Signs O’ The Times, number 1:

Secretary of Administration Jeb Spaulding says that if Vermont’s need for acute psychiatric care remains high, the Shumlin administration is committed to opening the Berlin State Hospital at its full 25-bed capacity in summer 2014.

“I would be surprised if it doesn’t open with 25 beds,” he said Friday.

His statement, as reported by VTDigger, came after the Department of Mental Health informed lawmakers that psychiatric patients continue to experience longer and longer wait times, languishing in emergency rooms, jails and prisons due to a shortage of psychiatric inpatient beds. You may recall that after Irene, the Shumlin Administration wanted to move to a community-based system with an absolute minimum number of hospital beds — no more than 16 in any one facility, and far fewer overall than the 54 at the old Vermont State Hospital. Indeed, earlier this summer, key lawmakers were still indicating a desire to stick to 16 beds at the Berlin facility.

I don’t know what kind of progress the Administration has made with establishing that community-based system — it may well have been slowed due to the constant revolving door at the top of DMH — but it sure hasn’t done a damn thing to reduce the need for inpatient care.

Of course, the Administration and Legislature haven’t, ahem, budgeted for a 25-bed BSH. But Spaulding says they can “tweak the budget.”

Funny how there’s always room for a “tweak” when it’s something the Administration wants or needs, but the wallet is empty when it’s somebody else’s idea.

Signs O’ The Times, number 2:

Governor [Shumlin] says he is going to ask the Legislature next year to look at Vermont’s involuntary medication law to make it easier for doctors to administer medication to a state hospital patient who is refusing treatment.

… In Vermont, a doctor must seek a judge’s approval before administering medication to a patient who is refusing treatment, a process that can take two months or more to complete.

Actually, the average time is almost three months — and it can take twice that long or more. During that process, a patient is basically warehoused in one of the state’s rare inpatient beds — greatly exacerbating the strain on the system. And on caregivers, who have to deal with unmedicated patients every day. It also generates huge costs for lengthy and treatment-free hospitalizations.

Shumlin framed this as a long-term issue that was also a problem at the old Vermont State Hospital. Indeed, the law  apparently played a part in VSH’s decertification by the feds. And it’s one of the reasons that the Brattleboro Retreat is in danger of losing federal certification. Which would be, among other things, a huge blow to Shumlin’s master plan for mental health care.

There’s sharp disagreement in the GMD community (and Vermont’s Dem/lib community) on the issue of involuntary medication for psychiatric patients. Both sides do agree on one thing: the current judiciary process takes too long. They disagree on the remedy, of course; and if Shumlin plans to pursue this in the 2014 session, he’s going to have a hard row to hoe.

The Governor described this as a matter of giving “acutely ill patients” better treatment. But really, it’s of a piece with Jeb Spaulding’s commitment to a 25-bed BSH: it’s another sign that the current system is overtaxed. And it’s a sign that, while the Governor may be trying to craft a better system with better treatment options, he clearly has an eye on the bottom line as well.

Streamlining the involuntary-medication process would move patients in and out of hospitalization much faster. That will reduce the strain on the inpatient system and cut costs. Would it improve the quality of care? That’s up for debate. But when the Governor suddenly unrolls a proposal to fix a longstanding problem, there’s got to be a more immediate reason. In this case, that reason is the inadequacy of the post-Irene mental health care system.

And Governor Shumlin is slowly, painfully, executing a complete reversal on the issue, gradually expanding the inpatient side of the system. (By the time he’s done, the system will have almost as many beds as the old one. They’ll be spread around the state, which will create new challenges in staffing and specialty care, but that’s one of the drawbacks to Shumlin’s Big Idea.)

He’s being dragged along by reality, and he’s probably hoping to do it slowly enough that he can claim he hasn’t changed one bit. But he has.

p.s. Congrats to the Mitchell Family Organ (North) a.k.a. the Times Argus, Print Edition, for putting its thumb on the journalistic scale with its headline, “Shumlin: Forced Medication OK.” Yeah, that’s kind of the most emotionally freighted wording you could have chosen. Images of Nurse Ratched and Evil Mad Scientists come to mind. The M.F.O. (N) online version opts for the more neutral “Vt. Governor Wants to Ease Involuntary Medication.”

Update: Freeploid reports that UVM police are investigating, and the ad has been pulled from Craigslist.

Dunno what they’re teaching our young men at the U o’Vee Em, but apparently it doesn’t include “How to Tell the Difference Between Penthouse Forum and Reality.” Craigslist Burlington, “Casual Encounters” section::

Mmm hmm. Counseling, anyone?

A few things that pass through the mind…

— My first thought was “frat boys again,” but this isn’t provable from the text of the ad. It might just be ten young, testosterone-fueled (but not at all gay, no sirree) men sharing a house with no Greek letters on the front. Then again, can you say “Sigma Phi Epsilon,” kids?

— I guess they’ve got no issue with the Mommy/Whore dichotomy, since they’re looking for a combination of the two. Way to break through the glass basement.

— That’s one highly elastic definition of “MILF,” boys: you’re looking for a “mother” who’s no more than a few years older then you. I’d love to see your genealogy charts.

— Glad to hear the boys are “clean.” I would, however, like to see some medical documentation.

— Somehow I think they’ll be hearing from University officials (and maybe their parents) before they hear from any “ladies,” cough.  

At last, the penny has dropped!  After years of Chicken-Little-style lamentations about Vermont’s “aging population,”  the Free Press is finally recognizing a cup half-full.

The headline reads: “Age Wave Brings Jobs.”

Well, of course it does.  We’ve been saying that over here on GMD for years.

Enough of the perennial belly-aching of Art Woolf, the Douglas administration, and even the Shumlin echo; all of which would have us believe that without some miracle of deregulation, people in Vermont would go the way of the Catamount.

“Something has to be done about our aging population,” they would moan.

As a member of that aging demographic with a firm grasp of the inevitable, I think to myself with some alarm, “…And how the hell do you propose to do that?”

The predictable answer always comes straight from the Republican playbook: reduce taxes on corporations and the wealthy, slash regulations, replace working landscapes with box stores and trendy cityscapes.  

This, we are told, will “create” jobs, and young people will then be eager to move here.  

Yeah, sure; ‘nothing like moving across country to take a minimum wage job at Walmart and live in a place that looks exactly like the place you came from, only colder.

Finally, the Freeps has got it right: knowing and valuing our current population as the potential market it represents is the way to chart a course for economic prosperity and long term vitality in Vermont.

A coordinated effort by Vermont to develop rich and innovative ways to serve that market will not only enhance the quality of life for aging Vermonters; but it will also create jobs and new revenue for the state.

The people who are attracted to the state to serve its valued older population will bring professional and entrepreneurial skills.  Many will choose to settle here and raise their families precisely because of the ways in which the quality of life in Vermont differs from that of their home states.

The state will get a valuable infusion of youth and we need not follow the Catamount into extinction.

All of those old people and rural landscapes everyone has been so eager to “do something” about? They really are assets we can take to the bank.

So put away that shotgun, Henry.  It’s time to set Grandma on the front porch.

We may be in the dog days of summer, at about the halfway point between the end of the 2013 legislative season and the beginning of the 2014, but that doesn’t mean there’s nothing going on. As Peter “The One” Hirschfeld* reported last Sunday (sorry, I’ve been out of town)(Mitchell Family Paywall alert), the late-session standoff over raising the effective state income tax rate on the wealthy is not over — it’s merely on hiatus.

* When he gets a withering glare from Gov. Shumlin, he simply raises his hand. The glare stops in midair and falls harmlessly to the ground.

As you may recall, certain lawmakers came up with a plan late in the session that would have capped tax deductions for top earners, effectively raising their taxes. The additional revenue would have allowed for tax cuts for the working poor and middle class. Supporters of the plan argued that this wouldn’t violate Shumlin’s curiously selective anti-tax increase stance, because it would have been revenue neutral overall.  

The plan would have made Vermont’s income tax much fairer. Right now, as Shumlin is fond of noting, the income tax rate on the top bracket is a hefty 8.95%. But those in the top bracket actually pay much less — 5.5% — because of how Vermont income tax is calculated, and the various deductions that rich people can claim. The legislative plan would have been a modest step in equalizing the tax burden.  

Nonetheless, Shumlin stonewalled the plan, making arguments that weren’t terribly convincing. The bill was pulled in order to avoid an embarrassing intra-party standoff, with supporters promising to bring the idea back in 2014. And they’re still planning to do so; the effort is being headed by Sen. Tim Ashe, Senate Finance Committee chair, and Rep. Janet Ancel, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee.  

“It being summer, there hasn’t been a lot of activity, but (the proposal) is still something we anticipate taking up in January,” Ancel says. “We will probably gear up and do more advance work when we get into fall.”

Ancel and Ashe’s proposal, which may undergo tweaks before January, would cap income-tax deductions at 2½ times the standard deduction, meaning filers could claim maximum deductions of about $30,000.

They say the plan is an attempt to inject some fairness into a system where unlimited deductions allow some high earners to minimize their contributions to the state treasury.

The Shumlin Administration is signaling its continued opposition. But, perhaps aware that their previous rationalizations weren’t cutting it, they’ve rolled out a new one:

…the administration is now questioning the wisdom of moving ahead with a major tax code overhaul in 2014 when the Legislature will grapple with the issue of health care financing just a year later.

… “We’re willing to listen and talk,” Administration Secretary Jeb Spaulding said last week. “But we think it would be better to do tax reform in the context of how we reconfigure our payment system for health care in the 2015 session.”

In other words, it’s the old “can’t walk and chew gum at the same time” argument. Spaulding’s new line isn’t any more convincing than past Administration efforts. What, really, does a sensible, targeted income tax reform have to do with health care financing? If there’s a problem with the income tax system (for example, the wealthy can claim deductions for mortgages on out-of-state vacation properties), then go ahead and fix it.

Besides, doesn’t it make good political sense to give working Vermonters a tax cut, when we might be asking them to pay more for a single-payer health care system? Unless single-payer will be heavily financed by punitive premium rates for top earners, then a modest income tax hike won’t appreciably hurt Vermont’s One Percenters.

Granted, the middle-class tax break wouldn’t be much; about $80 per year for people earning $75,000 to $100,000. But, as Ancel put it,

“When you can give a tax cut to 70 percent or more of Vermont filers or households, that seems like something that is good politics and good policy both.”

I think we can expect the Governor to continue protecting the interests of his fellow One Percenters. Maybe by January he can dream up a rationale that might convince a few more people.  

To have the Republicans nominate Rand Paul for President in 2016.

 Lord knows, I don't ask the Republicans for much, but please, please nominate the guy who goes on the national news and defends Bashar al-Assad.

WASHINGTON – Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Sunday portrayed the current conflict in Syria as one between the government of President Bashar Al Assad, who Paul said “has protected Christians for a number of decades,” and “Islamic rebels,” who Paul said “have been attacking Christians” and are aligned with Al Qaeda.

Events are moving fast, and we now know that President Obama has agreed to seek congressional approval for any proposed military action against Syria.

 I think this is a wise and necessary move, but it also means that the burden falls on us to make our opposition known.

Here's how you contact our congressional delegation:

Senator Patrick Leahy

  Here's his statement:

 “The President is right to seek authorization from Congress for a response to the Syrian regime's clear violation of international law, in the use of weapons of mass destruction against innocent civilians.  I continue to oppose introducing U.S. troops into this conflict, and I continue to believe that seeking congressional approval of military action is called for.  Given the positions taken by past presidents, the President's decision to seek congressional approval is especially commendable.  I look forward to this debate, and we should have it openly in the Congress.”

 Senator Bernie Sanders

 Congressman Peter Welch

We always expect our delegation to vote the right way, and they generally do. Nevertheless, it helps to let them know how we feel and how strongly we support the progressive actions they take. 

 One last observation: the Republicans were true to form, being petty and trying to show the President up by not agreeing to cut their current vacation short to consider this. Typical, but it gives opponents of military action more time to mobilize.

UPDATE: Oops, I missed one particular wack-job who claims the U.S. government is fabricating the grounds for attack–Ron Paul and his buddy Alex Jones. 

The U.N. inspectors have just left Syria and are on their way to report what they learned, there is speculation about what the United States will do, and I think it's important to talk about what we should do before we actually do it.

In my view the United States should not launch military strikes against Syria for the following reasons:

1. There is no legal authority to do so.

As antiwar activists argued correctly before Bush's invasion of Iraq, violations of international law do not justify unilateral military action.  If Syria has violated international law by gassing its own citizens, as seems likely, that still doesn't give us authority to attack Syria without a resolution by the Security Council. No resolution will be forthcoming because both Russia and China are certain to veto it, but that isn't a reason to sidestep the Security Council. Rather, it is testament to the power of international institutions. If we want to see international law enforced that must include the provisions of law that prohibit unilateral military attacks.

In addition, without Congressional action the administration would have no authority to wage war on a sovereign nation. It is debatable whether the constitutional grant of authority to declare war to the Congress has fallen into desuetude since World War II, but those of us who argued that Bush's invasion of Iraq without a formal declaration of war, even in the light of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, cannot sit back and argue for a lesser standard for Obama.

2. The situation in Syria does not affect the strategic interests of the United States. Like Iraq in 2003, Assad has not attacked or threatened the United States, poses no threat to the United States, and there is no change, either for the better or the worse, that the outcome of the Syrian civil war will bring to the U.S. national interest.

3. We can't control or predict the outcome. 

 This should be an easy one, right? Let's look at world history since World War II. Pahlavi. Najibullah. Hussein. Qaddafi. Mubarak. The Taliban. Every one deservedly belonged on the list of the worst guys in the world in their time, and any sensible person concluded that they were utterly unfit to rule. Nevertheless, we should know by now that the aftermath of the toppling of the worst guy in the world doesn't necessarily make things better, either for their victims, the country, or the world. Even though people have been fond of saying “Assad must go”, do we really imagine that replacing the ally of Iran and Hezbollah with some collection of fanatics under the al Qaeda banner will be any better? Especially in the Middle East, as repugnant as it is to tolerate the vicious thugs that run things, the alternative is often even worse.

 4. We can't stop Assad from killing more civilians.

 I think the weakest antiwar argument is that the government didn't carry out the attack. Sure, there are arguments that it was not in the government's strategic interest, but there are intercepted communications and serious questions about whether the rebels have the technology to carry out such an attack. Still, even if we assume that the government was responsible for the attack, nothing we do is going to fix this and prevent Assad from doing it again. We don't even know if a “targeted”, “surgical” attack will prompt him to do more attacks.

 We can't bring back the people who were killed and a military strike won't prevent future slaughter, whether by unconventional or conventional weapons.

 Really, I don't think there is any strong or compelling argument that we should launch even a limited military attack on Syria. 

 And yet, some nuance is in order, and I encourage people to engage in nuance rather than hyperbole.  

For instance, Obama is not Bush and Syria is not Iraq. Many of us are unhappy with some of the things Obama has done, but anyone who is seriously disappointed with his performance wasn't paying attention. For the most part he has done what he promised he would do, from his promise to bring our troops home from Iraq (which we liked) to his promise to escalate in Afghanistan (which we didn't) to his promise to close Guantanamo and try terror suspects in the United States (tried but was blocked). Obama has governed as he ran: as a centrist who opposed the Iraq war and had a somewhat liberal domestic policy agenda.

Still, think back to 2003. It was clear beyond any doubt, even before the invasion, that the Bush administration was fabricating  evidence to support his predetermined decision to invade Iraq. Even the most cynical opponents of a military strike on Syria can't make even a credible case that the evidence presented by the administration is fabricated. Possibly incorrect or misinterpreted, sure, but not fabricated. From what I can tell, the main claims about lies come from the Syrian or Russian governments or from fringe groups like truthers or Larouche supporters. When we see evidence from someone credible, like the overwhelming evidence we had in 2003 about the yellowcake and aluminum tube lies we can talk about it again.

In addition, what is being proposed is not a massive, Iraq-style invasion, but a limited strike. I still think it's a bad idea, but claiming Obama is a bloodthirsty warmonger who is eager to invade, conquer, and occupy Syria does nothing but undermine your credibility.

Since Bush stole the 2000 election our politics have become incredibly polarized. Bush had no legitimacy and pretty much everything he did was not only wrong, but also malicious. That does not mean, though, that everything that someone in power does that we disagree with is both wrong and malicious.

So I'm opposed to an invasion, and even to a cruise missile attack, but if Obama does it I won't start thinking he's Hitler. 

Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz performed a real public service in this week’s issue of Seven Days, as his “Fair Game” column was entirely devoted to Bruce Lisman’s thoroughly opaque political plans. He fell short in a couple of key areas, but it’s full of news and insight, and well worth your time.

First big news: The price tag for Lisman’s vanity project nonprofit advocacy group Campaign for Vermont is over the $800,000 mark. And, in spite of CFV’s claim to be the fastest-growing grassroots organization* in Vermont**, all of it comes out of Lisman’s Wall Street fortune.

*If, by “grassroots,” you mean “top-down group completely funded by its wealthy patron.”

**It’s easy to be the “fastest-growing” when you start from a membership of one.

Second big news: He’s prepared to spend a lot more. Yep, now that the Summer of Bruce is wrapping up and his merry band of Lisketeers* is headed back to campus, Lisman’s minions will start haunting the halls of the Statehouse, lobbying on behalf of… er… cough… whatever it is that CFV stands for.

*The much-bruited “grassroots advocacy team,” initially described as a skilled, experienced group with a broad range of political views, was in fact little more than a squad of cheerleaders. As Heintz put it, the “seven part-time, paid interns” were “charged with marching in parades and manning booths at county fairs.” It’s easy to gather names on your mailing list and claim the title of “fastest-growing” when you can afford to pay a bunch of college students to do your scutwork.

Because after a whole lot of time and effort — Lisman’s own two-year personal tour of Vermont, meeting and speaking with “real Vermonters,” and a series of well-publicized but sparsely-attended policy forums, CFV still has precious little to show in the way of specific proposals.

They’ve got a truckload of glittering generalities couched in reassuringly nonpartisan catchphrases: overall, a public-policy fog thick enough to hide a hundred Jack the Rippers. In its present form, CFV’s platform turns Lisman’s preoccupation with “transparency” into a bad joke.

Anyway, so Heintz’ piece is recommended reading. Now, for the two places where he fell short of the mark.  

First, he falls into a common trap for political reporters: the laser-like focus on future campaigns. Heintz just can’t help but ask Lisman if he’s running for Governor. Over and over and over again.

This is always a waste of time. It never works. And it didn’t work here:

[H]is answer… was as dodgy as answers get.

“Well, right now we are entirely focused on Campaign for Vermont,” he said.

Asked whether that was a yes or a no, Lisman responded, “No plans to.”

No plans to. OK. Does that mean you are affirmatively saying, “I will not run for governor in 2014?”

“I’m affirmatively saying this is what I do. This is what I’m good at,” he said.

That’s not very affirmative.

“I think it is,” Lisman countered.

But you’re not ruling it out, obviously.

“I don’t give it any thought,” he said. “I don’t take it seriously.”

The sad thing is, according to Heintz’ reporting, he’d been trying to corner Lisman on a much more important point: his political ideology. And Lisman was, as usual, playing rope-a-dope. But instead of pushing that point — instead of, say, citing some of Lisman’s past words and seeking his reaction — Heintz went back to the same-old same-old “are you running” business.

Sorry, Paul, but that goat was long ago sacrificed and its entrails thoroughly examined.

And besides, I don’t care whether Lisman wants to run for Governor. Because he’s not going to win.

Why? Because (1) He’s not conservative enough for the dead-enders in charge of the VTGOP, (2) third-party or independent bids never work unless you’re Jesse Ventura, which Lisman definitely is not, (3) he has no political profile among the general populace, (4) he has no political skills, and (5) Vermont has shown a consistent antipathy toward One-Percenters who try to buy elections. (See: Rich Tarrant, Jack McMullen, Jack McMullen, Lenore Broughton, et al.)

No, I’m much more concerned with Lisman’s policy agenda than his political ambitions, real or imagined. And here’s where Heintz falls back on another tired trope of his profession: the ol’ he-said-she-said, without any attempt to weigh the evidence. And, despite Lisman’s efforts to cloud the picture, there are plenty of signs that his policy prescriptions lean rightward.

Let me count the ways…

— CFV’s full official name, which is almost never used publicly, is “Campaign for Vermont Prosperity.” Despite Lisman’s scrupulous attention to high-minded concepts like transparency, accountability, and education, when shit gets real, it’s All About Da Scrilla.

— One of CFV’s two (count ’em, TWO) position papers is on energy, and it is also A.A.D.S. It pays lip service to renewables and reducing carbon emissions, but “affordability” is its top priority. CFV wants Vermont to develop clean energy only if it doesn’t cost any more than other sources.

— CFV’s first advertising blitz, in the winter of 2011-12, hammered over and over again at “the politicians in Montpelier” and at Governor Shumlin’s policy priorities, because they allegedly created barriers to prosperity. In other words, anti-business. While the ads never mentioned “Democrats” by name, we all know who was in charge in Montpelier at the time. It wasn’t Jack Lindley.

The group’s later advertisements adopt a friendlier, nonpartisan tone. But its energy policy paper once again drags out the old “politicians in Montpelier” bugaboo. If this is true nonpartisanship, it’d be nice to hear some criticism of the Republicans. We never seem to get that, do we?

— Since launching CFV, Lisman has refrained from directly expressing his own opinions. But on one occasion, back in 2010, he did so. And in a talk delivered to business groups in South Burlington, he revealed a decisively right-leaning, Wall Street oriented worldview. The video can be viewed online, thanks to Burlington’s community access Channel 17; I reported on the speech in a pair of GMD posts in the spring of 2012. The highlights:

a. Lisman was a top executive at Bear Stearns when the economy cratered in 2008. His 2010 description of the Wall Street meltdown? “This thing that happened to us in ’08 and ’09… It was a Darwinian asteroid that hit us.” In other words, a completely unforeseeable natural disaster, for which no one on Wall Street should be blamed.

b. He stated, baldly, that “economic growth… is the ONLY answer for what might ail [the state of Vermont]. …The Governor has to make it the most important thing on his or her schedule every day.”  Does that sound like a liberal — or even a centrist — to you?

c. He said that investment capital is “the most precious thing in the galaxy,” and that those willing to invest capital should be rewarded with lower tax rates on capital gains and corporate earnings. In other words, lower taxes for those wealthy enough to be able to put their capital in the markets, rather than those of us who put our dollars and cents into frills like electricity, heat, housing and food.  

d. He echoed the Republican talking point that there are too many people who get away with paying no income taxes. Well, shortened to “paying no taxes,” which is untrue. He wants to broaden the taxpaying base by raising taxes for the working poor and middle classes. His rationale: everyone should pay something in, so they have a stake in the process.

e. He called for a close examination of Vermont’s social safety net, and a benchmarking of all benefits to the national average. No consideration for variations between states, or to the philosophical question of whether average generosity is good enough. (Hey, if we benchmarked LIHEAP against, say, Arizona, we could save a whole lot of money right there!)

f. He issued a warm-hearted call for a return to the “kindness and caring” that “are in our gene pool,” and connected that with practicality and frugality, which he identified as two other defining traits of the Vermont character. Put those together, and what do you see? Privatizing help for the poor.

g. He called for “performance-shaped budgeting,” with every public program having a defined goal within a defined time period. Which is an echo of the conservative shibboleth that we should “run government like a business.” When, in fact, government is by nature NOT businesslike.

h. He wants us to “embrace economic growth” without trying to pick winners — another Republican talking point. Government shouldn’t invest in specific industries; it should let the markets sort things out. Which ignores the fact that most of the investments that built America — from the Erie Canal to the opening of the American West (subsdized by land giveaways to the railroads and the provision of military and communications service across the continent) to the development of medicines and medical technology to the space program to the natural-gas bonanza provided by hydraulic fracturing.

Yes, fracking was developed through government-funded research, at a time when the fossil fuel industry thought the idea was laughable.

Certainly, government funding sometimes fails. But so does private-sector investment. And when government funding pays off, it creates new vistas of economic development that private investors, with their short-term orientation toward profit, would never have the patience to underwrite.

Is that enough evidence for you? Does that provide reason, at the very least, to mistrust Bruce Lisman as an avatar of nonpartisan centrism? Does that provide grounds to question his real motives, as he continues to keep his rhetorical Fog Machine cranked up to 11?

So, Mr. Heintz, the next time Bruce Lisman consents to an interview, feel free to print out this diary and put his feet to the fire.  

DOUBLE INDEMNITY 2013 (The Remake)

On a noir night/morning at 1am, a mature well dressed noir man sits in an office of the National Life building, in the noir little city of Montpelier, Vermont, dictating a message into some kind of high-tech noir gadget:

“Memo from Walter Neff, 64 year-old part-time life insurance salesman, to Barton Keyes, Claims Manager.  Thursday, September 4, 2013, National Life offices, Montpelier, Vermont.

“Dear Keyes.  Well, I guess you’d call this a confession.  I like to think of it as a story.  A kind of gritty down and dirty story that you’ll appreciate, Keyes.  You always said that the little man inside your gut could smell out anything suspicious about a claim.  You were a hotshot on phony claims, Keyes.  You always guessed all the angles and motives.  You and that little man inside you.

“Well, here’s one time you missed something, Keyes.  That Dietrichson/Moonbeam claim.  Yeah, your little man told you that was a phony.  Dildo Dietrichson making his younger girlfriend, Karma Moonbeam, his sole beneficiary on his new life insurance policy.  The one I, Walter Neff, 64 year-old part-time life insurance salesman, signed him up for.  With that new Double Indemnity clause on death by second-hand cigarette smoke.  Yeah, Keyes.  You said Dietrichson’s death was fishy.  Check.  You said nobody could die from a dose of second-hand cigarette smoke they got outside Charlie Os, even if they stood out there all year.  Check.  You said Moonbeam’s claim was a phony.  Check.  You said it was murder.  Double check, Keyes.  You figured Moonbeam for the killer.  You were going to throw the claim right back in her face, and prove it was murder.  Well, check again, only there’s another double check coming.  So hang on to that ratty old paisley tie you always wear, Keyes.  You want to know who helped Moonbeam kill Dietrichson?  That’s right, Keyes.  Me, Walter Neff, 64 year-old part-time life insurance salesman.  Your colleague.  Sitting in the office right across from you.  Single.  Everybody’s pal.  Man about town.  Your best salesman.  Quick with a joke or a story.  Or to light up a lady’s cigarette.  No visible scars. (Neff looks down at his left foot)  Until now, that is.  I killed him for money, and for a woman.  Well, I didn’t get the money, and I didn’t get the woman.  All I got was a .25 caliber slug in my left foot.  And another murder rap to face.

“It all started four months ago in Charlie Os.  I was there about 5pm on my usual stool trying to joke Cutie-Pie, the youngest bartender there, into signing up for that youngest employee package we have.  The one we developed for the little kids selling lemonade at the yard sales.  Cutie-Pie was joking it all back at me, but I knew if I just kept it up, I’d wear her down.  Like I’ve done with so many sales before.  Why I’m you’re best salesman, Keyes.  And then, SHE walked in.  That’s right, Keyes.  Check again.  Karma Moonbeam.  You know the type, Keyes.  You’ve seen her.  The blonde you always dreamed about since you were in junior high.  Forty-something, but looked in her thirties.  Slim and sort of smokey-eyed.  Sort of noir.

“She sat right down next to me.  She had this just-short-enough skirt on.  Great legs.  And this sexy tattoo on her right ankle.  She kept crossing and recrossing her legs.  Rocking the right one, and twitching her foot and that ankle with the tattoo.  A tattoo of a spider.  Yeah, and I was the fly, Keyes.  I introduced myself and bought her a drink.  A martini, no olive, only lemon peel.  Classy lady.  Right away, I started talking life insurance to her, just to see what she was made of.  And you know what she said, Keyes?  She said ‘That’s fascinating, Walter.’  Yeah, calling me Walter right off.  She said: ‘I’ve always thought life insurance salesmen were fascinating and… mysterious.’  Yeah, that’s me, Keyes.  Good old fascinating and mysterious Walter Neff, 64 year-old part-time life insurance salesman.  And 14 carat sap.

“Well, you can guess the rest, Keyes.  One thing led to another, like it does if you hang out in Charlie Os often enough.  But I want to tell it to you, Keyes, so maybe you’ll understand.  Explain it to that little man inside you.

“Karma had this older boyfriend, Dildo Dietrichson.  He was one of those politically correct uptight activists.  Karma said he had a broomhandle shoved up his asshole.  He was one of those anti-smokers.  No fun for her.  She wanted him gone.  But first she wanted him insured, with her as sole beneficiary.  I added the double indemnity second-hand cigarette smoke clause in.  Nice touch there, right Keyes?  And Dietrichson didn’t know I was signing him up.  I did it when he was shooting pool at Charlie Os.  I’d bought him a couple of drinks, and he’d bought himself a few too.  Told him he was signing a petition to make State Street in Montpelier a smoke-free zone.  He was all for that.  Dietrichson had that thing up his ass.  He said cigarette smoke was worse that war and global warming.  That it was going to kill us all.  And that cigarette smoke lowered property values and screwed-up his investments.  What an asshole, right Keyes?  Well, it was easy.  The only thing that might have nixed it was when Four-Eyes, the bartender on duty that night, spilled some beer all over the papers.  I kind of got upset, and almost made a scene.  And I worried later, when you were interviewing everyone about Dietrichson, if Four-Eyes would remember my little snit.  But I’d lucked out there.  After I pocketed Dietrichson’s future, Four-Eyes had to help this yuppie clown with the ATM, and she sort of accidentally knocked the machine over on him.  He wailed like hell, and called her a nasty name.  She’d forgot all about me.

“So, Karma and I planned-out Dietrichson’ death.  We waited two months.  And then one night he got shut-off at Charlie Os by Junior, the head bartender.  All nice and neat, Keyes.  Dietrichson stood outside a while waving his one hand at the smokers and holding his other hand over his mouth.  I was lurking in that little alley across the street.  When he staggered off, I waited to catch up to him discreetly in the dark on Elm Street.  And took him home to Karma.  He was passed out cold on the couch.  Karma and I took turns blowing cigarette smoke down his throat and up his nose.  It wasn’t pretty, Keyes.  Good thing I’d brought along an extra pack.  It took us a good two hours to smoke him.  And then we fucked.  Right in front of his dead body.  In all that cigarette smoke haze.  Just like in one of those forties classic movies, Keyes.

“But that little man inside you, Keyes, told you to sit on Karma’s claim til you could prove it was murder.  So, in the last few weeks, everything fell apart.  Karma got antsy about waiting it out.  She wanted the money.  She was supposed to give me half of it, and we would wait a respectable time, and then head off separately and meet somewhere.  Some country with no extradition.  And no claims managers with little men inside their guts.  Well, it played-out different.  We’d been in Charlie Os a lot of nights together, only not together.  She’d sit at the end of the bar, pretending she didn’t know me.  Except for once and a while making snide comments about me and you and National Life and all life insurance salesmen everywhere being crooks, and corporate exploiters of single working women.  It was this big act to make her and us look as pure and innocent as the snow outside the Hunger Mountain Co-op.  She almost got me into a couple of fights, just to make it look better.  But then one night I went in there, and there was Karma with somebody else.  Another woman.  That’s right, Keyes.  She played the lesbian card on me

“The other woman’s name was Bowling Ball.  Some kind of handle.  She had a shaved head, Keyes.  Well, I found out quick what Karma and Bowling Ball were up to.  They had it all planned to make me the patsy.  That Karma would have to shoot me dead in self defense because I came on too strong.  Make her look more innocent and exploited.  She’d get the claim settled after Bowling Ball and her friends vigiled National Life into the national news.  Then take off for wherever it is lesbians go after they kill a man.  But I wasn’t ready to be a patsy, Keyes.  I caught up with Karma at the Three Penny Taproom.  Got her outside.  Got her little gun away from her after a struggle that put a round in my left foot.  I put two slugs in her right there on the sidewalk, Keyes.  She died in my arms saying oh Walter.  I said goodbye baby and put her on the bench in front of Three Penny.  Nobody in there heard the shots or saw me limp away.  They were all wound up and noisy as hell in there about the soccer game on the TV.

“I wonder if she’s still there, Keyes.  Probably not.  Somebody on a smoke break must have found her by now.  Unless they don’t take smoke breaks during soccer matches.  I don’t know.  She’s still dead.  And I should get going now, Keyes.  It’s a long hitch up to Canada.  I’m glad Jake, the custodian, left his fancy solid oak cane in the hallway.  It’ll help.  So, Keyes.  Love?  Money?  Hell.  Yeah.  This life insurance game is Hell.  I wonder if I’d never gone to Charlie Os that day, how would…Hello, Keyes.  How long you been standing there?”

“Just got here, Walter.  Jake called up after he left.  Said you were working late.  Now Walter, I’ve told you the company doesn’t like us using the offices and equipment for personal…”

“Keyes.  I was just doing a memo on the Dietrichson claim.  All finished, in fact.  I’ll be taking off.”

“Well, Walter, I won’t be able to listen to it til way late in the day, or tomorrow.  We’ve got the Governor and Sanders and all kinds of Vermont hot shits in all morning and all afternoon about this Vermont Yankee closing.  How to figure out covering the state’s ass when the toxic crap starts leaking all over the place after Entergy shuts it down and takes off on us.”

“Okay, Keyes.  I’m outta here.”

“What happened to your foot, Walter?”

“Nothing much.  Four-Eyes and Curie-Pie were trying to move one of the pool tables at Os and they accidentally put one of the legs down on my foot.”

“Ouch.  Good thing for you, Walter, that you’re covered by that special new accidental spills and incidentals clause we put in the Charlie Os account.  You shouldn’t hang out there anyway, because that Moonbeam broad does.  And the little man inside me tells me she’s not going to be a very happy camper in a couple of weeks.”

“Yeah, Keyes.  I’ll take that advice.  Thanks.”

“And take the rest of the week off, Walter.  We’ll go over the Dietrichson case on Monday.”

“Thanks again.  Good night, Keyes.”

“Good night, Walter.  Rest that foot…Oomph…”

“What, Keyes?”

“Oh…nothing, Walter.  That damn little man inside me’s been jumping around all day and all night.  Damnedest thing.  Take it easy, Walter.”

“Yeah.  See ya, Keyes.”

And now, it is 3am on the same early noir morning on a noir highway headed for the Canadian noir border.  Walter Neff is answering questions from the driver of the SUV who picked him up.  A very sexy noir blonde lady with a tattoo of a bowling ball on her neck:

“So, what’s it like to be a life insurance salesman…Walter, is it?”

“Yeah.  Well, it’s sort of like being a writer, I guess.  There’s a story in every policy.  In every claim.”

“My, Walter, that sounds…well...fascinating.”

“Yeah.  And sometimes it can even get mysterious.  Sometimes.”

“Oh, Walter.  Tell me more.  Talk insurance to me, Walter.  Please.  I need it bad.  I want…”

THE END

Happy Noir

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, VT.

(Oh yeah.  Starring ME as Walter Neff & Jennifer Aniston as Karma Moonbeam.  I figure Sean Penn for Keyes.  And for Dildo Dietrichson, well…for my own sense of self-esteem and sense of the pre-verse, I’d like to cast George Clooney or Richard Gere or, if there were real justice, some younger hunk of the Brad Pitt mold, made up to look much older, with a broomhandle up his ass.  Also need Julia Roberts, wearing glasses, for Four-Eyes, some Meg Ryan type for Junior, and some underage Lindsay Lohan type for Cutie-Pie.  I’ll talk to Clint Eastwood about other casting when we go over things at Charlie Os next week.  (Bowling Ball?–Ani DiFranco?)  This movie will make up for IBM and Entergy, and make ME a candidate in 2016.  Eat your heart out, Michael.)

“The audactity of those fast food workers, asking for $15. an hour wages!”

You know they’re thinking it, even if that’s not exactly what they’re saying.

By “they”  I do not just mean industry employers.  A lot of Americans who make barely more than $15. an hour, or even a lot less, doing jobs outside of food service, are shaking their heads in irritated disbelief at the tremendous crust of those striking workers.

That’s because we have so bought into the invisible class system that has been successfully imposed on American labor that we don’t even realize we’re doing it.

It’s a system that’s worked like gang-busters for low-wage employers, lowering expectations for the vast underclass of manual and service laborers that now represent the majority of jobs in America.  In so doing, it has pitted worker against worker, isolating sectors of employment and effectively disabling efforts to unionize.

With that success at isolation, fast food industry giants and poverty employers like Walmart have seen their portion of the American economic pie grow exponentially, while the middle class has suffered a steady decline.

That decline in the middle class has further enriched low-wage employers by expanding their customer base with families who are no longer financially empowered to make other shopping and dining choices.

Those audacious minimum wage workers now demanding a living wage are really doing so on behalf of the majority of Americans who live paycheck to paycheck.  If their efforts are even halfway successful, and we see a federal minimum wage of $10. per hour (a figure that even the President has recently endorsed) the result will lift millions of families out of extreme poverty and set them in the lap of only relative poverty.

Why are they demanding $15. per hour, you might ask (an involuntary “tsk” escaping as you do)?

The answer is that they have taken a page from their employers and recognize that, in order to achieve on any level, you’ve simply got to overreach.  Success lies in the inevitable compromise; the “grand bargain.”

If they just asked for a minimum of $10. per hour, all negotiation would be built around the assumption that the point of agreement  lies somewhere south of that figure; and any gain would finally be insubstantial.

Laborers who see so little to gain for so much risk would be unlikely to join a walk-out; and that goes to the core of why many organizing efforts go nowhere in this crushing economy.  

Tired and intimidated as low-wage workers are, it takes an audacious effort, with eyes on a real prize, to mobilize their weary numbers.

It’s a gamble, but many believe its time is right.

The tired old arguments for not raising the minimum wage have lost their timber.  Growing income inequity boldly asserts itself at every turn despite decades of “trickle-down” declarations; and social media spreads the message far and wide.

What better place to start than in the fastest growing sector of the economy?  

Let’s have some fairness with those (heavily subsidized) fries; and then let’s go visit the local Walmart.