubble was caused by “federal housing policies designed to increase the national homeownership rate.” Yeah, blame it all on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And please ignore the huge lump under the rug; it’s nothing but a mountain of subprime mortgage-backed securities churned out by the Wise Guys of Wall Street. Federal housing policies played a part in encouraging homeownership, to be sure — because homeownership is widely accepted as a social good. But far more impactful were the Countrywides of the world, who couldn’t write mortgages fast enough to churn out those lousy mortgage-backed securities.

An Art Woolf specialty: thinly-veiled conservative propaganda. But whatever the cause of the housing collapse, it has no bearing whatsoever on whether Vermont’s homeownership rate is a bad thing. Unless, that is, Woolf is predicting a housing bubble in Vermont. Which he isn’t; he’s just manufacturing excuses to see the glass as half empty and leaking.

Next, he moves on to an uninsightful and irrelevant factoid: “High rates of homeownership are only weakly associated with high incomes.” Gee, what would we do without Art Woolf to illuminate the obvious? I wouldn’t expect a 1:1 relationship between wealth and homeownership. But I would expect a high rate of homeownership to reflect a relatively stable and non-impoverished citizenry.

Next, Woolf completes his Trifecta of Trivia by observing that…

Vermont’s homes have surprisingly few people living in each of them. The Census Bureau tells us that only 2.4 people live in the average Vermont home. (Since no house has four-tenths of a person living in it, it’s easier to think of this as 24 people living in every ten homes.)

Oh, geez, Art, thanks for clearing that up. Here I was imagining nightmare scenarios of Vermont homes populated by partial people. An epidemic of amputees? Hideous deformities? Preserved brains in jars?

This meander down Census Lane never quite reconnects with Woolf’s supposed thesis. In fact, his conclusion is that our homeownership, and relatively low occupancy, is “an indication of how wealthy we are today compared to the past…”

In other words, I guess, our homeownership rate is a good thing after all? I can’t say for sure, because Woolf offers no conclusion.

To sum up, Woolf casts cold water on the notion that homeownership is a good thing, he repeats an irrelevant bit of conservative dogma, he regurgitates some Census data, and his column just kinda peters out. No coherent case for his thesis; not even any attempt at building a case. And certainly no effort at presenting an informative view of what the chart actually signifies.

This marvel of intellectual ennui checks in at a laughable 398 words. To fill Woolf’s usual half-page spot, the Freeploid’s editors blew up the accompanying chart to almost the size of a billboard. It’s as if a student turned in an abbreviated essay, and the teacher helpfully reprinted it in a larger font so it achieved the expected page count. (The column, as it appeared in print, is reproduced here, just to show you the relative space occupied by column and chart.) I wonder how much they’re paying him for this drivel.  

US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, staunch defender of tradition at the World’s Most Moss-Ridden Deliberative Body, has taken a bold step that puts him at odds with our own Senator Patrick Leahy.  

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Wednesday said he opposes to the nomination of President Obama’s pick for the federal bench, Georgia state Judge Michael Boggs, pointing to his history of controversial positions on issues ranging from abortion to the confederate flag.

,,, “I’ve not talked to [Judiciary Chairman] Pat Leahy personally. I will do that,” Reid said in an interview with BuzzFeed. “Unless I have a better explanation. I can’t vote for him.”

For those just joining us, Boggs’ nomination was part of a deal with Georgia’s two Republican Senators: you give us Boggs, we’ll refrain from blocking some of Obama’s nominees. Firebrand political blogger Charlie Pierce characterized the deal as “a slightly rancid little bit of Beltway logrolling,” which seems reasonably accurate.

The deal was necessary because Leahy, as chair of the Judiciary Committee, has mandated adherence to the Senate’s “blue slip” tradition, which gives each Senator the power to block judicial nominees from his/her home state. Which means any nominee from any state with a Republican Senator faces an uphill battle for confirmation.

By all accounts, Boggs’ record as a state judge is relatively unobjectionable. But before that, when he was a state lawmaker, he had a decidedly conservative record: he voted to retain the Confederate banner as part of the state flag, he favored restrictions on abortion rights, and opposed same-sex marriage. At a Judiciary hearing this week, Boggs disavowed some of his past positions, including support for a measure that would have publicly identified all doctors who performed abortions.

But still, thers a sizable gap between the two Boggses, and how are we to know which will emerge once he’s securely installed into a lifetime judicial seat? His nomination has drawn the active opposition of numerous liberal and progressive groups. In some cases, they’ve trained their fire directly on Leahy, who could change the “blue slip” process with the stroke of a pen.  

Leahy did not attend the Boggs hearing, and he appears to be offering a backdoor exit for his colleagues:

[Leahy] said in a statement that the burden remains with each senator on his or her due diligence and that senators must decide for themselves if the nominees are worthy.

The idea, apparently, is that the Boggs deal guaranteed his nomination but not his confirmation. It remains to be seen how Georgia’s devoutly conservative Senators would react if Senate Democrats sink the nomination. It might be the end of the “blue slip” whether St. Patrick likes it or not.

Postscript. I continue to be astounded by the lack of coverage this story has received in the Vermont media. Our Congressional delegation in general, and Leahy in particular, get very generous coverage for their many good works. But when the halo slips from St. Patrick’s blessed forehead, not a peep is heard, not a word read. Except when they publish Leahy’s own response to the kerfuffle, of course.

As I’ve said before, 99% of the time I’m proud to be represented by Pat Leahy. But this time, his actions deserve scrutiny. He’s getting it inside the Beltway, but not in his home state.  

It’s nice to see Vermont standing up to Entergy, who, soon after Yankee cuts the power, would like to simply walk away from their obligation to provide emergency planning.

Public Service Department Commissioner Chris Recchia  refused to buy into Entergy’s  whopper of an assertion before the U.S. Senate commission on decommissioning that, as of sixteen months after the December shutdown, no further public risk will exist.

We have 3,800 fuels rods in a pool designed for 350. We don’t think that it’s safe to eliminate the emergency protection zones until the fuel is, at the minimum, in dry cask,” Recchia told the committee, which includes Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

The Senator agrees and thinks its about time the NRC yields more power to individual states to negotiate their own terms regarding the decommissioning of nuclear plants that they have hosted.

“Currently a nuclear plant operator could adopt a decommissioning plan that ignores the needs and interests of the public and the state would have no recourse. That is fundamentally unfair and unreasonable,” Sanders said. “This is simply about ensuring that states have the opportunity to play a meaningful role in a decision that has enormous economic, environmental and community impacts.”

And citing another concerning situation of excessive spent fuel backlogs at San Onofre (California), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) challenged NRC representative, Michael Weber about the dangers the stockpile poses to millions of Californians:

“Your own chairman wrote that if there’s an accident (at a spent fuel pool) it could be worse than Chernobyl,” she said.

Senators Sanders and Boxer are co-sponsoring a bill that would not allow the NRC to exempt nuclear plant operators from safety requirements while spent fuel remained on site and unprotected by dry cask storage.

Politically  opposed to regulation of any kind, for any reason, Republicans would like things to remain exactly as they are, with a completely toothless NRC serving the interests of the industry first and local communities a distant second.

Senator Sessions (R), of Alabama, argues that the NRC is doing a fine job; then adds, tellingly, that he thinks closing nuclear plants will “drive up” the cost of energy.

“The NRC has a proven record of success in regulating these matters,” said Sessions, a member of the committee. “We endanger a weak economy by driving up the cost of energy by closing up plants that could be productive for a decade or more.”

Uh, Senator, it is the power companies themselves who are making the economic decision to close nuclear facilities, which are no longer cost-efficient to operate.  They are answering the call of capitalism, at whose altar you are usually only too happy to worship.

Nevermind, Senator Sessions; go back to guarding the morals of Alabama’s poor folks and don’t trouble your snowy brow with economics.

Being in town government, I naturally follow what happens in other municipalities with interest.  Never know what issues they're dealing with that we might encounter at some point, so it's always a good learning experience.

Earlier this month I noticed some people on Facebook express concern about the Town of Hyde Park's recreation field rules.  Specifically:

Persons shall not possess, use, or store a weapon of any kind such as firearms, knives, or explosives on the Rec Fields property.

So yes, at their last Selectboard meeting:

Elizabeth Monteith was present to express concern for the banning of firearms on the Recreation Fields property adopted by the Town in 2009 and she is against the ban. Evan Hughes noted that 24 VSA 2295 commonly referred to as the Hunters’ Bill of Rights allows firearms to be on public property while 25 VSA 2291(8) authorizes the control of the discharge of firearms. Deanna Judkins asked if the school could have firearms, and Mr. Hughes explained that 13 VSA 4403 and 4404 prohibits knowingly bringing firearms onto school properties. Elizabeth Monteith stated that she believes everyone should have the constitutional right to have firearms on town property, including the recreation fields

I'm not entirely convinced that towns lack the authority to regulate firearms on public (i.e., town-owned) property.  In Hunters, Anglers & Trappers Association of Vermont v. Winooski Valley Park District (2006), SCOV found that § 2295 doesn't prohibit local government entities from banning hunting on public land–towns have the power to regulate their property just as any private landowner.

So while the municipality cannot ban firearm possession in general, which would clearly be contrary to Vermont statute and Article 16 of our constitution, they appear to be well within their rights to do so on rec fields and the like when exercising police power to protect health and safety.  This specific issue was raised in the case cited about, but the District changed its policy on carrying in the interim so the question was mooted.  That said, I find the ulimate conclusion of the Court's logic to allow such restrictions.

We can debate whether the regulation is wise–I know there are folks who suggest more guns would better contribute to health and safety–but it seems opponents of the rule don't have a constitutional leg to stand on.  As SCOV ruled in State of VT v Duranleau (1969):

[T]he language of [Article 16] does not suggest that the right to bear arms is unlimited and undefinable.

Between that and the HAT v Winooski decision, the only reason Hyde Park should change their rule is because they find it unnecessary and/or dangerous and/or has no public support, not because they are prevented by law from managing their own property.  Anyway, I'll be tracking what Hyde Park does in response.

ntodd

Update: I hear from the Selectboard Chair that they will most likely be changing the regulation so it prohibits discharge of weapons, rather than banning possession, on town property. 

As the VTGOP surveys the wreckage of its sans-Scheuermann gubernatorial field, there’s a whole lotta lookin’ on the bright side goin’ on. I’d say it’s glass-half-full, except in this case it’s more like “glass-with-a-drop-of-water.”

This festival of happy talk comes via Neal Goswami at the Mitchell Family Organ (paywalled, sorry), in a piece entitled “Gov. Race Loses One Challenger; Others Are In the Wings.” Let’s review the desperate cheerfulness, shall we?

Let’s begin with travel mogul Scott Milne, who apparently plans to make a decision on the deadline day for filing. (Which would make petition-gathering into quite the magic trick.) Scheuermann reviews his qualifications for Vermont’s highest office:

“I’ve met him a couple of times. I don’t know him well, but I certainly think he’d be a strong candidate.”

Cough. A brilliant display of damning with faint praise, methinks.

Now, on to Randy Brock, who lost to Gov. Shumlin really, really badly in 2012:

[VTGOP Chair David Sunderland] said Brock has “a great background at running and winning statewide elections” and “would bring an interesting dynamic.”

Well, I suppose he’s got a better record at “winning statewide elections” than any other potential Republican candidate. But that record stands at a solid one win, two losses. Which includes a one-sided thumping in the race for Governor, and the rare feat of an incumbent managing to lose a race for a low-profile statewide office. That’s a very Charlie Sheen definition of “winning.”  

With that, we turn our attention to the gorilla in the room, Bruce Lisman, who (by his own words) isn’t seriously considering a run, but is seriously considering The People’s repeated requests that he run.

Sunderland said Lisman has “ideas and thoughts about the condition of our state and the condition of the economy … that are hopefully aligned with what the Republican Party believes.”

“Hopefully aligned”? They’re serving up some awfully thin gruel in the VTGOP Cafeteria, aren’t they?

No shrift is given to the only declared candidate in the race, Emily Peyton. Party officials have said they would disavow her if she managed to win the primary.

This is so sad, I almost begin to feel sorry for the VTGOP. I’ve heard that as recently as a few weeks ago, a Scheuermann bid was considered virtually a sure thing, which probably kept party officials from beating the bushes for other alternatives. And now, following Scheuermann’s encounter with the reality of late-starting a challenge to Shumlin, they’re up Shit Creek with a depressing variety of untested, misfit, and/or broken paddles.

Signs of the Apocalypse, Vermont Politics Edition: I agree with John McClaughry!

The biennial legislative session has just concluded, and it was a banner year for Vermont’s version of advanced liberalism.

Exactly! There were some twists and turns along the way, and some last-minute unpleasantness in the Sausage Factory*, but hey everybody, let’s have a big cheer it for Advanced Liberalism!

*Dick Sears, take a bow! On second thought, sit down and shut up.

The agreement ends there, of course. To El Jefe General, a liberal biennium is a catastrophe along the lines of Tropical Storm Irene. To me, it’s a heartening affirmation of my support for liberal politicians.

I realize I’m putting my License To Blog at risk by actually praising the Legislature, but look at this partial list of accomplishments (in no particular order):

— A significant increase in the minimum wage.

— An innovative program that should result in drug offenders getting treatment instead of punitive prison sentences. VTDigger’s Anne Galloway, speaking Monday on the Mark Johnson Show (double plugola!), referred to this bill as the most impactful of the entire session. And if it works, maybe we can end our soul-killing contract with the Corrections Corporation of America.

— A good step towards addressing the college affordability gap, with the Vermont Strong Scholars Program.

— Establishment of organizing rights for day-care workers.

— Establishment of universal pre-K in public schools.

After the jump: the list continues.

— A reasonable bill to protect shorelands. The final product was a compromise, but it was a lot more than I thought we’d get, after 2013’s debacle.

— The adoption of State Treasurer Beth Pearce’s plan to boost funding of health benefits for retired teachers.

— The GMO lebeling bill. I’m less excited about this than many because I’m lukewarm on the issue, and I doubt the law will survive a court challenge. But it was a legislative victory for liberal politics, which is always nice.

— A meaningful reduction in the projected seven-cent increase in the state property tax, which should blunt the effectiveness of Republican attacks on the issue.

— A mandatory police training program in Taser use, which hopefully will reduce the chances of potentially fatal discharges in the future.

— The use of handheld cellphones while driving will be made illegal. A common-sense measure, passed over the objections of Dick Sears and Governor Shumlin. (Extra Bonus Points: Shumlin actually changed his mind on something!)

That’s a pretty substantial list, and I could go on from there.

Not everything got through, of course. Lawmakers failed to agree on an approach to school district consolidation; but in my opinion, that issue warrants further discussion anyway. It emerged as a priority because of widespread dismay over the seven-cent property tax increase; but I believe the issues of organization and cost should be considered separately. A reorganization may or may not address the cost issue.

Other disappointments: the collapse in support for mandatory sick leave, the last-minute decision (Diane Snelling, take a bow!) to make food-stamp beneficiaries responsible for overpayments caused by state errors, and yet another failure to improve the Current Use law (which leaves it open to opportunistic attacks from the right). And I’m not entirely happy with some of the newly-enacted bills. But all in all, a solid performance by lawmakers, in which they positively addressed a wide range of issues.  

Signs of the Apocalypse, Vermont Politics Edition: I agree with John McClaughry!

The biennial legislative session has just concluded, and it was a banner year for Vermont’s version of advanced liberalism.

Exactly! There were some twists and turns along the way, and some last-minute unpleasantness in the Sausage Factory*, but hey everybody, let’s have a big cheer it for Advanced Liberalism!

*Dick Sears, take a bow! On second thought, sit down and shut up.

The agreement ends there, of course. To El Jefe General, a liberal biennium is a catastrophe along the lines of Tropical Storm Irene. To me, it’s a heartening affirmation of my support for liberal politicians.

I realize I’m putting my License To Blog at risk by actually praising the Legislature, but look at this partial list of accomplishments (in no particular order):

— A significant increase in the minimum wage.

— An innovative program that should result in drug offenders getting treatment instead of punitive prison sentences. VTDigger’s Anne Galloway, speaking Monday on the Mark Johnson Show (double plugola!), referred to this bill as the most impactful of the entire session. And if it works, maybe we can end our soul-killing contract with the Corrections Corporation of America.

— A good step towards addressing the college affordability gap, with the Vermont Strong Scholars Program.

— Establishment of organizing rights for day-care workers.

— Establishment of universal pre-K in public schools.

After the jump: the list continues.

— A reasonable bill to protect shorelands. The final product was a compromise, but it was a lot more than I thought we’d get, after 2013’s debacle.

— The adoption of State Treasurer Beth Pearce’s plan to boost funding of health benefits for retired teachers.

— The GMO lebeling bill. I’m less excited about this than many because I’m lukewarm on the issue, and I doubt the law will survive a court challenge. But it was a legislative victory for liberal politics, which is always nice.

— A meaningful reduction in the projected seven-cent increase in the state property tax, which should blunt the effectiveness of Republican attacks on the issue.

— A mandatory police training program in Taser use, which hopefully will reduce the chances of potentially fatal discharges in the future.

— The use of handheld cellphones while driving will be made illegal. A common-sense measure, passed over the objections of Dick Sears and Governor Shumlin. (Extra Bonus Points: Shumlin actually changed his mind on something!)

That’s a pretty substantial list, and I could go on from there.

Not everything got through, of course. Lawmakers failed to agree on an approach to school district consolidation; but in my opinion, that issue warrants further discussion anyway. It emerged as a priority because of widespread dismay over the seven-cent property tax increase; but I believe the issues of organization and cost should be considered separately. A reorganization may or may not address the cost issue.

Other disappointments: the collapse in support for mandatory sick leave, the last-minute decision (Diane Snelling, take a bow!) to make food-stamp beneficiaries responsible for overpayments caused by state errors, and yet another failure to improve the Current Use law (which leaves it open to opportunistic attacks from the right). And I’m not entirely happy with some of the newly-enacted bills. But all in all, a solid performance by lawmakers, in which they positively addressed a wide range of issues.  

This has to be the world record for throwing cold water on a hot idea.

Rep. Heidi Scheuermann will not run for governor.

Roughly 12 hours after I posited a best-case scenario for Vermont Republicans — an issues-based, convincingly moderate primary campaign between Scheuermann and businessman Scott Milne — it evaporated in the cold, cruel light of political reality.

The Republican from Stowe says she started her exploration of a gubernatorial bid too late, and she doesn’t have the time to build the kind of campaign she needs to run against Gov. Peter Shumlin, the two-term incumbent Democrat.

She’s right, of course. It’s awfully late to start a campaign from scratch, which is what she (or any Shumlin challenger other than, oh, Bruce Lisman) would have to do. Especially Scott Milne, who’s out of the country right now and told the Burlington Freeploid that he “would make no decision on running for a month.

A month???

Clock’s ticking, Scotty boy. In fact, a month from yesterday, when he made the comment, happens to be the filing deadline for gubernatorial candidates. “A month” is, literally, the last possible moment to launch a campaign.

And if Milne, or anyone else, was seriously going to mount a competitive race against the well-entrenched and very deep-pocketed Shumlin, the time for decisions passed at least six months ago.

I tell ya, for the sake of the VTGOP’s credibility, Milne had better say yes. Otherwise, the primary field consists of… er… Emily Peyton, perpetual fringe candidate. She of the hand-lettered trash-bag yard signs.  

12 hours ago, the VTGOP had an honest-to-goodness positive scenario in front of ’em. Now, things are looking bleak as usual. It’s either wait for Milne, desperately search for another candidate, or — worst-case — enter the primary season with only Peyton on the GOP ballot, and have to mount a monumentally embarrassing write-in campaign for Randy Brock or some other willing victim.

Too bad. Scheuermann would have faced huge obstacles: lack of name recognition outside of Stowe and Montpelier, no money, and a Republican machine that’s drastically underfunded and disorganized. But she would have brought interesting positives: moderate politics (by Republican standards), and a relatively young female as the new face of the Bitter Old White Men’s Party.

She might have been able to pry away some of the moderate business types who’ve been bankrolling Shumlin in the absence of a convincing Republican alternative. And, as a somewhat soft-spoken female, she could have exploited Shumlin’s tendency to be overly self-assured and even condescending. I could easily see him putting his foot in his mouth during a Shumlin/Scheuermann debate, by appearing dismissive of a female challenger.

It wouldn’t have been enough for Scheuermann to actually beat the Governor, but it would have been interesting, and it would have positioned the VTGOP for a brighter future.

Oh well. Scheuermann in 2016?