This past week, quietly and without fanfare, Vermont took one baby step forward toward embracing reality.

The reality I refer to recognizes the need for some minimal effort at gun control.

This is the twenty-first century and we are living in an alienated America where children in a quiet Connecticut kindergarten can fall victim to mass murder on a whim; and where we hear every week, if not every day, of new acts of senseless gun violence even in unexpected places.

The argument that Vermont doesn’t have a gun problem and so does not need to even consider gun control makes about as much sense as does refusing to carry car insurance because you’ve never had an accident, or declining homeowner’s insurance because your house has never burned down.  

If Vermont has so far escaped an outbreak of gun violence on national media scale, it is only by virtue of a small population and a whole lot of luck.  It is not because of a total lack of regulation, and anyone who argues that it is is deluding him/herself.  

While S.31, a bill that would have imposed criminal background checks on all gun sales, failed to pass, a much more modest effort, S.141, received a generally favorable reception by the Senate.  

S.141 simply aligns state regulations to the existing federal mandate against felons convicted of violent crime possessing firearms, and requires background checks for persons with “adjudicated” mental illness.

To anyone living in the other 49 states where the federal mandate has already been endorsed, or almost anywhere else in the civilized world, this does not seem like much of a stretch; but, for Vermont, it is groundbreaking…and not without the hyperbolic accusations from the peanut gallery that we have come to expect in the wake of any discussion of gun use in Vermont.

As if unveiling a “smoking gun” (‘scuse me), opponents of the bill drew a line from Gun Sense Vermont to Michael Bloomberg’s national campaign for gun control.  

In response to the accusations of “outside influences,” proponents of the bill had only to point to the long-time campaign by the National Rifle Association (NRA) to prevent any form of gun legislation from passing in Vermont.

I don’t personally see unregulated gun ownership as the privilege that defines Vermont.  In fact, I find that very idea a little depressing, given that there are so many values more deserving of our state identity.  Be that as it may, I recognize and respect the fact that many  others disagree with me.

The ability to entertain that conversation with tolerance and an open mind is much more my idea of what makes Vermont the place I love and call my own.

Some of our readers may remember that, in January of this year, our esteemed state auditor, Doug Hoffer released a report on the outdated value of ski area leases in Vermont’s public purse.

The “rent” that developers of ski areas pay to state taxpayers for the use of our land has remained constant for over half a century, while expanding services at those areas have allowed the developers to profit from multiple new sectors, beyond simple lift ticket revenue.

Adjusted for inflation, total sales in all sectors at the resorts have risen by 65% since 2000, but lease payments have fallen by 4%.  Since 2003, property values (not adjusted for inflation) rose by 140% while lease payments rose by a mere 11%

The legislature is currently grappling with a lot of funding issues this session, but the most prominent of these is how to finance clean-up of the lake before the EPA comes in with sweeping mandates.

Republicans are especially resistant to the idea of raising new revenues.

It should be obvious to all but the terminally naive that, even as need grows among the expanding service class of underpaid workers, expectations for twenty-first century infrastructure also grow among the more privileged.  Sooner or later, someone’s going to have to put more money in the kitty.

As Mike pointed out in the diary below, Democrats and Progressives do not like raising taxes any more than do Republicans; we just tend to be less enslaved to party dogma.

When the auditor suggested that an increase in the price of ski area leases might be considered by the Legislature, the suggestion was met with a chorus of “heaven forbid.”   The ski industry, it was argued, is a boon to Vermont’s economy and should enjoy as much encouragement to be fruitful and multiply as we can give it.

I get that; but even a valued industry should be expected to do its part to maintain the valuable Vermont environment.

Certainly, the ski business has a particularly vested interest in the health of that environment; and even though the distance from mountains to Lake Champlain may obscure the connection for some, most should recognize that pressures from ever expanding development and snow-making are having an impact way down hill, even at the Bay.

I understand that a legislator did ask the ski industry nicely to step up and contribute to the lake clean-up fund. This unilateral approach was perhaps not sufficiently persuasive. I am told, he was soundly rebuffed.

It’s time to stop asking for volunteers from the audience.

Increasing the value of ski area leases could go a long way toward funding lake clean-up.

These are our stationary natural resources, from which mostly big out-of-state investors are profiting handsomely.

They aren’t going to fold up the mountains and move them to New Hampshire just because we raise the rent.

          The following is a response to a letter by Franklin County Industrial Development Corporation Exec. Director Tim Smith that appeared in the Saint Albans Messenger last weekend skewering me for my critique of the Water Caucus proposal to gut the VHCB to fund Lake Champlain Cleanup. The bizarre thing is that Mr. Smith’s wife Denise Smith is the Exec. Director of the Friends of Northern Lake Champlain.

          Tim Smith and I have had a few political conversations in the years that I’ve known him. We have different points of view, but we share a commitment to improved water quality. I was somewhat shocked last week by his letter responding to my earlier comments on the question of how to support the Clean Water Fund in H.35 that is making its way through the Statehouse.

           Mr. Smith said that he didn’t understand why I would ridicule Representatives Parent and Dickinson for looking for ways to fund water quality efforts other than new revenue. My critique was that they narrowly focus on large cuts to one program, the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board. They continue the pretense that this idea might actually succeed after it has failed to gain any traction after 3 months. This is political cover, not a sincere attempt to fund water quality efforts from an existing source.

  I agree that we need to look to existing funds before we ask Vermonters to fork over new revenue. However, in the current budget climate those of us who support water quality efforts have to realize that if we want Vermont, not the EPA to decide how to best clean up our waterways then we may have to dedicate new revenue to the effort. I summarized some of the ideas that have been suggested, but I don’t endorse all of them as Mr. Smith suggests.

           I disagree with Mr. Smith that the GOP members of the Water Caucus should be commended for their one, paltry effort to find an existing program to cut in favor of cleaning up Lake Champlain. If they are really making an effort, and not just playing politics with the Lake, there should have been some other suggestions after 3 months- a virtual eternity in legislative time.

           The VHCB is an effective and popular program that supports land conservation and affordable housing throughout the state. It’s unrealistic that those of us who live along lakes could ask the legislators and citizens of the rest of Vermont to gut a program overnight and give us the money because our priorities have finally turned to the lake we live on. I wonder if Mr. Smith would be so supportive if the proposed cuts had been to other important and effective programs, like the Regional Development Corporation he leads on behalf of Franklin County.

           Mr. Smith may not agree with me, but let’s be clear about what I was originally trying to say: Our legislators better find a way to fund lake cleanup efforts that make sense for Vermont in H.35. How embarrassing would it be if legislators from other parts of the state support funding for Lake Champlain while those of us who live in the most polluted part of the watershed fail to support it? I look forward to the Friends of Northern Lake Champlain board meeting on Monday and I hope to hear commitments of support for H.35 from our Franklin County delegation.  

A couple of days ago BP said, “The top one percent captured between half and all income growth between 2009 and 2011.”

That is, the 6000 most wealthy people in Vermont got almost every cent of whatever bounce-back there was from the GOP crash on 2007-2008.  We, The People, got what,  a slight reduction in the unemployment rate? Oh, yay.

But Shumlin, being a Republican, doesn’t believe that the Vermonters that got all the money should pay one thin dime toward the state’s fiscal woes.  He believes that everyone else – except those 6000 – to pay a much, much larger value of their income to fix the problem.  

Our Republican governor says that re-opening ratified contracts and taking away cost-of-living increases from those Vermonters that actually work for a living is the only choice.  Even just thinking that those 6000 Vermonters who got ALL the money from the economic recovery owe society even a penny are ‘in La-La Land,’ says our Republican Governor.

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

Conventional wisdom tends to believe that if the high spending small school districts are somehow controlled, the per pupil expenditure decreased, the average for all school districts will go down.   Well, the total group average will decrease, but….

Let’s look at an example:

Assume a state with 80,000 students and an average per pupil cost of $10,000 for a total cost of $800,000,000.  

One small district in this fictitious state spends $20,000 for each of its 80 students.  If only we could dramatically reduce that cost!

Another district has 4000 students and spends $12,000 per student.  Gosh, they’re only 20% above the state average compared to the school above which is twice the state average.

Which district has the greatest impact on the average per pupil cost for the state?  To find out let’s demand that each district reduce its spending to the state average, $10,000 per student.

In the case of the 80 student district, there would be a savings of $800,000, thus the new state average would be $9,990.  The state average goes down $10!

In the case of the 4000 pupil district, there would be a savings of $8,000,000, thus the new state average would be $9,900.  The state average goes down $100!

So, if you want to reduce education spending in this fictitious state, the first place to look is at those larger school districts that spend above the state average.  Small districts give you small savings.  Large districts give you large savings.  

This reporter has just learned through his ‘reliable source’ in the Statehouse Men’s Room that Governor Shumlin will soon announce he has found the money necessary to cover a budget shortfall.

“Yeah, Peter,”   my source said to me,  “he’s gonna do away with the entire Vermont State Police, since they haven’t done shit about the heroin pipeline through Vermont over the years.  But, get this, Peter…”

“What?”

“Shumlin made some contacts with these heroin cartels through Bill Sorrell.  Apparently they’re ready to cut the state in on some of the profits.  I think I heard him say 20%.  That’s a shitload of cash.  So, those VSEA people can quit bitchin’.”

“What about Sorrell?”  I asked.  “He’s totally worthless too.  Why not eliminate his job?”

“Peter, geez, ya dumb shit…who’s gonna be the go-between with the heroin boys?  Apparently, from what I heard, they like Sorrell.  And getting rid of the State Cops, well…that will keep things smooth.  And if things get out of hand, why, the Gov can blame the VSEA for the whole situation, like he blamed the VSEA for IRENE.  Shummy’s one smart fucker.  That’s why he’s rich.”

“I don’t know, DeepShit,” (his code name cause we talk stall to stall)  “Seems like we’ll be open for some serious crime.”

“Crime?  Hell, what’s the difference between heroin money and taxing poor people on their sodas?  And what about all the rich Vermonters that don’t pay their fair share?  I heard Shummy was also going to appoint Peter Sterling to head up a group to find out how to tax heroin users on their habit.  And with more heroin users in Vermont, that’s more money for the state.  I tell ya, Peter, the guy’s gonna be President someday.”

“Shumlin?”

“Fucking A!  He can run in ’16, and tell those whining middle class Dems who want to dump him to go fuck themselves.  And then tax ’em.”

“Well, thanks, DeepShit.  I gotta go get this on the wire.”  (‘Flush’)

“Any time, Peter.  That’s what I’m here for.”  (‘Flush’)

So, VSEA.  Quit worrying.  Hell, heroin might mean more jobs too.  If it can be made sustainable.  

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.  

Well that didn’t take long, once they started looking. A few short months ago the state quietly beefed up its oversight of the federal investment for visa EB-5 program. The Department of Financial Regulation (DFR) took on the watchdog role from the Agency of Commerce and Community Development (ACCD).

This change came after a large group of EB-5 investors had complained that the Agency of Commerce and Community Development hadn’t properly overseen the investment aspects of the program. The state hopes to put to rest persistent concerns over whether the ACCD could regulate the EB-5 programs while at the same time functioning as its full time booster and enthusiastically promoting it overseas.  

Now, taking on the oversight task, the DFR has indeed been requested to check AnC Bio Vermont (AnC Bio S. Korea was formerly named The Sports Seoul 21 Co., Ltd) and other programs specifically for compliance with federal and state securities laws.

  From VtDigger.com comes a detailed report of the entire drama:

At the governor’s behest, the state agency that oversees the EB-5 immigrant investor program has asked the Department of Financial Regulation to determine whether the $118 million biotech project in Newport complies with state and federal securities laws.  

The suspension of AnC Bio’s memorandum of understanding comes as the state has reorganized its oversight of EB-5 projects. The protection of investor interests will now be the responsibility of the Department of Financial Regulation. The Agency of Commerce and Community Development, which had been solely responsible for EB-5 marketing and oversight, will now handle promotion only.

[…] The state cancelled the West Bowl expansion in August and both AnC Bio and Q Burke projects are now under Department of Financial Regulation scrutiny. The regional center also passed along concerns to the department about existing projects at Jay Peak that have come under fire from investors. All Vermont EB-5 projects will be reviewed by the project.

The planned AnC Bio biotech lab/factory is part of the growing EB-5 investment-fueled pyramid of development projects underway by Jay Peak partners Bill Stenger and Ariel Quiros. VtDigger.com is currently all over this story and they seem to be the only one casting a skeptical eye on it. 

The Vermont EB-5 investment from its early beginnings has involved Vermont business, and international investments worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Major office holders in the state from each party – including several past governors, both current senators and our lone congressman – have supported Vermont EB-5 deals. Ultimately over the years all the boosters and promoters support the grand promises of many hundreds of jobs – coming … soon.

So with all that interest in the outcome, where  is the other media coverage that should be looking behind the curtain of boosterism as you might expect?

Well for now I know where it isn’t. Yesterday morning I checked the Burlington Free Press online and no mention of the newest troubles in Vt’s EB-5 world. The FreeP  did have an eye-catching story headlined: Cat Turd Hockey Team … a scoop for that paper to be sure.

As you no doubt have heard, the craziest crayon in the Republican toolbox, Ted Cruz has just told the waiting world that he will run for President in 2016.

Are you breathless ?

Mr. Cruz chose to make this announcement from the podium of Liberty University, in Lynchburg, VA.

A bastion of Christian fundamentalism so extreme as to tinge its very name with irony, this nominal “university” was only minted in 1971; and, at that, by the Rev. Jerry Falwell (remember him?), who himself graduated in 1956 from the then unaccredited  Baptist Bible College in Springfield MO.

What has largely escaped the immediate attention of U.S. media, but, alas, not that of the world, is the fact that Cruz’s chosen launch venue adheres to a Christian conservative model known as “young earth creationism,” under which it teaches its students that the world is only 6,000 years old.

Liberty University has even dedicated a special place, “Creation Hall,” to the teaching of this off-the-wall theory.

On a visit to Liberty University last year The Telegraph saw displays showing Noah’s ark as a scale model next to a Boeing 747 and the US space shuttle, explaining in detail how all the animals had fitted in.

Personally, I can’t think of a better perch from which to reach out to the flat-earth fringe that represents Cruz’s natural constituency.

In case you didn’t get the memo, Cruz is being styled a far-right Barack Obama, and the appearance at Liberty was intended to fire-up that mind-numbingly conservative student body so that it might represent the groundswell of youth that would presumably carry Cruz to the White House.

Of course the 10,000 plus young people in attendance for Cruz’s announcement were there because they were required to be by the University, and apparently there was considerable grumbling about that.

It is worthy of note that, despite the fact that Cruz was the son of a conservative minister, when it came to his own education, even he had the good sense to pick Harvard over Liberty.

Cruz, of course has that in common with Obama, as well as an international ethnic heritage that had him born in Canada to a Cuban father and U.S. mother.  No doubt the constitutional basis for his qualification to run will give Donald Trump a reason for some apoplectic camera time, and may even be toyed with by other Republican rivals; but that will be amusement for another time.

Returning to the stupefying position that the world is only 6,000 years old, the obvious question is: how can anyone believe that, given all the scientific evidence to the contrary?

Well, the answer is that it is simply an article of faith, like Catholics’ belief in a “Holy Trinity.”

Defenders of the doctrine will tell you that the huge body of scientific evidence disproving it is just a trick sent by God, to test the faith of true believers.

By the same rights, climate change, endangered species, limited resources, crippling poverty can all be rationalized away as mere illusions designed to test the faithful.

(Heck; maybe that’s where Holocaust deniers get their mojo.)

…And that is why Ted Cruz could be the PERFECT Republican candidate. Never was a man better equipped to traverse the thinly supported scaffold of relativism that Republicans have constructed for their assault on the White House.

Ever since an uppity black man had the temerity to claim that hallowed address…twice,… the Republican base has sailed in a parallel universe, where  ‘up’ has been ‘down’ and ‘down’ has been ‘up.’  

Even the most unassailable statistics supporting positive outcomes from the Obama presidency are routinely dismissed by Republicans as simply untrue.  How can you argue with that?

When rational accountability has been removed from the conversation you can make an argument for almost any outlandish view if you take the position that the evidence against it is nothing more than a test of faith.

‘Sounds ideal for defending Republican ideology, which has strayed into especially deep denial waters when it comes to things like climate change, and Liberty University is the perfect Neverland from which to make that stand.

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

I recently introduced an amendment at the Senate Budget Committee. It was pretty simple. It asked my Senate colleagues to begin the process of overturning the disastrous Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United, and to bring transparency and disclosure to the political process. The link to that debate on the amendment is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?…

Here’s what I asked my Senate colleagues to consider:

Are we comfortable with an American political system which is being dominated by a handful of billionaires?

Are we a nation that prides ourselves on one-person, one-vote, or do we tell ordinary Americans you’ve got one vote but the Koch brothers can spend hundreds of millions of dollars?

Do we want a political system in which a handful of billionaires can buy members of the United States Congress?

Who are those members of Congress elected with the help of billionaires going to be representing? Do you think they’re going to be representing the middle class and working families?”

The answers seem clear to me. Unless the campaign financing system is reformed, the U.S. Congress will become paid employees of the people who pay for their campaigns – the billionaire class. Needless to say, not everyone on the Committee agreed.

It was an interesting and informative debate. Not one Republican supported the amendment and it lost by a 12-10 vote. I intend to offer it again this week on the floor of the Senate.

Well, the Vermont legislature certainly has its work cut out for it this year, what with critical water quality issues, healthcare to resolve, carbon to battle, budget constraints, and the innumerable human crises that accompany cutbacks in social services.

But Franklin County’s Republican senator Norm McAllister has drug-testing of social service benefits recipients on his personal “to do” list.

That’s right, Mr. McAllister has just figured out how to increase the cost and bureaucracy in Montpelier, while taking a self-righteous whack at the folks least likely to protest.

He certainly isn’t the first “R” to champion this demeaning and wasteful measure. The Pew Charitable Trusts reports that

“at least twenty eight states (have) proposed drug testing or screening for public assistance applicants or recipients”

‘Trouble is that, like the Vermont gun lobby is fond of arguing on their own issue, there appears to be no real problem here.  In fact, drug use among the need class is statistically much lower than among those who can go it alone.  Poor folks are just plain POOR.

Since  Tennessee launched their own drug testing program in July, how many folks do you think they caught red-handed?  One.

That’s right; just one lonely offender out of 800 screenings.

Other states have had similar results.

Utah spent more than $30,000 in the year that turned up just 12 drug users.

All over the country, states are discovering that what McAllister proposes isn’t just mean-spirited, its downright uneconomical; and the revelations knock stereotypes of welfare recipients into a cocked hat.

Those who get public assistance spend less than half of what families who aren’t enrolled spend and still put a larger share of those small budgets toward basics like food, housing, and transportation…Welfare recipients may be spending so much less in part because the benefits have become so meager. Virtually all of them are worth less now than in 1996. And many families who should be eligible aren’t even getting them. In the mid-90s, a little over a quarter of poor families with children didn’t get benefits. In 2012 that number had soared to three-quarters.

Now, Mr. McAllister, as one of your constituents, I put this to you: how about a little more attention to finding resources to clean-up the lake and a little less to imaginary issues that would only siphon resources away from where they are truly needed.