Last week, Governor Shumlin confined his State of the State address to a single issue: the growing problem of opioid (DAMN, that’s hard to spell) abuse in Vermont. Some critics, like House Minority Leader Don Turner, groused that it wasn’t a “real” SotS:

“My question is…what is the “state of the state?”” said House Minority Leader Rep. Don Turner (R-Chittenden). “…what about the rest of the issues that we deal with?

Yeah, yeah. As if Turner would have accepted Shumlin’s assessment at face value. No, I don’t particularly care about the SotS “tradition.” The speech is a marker for the opening of the new Legislative session, but it doesn’t necessarily have any impact on the flow of debate. Neither do I see a whole lot of value in deviating from the tradition; Shumlin could just have easily done a regular SotS and a separate address on drugs. That would have done just as much to cement the issue at the top of his agenda.

So, on the process question, I profess ambivalence. Now, on to the substance.

The problem of opioid addiction has been a significant one in Vermont for quite a long time. And if Shumlin’s rather appalling statistics are on the mark (I have no reason to doubt him), it’s gotten a whole lot worse in the last dozen or so years.

(Hmmmm… and who was Governor for most of that time? I do believe it was the Patron Saint of Vermont Republicanism, Jim Douglas. Living down to Peter Freyne’s monicker of “Doesless,” eh Jim?)

So I applaud Governor Shumlin for putting the issue in the spotlight and vowing to tackle it with something more than the umpty-billionth “crackdown” that does nothing more than overcrowd our prisons. Although, as Seven Days was maybe the only news outlet to notice, Shumlin’s plan does have a “tough on crime” element as well as a new emphasis on treatment and prevention. But overall, it’s a welcome development.

But it’s only the first step. We’ve seen gubernatorial flagships run aground on the rocky shoals of legislative reality before. Indeed, we saw it last year, when Shumlin’s energy efficiency and welfare reform plans hit the ol’ iceberg and sank.

So moving opioid addiction to the front burner in his SotS is only the first step. Many obstacles remain. Here they are, in rough chronological order:  

— The Governor’s budget address. Last year’s high-profile initiatives came a cropper when Shumlin yoked them to wacky (break-open ticket tax) or unacceptable (slashing the Earned Income Tax Credit) funding schemes. In a year when the state already faces a big budget gap and Shumlin has vowed to hold the line on broad-based tax increases*, I fear that he’ll go back to that Well of Bad Ideas and either propose a Rube Goldberg scheme that’ll fall on deaf ears under the Dome, or take money away from needed programs to fund new initiatives. In the inverted words of the old saying, he’ll rob Paul to pay for Peter. Which leads to the second iceberg in the path of S.S. Opioid Treatment And Prevention…

*Meaning, as always, tax increases he doesn’t like.

— The Legislature.  The State of the State address generates a lot of media coverage, but it doesn’t really move the dial in the People’s House. Lawmakers need a lot of convincing. And even though the Governor has a supermajority in the Legislature, his priorities are often given the cold shoulder. If he really wants his drug plan to go through, he’ll have to do a lot of convincing. In the past, he’s fallen short on the follow-through. Which leads to the third iceberg…

— The Governor’s short attention span. This may be spectacularly unfair, but: my impression is that Shumlin is red-hot on launching new policy ventures, but isn’t as focused on the hard work of convincing other people. This is a little bit odd from someone who rose through the legislative ranks; you’d think he, of all people, ought to be comfortable with the glad-handing and arm-twisting needed to get lawmakers on his side.

The Governor has frequently acknowledged his dyslexia. Looking from the outside, this amateur psychiatrist would say that he also has a touch of ADD/ADHD. Whether or not that’s true, he pretty clearly has more energy than patience. If he truly wants his drug plan to take effect, he’ll have to get in the trenches in February and March.

As for the fourth iceberg…

— Money. Based on past experience and his stated budget priorities, I suspect the Governor will come up with a funding plan that won’t please the Legislature. Last year, he refused to budge when his fellow Democrats devised their own funding schemes; indeed, he preferred to let his proposals sink rather than accept their funding plan. We’re certainly set up for the same thing to happen this year. Hopefully the Governor learned a lesson from last time: Don’t blindside your fellow Democrats with iffy funding plans and expect them to follow happily along. Hopefully he has either worked with legislative leaders to develop a funding plan, or he’s at least kept them in the loop this time around.

And now, the fourth and a half – and biggest – iceberg…

— Will we end up with a shadow of an effective plan? Without digging into the details of the opioid issue, I wonder whether the dollars Shumlin proposes are sufficient. The single biggest problem re: opioids is the lack of treatment opportunities. Well, if we’ve already got lengthy waiting lists, what happens when we start aggressively diverting offenders into treatment? I wonder.

And I wonder even more about the outcome in the Legislature. If the Governor and lawmakers get into a tussle over funding, then the easiest way out is to hack and slash. I doubt that there’s any fat on Shumlin’s proposal; if we wind up with some fraction of his plan, then it won’t be enough.

The worst possible outcome may well be the most likely: Lawmakers will conclude that attacking drug abuse is a good idea, but we simply can’t afford it right now. (How often have we heard that one?) They’ll kill most or all of the treatment side and approve the politically-safe “tough on crime” aspect. We’ll wind up with stiffer penalties for out-of-state drug dealers and for those who commit crimes with guns, but not much else.

If so, the State of the State Address will have been a wasted opportunity. And opioids will continue to be a scourge in Vermont communities large and small.  

It’s always informative to look back to authoritative representations made in the early days of a crisis like Fukushima and see how well they align with reality a couple of years down the line.

Maybe you remember that infamous MIT study that seemed deliberately engineered to mislead about the dangers of radiation.

Therapeutically injected into the PR fallout from the world’s worst nuclear accident (which was not, as yet, identified as such), the MIT study took the rather astonishing position that it might not have been necessary to evacuate people from the region around the crippled reactors! It was very popular and widely quoted at the time; and probably gave some poor folks in northern Japan a short-lived sense of security.

If you were paying attention after then, we came rather quickly to understand that MIT was so dependent on support from the nuclear industry that its research in the area could no longer be trusted.

I haven’t heard much reference to those literally incredible findings in the intervening years, but they are no doubt deeply embedded in every proposal for a new nuclear facility that comes into play.

Much like the truncated and censored records drawn from survivors of the WWII nuclear attacks in Japan that form the basis of conventional wisdom even to this day;  the myth of harmlessness generated by this latest attempt to skew the science in favor of the nuclear industry will have a half-life as long as plutonium.  

But, hang on!

Here comes news that, even using the questionable benchmarks established by the post-WW II  records and the equally questionable records from Chernobyl (where Soviet officials are believed to have deliberately expunged much of the data), it can be estimated that the  incidence of thyroid cancer in Fukushima survivors will be one-in-fifty, or seven times the normal rate.

Now…can I interest you in some Japanese farmland that’s going very cheap these days?

A few days ago, I spotlighted Lt. Gov. Phil Scott’s reaction to Governor Shumlin’s State of the State Address (Opioid Crisis Edition), which seemed rather staunchly conservative considering its source. And I wondered if Scott was feeling the pressure to move towards — or at least pander to — the right wing of his party.

Well, if he is, he’s not doing enough of it to satisfy said wing. From Jon “Watchpup” Street at the “I Can’t Believe It’s Journalism” site Vermont Watchdog:

Pressure mounts for Vermont lieutenant governor to take single-payer position

Prominent members of his own party wonder why, after more than 2 1/2 years, Republican Lt. Gov. Phil Scott refuses to take a position on the state’s single-payer health-care law.

Scott has adopted a skeptical but “wait and see” attitude toward single-payer, saying he can’t take a position until Governor Shumlin actually unveils the single payer plan including its funding scheme.

Which isn’t good enough for “prominent members of his own party.” And who, pray tell, are these “prominent members”?

The very folks who ran the VTGOP off the rails and into the chasm of an historic 2012 defeat: gubernatorial candidate Randy Brock and his extremely well-paid campaign manager Darcie “Hack” Johnston. Those are the only two “prominent members” identified by Street as criticizing Scott.  

First, the ex-candidate:

Brock… said ample information is available to judge that a single-payer system would be bad for Vermont.

Single-payer will jeopardize jobs … It would encourage medical professionals to leave the state, discourage medical innovation … prohibit Vermonters from choosing their own health plans and rely on a state agency he says has already proven itself incapable of implementation.

And the “mastermind” of Brock’s defeat:

“I think Lt. Gov. Scott is very confused on the Republican principles with regard to government-run, socialized health care, “Johnston said.

Yes, the architects of Brock’s woefully underfunded and completely ineffectual campaign are taking potshots at the only Republican who actually won a statewide race in 2012. (Just to remind you of the numbers, Brock  earned less than 38% of the vote and lost to Shumlin by over 20 percentage points, while Scott pulled in 57% of the vote. The only other statewide Republican candidate to win more than 41% was the other centrist on the ticket, Vince Illuzzi.)

Not that these embarrassing results have given any pause to Brock or the Hack; they’re demanding that Scott prove his conservative purity by moving farther out of Vermont’s mainstream. Man, I don’t envy the high-wire act Scott will have to perform: maintaining his centrist credentials (even as Shumlin actively co-opts the center) while trying to mollify the Loser & Nutjob Wing of the party.  

If I were him, I think I’d just let the VTGOP roam in the wilderness and bask in the popularity and job security of being Lieutenant Governor, a job that plays to his skills and lets him go on being Everybody’s Buddy. Why try to save the political bacon of ingrates like Johnston and Brock?

That radioactive mess over in Japan?  It just keeps getting worse.

And it’s leaching out into the environment at an alarming rate.

According to Tokyo Electric Power Co., an evaluation of radiation exposure caused by toxic water, rubble and debris, and other waste kept at the plant was below the limit of 1 millisievert per year as of March, but increased to 7.8 millisieverts as of August.

Just for your interest, measurements taken at the perimeter of the premises indicate radiation to be eight times the regulatory limit and rising.

The source has been identified as stored contaminated water from the cooling process.  Think about that when you consider the decades and decades of suspense that Vermont’s aquifer must endure before our own little hot-pot, Vermont Yankee, has been effectively “neutralized.”

And they want to build more of these environmental time bombs?

If that wasn’t enough to give one pause, how about this:  remember all the assurance we had in the early days of Fukushima, that the ocean is a “big place” in which radiation will be diffused and we won’t have to worry about contamination reaching the aquatic life?

Well, it has just been reported that black sea bream have been caught off the coast of Japan with levels of cesium as high as twenty-four-times the acceptable standards for food.  

Four out of thirty-seven fish sampled had unacceptable levels of the radioactive toxin.

Black sea bream are

on the list of fish that local fishermen are asked to voluntarily refrain from catching in the northern municipalities of Ibaraki Prefecture, which is located just south of Fukushima Prefecture.

(my emphasis added.)

‘Ya think?

Obama administration to end contract with CGI Federal, company behind HealthCare.gov

By Juliet Eilperin and Amy Goldstein

The Obama administration has decided to jettison CGI Federal, the main IT contractor that was responsible for building the defect-ridden online health insurance marketplace and has been immersed in the work of repairing it, according to a person familiar with the matter.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

And so should VT.

Sen. Sally Fox, public advocate extraordinaire, has died after a two-year battle with lung cancer.

According to reports on Vt Digger, House Speaker Shap Smith made the announcement Friday to a shocked chamber of legislators, many of whom had been her colleagues during her seven terms in the House. She was in the middle of her second term in the Senate. According to the story in the Free Press (limited free access) Senate President Pro-tem John Campbell called her “courageous and passionate in fighting for people who couldn’t fight for themselves.”

I met Sally Fox a few times, and was inspired and impressed. Hers was clearly a public service life, dedicated to speaking up for those with less access to power. She was kind and smart and did terrific work. She will be missed by thousands of people, some of whom might not ever have known who she was or what she did to make their lives better.

Our hearts and thoughts go out to her husband and children and to all those who must find a way to carry on without her voice, her compassion, her presence to make justice real in this world.

I have some thoughts regarding Governor Shumlin’s State of the State Address, Opioid Edition. But before I get to that, I wanted to point out the most interesting response to the speech. It came from Lt. Gov. Phil Scott, putative moderate. And it sounded… well… extremely Republican.

I agree wholeheartedly with the Governor that drug abuse – and prevention, enforcement, treatment and recovery – is a critical issue in our state that we must address.  

Nothing wrong so far. Standard boilerplate response. But then:

The Governor also mentioned that creating jobs and opportunity is the best prevention. I completely agree, but I’m concerned that there was no mention of a plan or strategy on that front. Since being elected to public office, I’ve been talking about the need to grow the economy, creating an environment that is conducive to growth, and making it easier for people to do business in Vermont. I’m concerned that we have created a lot of uncertainty on a number of issues – health care, property tax increases, employer mandates and other government regulations – some of which are making it harder, not easier, to do business in Vermont. I want to once again challenge every legislator and the Governor to think about their decisions on each and every piece of legislation this session through this lens: How will it impact business and economic growth in Vermont?

Well now. That sounds like something you’d hear from Randy Brock or Angry Jack Lindley, not from the guy who’s supposedly moving his party toward the center. In fact, it’s beginning to look like Phil Scott is moving away from the center and toward the anti-tax, anti-government wing of the VTGOP.

More than that, it’s the kind of rhetoric that comes from the national GOP: the answer to every social issue is lowering taxes and lightening regulation. Is this the same Phil Scott who argues that the national party’s extreme positions have no place in Vermont politics?

I can see why Scott, having assumed a measure of leadership responsibility, may feel obligated to more strongly represent his party’s position. But it’s certainly at odds with the vision of Everybody’s Buddy creating a kinder, gentler VTGOP. If anything, the influence is going the other way.

As GMD's resident New Jersey exile (Could I really be the only one? Here in Vermont that seems unlikely.) I continue to follow with great interest the exploits of Governor Tony Soprano Chris Christie.

 I've already posted about his little Fort Lee traffic scam, and that's turning out to be the gift that keeps on giving.

My question tonight, and I'll just throw it out for discussion, is this:

Will either the scandal, or his transparent lies about having nothing to do with it:

(a) have an adverse effect on his presidential prospects, or 

(b) he never had any shot at getting through the Republican primaries anyway? 

 And question 2: regardless of your answer to question 1, how much fun are you having seeing this guy get exposed for the bully he is?

The following is not based on inside sources or secret documents; it’s just me, interpreting current events and connecting a bunch of dots that appear to be related. Take it for what it’s worth.

As lawmakers reconvene in Montpelier, our political media fill themselves with coverage of Governor Shumlin’s Very Big Day and the opening rounds of legislative action. Meanwhile, the real important stuff has been happening elsewhere, without any bright lights, cameras or microphones. What might that be?

The Governor (and other top Dems) carrying out a grand strategy to permanently co-opt the political center, thus marginalizing the Republican Party on the right, and the Progs and liberal Dems on the left. Whether or not there’s an actual deal or just an unspoken accord, it looks like this: Business interests and mainstream conservatives allow Shumlin to pursue single-payer health care, and in return, he steers a centrist course on other issues — keeping a lid on the (small-P) progressive aspirations of the left.

I have a bunch of items to get to, but I’ll start with the unspoken but very obvious dance between Shumlin and our buddy Bruce Lisman. Three unmistakable signs:

1. Shumlin’s apparent 180-degree spinaroonie on ethics reform. Peter “Mr. Microphone” Hirschfeld’s initial report for VPR included the following passage:

Gov. Peter Shumlin voluntarily disclosed the kind of information being sought by Lisman and Gilbert during his first two gubernatorial campaigns. He says he supports the move to make the disclosures mandatory.

“It’s just important for the public to know, when you’re going to be the chief executive of the state or frankly be involved in making laws for a state what assets you have and what conflicts you might have,” the governor said.

Emphasis mine. I don’t think Hirschfeld realized it, but he got something of a scoop there. Until now, Shumlin’s been an opponent of ethics reform, especially in the case of state legislators. (In case the highlighted quote above wasn’t clear enough, Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz now reports that Shumlin would require financial disclosure for “all elected officials serving in Montpelier.” Now, let’s spin the clock back to November 2012:

Gov. Peter Shumlin, a Democrat, who frequently talks about his commitment to transparency, says the voluntary disclosure system works well for statewide candidates, and it wouldn’t be “fair” to require lawmakers to disclose financial information.

And back in 2009, Shumlin told then-ink-stained wretch Peter Hirschfeld that “Vermont has proven immune to the kind of seedy lawmaking that might make financial disclosure laws necessary in other states.”

Hmm. Looks like the Governor has changed his tune. In fact, he’s now singing harmony on Bruce Lisman’s favorite song.  

2. The curious incident of the dog in the night-time. In this case, the dog that didn’t bark is Bruce Lisman.

He’s all in favor of transparency and accountability, right? He’s big on government efficiency, right? And what’s been the number-one issue of the last several months regarding transparency, accountability, and efficiency? The troubled rollout of Vermont Health Connect. Republicans have been all over Shumlin’s case on this, and they plan to continue as long as they possibly can.

Well, as far as I can tell, Lisman hasn’t uttered a single word about VHC. Curious, isn’t it?

3. Lisman’s latest opinion piece, praising the Governor for his “focus on jobs and prosperity.” And, naturally, trying to hog all the credit for anyone who talks about economic growth — “it’s been our focus for the past two years.” Yeah, Bruce, and before you came along, nobody had ever thought of the issue before. Insufferable.

But the point is, Lisman praising the Governor. Remember the expensive and unavoidable launch phase of Campaign for Vermont, and its ceaseless railing against the powers in Montpelier? Well, now Lisman is making nice. Granted, he does it in the context of pushing his own agenda; but it’s a stark change in tone.

I don’t think this means Bruce Lisman is a rising star. What I do think is that he’s politically useful to Shumlin: Lisman spends his money pushing a centrist agenda, and thus provides a counterweight to the braying dead-enders in the VTGOP as well as the liberals who want to use the Dems’ political power to shift Vermont substantially leftward.

All right, so there’s my case for A Secret Love between Gov. Shumlin and Vermont’s own Wall Street baron. Now, on to other exhibits in my case for a top-down centrist freeze.

— Previously cited in this space, the Governor’s fundraising prowess among Republicans and business leaders, as documented last month by Mr. Heintz. Including the quid pro quo as overtly stated by Barre Mayor (and Shumlin donor) Thom Lauzon: “We don’t want to see broad-based taxes increased. The Governor has probably led that charge as well as any other governor has.”

It’d be instructive, not to mention a public service, if some political reporter who actually draws a salary would take the time to examine Brian Dubie’s 2010 donor list and compare it with the 2012 lists for Shumlin and Randy Brock. I bet a lot of folks crossed over, and I bet that’s the primary reason that Brock’s fundraising efforts tanked so badly.

— The apparent closed-door deal on campaign finance law, which will immediately benefit Governor Shumlin, and will in the future benefit any candidate occupying the political center. As first reported by, oh God, Paul Heintz again, the emerging bill “is so watered down that the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, which has spent years fighting for such a bill, has already vowed to oppose it.”  

The bill would double the ceiling on donations to a single statewide candidate from individuals, corporations and PACs from $2,000 to $4,000. There’s only one guy who has a significant number of maxed-out donors under the current law, and that’s Peter Shumlin. If this bill passes, his overwhelming financial advantage will grow even larger.

— Finally, some old news, but freshly pertinent in this context. While there are more than a few fire-breathers in the Dem and Prog caucuses, the House and Senate leadership is reliably moderate. Shap Smith is a self-described moderate, and John Campbell obviously is. Indeed, I suspect that the main reason Campbell is still Senate President Pro Tem in spite of his disastrous 2012 session is that he keeps a lid on any potential lefty outbreaks under the Golden Dome. Not for nothing have I called him “Shumlin’s doorstop.”

And don’t forget that the 2012 challenge to his leadership, in the person of Sen. Ann Cummings, quickly dissolved after initially being seen as a huge threat to Campbell. I suspect some arms got twisted there.

Conclusion, finally. It looks to me like the Governor and his allies are moving to cement the Dems’ control of the center — which means cementing relationships (and forging compromises) with centrist Republicans, business groups, and deep-pocketed donors who are fiscally conservative but socially moderate.

This may be a sound political strategy; if it works, the Republicans will be marginalized for a long, long time. But it’s a disappointment to people like me who see Republican Governors like Rick Snyder, John Kasich, Tom Corbett, Scott Walker, and (until recently) Bob McDonnell resolutely push their states rightward, while we Vermonters settle for health care reform and not much else.

Health care reform’s a big deal, to be sure. And if Shumlin does manage to get us to single-payer, his administration will have been an overall success and his legacy will be assured. But it’s hard not to wish for more, given the Dems’ political dominance. And the party’s elected leaders are choosing to follow the safe road.  

For those just joining us, last week I had a bit of sport at the Governor’s expense: I dared to point out that his spiffy new anti-poverty council was saddled with the unfortunate acronym POOP. (Pathways Out Of Poverty.)

Well, it looks like the administration has seen the shit hitting the fan (sorry) and quickly sidestepped the spray. According to GMD commenter Ernesto, posted yesterday:

Sat in on Human Resources committee this afternoon. I believe the excrescent acronym to which you referred the other day has been hurriedly amended to MFOOP — Moving Families Out Of Poverty. The power of the virtual pen leaves its indelible mark and moves on..

.

Okay, so they’ve shifted from a scatological acronym to a silly one. (It still, unfortunately, echoes the conservative talking point that the sole purpose for anti-poverty programs is to eliminate poverty. Which is quite impossible, especially in these times of drastic wealth maldistribution.)

Anyway, pardon me if I toot (sorry again) my own horn.

Man, once the poop jokes start, it’s really hard to stop.