Note that this poster has been exposed as an agent of ALEC, trolling for gullible readers who might be ‘turned.”

————————————————————————-

Lately both major political parties in Vermont have been competing to prove that they are the stronger defender of traditional Medicare.  Any policy that might potentially address some of Medicare’s many flaws is characterized as an attack on Vermont’s seniors.  It’s time to get beyond the rhetoric and have an honest conversation about Medicare.  

I do want to mention that I am not raising these problems with Medicare because I am against universal health care.  I believe we can provide universal health care to all Americans in a more cost-effective manner than we currently do and achieve better health outcomes.  So my critiques of the Medicare program have nothing to do with its aims.  It’s just that there are many flaws in the current Medicare program.

1) Medicare is rife with fraud:

In 2012, former CMS Director Don Berwick (a fervent supporter of government-run health care) and Andrew Hackbarth of the Rand Corporation estimated that 10% of Medicare spending, $98 billion annually, goes to fraud.  This is due to Medicare’s “pay and chase” system.  Medicare pays claims without question to speed up the payment process and tries to “chase” down fraudulent payments after the checks have been cashed.  

2) Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance Trust Fund) will be Insolvent by 2026:  

Medicare has an independent advisory board, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MEDPAC), made up of some of the brightest and independent health care thinkers in the country.  In their March 2014 report to the U.S. Congress, MEDPAC explains that Medicare Part A will become insolvent by 2026 because of “the sustained increase in the number of Medicare beneficiaries.”  

3) Medicare Can’t Negotiate for Prescription Drug Prices:

The Medicare program is not allowed to use its enormous purchasing power to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices.  That means the per unit prices for prescriptions is the same for Medicare if it is paying for 1 pill or 1 million pills.  No one who honestly believes in free markets could support this restriction.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates changing this provision will save Medicare $15.5 billion per year.

4) Doctors Set Their Own Prices in Medicare:

The major trade association for doctors, the American Medical Association, has established a 31-member committee entitled the Relative Value Update Committee (RUC) that decides the value of all procedures performed by doctors in Medicare.  They essentially set their own prices with impunity.

It’s no surprise that Medicare Part A is going bankrupt when there is so much fraud in the system and taxpayers are paying highly-inflated prices to pharmaceutical companies and doctors through the program.  Let’s have an honest conversation about Medicare.  It needs to be drastically changed to remain solvent.  Let’s return Medicare decision-making to the states by using the Health Care Compact as a tool to provide better care to our seniors at a lower cost.  

Dave Sterrett, Esq., a health care advocate and attorney, is Principal at the Health Care Policy Group and represents the Health Care Compact.    

I find it fascinating how disinterested to downright hostile many lawmakers appear to be with regard to Sec. of State Jim Condos‘ call for formation of an independent Ethics Commission.

Over and over the arguments seem to be that there “ain’t no problem here,” and we’ve got better places to spend the money.

To the former I simply drop my jaw in disbelief. I can’t speak for the entire state, but we certainly do have a problem here in Franklin County.

I am one of those Vermonters who has repeatedly rung-up the Secretary’s office over the years, pleading for help with an open meeting violation one month and conflicts of interest the next.

I’ve been giving him a break lately as I have finally learned the lesson that there is absolutely nothing that his office can do to enforce the purely symbolic rules of ethical behavior governing  public officials in Vermont.

It must be extremely frustrating to hear, day after day, from Vermonters distressed over bad behaviors in government, knowing that all you have to offer is a sympathetic ear.

I find the funding arguments against formation of an Ethics Commission particularly ironic since it isn’t difficult to imagine that conflicts of interest within government are routinely resulting in questionable payouts to contractors, avoidable lawsuits and general disregard for inefficiencies.  

I applaud Jim Condos for making this his mission.  He wants to be an effective Secretary of State, not merely a functional one.

Serving as a Democratic Secretary of State in an overwhelmingly Democratic administration, with an overwhelmingly Democratic Legislature, the simplest thing would be to just go with the flow; but that isn’t good enough for Condos.  

What he proposes is really in the best interests of everyone, but especially the Democratic party, whose collective teeth have been set to grinding by his latest search in the lamplight for a government we can all trust.

The problem with overwhelming majorities, even when they are comprised of our own allies, is that, in the ease of opportunity they provide for one party, it isn’t always the best people who rise to the top.

Any career politician can too easily succumb to temptation in that opportunistic land of plenty, sometimes without even realizing that that is what they are doing.  Lacking any real competition, it’s too easy to rationalize the choice that favors one’s own interests as the best option for the greater good.

Right now, it’s easy to look at Republicans as the more ethically (and factually) challenged party, but a lack of vigilance and sufficient checks and balances could well bring the entire Democratic party in Vermont into ill repute, vis-a-vis the public trust.

So, suck-it-up statehouse denizens!  Those of us who labor in the trenches of grassroots advocacy, the natural allies of the Democratic party, are getting tired of hearing that there is nothing that can be done when close relatives in high places make a mockery of the permit process, or when open meetings are suddenly closed.  

We even take umbrage when, despite conspicuous wrong-doing, an office holder enjoys more privilege of choice than do the voters he was elected to represent.

Self-policing by the legislature does not appear to be working; and anyone who doesn’t see that we have a problem wouldn’t make much of a policeman in any case.  The fact that we are the only state without an Ethics Commission does not mean we don’t have a problem.

It only suggests that Vermonters  favor “See No Evil” as our operating model for problem solving in this area, and that’s nothing of which we should be proud.

I know the Ethics Commission can’t eliminate all the monkey business that goes on behind closed doors, but at least it would be a healthy place to start.

From Secretary of State and GMD reader Jim Condos

Posted with permission

Vermonters deserve good government – and that includes an open and transparent government!

We are proud of our State and our collective ability to overcome any difficult issue we may encounter. As Vermonters, when we see a problem, we know we can fix it through hard work and a dose of common sense. We expect the same of our government.

Vermont’s constitution (Chapter 1, Article 6) states that the power is “derived from the people, therefore, all officers of government, whether legislative or executive, are their trustees and servants; and at all times, in a legal way, accountable to them.”

The public’s access to open and transparent government is key to our democracy.

This sacred trust must not be taken lightly.  We must either restore that accountability or risk Vermonters’ faith in our ability to govern.

Over the last 4 years, I have traveled to over 30 locations around Vermont explaining our Open Meeting and Access to Public Records laws on my “Got Transparency?” tour. Several hundred Vermonters have heard my call for more transparency in government and how that leads to increased accountability. I’ll be on the road again this fall because this issue is so very important. But is that enough?  No.

The time has come for Vermont to enact a clear law regarding ethics, conflicts of interest, and financial disclosure for our elected officials.

Just in the last few years, Vermonters have heard allegations of ethical issues about the Governor, Attorney General, legislators, candidates, and municipal officials. These complaints cross all party lines. The Secretary of State’s office receives calls almost every week about municipal officials, alleging conflicts of interest and other ethically suspect actions.  With no authority for the Secretary of State to investigate or enforce these complaints, these citizens come away from the process feeling frustrated, helpless and increasingly cynical.

The time has come to create an independent ethics commission to address complaints from the Legislative, Executive, and Municipal sections of government.  

Vermont is one of only 3 states nationwide without an Ethics Commission.  The 2012 Center for Public Integrity ranking of the states had Vermont with an overall grade of D+, in large part because we do not have an authoritative ethics commission or the required financial disclosures existing in nearly every other state. Vermont can and must do better!

A focus on Ethics should include: a clear definition of conflicts of interest, required financial disclosures by all candidates and elected officers, and establishing an independent Ethics Commission.  This independent body should be empowered to adopt a code of ethics and to fairly and impartially field complaints from the public to determine if a violation has occurred in the areas of conflict of interest, campaign finance, or financial disclosure.  This Ethics Commission must also have the authority to enforce those laws.  This will require a budget and a small staff to be effective, but these investments will be a small price to pay for a more accountable government and a place where affected Vermonters can seek redress.

This is not a new issue – in fact, I have spoken on this topic many times over the last five years. I often hear that we are a small state and are not affected by such things, but frankly, that is not good enough. Recent events are more than enough bear out the need for an ethics commission once again.

By and large, we are served well by our dedicated public servants. The vast majority of our elected state and local officials are trustworthy, dedicated and passionate individuals who want to do the right thing.  However, corruption can exist, and in small doses it can be just as corrosive to our democracy as any prominent scandal, undermining the public trust.  

Will establishing an ethics committee suddenly provide government a moral compass? Certainly not, but it will be a step in the right direction and will shine a brighter light on better transparency and accountability.  

It’s about time we move Vermont forward – let’s fix this!

Please note: THIS EVENT IS HAPPENING ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3. When I posted this last night, I had misunderstood the date and thought it was happening right then. I hope my mix-up didn’t cause any problems.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Concerned Vermonters will gather Wednesday night, June 3, from 6:00- 8:00 PM, at the Bethany United Church of Christ in Montpelier for a screening of the documentary film, “Decommissioning Our Nuclear Power Stations: Mission Impossible?” and a presentation by Arnie Gundersen of Fairewinds Associates, Inc. on findings and recommendations from his special report on VY decommissioning.

Produced in 2012 by Bernard Nicolas for France’s Arte TV network, the subtitled documentary takes a hard look at the status of decommissioning nuclear power plants in France and Germany. Nicolas also looks at the implications of decommissioning reactors in the United States.

Even though operators of reactors like Vermont Yankee are required by the NRC to create and maintain a decommissioning fund; it is becoming clear that the one created for Vermont Yankee still has to grow for many more years before it is projected even to meet the extremely conservative parameters upon which estimates of the cost were based; and Entergy is actively pursuing reasons to dip into the fund prematurely.

Those earlier estimates have since been shown to be severely deficient, and similar scenarios can be expected to play out all over the country as one-by-one, nuclear power reactors reach the end of their functional or economically viable lives and are taken out of service; all having based their decommissioning fund planning on  similarly inadequate models accepted by the NRC.

Bearing in mind that both the advanced age of most U.S. nuclear power reactors and a failing economic argument for their continued use predict that we are entering an unprecedented era of nuclear power reactor closures.

It is now estimated that the shortfall in funding for decommissioning all U.S. reactors currently in operation is $43 billion!  As things now stand, that ‘shortfall’ will be passed on to the taxpayers.



Further compounding the issue of decommissioning costs are the problems and expenses associated with long term storage of spent fuel and nuclear waste.  

Then there is the fact that even the best option currently available for spent fuel involve leaving it on site for perhaps a century or longer in concrete casks that have been not been demonstrated to be resistant to cracking or leaks in the long term.

Hosted by Beyond Nuclear, the Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Alliance and Vermont Citizen Action Network, the evening will provide a free opportunity for Vermonters to gain a better understanding of the challenges that lay ahead in the Age of Decommissioning.

I am very pleased to be associated with Fairewinds Energy Education in a non-technical capacity, but the opinions I express on GMD are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of Fairewinds.

Apparently one of Mr. McAllister’s alleged victims has passed away. That might potentially affect the criminal case against Mr. McAllister, but does not alter the urgency of separating him from the senate.

_________________________________________________________________________________

This is the letter that I have, today, sent to the St. Albans Messenger.

As it should have been, Wednesday evening’s Taylor Park rally against sexual exploitation and abuse was very moving and respectful of the victims.

It was not, however, as well attended as one might have hoped.  

I choose to give our Republican legislators the benefit of the doubt by assuming that none attended because of the acute embarrassment they have been caused by Norm McAllister’s behaviors.  

This was a mistake, however, because the absence of Republican representation was uncomfortably conspicuous to all.

It is impossible to divorce Mr. McAllister’s political affiliation from the conversation without some help from his party colleagues. Otherwise, they appear to be closing ranks against the will of their constituents, the vast majority of whom undoubtedly want Mr. McAllister out of his senate seat…yesterday.

In light of the fact that the event organizers took great pains to ensure that there would not be even a hint of politics in the program, and that it would focus on the needs of victims of domestic violence and exploitation, this failure to even put in an appearance came across as somewhat insensitive.

Absent any discussion of Mr. McAllister or his alleged offenses, he remained, nevertheless, the elephant in the room.

…But that was yesterday.

Today it is time for the citizens of Franklin County to take back their senate seat.

Mr. McAllister is understandably focused on his own defense, wherever that may take him.  It is clear that his constituents and even his party are no longer a priority for him.

Are we to pass an entire summer in a limbo of public dysfunction while Mr. McAllister continues to cling to the illusion that he represents Franklin County?

If there is such paralysis in the legislative halls and in the VGOP that no one can compel Mr. McAllister to resign his seat, we the people will have to do the job for them by demanding that the House issue an order of impeachment and the Senate carry it forward by trial without delay.  

The charge can be as simple as violation of his oath of office, in which he pledged to do no damage to the state or to its people.

There is already ample evidence of that violation in the factual record, before even venturing further into his personal liability under the criminal code.

I herewith make this formal demand of our Franklin County legislative delegates, Republican and Democrat, that a petition be prepared by one or all of them to be posted in every City and town hall in the County, so that every citizen of the County has an opportunity to add his or her name to that petition demanding immediate removal of Mr. McAllister from his senate seat.

If for some reason, no one in our delegation will do this, I request that the Messenger, as our principal organ of community conversation,  host a petition on behalf of the population.



I ask that the Messenger share that petition in its pages; and for the benefit of those who may not see the paper or visit their town hall in a timely way, that public access television, the library and other public institutions also provide an opportunity for community members to read and sign the petition.

If there is any single lesson about the health of our legislature that we have learned from this nasty experience it is that we are long overdue for adopting an ethics policy that would bring swift justice for the people of Vermont when it is members of the legislature themselves who have violated the public trust.

Here at Green Mountain Daily we adhere to the goal of more and better Democrats.

Margaret Lucenti embodied that principle.

Not simply the grandmotherly figure you would see at the State House or on election days in Montpelier, Margaret was a giant in progressive Democratic politics. As her obituary points out, Margaret was the first chair of the Vermont Human Rights Commission. She worked for three decades as a committee assistant in the Vermont Legislature. (I first met her twenty-five or thirty years ago in my first foray into lobbying, and I got some tips from her as she pointed out that she was also on the board of Central Vermont Community Action.) I worked with her for many years on Montpelier's Board of Civil Authority, and for many years she was the treasurer of the Montpelier Democratic Committee.

As her obituary in the Times Argus tells us, and you should really read the entire thing: 

 She was also chairperson of the Vermont delegation to the 1976 Democratic Convention in her role as a Vermont National Democratic committeewoman, a candidate for the Vermont House of Representatives and the Washington County Senate seat in 1978. She was also the first woman to run in a Democratic primary in Vermont for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1974. Her commitment to civic participation by continuous active involvement on town, county and state Democratic committees, often serving as an officer, was most admirable. This included her long tenure as a justice of the peace. Margaret also served as board member of the Washington Electric Coop from 1976-1978. 

 Three years ago she was the subject of a “Super Senior” profile on WCAX, and it relates how her opposition to the Vietnam War spurred her to activism.

What you probably won't read elsewhere, though, is that it was Margaret who, while a member of Vermont's delegation to the Democratic National Convention in 1972, convinced Tom Salmon to run for governor. He won, becoming only Vermont's second Democratic governor since 1854. 

Margaret was also inseparable from her husband, Sal, who died just last month. They were married for 72 years.

Margaret's funeral is 10:00 Thursday morning at St. Augustine's Church in Montpelier.

Margaret will be missed by everyone who knew her. 

There will be a “Rally for Justice” in St. Albans’ Taylor Park on Wednesday, May 27 at 5:30 PM.

Organized by community members in conjunction with Voices Against Violence to demonstrate  solidarity with the victims of domestic and sexual violence, exploitation and injustice and to demand change to the culture that tacitly permits such things to occur.

Among the speakers will be former Democratic governor Madeline Kunin  and Auburn Watersong from the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence.

In the wake of mounting allegations of abuse against Norm McAllister, it has been frustrating for most Franklin County residents that Mr. McAllister refuses to voluntarily vacate his senate seat.

This is an opportunity for citizens of Franklin County to bring the angry emotions that this incident has awakened to a constructive gathering that will add volume to the demand for McAllister’s resignation.

At the same time, it is hoped that, at this time, with the public consciousness so traumatically elevated, we will see some meaningful improvement in the support structure that will allow more victims to securely come forward for help, knowing that hey will get it and not suffer repercussions.

The more voices, the greater the impact; so, come to St. Albans tomorrow to make yourself heard.

It’s rather fun to speculate on Governor Shumlin’s reason for blurting out his endorsement of Hilary Clinton on the same day as Bernie’s announcement of his own candidacy.

Since GMD is a blog, and an irreverent one at that, we can indulge in such things while the conventional news must remain somewhat more cautious.

The governor is, of course, free to endorse whomever he wants, whenever he wants, but Vermonters can be excused for fountaining rootbeer out of their noses when he does it at such a conspicuously inappropriate moment.

No one can accuse the governor of being politically naive, so we have to conclude that there was method to this madness; especially so since he more or less implied, in the same week, that he himself intends to run again in 2016.

Soooo…what can this all mean?

We might assume that it was just Shumlin’s way of sucking up to the divine Ms. C. so that he might later bask in reflected glory, quid-pro-quo, when his own 2016 campaign is likely, for the first time, to meet considerable push-back from the left.

But why the rush to endorse; particularly, on that day when progressive minded Vermonters were poised to feel good about an historic moment?

Did the Clinton camp specifically request this early token of loyalty?

Was the strategy to create a structural weakness in Sander’s home state support base?

Possibly; but that would suggest that someone has not done much market research in Vermont, where Bernie’s popularity ratings remain high while Shumlin’s have been circling the bowl practically ever since the last election.

Shumlin’s endorsement of Clinton is so much in character with his whitebread expectations that it was hardly worth mentioning, let alone provoking more alienation from the left.

Among governors, only that of Clinton’s adopted home state, New York’s Andrew Cuomo, has made the early leap to endorse her.

Perhaps Shumlin is only running again in 2016 because he is counting on the inevitable groundswell of Democratic support for whomever heads the national ticket to inoculate his tandem run on the homefront against genuinely progressive “spoilers.”  

The conservative money is on Clinton, so that is where Shumlin invests his hopes.

He probably realizes that this immunizing fairy dust of association will only be available to him one more time before even Democratic Vermonters are really unwilling to take him back on any terms.  By then, he probably hopes that getting an early leg-up on the Clinton train will carry him to new fields of opportunity in DC.

Tacky but true?

A “lucky” confluence of events prevented disgraced Senator Norm McAllister from adding insult to injury in his relationship with the State of Vermont.

Mr. McAllister failed to file the necessary paperwork to finalize his application for a $20,000. farm grant, so the state has been spared the trouble of snatching it back from him.

This near miss has shone a light on the peculiar absence of conflict of interest mechanisms governing such grants.

Except for his failure to complete the final stage of his application, sitting Senator McAllister was in line to receive what most small businesses would regard as quite a substantial government hand-out.

Of course the peripheral irony is that, as a legislator, Mr. McAllister himself has been the first to advocate for extra hurdles and humiliations for anyone who needs public assistance.

He didn’t similarly propose drug tests for recipients of the farm grant for which he applied.

I suspect an examination of Mr. McAllister’s public and private life would reveal many such ironies, but my point here is to ask how on earth a sitting senator is not disqualified from consideration for such a grant which was only awarded to 35 farmers in the state!

It occurs to me that Mr. McAllister may have already been too many times to the trough. Has anyone bothered to explore his grant application history?

And what about other legislators?  Who else is benefiting from state assistance to their businesses?

May I suggest that one item on next year’s agenda be to ban sitting legislators from seeking public support for their private business interests?  

Duh?

After writing the letter to the Messenger, I learned that the two legislators who shared an apartment with Mr. McAllister belonged to opposing parties…one Democrat and one Republican.  I apologise for having given the impression that both were Republicans and have sent a revised letter to the Messenger.  

That being said, I don’t think we should focus so much on the partisan nature of who should have known and who didn’t.  The point is that, over the years since the reported behaviors began, there must have been evidence of inappropriate relationships and questionable behaviors for any number of people to remark upon.  It says something troubling about the  culture of privilege when McAllister’s status as a powerful figure in farming and as a state rep shielded him from greater scrutiny for so long.

_________________________________________________________________________________

This is cross-posted from Messenger letters, where my GMD colleague, Mike McCarthy, has been taking an inexplicable beating for his comments on the implications of Mr. McAllister’s fall from grace.

Since Mike McCarthy’s letter concerning Norm McAllister’s inevitable replacement appeared in the Messenger he has been the target of a stream of angry letters.

This makes absolutely no sense to me.  Where is his crime?

Mike McCarthy is not just the current chair of Franklin County Democrats, he is a young father whose anger is understandable when the victim is little more than a child herself.

I am not a Democrat; I am a Progressive.  I agree with Mike that Randy Brock should not be the only choice the Governor has from the GOP.  I would like to see Carolyn Branagan proposed for the seat.

She is a hard-working Republican legislator with plenty of practical experience and excellent people skills. Recently, she has played an important role in carrying forward the agenda to clean up Vermont’s troubled waterways.

She is also a woman; and considering the nature of Mr. McAllister’s alleged offenses, all of the women of Franklin County deserve more than just a token apology.

Under the circumstances, Rep. Branagan’s appointment would go a long way toward healing the Franklin County GOP and restoring confidence in our delegation.

This is important not just for the people who voted for Mr. McAllister but to all of his constituents, from all three parties.

Returning to Mike McCarthy’s original letter.  I did not interpret it, as some were quick to do, as a condemnation of all Republican legislators.  I believe he was referring to the fact that two of Mr. McAllister’s

colleagues who shared an apartment with him in Montpelier were aware of the fact that a very young girl…a child to most of us… was sleeping in his bedroom.  

If those two gentlemen didn’t question that arrangement, they are either incredibly stupid or guilty of enabling the behavior at the very least.  We don’t need to know whether or not Mr. McAllister can be charged under the language of any particular criminal code to know that this simply was wrong.  He was a much, much older man in a position of power over her.  That, of and by itself, is enough to brand the relationship as non-consensual.

End of story.

One can only hope that the constituents of those other two lawmakers (and their own party) have the good sense to recognize that they have demonstrated a remarkable lack of judgement and sensitivity that essentially disqualifies them from reelection.

There is a culture of enabling which allowed Mr. McAllister to become what he has.  I don’t believe that he woke up at 60 years of age and suddenly became a sexual predator; and the suggestion by some that this behavior emerged from grief over his wife’s passing is at once unbelievable and utterly repulsive.

Let’s grow up and recognize that Mr. McAllister’s story should carry the lesson for all of us that there is exploitation of vulnerable people going on all around us, and apparently we need to do a much better job of knowing whom we entrust with representing us.