Here's tonight's news from Comcast:
The legendary “Ain’t That a Shame” crooner, who scored five number one hits in the 1950s, has an arrest warrant with his name on it after missing a scheduled court appearance in connection with a recent lawsuit.
Needless to say, I have no objection to anyone wanting to throw Pat Boone in jail. It's just ironic–not to mention almost sixty years overdue– that the warrant isn't for this:
Are doomed to repeat it.
George Santayana said that, and now the saying apparently describes the CCTA Board of Commissioners.
According to Vermont Digger, the CCTA Board is poised to escalate an already hostile situation to one of extreme bitterness. They voted today to hire scabs to break the three-week-old bus drivers' strike.
Here's the operative language in today's resolution:
People who have lived in Vermont long enough will remember the 1985 Hinesburg teachers' strike, which eventually went on for eighty-seven days. In that strike not only did the school board hire scab teachers two weeks into the staff, but the board chair, Rita Flynn Villa, tried to throw out teacher pay scales, eliminate teacher grievance protection, and generally tried to bust the union.
The teachers were ultimately reinstated, but not without causing bitter divisions between teachers, management, and parents in the town.
This year it's not the teachers, it's the bus drivers, and they and their supporters have already been complaining about what they consider unfair and unbalanced press coverage of the positions of the two sides.
Hiring scabs, while it may look like an attractive short-term solutions, will only further poison relations with the drivers. The company may be legally justified in taking this action, but they should recognize that there are already calls by community groups to replace management, and those calls will only increase if the board goes nuclear.
The Report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, discussed in today’s New York Times confirms that the worst will come.
There is no real movement to address the coming crisis from any of the large players that could actually affect meaningful change; so the worst will come.
Where is the 24/7 coverage of this, the biggest catastrophe story ever?
Four weeks and no clue later, major broadcast media still obsess over every single detail of Malaysian Flight 370, with endless panels of armchair experts speculating on what “might have happened.” They’ve barely broken the blanket coverage to bring us bits about the Ukraine, mudslides in the Pacific Northwest and (today) Korea.
With all this bread and circus driving primetime news, the very real collapse of the climate system and all the attendant calamities we will unfortunately live to see, barely get the occasional weary nod from mainstream media.
Instead, we are treated to montages of crying relatives and interviews with people on the other side of the world, who once knew someone who was on Flight 370.
I haven’t heard a single voice questioning whether Flight 370 is a hoax; yet, somehow, despite the overwhelming consensus on climate change, it is still politic to give change doubters and deniers almost equal time in the very limited media that is devoted to the topic.
And worse, it is still commonly assumed that indefinite growth is the correct model for every human endeavor.
It is that impossible and toxic assumption that has even President Obama harnessed to fossil fuels and nuclear energy!
We can make no meaningful progress on conservation and sustainable living until our leaders acknowledge that sustainability, and not growth, is the number one priority of the twenty first century if it is not to be our last.
That and that alone should be the lead story of every news cycle going forward.
(Almost missed this one! – promoted by Sue Prent)
from House calendar for tomorrow’s session:
Amendment to be offered by Rep. Michelsen of Hardwick to the recommendation of amendment of the Committee on Government Operations to S. 86
First: By adding a Sec. 73a to read:
Sec. 73a. PROHIBITION ON LONG WINTERS
Winter shall end on March 20th of every year, and after that date, there shall
not be any:
(1) snow;
(2) storms; or
(3) temperatures below freezing.
Second: In Sec. 74, by adding a subdivision (4) to read:
(4) Sec. 73a (prohibition on long winters) shall take effect on April 1,
2014, and shall apply to every year thereafter.
Senate Penitent Pro Tem John Campbell’s had a fun week, trying to walk back his unfortunate remarks about the prospects for single-payer health care. Or, should I say, trying to obfuscate his remarks with a blizzard of verbiage which appears designed to include every conceivable position while providing deniability to any position that proves untenable.
For those just joining us, Campbell stepped in it when he told VPR’s Peter “Mr. Microphone” Hirschfeld that single-payer health care “may not be… politically viable in this legislative body, due to the costs involved,” and that he believes it’s time to develop an alternative. Or, as he put it, “I want to make sure that we have a place to go if this doesn’t work out, you know, the single-payer itself.”
Ruh-roh. Governor Shumlin reacted noncommittally in public, but I’ve heard he was privately peeved. And on Friday, Campbell made an appearance on WDEV’s Mark Johnson Show, (audio podcast at link) where Mark attempted to pin him down. It was like grabbing for a greased octopus; Campbell thrashed vigorously this way and that, laying down a thick inky cloud of verbiage in response to Johnson’s every sally.
It was amazing, and not in a good way. After hearing it live, I had no earthly idea what Campbell’s position actually was. And I’m sure that’s exactly what he had in mind.
So I went back and listened again, thanks to Johnson’s podcast archive, and I transcribed a big, bleeding chunk of it. I hoped to achieve some clarity on his position, and I thought it would serve as a cautionary example for future statesmen: please don’t talk like John Campbell.
As for his actual views… when I first listened to the interview, I thought Campbell was backtracking in a purposefully clumsy way: tossing verbal smoke bombs this way and that, covering his retreat. But when I listened again, carefully, I became convinced that Campbell was actually doubling down on his doubts concerning single-payer health care.
Of course, he laid down such massive clouds of rhetoric that he could probably deny or confirm that he said or didn’t say almost anything. In effect, he said it all, and he said not a damn thing. But I think — and I emphasize here, I think — he gave an extremely conditional endorsement to single-payer: he’s in favor of it, but only if it doesn’t cost a dime more than the current system. He’s willing to shift revenues around, but not to add any new ones.
And he has a very broad definition of success on the health-care reform front. He is not — at all — committed to single-payer health care. He would be happy with any system that provides universal access to health care. Which is a creditable statement in itself; it goes substantially farther than the current round of reform.
But it isn’t necessarily single-payer. And the Governor shouldn’t count on John Campbell as an ally or a Senate vote-herder.
Okay, let’s take a look at what Campbell actually said. Johnson’s first question was, more or less, “You dropped something of a bombshell this week that you want to start pursuing an alternative to the Shumlin health care plan. Why?”
And here, word for dreadful word, is Campbell’s answer. Buckle up, kids.
First of all, I guess it’s a question of how you define what my “bombshell” is. I think some people have taken it to mean what they really, what they want to hear from what I said. And basically, my, uh, my position is this, is that we are headed right now as far as the Legislature, we are going to be focusing on making sure that we have a publicly-financed, universal access to health care in this state, and that’s known as Green Mountain Care. As far as I’m concerned, I consider it Green Mountain Care, it’s a universal access program. Um, um, I charged my, in fact we spoke about it here on this program at the beginning, I think at the beginning of the session, how I had asked all of my committees with jurisdiction to start doing their due diligence under Act 48, which was the, back in 2011, which actually started Green Mountain Care or our, ah, our, ah, move to that. And so what I did was, I asked each one of the committees that would have jurisdiction, which were five of those committees, and they were to um look and see what exactly is in Act 48 and can we actually achieve what our goal is?
And if they found things that um, through their, uh, their research and through taking testimony, that could either change this into a direction and put us in a direction that we were going to uh have this Green Mountain Care would be sustainable, then I wanted to hear about it and I thought that’s really what the Senate is doing now. So uh the fact of the matter, uh, I believe there was a statement was, um, regarding the funding, and whether or not I believed that, I think I said that, uh, the $2.2 billion dollar package that’s been put on there right now, I said I do not think that that was sustainable or viable in this, uh, current legislative — uh, Legislature. And I stand by that.
And what it, what I’m talking about in that, and people always take that $2.2 billion dollar figure, and they believe that that’s all new money. And it’s not new money. What it is is partially savings that would be found, uh, by way of not having the premiums, um, by cost savings, and so I stand by the fact is that once we find out what this financing package is, which would also first identify what the product is gonna be, um, if we do not have sufficient — if that money, um, is new money, then there’s gonna be a problem. But if we show, and we’re able to demonstrate that the money in that $2.2 billion is currently already in the system, and that Vermonters are already paying, uh, and on top of that, that we find those costs for any new money that’s — cost savings for any new money that’s coming in, then we’re, we have, I think, ahh, what we envision, all of us envision, that is to make sure that every Vermonter has full access, or access to. uh, uh, to great health care here in the state.
Feeling a little dizzy? Or completely lost?
How I interpreted that: Campbell thinks single-payer is politically feasible “if we show… that the… $2.2 billion is currently already in the system.” Or if the cost turns out to be less than $2.2 billion.
Johnson’s next question reflected the natural befuddlement of someone who just tried to fight his way through Campbell’s wordcloud: “So do you want to create a contingency plan now, or not? I’m not clear.” Campbell:
I think what we’re doing is, we’re going through and looking out, at for Green Mountain Care. And we’re going to be looking at what the plan is. I, you know, I don’t care if you want to call it the contingency plan or, um, different from what the, ah, the Governor or the Administration envisioned to begin with. Um, I think it’s clear that if you look at from when we began back in 2011 till now, you already have seen some machinations, some changes in what the scope was going to be or how we were going to deal with it.
Uh, to me it’s a constant evolution. This is not a — this is not something that’s been done before, as you know. So it is new. We are reinventing the wheel, ah if you will. So, ah, it cannot, as far as I’m concerned, it has to always be flexible, it has to be, it cannot be um so stagnant that we are, um, set on one, on one, um, course. We have to, it’s fluid. And that’s the way I want to make sure that we continue to look at it.
What I take from that: Campbell isn’t committed to any single policy or program. I think I can fairly infer that he has doubts about the political viability of single-payer. He’s certainly not personally committed to it, not if it costs any more than our current system.
Back to Johnson: “Have you concluded that the way that the Governor wants to do this can’t work, politically or economically?” Campbell:
No, because the fact is that right now, um, as you know, we have, uh, right now just a, the bottom framework, and that is what, what the goal is. Uhh, the, as you know we did not, um, have not arrived at a financing plan, and that is because I don’t believe that we actually have had, um, the entire. ahh, uhh, you know, definition of what the plan will look like. And that’s really where the key is, and that’s what we’re doing in our Act 252, our, our, the Senate bill that we passed yesterday, um, 252, and that is to set the framework as to looking how we’re going to develop the, the, what the plan is gonna look like itself.
And once you have a definition of what the plan, what we really want to be able to offer to, to Vermonters, uh, taking into consideration all of the individuals that will be in the plan and then, of course, all of them that will not be in the plan, we take a look at that, and we make a determination of what that will cost. And until then, I don’t think anyone can, can sit there and say that this is a grand slam.
Well, I don’t think anyone is claiming that it’ll be a grand slam. But Johnson tries again: “Okay. But on the other hand (sigh) I’m just not really clear here, John, where you’re coming from. Are you saying that while, before you make that determination, whether that’s going to work, that you also, on a parallel period of time here want to develop a contingency plan? Another bill, another system?” Campbell:
No, ah, Mark, I, I, you know, this is the issue, is, the fact is, the Senate, or the Legislature is the one who is going to come up with the Green Mountain plan. We’re the one that’s going to pass the law to, if we’re going to enact a universal, a publicly-financed system. Um, and right now we have, the Governor has, the Administration has put forth their idea of what they feel would be in the best interests of Vermont, and that would be a single-payer health, publicly financed system. What I’m saying is, while we’re doing our homework, ’cause we’re the ones who are going to have to put it together. We’re gonna be the, the designers, we’re gonna be the mechanics, ah, we’re gonna be, those people who make sure that every screw is tightened and every bolt is riveted down tight. And so we’re the ones who are going to have to determine what that final product is going to look like.
Which would seem to be a very processy way of saying, “The Governor might not get what he wants, and we will have the final say, not him.” But I’m sure Campbell would deny that that’s what he’s saying.
I’m going to skip the next question and answer, and move on to my final excerpt.
Johnson: “So are you looking more at how — you’re not challenging the goal, but you’re looking more at how you make the money work, how you put that together?”
Exactly. Exactly. The goal, the goal has been the same. Um, now, you know some people call it single-payer, I call it Green Mountain Care. I call it universal access. Um, I think if you look at the pure term of, of single-payer, it’s, it’s something that that’s where I might have a divergence. Maybe that’s because of the fact that in my profession as an attorney I’m, you know, words mean things, um, and I want to make sure that we are, uh, when I say something, I, I’m talking about, uh, the system, what I consider to be, you know, Green Mountain Care, publicly-financed insurance, health care coverage for all.
And there you pretty much have confirmation of Campbell’s words to Hirschfeld. He is not committed to single-payer. He is committed to universal access, which is certainly creditable; he wants universal access, which is a big step beyond Obamacare. But Campbell is holding back from any endorsement of single-payer; to him, it’s whatever keeps costs down and accomplishes the goal, even if it’s some sort of tweak of Vermont Health Connect.
Finally, I’ll point out a great moment of irony: “In my profession as an attorney… words mean things.” Bwahahahahaha. Words have rarely seemed less meaningful than in this interview.
A few days ago we asked “How can they say no?” and the question was how could the Legislature possibly refuse to even look at the revenue potential of marijuana legalization.
You see, right now, marijuana growers in Vermont are getting a huge tax break by escaping both sales and income taxes on their sales, and a cadre of House members thought it would be a good idea to put a stop to this and start collecting money to help balance the state budget. An amendment was proposed to the miscellaneous tax bill, it garnered over fifty cosponsors, it even gained the support of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.
So what happened when it got to the floor?
* * * Joint Fiscal Office Report * * *
Sec. 31a. JOINT FISCAL OFFICE REPORT
I wasn't there but by the outcome I have to figure that the amendment's supporters didn't have the votes to override the Speaker's ruling.
Of course, we do have a bicameral legislature, and I understand there is support in the Senate, so we'll keep watching this one.
Republicans know they’ve got to do a better job of “wooing” female voters. Their prescription, of course, is completely inadequate: don’t change the policies, just stop saying really stupid shit. And even that is beyond their capabilities; almost every day, some male Republican officeholder or party official somewhere says something colossally ignorant about women. They can’t help themselves.
Our latest entry in this sad little ledger is from the city of Barre, where local Democrats are choosing nominees to serve out the remaining term of the departing State Rep. Tess Taylor. (Reminder: the local party chooses up to three nominees and forwards the names to the Governor, who can choose any of the three or anyone else, for that matter.)
As reported in the Mitchell Family Organ (North) — behind a paywall, as usual — the Dems’ clear choice was Tommy Walz, chair of the Barre Democrats. There seems to be only one problem: he’d be a man replacing a woman, and this raised some concerns.
So the Barre City Democratic Committee added two women to their list of three, Gina Galfetti and HIllary Montgomery.
Fast forward to The Mouth That Roared, Barre’s Republican Mayor Thom Lauzon, who wrote a letter to the Governor urging the appointment of Walz. And, when asked about the idea of giving preference to a woman, he scoffed:
“What’s next? Are we going to replace a brunette with a brunette? That’s just silly.”
Open mouth, insert foot.
No, Mr. Mayor, we won’t be considering hair color in present or future nominations. Nor will we insist that you be succeeded as Mayor by a real estate investor with a Napoleon complex and temper-control issues.
And by cavalierly dismissing the notion that gender is a factor worthy of consideration, Thom Lauzon becomes the latest Republican male who just can’t help himself. It’s not in the same league as Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” or Mike Huckabee’s “helpless without Uncle Sugar”, but it’s yet another sign of something deeply wrong, and deeply sexist, about the 21st Century Republican brain.
(Some thoughts on News, History & Hypocrisy. For Ariel Pascoe, Student of War.)
First, for all you Dali Lama Hindi Buddhist New Age Freaks, this:
“If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the skies, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one.”–The BHAGAVAD GITA
Nice.
Yeah. Supposedly–because he later claimed so repeatedly over the years–Robert Oppenheimer, a student of the BHAGAVAD GITA (the Sanskrit text, not the Rock Group), said he thought that line while watching the fireball develop at the Trinity site on July 16, 1945. He also claimed he thought of Vishnu’s line in that same text at the same time: “I am become Death, shatterer of worlds.” Man, busy mind there, Oppie. No thoughts also about Rita Hayworth?
Oppenheimer was your basic fucked-up lib-er-al ‘mystic’ type. He was all for dropping the Bomb on Hiroshima, rather than do a ‘demonstration’ of it off Tokyo Bay, as many others at Trinity and in the Truman administration proposed. Even Secretary of War Stimson, I believe, was in favor of the demonstration idea. But Oppenheimer thought such a ‘demonstration’ of the Bomb’s true power could only be done by a ‘demonstration’ on a real target–a Japanese city. This is how he stood in July of ’45. Over the years, Oppenheimer waffled and waxed Hindi and Buddhist while calling up those BHAGAVAD GITA lines. He said he thought those lines at Trinity. The myth later became that he actually said Vishnu’s line out loud. Give me a break! Lib-er-al after-the-fact plausible deniability. I feel your pain, Ban-The-Bomb folks. Mea Culpa (sort of). Give me a hug.
Oppenheimer wasn’t quite the saint he thought he was, or has been made out to be by lib-er-al apologists. The A-Bomb was his BABY. And he wanted to see exactly what it could do. Of course, compared to Edward Teller, with his SUPER (H) BOMB lobbying, Oppenheimer could be sort of regarded as saintly, in a Napoleon/Hitler analogy.* But can the Hindi crap. Making up quotes to go along with what is considered Politically Correct. Pul-lease.
As far as real comments made at Trinity, I myself prefer the absolutely gut-true and ‘poetic’ remark by physicist Kenneth Bainbridge, who, on watching the fireball, turned to Oppenheimer and actually said out loud: “Now we’re all sons of bitches.” Yes! No ‘trendy babble’ that.
So, with all that in mind, folks, let’s look at NEWS that may cause us to wax poetic after-the-fact:
The Chinese are accusing Japanese Prime Minister Abe of being a ‘liar’ and the Russians are still lurking at the Ukrainian border. Sounds like we’re on the verge of another ‘demonstration’ with our Nuclear TOYS. Nations run by ‘boys’ like their ‘toys’. Oh, and Obama met with Pope Francis. They ate Jello Pudding and joked about how you can really fool some of the people some of the time, and how the media will help fool the rest, all of the time.
Because even so-called REAL NEWS now, if you can find any, is like a marketing campaign. The NET news is all celebrity shit, with the Ukraine and China and Japan thrown in almost in the same sense as having to cover the weather. And even the PRINT MEDIA has succumbed to NEWS as ENTERTAINMENT. Imagine something like Hiroshima & Nagasaki today:
“And in other news, it’s being reported that NATO forces have clashed with Russian forces in the western Ukraine, and that–this is still unconfirmed–tactical nuclear weapons were employed. We’ll update you on that later. But now, here’s Karma Gibberish in Las Vegas with a timely report on celebrity fashions for Armageddon Eve. Karma?”
Yeah. Well remember, it’s all just ENTERTAINMENT. There will never really be a nuclear war. The Celebrities and the Dali Lama will stop it. And the goddamn Pope.
So, now that I’ve bummed you all out, how ’bout this for ENTERTAINING NEWS (This is a ‘Hoot’):
The NET reports this morning that over 30,000 Alaskans have signed a petition to have Alaska secede from the union and rejoin Russia. I love it. Apparently, if you get 100,000 signatures on some petitions, they are eligible for consideration at the White House. I can see it now–PUTIN & PALIN, a new Broadway musical, kind of like Porgy & Bess. Or maybe like The Sound Of Music: “The hills are alive, with the sound of Russian. With words we last heard in 1867…” (My friend Maggie might get another musical for her Musical Fest at the Savoy.)
Brother. Or, as Andy Rooney would have put it: “Did you ever wonder whether some of this stuff is really necessary, or whether we should just put it all in a box at the Yard Sale with a sign that says FREE–PLEASE TAKE THIS NEWS–OR ELSE IT GOES TO THE DUMP?”
As The Man used to say: “And that’s the way it is.”
*Interesting thought–Teller (Dr. Strangelove) wanted everybody involved with the A-Bomb to join him working on the H-Bomb, the SUPER, he called it. But that would have taken years more work, and Washington wanted a weapon to use while WWII was still on.
Teller felt Oppenheimer stabbed his H-Bomb work in the back, and later on got his revenge on Oppenheimer by testifying against renewing Oppenheimer’s National Security Rating. Jesus Christ! Sound a little like High School? Remember, these guys are the Fathers of WMDs. But, what IF? What if they went to work on the SUPER in ’43 and ’44? No A-Bomb. No Hiroshima. No Nagasaki. One wonders. History. As John Travolta once said: “Ain’t it cool?”
Peter Buknatski
Montpelier, Vt.
( – promoted by Sue Prent)
House lawmakers rejected an attempt to stave off cuts in the federal food stamp program before approving a $1.44 billion tax bill Thursday.
Rep. Paul Poirier, I-Barre, proposed raising taxes for people in the state’s two highest income brackets to collect an additional $10 million to fund the 3SquaresVT nutrition assistance program. His effort was defeated on a roll-call vote of 115-28.
Sigh.
During debate Poirier noted that one of six of our fellow Vermonters relies on some form of aid to feed themselves, and over one-third of those are kids. The average food assistance benefit? 243 bucks, before SNAP was cut.
So Poirier proposed we raise top marginal rates for 2014 and 2015: from 8.80% to 9.5% and from 8.95% to 9.95%. Naturally, Republicans argued that the wealthiest Vermonters “already pay their fair share.” It's a common canard which ignores the simple fact that Poors and Middle Class Chumps don't account for more of our aggregate revenue because they make substantially less money.
Really, do people not remember the 90s? Snelling and Dean essentially level-funded the government's essential services during that recession.
Note what Snelling said back then:
We cannot and will not set lower standards for the education of our children, for the health of the population, for assistance to the troubled, jobless, or homeless, or for protection of the environment.
Former Speaker of the Vermont House, Ralph Wright adds:
If someone had asked what was the first thing Gov. Snelling and I agreed upon it was: ‘This deficit will not be placed on the backs of the poor, the elderly, or the children.’ And then we raised taxes.
Yup, then Snelling raised taxes:
He hiked the sales tax rate from 4 percent to 5 percent with a plan to sunset the hike in 1993. He significantly boosted Ver- mont’s piggyback tax rate. Under Vermont’s tax system, citizens pay a share of their federal tax liability to the state govrnment. In the late 1980s, the piggyback tax rate was 25 percent. Instead of the traditional flat rate, Snelling made the tax system more progressive by introducing a 31 percent tax rate on federal income tax liability over $3,400 and a 34 percent rate on federal income tax liability over $13,100. Everyone else paid a 28 percent tax rate.
Why is something like this not even on the table today?
Austerity has been shown to be a failure all over the world, including at home. And we have a Vermont-grown example of policy that helped us climb out of a nasty recession whilst preserving the safety net but a generation ago, well within the political memories of those now serving in Montpelier. Is it willful ignorance or just a lack of compassion that prevents legislators from borrowing from a successful bipartisan playbook?
ntodd
NB: edited to rely less on VTDigger quote and to expand analysis.
Just an interesting sighting from the Web.
It's another Tayt Brooks sighting, whom you may remember as the acolyte of Lenore Broughton, who singlehandedly funds right-wing causes here in Vermont.
This time around Tayt is crowing about the success of some Burlington School Board candidates who had the backing, or attended a training, or something put on by an astroturf group called American Majority.
One of these candidates claimed that after going through the training he tripled his vote count, and that could very well be true. Maybe they actually did teach him how to identify supporters, hone his message, raise money, and actually succeed in politics.
What seems to bear watching is if this group allied to the Tea Party is really starting to have an effect in local politics. We've seen across the country the way right-wingers and creationists have started out in low-level, low-visibility elections to establish a foundation to propagate their ideas, and I've always been pretty skeptical that those ideas will be popular here in Vermont.
On the other hand,, if a well-funded national conservative organization is consciously targeting Vermont local elections to undermine the schools, it requires a well-organized response. We are already seeing liberal, civic-minded people in Burlington and Montpelier organizing to fight back against the attacks on our schools and school budgets. Let's hope those groups are the start of a counterforce against the big bucks flowing in from out of state.