I remember way back to the late 1980's, maybe the early 1990's, when I started seeing these petitions at my local health food store calling on Congress to pass legislation exempting dietary supplements from federal regulation. It had a weird list of sponsors, from Orin Hatch to our own Pat Leahy, and including Tom Harkin, who is one of the best friends of quacks, health scammers, and the antiscientific mindset in Congress.

I never signed the petition. We didn't have blogs back then, but I told everyone who would listen about how dangerous I thought the idea was, and experiences like the way a dietary supplement called ephedra killed people showed that I was right.

 Now there's a new study on dietary supplements, using science-y stuff like DNA, and what do you know? If you buy these dietary supplements there is an excellent chance you aren't getting any of what you thought you were paying for.

As reported in today's Times, “DNA tests show that many pills labeled as healing herbs are little more than powdered rice and weeds.”

In fact, the study shows that some of the products from some of the companies contain some of the ingredient people are paying for, but the herbal products from two companies contained no–zero–of the product named on the label. Even where there are some herbal products with some minimal evidence to support a beneficial effect, such as St. John's Wort for mild depression, the active ingredient couldn't be counted on to be there.

People are buying these products under the understandable misimpression that they are going to cure their medical conditions. (And yes, what are code words like  “promotes normal cholesterol levels”, “slow down the doubling time of your PSA (male prostate) levels when cancer is present” but thinly disguised claims to cure medical conditions?) Nevertheless, don't you think people should at least get what they're paying for?

I don't go so far as to say that every peddler of herbal supplements is an outright fraud: I leave that to the homeopathic remedies.

There have been instances, such as the ephedra case, where dietary supplements have been taken off the market, but this new study makes it clear that the entire industry is irredeemably corrupt, and the only way to correct the situation is to repeal the law.

Just like we did in college when we didn’t have enough money to go to the movies, State Auditor, Doug Hoffer  turned over a few sofa cushions in the State’s “telephone lounge” and came up with $300,000 in lost tax dollars!

(I couldn’t resist that opener even though it’s only metaphorically true.)

Focussing on State-issued cellphones, the Auditor’s office found that, just like many households, Vermont isn’t getting the best value for its money from existing plans and patterns of usage.

Even though cellphone service is contracted on behalf of all State agencies by the Dept. of Buildings and General Services, decisions governing cellphone purchases and management of their use is left to the discretion of the individual agencies; and, up until now,  there has been no real oversight or review process to determine if opportunities exist for significant savings.

‘Turns out that there are, indeed!

Some of the 2012 numbers:

.The State had 115 cell phone pools in 2012, and these pools purchased a total of approximately 11 million voice minutes. The audit team found that over 5.1 million minutes went unused (47% of the total).

.Of the 2,899 cell phones with bundled voice and data service plans, 42% used no data or less than 25,000 KB of data per month.  These little used phones cost the State about $272,000.

.Based on the responses of 42 out of 45 surveyed State entities, less than half have policies or procedures for managing cell phones; only 19% had written criteria to guide decisions regarding who should be assigned a cell phone; and about 10% had written policies addressing monitoring cell phone costs.

The long and the short of it is that the Auditor’s Office identified opportunities to save over $300,000. just by tightening-up management of State-issued phones.

Secretary of Adminstration Jeb Spaulding agrees with the Auditor’s findings and plans to use them to develop a statewide management plan for both cell and land lines.

It’s nice to know we have an Auditor on the job who is using his time gainfully; looking for ways through which the State can save money other than by slashing essential services.  

A headline in the “Vermont” section of the online Freeploid caught my eye today:

Ex-Barre tax collector pleads not guilty to fraud

Wow, big news, I thought to myself, and clicked the link. The story, from the Associated Press, said that former Barre tax collector Marcia Langelier is accused of stealing more than $300,000, which is quite a lot for a place the size of Barre. But it didn’t ring a bell with me. I live in central Vermont and follow the news pretty closely, so you’d think I might have come across this story before.

Then I noticed the dateline “WORCESTER, Mass.” And the fact that the defendant was arraigned in Worcester Superior Court. And that the story was originally reported in the Worcester (Mass) Telegram & Gazette.

The last line of the story provided the final proof: “Barre has about 5,400 residents and is about 60 miles west of Boston.”

Yep, there is, in fact, a Barre, Massachusetts. And that’s where the (alleged) embezzlement took place. You can exhale now, good citizens of the Granite City!

Methinks the Freeploid is goosing its “local” content with some sort of automated news aggregator. Hey, it’s easier than journalism. Cheaper, too.  

WWho is the most popular Republican politician among extreme conservatives? Setting aside the ghost of Ronald Reagan, whom they would continue to vote for if they could, the top contender would seem to be Randy Paul, the eye doctor who decided the best way to become board certified, which is kind of the gold standard for medical specialist recognition in the United States, was to make up his own board to certify him.

Anyway, this isn’t about that, it’s about another area of dishonesty from young Randy. This time it’s his plagiarism in a speech, and Rachel Maddow has been all over it.

Here’s Rachel:

Pretty damning, right? I think she lets him off a little easy by allowing that he might not understand what plagiarism is, but there’s no getting around the facts.

Now here’s where the challenge to conservatives comes in. Back in 1987 Joe Biden plagiarized a speech by Neil Kinnock, a Welsh politician who made some great observations about the nature and reasons of his success. It was great when Kinnock said it and it would have been equally great if Biden had pointed out that the same lessons were true in his own life. What was not great was for Biden to adapt Kinnock’s story to his own life and tell the story as though it had just occurred to him on his way into work.

Conservatives have never let him forget it.

The extreme right wing of the Republican Party is particularly receptive to the message of Ron Paul. By some weird quirk, they also embrace this weird self-image as intellectually rigorous independent thinkers, so this is their chance to prove it.

Let’s hear some Republicans call out Randy Paul for plagiarizing Wikipedia and lying about it.

We’ll wait.

Looks like we’ll be seeing a 2014 rerun of an especially dispiriting battle from the 2013 legislative session: a standoff between the Democratic Legislature and Governor Shumlin on taxes.

Last spring, lawmakers launched a veritable flotilla of taxation trial balloons only to see them blasted out of the sky, one after another, by Big Pete’s absolute (yet conveniently conditional) no-tax-increases stand. The last iteration was a proposal to impose a cap on itemized deductions, which would have raised taxes on top earners while cutting lower-bracket rates in order to make the plan revenue-neutral. Seemed like a no-brainer, but the Administration shot it down, claiming that it was too late in the session to bring up a new idea.

(Even though the idea had been proposed two years earlier by the Blue Ribbon Tax Commission.)

Over the summer, Shumlin et al cooked up a new excuse: we shouldn’t tinker with the tax code in the year before we’ll have to create a new tax structure for single-payer health care.

Which kicks the can, not only past 2014, but also past 2015. Because obviously, we’ll be too darn busy in 2015 to consider any non-health-care related tax proposals.

House Speaker Shap Smith isn’t buying it:

“If income tax reform made sense in 2014 I think we would do it in 2014,” Smith said. “It wouldn’t matter that we had potential financing for health care coming in 2015.”

(Smith supports the concept of a deduction cap; Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell, a.k.a. Shumlin’s Doorstop, is ambivalent but leans toward the Administration’s point of view.

The latest twist, as reported by Peter Hirschfeld (of course) in the Mitchell Family Organ*, is that legislative leaders are actively pursuing the idea and the Administration seems to be withholding important data.

*Paywall alert. Story published in the 10/31 print editions.

From lawmakers in its own party.  

Let’s go to the Hirsch:

Shumlin has made numerous cases against the plan, saying Vermont risks tax flight if it increases burdens on the rich, and also that lawmakers couldn’t guarantee revenue neutrality. Based on 2007 tax data, Shumlin said, the proposal would actually result in a $10 million tax increase on the whole.

… Rep. Janet Ancel and Sen. Tim Ashe, heads of the House Committee on Ways and Means and Senate Committee on Finance, respectively, are working on getting solid numbers. Complicating that effort is the Legislature’s inability to secure from the Shumlin administration the tax data that would provide the foundation for that analysis.

(Italics mine.)

Looks like a stonewall to me. But I dunno, maybe retrieving the tax data is just too darn hard for the Administration. It does have the convenient result that Shumlin can continue to oppose the measure “based on 2007 tax data.”

I guess we’ll have to wait until 2019 to have this debate based on 2013 data.

At a meeting of the Committee on Ways and Means Friday, Ancel will ask Administration Secretary Jeb Spaulding to help her retrieve that data.

“Friday” meaning today. Get your popcorn.  

HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

Vermont’s own Johnny One-Note, Art Woolf is saying pretty much what he says every week in the Freeps;

that Vermont is doomed by a declining population (blah, blah, blah…)

Instead of repeating the usual rebuttal, I thought it would be fun to see the other side of the “How We’re Doin‘” story; the one that doesn’t get a weekly half-page to sell the same old line with the same old selective pie-charts and graphs.

So, this morning, we are taking a look at what Vermonters for a Sustainable Population has to say on the subject.  

VSP, under the direction of George Plumb and with support from the Vermont Chapter of the Sierra Club, recently released its Optimum Sustainable Population Report, which is available online.  

The report, which has met with praise from a host of population think-tanks, explores the population question in much greater complexity, adding the prism of sustainability; which we already know from his enthusiastic embrace of Walmart, is of little interest to Mr. Woolf.

Not surprisingly, the VSP arrives at a very different conclusion from Mr. Woolf.  

Defining a sustainable system thusly:

A sustainable human population is one where the people living in a given politically or geographically defined area (such as Vermont) do not live beyond the limits of the renewable resources of that area for either input (energy and matter) or output (food, material goods, and absorption of pollution). They then purchase or trade from environmentally-aware sources those necessities that cannot be locally satisfied, either in sufficient amounts or at all. They will thereby be living in a manner that present and future generations of people, and all other life native to that area, will be able to enjoy a healthy habitat over the long term;”

the VSP analysis suggests that Vermont has already passed its ideal population number, based on the guidelines above.  

I will not do the report justice here, so simply suggest that readers check out the 53-page original.

There may be some disagreement over the conclusions, but no one can dispute the value of the study, nor its scope and the care that has been taken in its preparation.

What is the ideal population depends on the lens through which you are filtering the data.  The report suggests a number of conclusions; but no matter how you parse it, the message is clear: we’re already a little…or a lot…past “there”:

Biodiversity:

working toward a human

population in Vermont of 310,000 would give us a significantly improved chance of being able to sustain the totality of genes, species, and ecosystems found in Vermont. It would be a significant step toward conserving biodiversity in Vermont and the world.

Democracy:

For the best democratic representation, communication, and transparency, the optimal population size of Vermont is not any greater than our current population of 626,011.

Ecology:

The ideal, sustainable population size for Vermont, with an ecological footprint of 9.57 (American typical footprint), is 150,000 people.

Food Self-sufficiency:

Based upon these assumptions, Vermont can support a population of 432,923.

Forest:

To retain forest cover at the current percentage a sustainable population for Vermont is approximately 600,000.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: (assuming that a number of remedial measures detailed in the report have already been taken)

Assuming other factors mentioned in the preceding paragraph result in additional reductions in greenhouse gas emissions per capita, a sustainable population for Vermont is likely somewhat less than 400,000.

Quality of Life:

It seems likely that continued investments in the areas of education, health, the economy, culture and the environment would go far in ensuring this QOL continues to improve. It seems reasonable, then, that a population of up to 700,000 would support the high QOL that Vermonters enjoy.

Happiness: (not specifically quantified in terms of population.)

Renewable Energy Production:(assuming adoption of some guiding principles that are discussed in the report)

This path could likely be achieved with Vermont’s existing population of around 600,000 (and their current energy demand).

Rural Living/Working Landscapes:

Using the rural living/working landscape indicator, the optimal population is 450,000.

Scenic Beauty:  

Using the rural living/working landscape indicator, the optimal population is 450,000.

Spiritual Connectedness:

Using the rural living/working landscape indicator, the optimal population is 450,000.

Steady State Economy:

Under these conditions, (when enjoyment has successfully replaced consumption as the prime motivator) it’s likely that a sustainable economy in Vermont could support a population in the range of 500,000 to 700,000.

Water Quality:

it would be prudent from a population perspective to look to maintain the population status quo of about 600,000 until such time that the cost, energy, and resources required to improve water quality will be better understood. Any maintenance of water quality must be considered within the context of the other population indicators cited.

Bruce Lisman may flatter himself that he is breaking new ground with his call for greater government transparency, but well before Mr. Lisman made this his talking point du jour, Sec. of State Jim Condos rolled up his sleeves and went out to communities across the state to actually teach them how to achieve it.

Such reform is not to be accomplished with a single corrective pass-through; and so it is that Condos’  “transparency tour” is about to hit the road again.

With ten stops throughout the state over the course of November and early December, the Secretary will once again engage public awareness of the issue and provide some fundamental “schooling” for the legions of dedicated amateurs who hold office in our cities and towns.  A complete schedule is included after the “fold.”

Vermont has been getting a bad rep lately for lack of transparency relative to other states; but this is sort of a bad news/ good news situation because one of the reasons why transparency issues have not been fully addressed in the past is because the state has been relatively scandal free.

Oh, there has been that spate of embezzlement scandals, but those were crimes of individual weakness more so than indicative of any systemic corruption.  States like Illinois have made great strides in addressing transparency issues mostly because they have been roiled by high-profile scandals.

Furthermore, a contributing factor to the problem here is the intimacy of most Vermont towns, which leads to excess informality in process and the simple preponderance of conflicts of interest.

That intimacy is a byproduct of our small and fairly homogenous population.  As I have often heard it said around town, “Everyone’s related to everyone else.”

There is a lot to be said for intimacy and informality; and I like to think that they have strengthened Vermont’s democratic roots; but, when conflicts of interest result in a state with insufficient definitions and penalties for that improper influence, those cozy qualitites become our greatest weaknesses.

Mr. Lisman is just the most recent convert to the cause of greater transparency.  We here on GMD have been calling loud and long, over many years, for reforms to the laws governing conflicts of interest; and for full campaign contribution disclosures.

…And Jim Condos has been spreading the word in person about things like the Open Meeting Law since 2011, while at the same time working to make digital public records, so essential to transparent government function, much more accessible to private citizens.

“For those Vermonters who feel that dealing with government is confusing or intimidating: this is the perfect opportunity for you to get your questions answered!” Secretary Condos added that, “It is important that the public know their rights when it comes to attending meetings and access to records; an informed citizenry is what helps hold all elected officials accountable.”

So mark your calendar for a tour date near you and start compiling a list of questions now.

The time and location for each event is as follows:

Mon., Nov 4th     6pm-8pm Hartford Public Library, 1587 Maple Street,Hartford

Wed., Nov 6th     6pm-8pm Public Safety Building, 316 Main St, Lyndon

Wed., Nov 13th    7pm-8:45pm      Fox Room, Rutland Public Library, 10 Court Street, Rutland

Thurs., Nov 14th  6pm-8pm Alumni Hall, 25 Auditorium Hill, Barre City

Wed., Nov 20th    6pm-8pm Lower Theater, Municipal Building, 7 Village Square, Rockingham

Thurs., Nov 21st  6:30pm-8:30pm   City Hall, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington

Wed., Dec 4th     6pm-8pm Barton Memorial Building, 17 Village Square,Barton

Thurs., Dec 5th   6:30pm-8:30pm   City Hall, 100 North Main Street, St Albans City

Tues., Dec 10th   6pm-8pm Fire Facility, 130 River Street, Bennington

Thurs., Dec 12th  6:30pm-8:30pm    Ilsley Public Library, 75 Main Street, Middlebury

… a new reality TV series in which esthetically-unappealing restaurants and bars get a thorough critique and makeover, courtesy of that well-known Arbiter Of Style, State Sen. Tim Ashe.

The state Lottery Commission, bumping up against the market ceiling for its current offerings, is looking for more ways to scam the gullible raise money for Our Children’s Book-Learnin’. Our government-sanctioned dispensers of false hope would like to start putting electronic lottery machines — called, without a trace of irony, “WinStations” — in bars and restaurants. To date, the “lighted, arcade-style vending machines” (description from the VLC) are only available in convenience stores.

And some state lawmakers want to have a whack at the idea before it’s put into effect.

[Rep. Janet] Ancel, who chairs House Ways and Means, said she is not personally in favor of expanding the lottery. Putting lottery vending machines in bars, she said, is a “big step,” and the Legislature as a whole ought to review the proposal.

Sen. Tim Ashe, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, says the commission can’t go forward with consoles in restaurants and bars without the Legislature weighing in.

So far, so good. As you may have gathered, I have no particular love for government lotteries, which are egregiously regressive taxation schemes. If Ashe wanted to block any lottery expansion, cut it back (or end it altogether)(and fully fund public education from the General Fund), I’d be okay with that. However, he went on to kinda-sorta make an ass of himself:

“My own feeling is these things are like indoor billboards, they are completely vulgar,” Ashe said. “While they might have a place in a convenience store under today’s rubric, but in bars and restaurants they are just going to be garish.”

Tim Ashe, manning the barricades of style.  

Heaven knows, we don’t want any traces of vulgarity to besmirch Vermont’s hallowed watering holes. I shudder to imagine the horror of an “arcade-style” machine destroying the homespun charms of, say, The Other Place or Charlie-O’s. We may have already lost the battle for the creative soul of Vermont’s convenience stores, but we must Draw The Line at our eateries and taverns, all of which are a delight to the eye as well as the palate. (Lookin’ at you, Handy’s Lunch.)

Need I say that Ashe’s argument is absurd? If VLC goes ahead with its plan, it’ll be up to individual owners whether they want a WIn Machine sitting on their bar. Market forces would take care of Ashe’s concerns: the corner bar will happily accept a lottery machine, and Hen of the Wood will, I’m thinking, give it a pass.

So, Tim: If you’re against expanded gambling, just say so. Don’t give us this pretentious arty nonsense.  

Still Dancing Around the First Amendment

Town officials spoke first. Then just like a scene from a movie, up to the mike, came one lonely citizen. Central casting could not have been better at selecting just the right person to speak.

How did we get here. Last night’s meeting of the Bennington Select Board was more like a scene from Shirley Jackson’s ‘The Lottery’, than like a Norman Rockwell painting. ‘The Lottery’ was written in North Bennington, just a stone’s throw away from Bennington.  It is the story of how small town culture often results in prejudice against anyone who is different.

Rockwell was a famous Vermont artist. His painting of the man standing at a town meeting and exhibiting freedom of speech is a classic. It celebrates the First Amendment.

Last night’s meeting was held in the town fire house.  The fire house has an interesting history. It is the location where voting takes place. Also, pre-election debates and forums are sometimes held there.  Often, candidates who are not members of the democratic or republican party, are not allowed to participate.  During one of those forums, Dennis Steele, candidate for governor, stood outside. His First Amendment rights did not give him access that night.

On the agenda for last night’s meeting was a discussion about the proposed Anti-panhandler Law. The vote was delayed until November 11, but a discussion took place. All town officials spoke in favor of the law.  Their allegiance to the business community always trumps the needs of ordinary citizens. The economy is not good. Many local business owners are struggling.  Most citizens understand the importance of local businesses and are sympathetic. There are empty store fronts on Main Street. This is not just a Bennington problem. Main Street USA will never be the way it was during the Leave it to Beaver days.

Town officials spoke first. Then just like a scene from a movie, up to the mike, came one lonely citizen. Central casting could not have been better at selecting just the right person to speak. It was a bit reminiscent of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.  Ron Conroy, citizen, husband, father, veteran spoke with clarity and elegance.  He spoke on behalf of the disenfranchised… the poor, those in need of help. Bennington now had its own Mr. Smith.

A few other officials spoke. Then Conroy went back to the mike and made a very brief statement. He asked how a meeting that started with a Pledge to the flag could then go on to disrespect the Constitution by considering a law that would deny First Amendment rights to anyone.  Conroy was soft spoken and respectful, but that did not prevent one Board member from becoming visibly agitated. His anger at the citizen was very clear – and will have a chilling effect on citizen participation for a long time. Conroy remained cool and calm as he stood perfectly still in front of the angry official.  With grace and courtesy, Conroy firmly reminded him that he too was a veteran.

There are remaining questions.  

1  If someone on Main Street asks:  “Can you please help me? I need directions to the covered bridge.”  Would that be a violation of the proposed law?

2  If someone on Main Street asks:  “Can you please help me? I need a dollar.”  Would that be a violation of the proposed law? If so, would that be profiling? Would that be victimizing someone because of socio/economic class?

3 Would holding a sign that said: “Need ride to Albany” be a violation?  What about holding a sign that said: “Will work for food”?  

4  If this law is adopted, would it put Bennington taxpayers at risk?  What would be the likely result if the law was challenged in Court on Constitutional grounds?

The bottom line is this.  It appears that the law is under consideration because of a desire to make the poor invisible to tourists.  It has been stated that the poor create an ‘image’ problem.  Instead of hiding the poor, how about helping them.  The common belief is that there are ‘services’ for all who are in need.  That is a myth. Many in Vermont go without the essentials of life.  Homelessness is an issue – so much so, that recently some were considering putting up a tent city.  Today it was announced that a 59 unit Econo Lodge in Shelburne is being converted to house the homeless. Instead of hiding them, they are being helped in other locations.  Would that be a solution in Bennington?

The prejudice against the ‘lower class’ is very clear.  Some are poor through no fault of their own. One of the leading causes of bankruptcy is medical expenses.  A 2007 Harvard study showed that 60% of bankruptcies are due to medical expenses. 75% filing for bankruptcy had health care insurance.  Sometimes bad things do happen to good people.

A suggestion to the town leaders: Next time a panhandler asks for help, invite him out to lunch.  Maybe you will have a new understanding of the causes of poverty and also make a new friend.

Rosemarie Jackowski

A couple days back, I tossed some cold water on the notion that David Sunderland, the obvious front-runner for chair of the Vermont Republican Party, represents a new, “moderate” approach, even though he has the backing of the party’s figurehead of moderation, Lt. Gov. Phil Scott. I pointed out that, in terms of policy or ideology, Sunderland’s statement of candidacy could have easily come from the pen of “Angry Jack” Lindley or Randy Brock or Sunderland’s fellow Rutlander, Wendy Wilton.

Even so, in the initial round of stories about the race for VTGOP Chair, the notion of Sunderland as the “moderate” was dutifully repeated. No hint of a critical look at the idea.

Now, I’m just a humble blogger, sahib. My investigative assets are limited to (a) my spare time and (b) The Google. Most of our media’s archives are off-limits to outsiders unless you pay, and I don’t have a budget. So I’ve found very little information about Sunderland’s political past.

But look. David Sunderland spent five years in the state legislature. Somewhere in the dusty back offices of the Freeploid or Seven Days or the Mitchell Family Organ or VPR or WCAX or WPTZ*, there has got to be a ton of material about his campaigns, his political allegiances, and his voting record. God knows there are several reporters active today, who were covering the Golden Dome when Sunderland was in office (2003-2007).

*not VTDigger, because they didn’t exist back then.

So, I hope to hell that somebody’s been assigned to examine Sunderland’s political history and tell us exactly how “moderate” he really is. It wouldn’t be hard for a reporter with access to media and legislative archives, and I believe there’s a big story to tell. After all, unless Jack Lindley stages a truly remarkable recovery from his lengthy hospitalization, Sunderland is going to be the chair of the VTGOP in a couple weeks’ time.

Rutland isn’t exactly a fount of moderation, and I’ve been told that Sunderland is tight with the tiny but rabid pro-lifer community in Vermont. His recent public statements have been boilerplate conservative Republicanism: anti-tax, anti-health care reform, accusations that the “extreme left” has hijacked the state government. OTOH, I haven’t detected any sign of moderation in the man’s outlook.

My efforts at Googling his background didn’t produce much, but there was one little gem from the Seven Days archive:

Back in 2006, the Legislature approved House Bill 865, which added “gender identity and expression” as a protected category in the state’s anti-discrimination laws. After the bill was approved by a House committee on an 8-1 vote, it moved to the House floor. As Cathy Resmer reported:

Just one legislator, David Sunderland (R-Rutland Town), raised questions during the House floor debate; approved by a voice vote on Wednesday, March 1, the bill now moves on to the Senate — and, ultimately, a Republican governor.

(That would be Jim Douglas who, of course, vetoed the bill.)

Just to be clear, Sunderland wasn’t the only person to vote against H. 865, but he was the only one who “raised questions during… floor debate.” Not exactly a marker of moderation.

I’m sure there’s a much fuller story to be told about David Sunderland’s politics. And I’m sure I don’t have the time or resources to tell it.

So how about it, VTDigger or VPR or Freeploid or Mitchell Family Organ? Will somebody please do a little digging and tell us who this David Sunderland really is?