( – promoted by Sue Prent)

   This is in response to Enosburg/Bakersfield Rep. Larry Fiske’s letter in the 4/23/15 St. Albans Messenger, explaining his vote on S.141, a bill that proposes to keep guns out of the hands of violent offenders, spousal abusers, or those who are suicidal or are a danger to themselves and others.

     S.141 passed the VT House by a vote of 80 – 62, following much testimony and impassioned discourse. I salute all the concerned citizens, ( the “green shirts” and the “orange shirts” both ), who showed up at the State House to engage in civil debate and to let their representatives know their views. This was democracy in action. I especially applaud the people who had the courage to bring up and work for this bill, in a state where even the most established politician avoids confronting the sensitive issue of anything to do with guns.

     I thank Rep.Fiske for making the effort to tell us the reasons behind his “no” vote, but I take real issue with some of his statements. I’m also very puzzled by the “vote explanation” he gave after the vote in the State House.

   Firstly, Rep. Fiske refers to our Constitutional 2nd Amendment securing our right to bear arms, as if this bill negates that. I’m sure he heard the other side, which was that it is the responsibility of legislators to protect the most vulnerable Vermonters from those who would abuse our 2nd Amendment. This was not a vote on the right for citizens to bear arms.

  Next he mentions the emotions brought forward by some members “which were moving as well as thought-provoking.”  Rep. Sam Young (D-Glover) gave poignant testimony about his suicidal brother who killed himself with a gun he easily purchased in another town because there was no database like S.141 would establish.

According to the Vermont Digger, Representative Young said, “If he was in that database, nobody would have sold him that gun” ().  Rep. Till ( D-Jericho) spoke of  Vermont’s firearm death rate being double the rate in New York and almost 3 times the rate in Massachusetts because of our high number of gun deaths by suicide, averaging 60 Vermonters per year, and said this bill “is not enough…. but it is a step “on the path to reducing this public health scourge”.

    Finally, Rep.Fiske talks about those who struggle with PTSD, especially veterans, and how hunting and shooting at gun clubs can provide an important outlet for them.  As most of us have heard, Chris Kyle (of American Sniper fame) was killed (along with a friend) when a soldier with PTSD shot them at a firing range. Perhaps it’s not a great idea to give severe PTSD sufferers firearms, until they have been able to recover sufficiently.

   Apparently those voting no on this bill are also against having a registry of felons convicted of violent offenses, something that 49 other states already do, and which law officers want.

   In closing, Rep.Fiske says “I wish someone could tell me where the problem is.” This really has me stumped. After all the “moving as well as thought-provoking” discussion by his fellow legislators, how can he be at such a loss to know what the problems might be? Maybe he wasn’t listening ?

   But the most puzzling of all is Rep. Fiske’s “vote explanation”, which ironically was the identical speech used by both Rep. Marianna Gamache ,(R-Swanton ), and Rep.Rodney Graham,(R- Williamstown ), to “explain” their votes at the time.  (See House Journal ).

This is a segment of the speech he repeats in his letter : “Tens of thousands of dollars in special interest money from outside of Vermont has poured into campaigns, lobbyists and in marketing efforts designed to scare constituents into believing we have a gun violence problem in Vermont…”

   I wonder how it was that Reps. Fiske, Gamache, and Graham each came up with the same identical speech? Who are their speechwriters? What outside interests, pouring money to influence “campaigns, lobbyists, and marketing efforts”, bade our two Franklin County representatives to stand up on the House floor and mimic each other with a speech that sounded like those “special interests” wrote it for them? I am sure that other Franklin County residents would want to know.

CQ (Congressional Quarterly) LINK, just posted:

http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb…

The Constitution Project, in awarding their annual Constitutional Champion awards to Senator Patrick Leahy and Senator Rand Paul last night, cited esp. their work together to end mandatory minimum sentencing, as part of their sentencing reform efforts, and Leahy’s leading role in pushing to end NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ telephone records, through Leahy’s USA FREEDOM Act.

 

There's a new report today that St. Elizabeth's Hospital, where John Hinckley, Jr., has lived for more than twenty years, is seeking to release him from inpatient treatment to live with his mother. Naturally, this is leading to the inevitable wails that he should never be released after what he did, and on and on.

The people who want to keep him locked up are wrong. Hinckley, his lawyers, and the hospital that wants to discharge him are right. There are a number of reasons for this.

First off: he was acquitted. Like other people charged with a crime in the United States, the government presented its case before a jury of his peers. To convict him the government needed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and it didn't. No matter what you think of the insanity defense, it's not a technicality. If someone makes the incredibly rare accomplishment of prevailing on an insanity defense that person is not criminally liable.

Not guilty. Period. That means that no matter how much you don't like what he did, you don't get to keep punishing him. A defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity is not sent to prison, but is sent to an institution for treatment until he or she can be safely discharged to the community. The Supreme Court has held that it is unconstitutional to continue to hospitalize someone involuntarily unless it is shown that the person is both mentally ill and a danger to himself or others. Once the defendant's innocence has been established, the question is not what the person did in the past, but on what will happen if the person is released. “A finding of “mental illness” alone cannot justify a State's locking a person up against his will and keeping him indefinitely in simple custodial confinement. Assuming that that term can be given a reasonably precise content and that the “mentally ill” can be identified with reasonable accuracy, there is still no constitutional basis for confining such persons involuntarily if they are dangerous to no one and can live safely in freedom.“

Second, Hinckley is a danger to nobody. His track record over the last twenty years, time when he has been confined to the hospital but has had chances to go out on unsupervised visits to family and friends, shows that. He has had no violent incidents, he returns when he's supposed to return, and he cooperates with treatment. There is no reason to believe that keeping him locked up will reduce any danger he poses to himself or others, mainly because it has been decades since he has done anything dangerous.

I have represented clients who have killed people when suffering from untreated mental illness, and I have argued successfully for their release from hospitalization. I know that cases like this are emotionally upsetting to members of the public and to prosecutors. As reported in the Washington Post, “Prosecutors pointed out that unlike other aging patients with disabilities who have supportive families, Hinckley is an attempted assassin who shot the president and three others.” I'm used to hearing this kind of argument because I've heard it myself in cases that I have handled, but the argument misses the point. These cases always involve violent, sometimes deadly acts, but that is not the end of the story. As a matter of law, as a matter of common sense, and as a matter of basic morality, we do not have the right to lock up a person who has been acquitted of a crime and who poses no danger to others if he or she is released.

In the Hinckley case the court will undoubtedly examine the treatment he has received since the last time his restrictions were loosened. It will examine whether he complies with treatment, and whether his behavior, which includes one or two minor slips in the last few years, demonstrates that he is dangerous or safe. When all these factors are examined, the likely outcome is that he will be discharged to live with his mother, with the support of other family members if that becomes necessary.

That will be the right outcome.

(Now, Today’s Seven Days Fair Game column has even more on Sorrell’s high-rolling campaign fundraising (as Conficts Of Interest).  READ IT, Little DEMS!  And Shumlin is going to appoint a special counsel to investigate the corrupt little SOB.  FINALLY!  Your Gov decided, I guess, that he couldn’t avoid all the questions Seven Days has brought up, not in his position now of being highly unpopular himself.  We shall see.  Hopefully, not a whitewash.  I’m very pleased, however.  Now, I hope they consider that all Sorrell’s highrolling out-of-state campaign fundraising could be linked to the HEROIN problem that has grown in Vermont under his watch.  An AG who spends so much time going on out-of-state junkets to connect with campaign donors obviously is not too concerned about REAL CRIME right here in Vermont.  Hell, he’s too busy committing crime himself.  Thank you Paul Heintz and Seven Days!  And WHAT, if anything, do you little Dems have to say?  You’ve been so quiet these last five weeks, except for Jack sort of ‘apologizing’ for Sorrell.  What?  Need the corrupt AG to be a Republican?  Maybe Sorrell should switch parties.  Maybe soon, we’ll wind up with a Republican Ag.)

Last week’s post:

Today’s Seven Days (April 22) goes after Sorrell on three fronts.  Paul Heintz again in Fair Game (4 weeks in a row, way to go, Paul!).  An editorial piece.  And me, just your average Vermont citizen calling in my Letter To The Editor for a U.S. Justice department investigation of Sorrell.  (call Eugenia Cowles, U.S. Attorney in Burlington)

Now, according to Seven Days, and Sorrell himself, there is no way Sorrell is going to be investigated by an independent counsel in Vermont about his conflicts of interest as regards his own campaign financing.  (However, Dean Corren–that was a ‘righteous’ investigation)  And there is no other state department that has authority to investigate him.  Sorrell, it seems, can only be investigated by himself–the Vermont AG’s office.  And he isn’t going to do that.  Nor, as he says, “waste taxpayer money” on an independent counsel investigation of the amount of his campaign contributions over the years and how he got them.  It’s all right to waste 5 month’s of AG office time and expenses to squeeze Corren for $72,000.  5 months of AG office time and expenses?  How much do you think was spent?  More than $72,000, I’d wager.  While Shumlin is cutting state benefits, threatening state worker layoffs, and trying to eliminate the tax deductions for small charitable donations.  (Apparently we will see only the RICH, who can donate $5000 or more getting the tax break here.  Once again, tax breaks for the Rich.)

Speaking of RICH, Shumlin, who’s empowered to appoint a independent counsel over Sorrell’s head, says he’s too busy with his ‘legislative agenda’. (screwing the poor, the working poor, the working class, and any one else who’s not able to fork over $5000 to him or Sorrell)  These guys are really getting a lock on old fashioned Southern State corruption and lawbending.  Where are the Dukes Of Hazard when ya need ’em?

I, myself, called for a U.S. Justice department investigation of Sorrell focusing on the Heroin pipeline through Vermont that has come to pass under his tenure.  Also, Human Trafficking.  The Drug and Slave cartels must know Vermont is safe passage.   Perhaps they also donate to his on-going re-election.

Huey Long and J. Edgar Hoover.  What a pair.  But Sorrell is going to go down first, I believe.  He’s already digging his hole with his replies to the questions being asked, and Shumlin is not going to stick his neck out for him, not in his current position.

So, the HEAT must be kept up on Sorrell, now that the fires have been lit.  He’s really bad news.  He always liked to say he couldn’t do anything to help immigrant workers get their last paychecks upon being deported because it was federal.

Well, Bill, you corruption of law and justice, I think you’re federal now.  Twist, you bastard!  And keep it up, Seven Days.

I’m Peter Buknatski and I approve this message.

Montpelier, Vt.

 

I received an email yesterday from Megan Smith and Doug Rand of the White House Office of Science and Technology (one of those mass-mailings), regarding “White House Demo Day.”  

They’re inviting a bunch of

“entrepreneurs from all across the country — including those underrepresented in entrepreneurship like women and people of color — to come here and talk about their big ideas and share the stories of their individual innovation journeys to date. These are the folks whose stories show exactly why we need to grow the pie to make sure there’s opportunity for everyone in our innovation economy.”

The WHOST letter asked for nominations of people to participate.  The opportunity was ripe for response.

Coincidentally, I also received a presser from Bernie Sanders’ office containing his letter to the President objecting to efforts to ‘fast track’  the Trans-Pacific Partnership without sufficient opportunity for review and response by those most affected,  a.k.a: working Americans.

In that letter, the Senator raises some excellent questions that beg answers before the public.

They speak to issues of minimum wage,  product safety, legal protections, and corporate manipulation of the pharmaceutical  development and distribution process which could cause widespread threats to public health.  

I suggest you take the time to read those questions in detail, because we are once again being led down that same garden path that delivered us to NAFTA hell.

Which brings me to my response to the White House Mailing (a copy of which I also sent to Senator Sanders).

In it, I told the story of my family’s modest foray into bootstrap business development;  how the banking system failed us; and how, just when we had finally gotten things going strong with no help from anyone, NAFTA and corporate heavy hitters came along to steal our market and knock us on our entrepreneurial asses.

They asked, and I answered.  You can read the whole thing in ‘comments’, should you be out of cornflakes boxes and have an afternoon to kill.

Stay tuned to learn whether or not I ever get any feedback.

As the Vermont Legislature attempts to squeeze water from a stone in satisfying the many demands of state with few available revenue streams, one of the victims of that squeeze may prove to be working class contributors and the charitable interests they would like to support.

Deep in the weeds of tax reform legislation being considered by our representatives is a provision that would eliminate the tax benefit from charitable contributions, when the individual donor contributes less than $5,000. in total to all recipients.

That means that, while those wealthiest enough to contribute more than $5,000. in total can still claim a 5% deduction on those contributions, the rest of us are just out of luck.  

The devaluation of the small donor is only part of the challenge that non-profits will face under this proposal, but it is the part that stings the most.

As Lauren-Glenn Davitian of Common Ground explained the issues to me:

The House Bill H.489 seeks to generate $16M of a $32M hole by capping deductions at 2.5 standard deductions. The challenge for nonprofits with this is that mortgage, health and property tax deductions are fixed. Charitable giving is discretionary. Particularly for individual filers as the income approaches $100K, they will not be able to deduct most of what they give from their state taxes.

The Senate Bill (not yet out of House Finance) poses a different issue: It offers a charitable tax credit (which is taken off the state tax bottom line) only if you give MORE THAN $5K to instate charities (designated by state tax dept). Then you can take 5% of the amount in excess of $5K.

This benefits big givers and not most of the charitable donors who itemize. The average gift is $2800 and not until you approach $300K in annual giving. Those people just start to reach $5K in gifts.

Overall, the scheme seems destined to drive-down charitable contributions in general.

So, once again, rather than raising revenue by directly increasing top earner’s tax rates, the proposal is to move down the food chain to “find” money in the shallow pockets of those who earn the least and those who need the most.  

And what of the arcane system of deductions that is supposed to be one of the targets for tax reform? As far as I can tell, in this instance, it will be just as arcane as ever.

A little extra credit is due to Democratic Congressman Peter Welch, who just stared down the corporate spin doctors of the corn lobby.

You may recently recall hearing some rumblings from the peanut gallery, about the Congressman having betrayed his environmental base by collaborating with Big Oil.  That peanut gallery should more accurately be described as a “corn crib,” because the chief complainant, Brooke Coleman, turns out to be the executive director of the Advanced Ethanol Council.   Big surprise.

If you, considered the source as I did, it may have caused barely a flutter in your consciousness.

Nonetheless, he deserves a quiet hand of applause for his articulate response.

What Congressman Welch had the temerity to do was to seize an opportunity for meaningful reform to the misguided ethanol mandate.  That bill of goods, sold to the American public amid the confused messaging of the early Bush years, (kind of like weapons of mass destruction), stubbornly refuses to die, despite its exposure as having been based on faulty assumptions.

In Welch’s own words:

In addition to being costly to farmers, small-engine operators and families, ethanol is inflicting significant damage on the environment. Studies indicate that greenhouse gas emissions from corn ethanol are 28 percent higher than gasoline. Also, it takes 170 gallons of water to produce a gallon of ethanol as opposed to the five gallons it takes to produce a gallon of gas.

Welch has essentially denounced corn-based ethanol for the environmental Trojan Horse that it actually represents…and this has the corn lobby incensed!

When you step on Monsanto’s toes, you’d better be packing a posse of heavy-weights.

In this case, that posse happens to consist of  a couple of Congressman Welch’s Republican colleagues.

As Republicans in general have a far warmer relationship with big oil and big corn than do Democrats, it is helpful when some opportunity for movement is made possible by an odd intersection of interests.

So far, we have successfully repealed two of the three industry subsidies, the tax break and special trade preferences. Our work will not be done until we reform the ethanol fuel blending mandate.

On another occasion, Welch has been quoted as characterizing his approach to working with his Republican colleagues:

“You treat them with respect, you try and focus on the common ground.”

…And that, folks, is how it’s done.

‘Just ask President Obama who is attempting to find some common ground with Iran in order to more effectively tackle our shared enemy, ISIS.  That doesn’t mean that he endorses anything else on Iran’s “to do” list.

Both are examples of judicious pragmatism; something that’s become dangerously rare.

So, here’s to those who dare sit down at the grown-ups table.

After years of declining quality in their services FairPoint has come up with a bold action plan they think will remedy their ongoing failure to meet a required standard of service. They want Vermont Public Service Board to do away with quality standards they are required to meet.

Brilliantly simple, no quality standards, then no problem.

“The very fact that we answer to the Public Service Department for service quality issues, or, in fact, there’s a proceeding at the Public Service Board; none of our competitors are subject to any of that regulation,” says Mike Reed, who is president of FairPoint in Maine and speaks for the company on regulatory issues.

Reed says regulation of FairPoint is rooted in the past, when phone companies were monopolies and consumers had no choices.    

While smaller Vermont phone companies also have to meet standards for billing, repairs and installations for telephone service, Reed says FairPoint’s competitors don’t. These are providers like Comcast, Verizon and Sovernet. By law, the state doesn’t have regulatory power over their voice services.

FairPoint came to Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire and acquired Verizon’s landline services well aware of the competition landline services faced with regard to new internet-based services. Early on they promised to maintain existing landline services and even to hire hundreds in the Burlington area. However almost immediately they cut back on jobs, and poor service has been an ongoing issue.    

Considering that history and the fact the state has made some one or two favorable regulatory accommodations for them I have to admit to no small bit of admiration at the level of moxie FairPoint had to muster for this new tactic.    

Yet FairPoint must believe in the magic of the competitive market place:

FairPoint’s Reed continues […] in today’s environment, it's competition – not regulation – that assures quality. “If customers are not satisfied with our service, they leave us.”

Leave them and go to … ah Comcast. Comcast – unburdened by public service quality rules – is the subject of 50,000 complaints to the FTC in 2014 and the only two-time winner of Consumer Reports’ Consumerist Worst Company in the world award (2010 and 2014). Now there’s a fine example of the level of quality the competitive marketplace assures.  

Should we assume Comcast set the bar low enough for FairPoint to be competitive?

This week the forces of reason have a chance to advance the elimination of the philosophical exemption to vaccination in the State House.

The Senate Health and Welfare Committee is considering a bill, H. 98, on reportable disease registries. As you can tell, this is a bill that has passed the House and is now before the Senate.  

What's happening this Wednesday is that Senate Health and Welfare is taking testimony on an amendment to eliminate the philosophical vaccine exemption. They've allotted two hours, one hour for each side, with witnesses to be named later. After that there may be a vote on the amendment and on the bill as a whole.

This is the first time that the philosophical exemption bill, which had been considered dead for the session, is coming up for a vote, so this is a chance to protect our children and our schools from highly contagious diseases.

The first step is the committee. Please contact your senators, especially if they're on the Health and Welfare Committee, and ask them to support this amendment.

Here's the list of the committee members:

• Sen. Claire Ayer, Chair
• Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons, Vice Chair
• Sen. Anthony Pollina
• Sen. Dick McCormack
• Sen. Brian Collamore, Clerk

 And if you want to look up your senators, follow this link.

This is a great opportunity for the voices of reason, so please contact your senators before Wednesday. 

In recognition for the significance of this effort, we are sharing with our GMD community, in its entirety, this group letter from Vermont’s environmental advocates to individual Legislators

Dear Vermont Legislator:

Forests define the Green Mountain State!

Our forests are a major driver of our economy. Forest based manufacturing, recreation, and tourism employ approximately 13,000 Vermonters and contribute about $1.5 billion in revenue to the state every year.

Our forests also provide a rich array of important ecological functions. They support wildlife habitat, protect water quality and help insulate communities from the effects of extreme weather, such as flooding. According to the Gund Institute every acre of forestland provides approximately $318.50 worth of benefits for services like rainfall regulation and flood control on an annual basis.

In addition, Vermont’s forests remove an estimated 75,000 metric tons of carbon and 1,610 metric tons of other pollutants from the atmosphere each year – a function that would be worth about $16 million if we paid for these pollution control services out-of-pocket.

Vermont’s forests are productive in many respects. From supporting forest products, including maple syrup, to the leaf-peeping economy, to providing ecosystem services and recreational opportunities like hiking, skiing, hunting, and wildlife watching, forests contribute to the health and wellbeing of our state.

It is important to note that in recent decades, we have improved how our forests are managed. Because of the Current Use Program and technical assistance efforts, more forests are being managed in accordance with management plans. The utilization of Acceptable Management Practices helps maintain water quality on logging jobs. More landowners are managing their woodlands for wildlife and biodiversity, and every year more forestland is conserved due to landowners working proactively with conservation groups.

Yet the continuation of these successes cannot be taken for granted, especially since for the first time in over a century our forests are actually declining in extent. While it is hard to pin down the exact amount of acreage that has been lost, between 1982 and 1997, 51,000 acres were converted to other land uses. A more recent Forest Service report suggests that Vermont may have lost up to 75,000 acres of forestland from 2007 to 2013, although the Forest Service does not report this as a statistically significant change due to the margin of error in the analysis. Regardless of the actual number of forest acres lost in recent years, there are certainly reasons to be concerned about the impacts of forestland conversion.

From above, the Vermont landscape has an appearance of densely forested lands; however a closer look at the surface reveals that our forests are being compromised and fragmented by rural sprawl. Data from the Forest Service demonstrates that we lost five percent of forests over 100 acres in size between 2001 and 2006. Other research indicates the amount of forested parcels larger than 50 acres that were undeveloped decreased by about 34,000 acres between 2003 and 2009.

Forests encompass 75% of the state and are vitally important for our economic and ecological wellbeing.

In Vermont, we value well-planned development and a growth pattern of supporting downtowns and village centers surrounded by rural countryside. If we are smart about our future, we can continue to accommodate new housing while ensuring that our forests provide for diverse forest products, modern and efficient wood energy, intact wildlife habitat and clean, healthy water.

Vermonters overwhelmingly value our working lands, our rural character, natural environment, and forested hills and iconic mountains. We have an incredible opportunity to be proactive and develop lasting policies that will keep our forests intact.

With this in mind, it is important for policy makers to play a positive role in maintaining or increasing the contribution of our forests to the state’s economic, ecological, and cultural wellbeing. Therefore, the undersigned organizations and individuals call on the Vermont Legislature to support a stakeholder process to develop legislative recommendations to maintain the integrity of Vermont’s forests into the future.

Vermont Natural Resources Council The Nature Conservancy of Vermont Vermont Land Trust

Vermont Woodlands Association Vermont Audubon

The Trust for Public Land /Vermont Office

Upper Valley Land Trust

The Lyme Timber Company

National Wildlife Federation, Northeast Regional Center Green Mountain Division Society of American Foresters Forest Guild

Vermont Coverts

Vermont Conservation Voters

Vermont Council of Trout Unlimited Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund

The Vermont Chapter of the Sierra Club North Woods Forestry

Meadowsend Timberlands Ltd.

Green Mountain Club

The Working Lands Coalition

Rural Vermont

The Conservation Fund

Conservation Law Foundation

NorthWoods Stewardship Center

Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences Northeast Master Logger Certification

The Trust to Conserve Northeast Forestlands Conservation Collaboratives

Two Countries, One Forest

Northern Forest Center

New England Forestry Foundation

Wildlife Management Institute

Little Hogback Community Forest

Cold Hollow to Canada, Inc.

Green Mountain Conservancy

New England Backcountry Hunters & Anglers

Vermont Center for Ecostudies

Highstead

William Keeton on behalf of the UVM Rubenstein School Forestry Program

Robert Moses, President of Britton Lumber Company

Doug Britton, Britton Lumber Company

Jeffrey Smith, Butternut Hollow Forestry

Rodney Elmer, Mountain Deer Taxidermy

Eric Zencey, Fellow of the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics*

Bob Lloyd, Forest landowner and President Emeritus of Vermont Coverts

Steve Faccio, Conservation Biologist, Vermont Center for Ecostudies

Rosalind Renfrew, Vermont Center for Ecostudies

Marc Lapin, Faculty, Program in Environmental Studies, Middlebury College

Beverley Wemple, Associate Professor, Geography and Natural Resources, University of Vermont Eric Palola, Guanacaste Dry Forest Conservation Fund*

Leo Laferriere, Retired consulting forester

Farley Brown, Faculty at Sterling College*

Kathy Doyle, Doyle Ecological Services and Visiting Instructor, Middlebury College

Lynn Levine, Consulting forester, Forest*Care and Heartwood Press

John M. Fogarty, Fogarty Forestry, LLC

John McNerny Forest landowner, and Past President of Vermont Coverts

Leon Whitcomb and Rhoda Bedell, Forest landowners

Leslie and Jim Morey, Forest Landowners

Hugo Liepmann, Forest Landowner

Don Dickson, Member of Forest Roundtable