Of course growing income inequality and the shrinking middle class have been in the headlines for a couple years but surprisingly Wisconsin and Vermont find themselves sharing a common economic trait. The middle class in Vermont and Wisconsin is declining at one of the fastest rates in the nation.

Gov.of Wisconsin Scott Walker (the man blogger Charlie Pierce accurately tags  the goggle-eyed homunculus now employed as the assistant director of employee relations at the subsidiary of Koch Industries once known as the state of Wisconsin) and Gov. Peter Shumlin are both in charge of states with rapidly declining middle class.

The states with the most extreme middle-class shrinkage are Wisconsin — where the share of households that are middle class fell from 54.6 percent in 2000 to 48.9 percent in 2013 — Vermont, Ohio and North Dakota. The state that fared the best was Wyoming, where the middle class only fell from 51.5 percent of the population to 51.2 percent.

Here is a map [interactive version] that PEW’s Stateline blog put together which shows the percentage rate of middle class shrinkage in all 50 states. [Those making between 67 percent and 200 percent of the state’s median income are considered middle class for the purpose of the map.]

 In Wisconsin Governor Walker’s assault on the middle class includes going after wages, benefits and bargaining rights of state union employees. Maybe he’s not yet in Wisconsin’s league, but Governor Shumlin is similarly playing hardball with middle class employee union workers — leveraging more than 300 union layoffs for re-opening existing contract agreements and refusing to consider upper-income tax increases.

As more people slip-slide away from the middle class, high-end income earners in Vermont (and probably in Wisconsin too) continue to do just fine. Vermont was one of 33 states in which the top one percent captured between half and all income growth between 2009 and 2011.

It seems Shumlin’s budgetary triangulation has placed him on Scott Walker’s conservative tangent. Maybe Shumlin is wrong getting so comfortable on a “right” triangle.

This past Saturday and Sunday Governor Shumlin was away at a Democratic Governors Association gathering in Puerto Rico (the weather: partly cloudy, temps in the low 70’s). Meanwhile back in Vermont, Lt. Governor Phil Scott (as required by state law) became acting governor, taking on official duties for two days during Shumlin’s absence.

 This week Lt. Gov. Phil Scott takes a turn out of town and heads off Wednesday for Washington DC to a National Lt. Governors Association meeting. Scott will miss his coffee hour on Thursday. It is not an official function, but a regular occasion when legislators, advocates, press, and members of the public are invited to stop by the Lt. Governor’s office for coffee and casual conversation.

In addition I’d guess this is a handy way to keep track of which way the political wind is blowing around the State house and Montpelier. At least it is important enough not to be canceled — but who shmoozes and acts as his eyes and ears when he’s away? 

 Well, Scott didn't have to look too far for his stand-in to serve coffee, and it isn’t a fellow Republican but Democrat Dick Mazza. Not only did Mazza, a Democrat, help re-elect Scott but is now hosting his coffee klatsch.

Not sure how Scott’s official duties are handled when he is away, but clearly his good buddy Dick Mazza has his back for coffee, donuts, and re-election campaigns.

“Hey, Hey, Hey!  I really enjoyed putting it to you years ago.  Next time, let’s do it without the drugs in your drink.  Hey, Hey, Hey!”

“Do NOT ever contact me again!  I will report you to a certain person I know who takes care of troublesome people for me.  Remember Vince Foster?!”

“Hey, Hil, remember in ’64 when we were Goldwater Girls together?  Heh-heh.  If you get elected, can I get a job with you?”

“I’ll put you on my list.  We need more Goldwater Girls with balls to straighten out those assholes in Congress.  Do you know anything about drugging drinks?  In my heart, I know I’m right.  Heh-heh.  And remember:  Extremism in the defense of INTELLIGENCE is no vice.  That’s what I’m telling AP.”

“Yo, Blondie.  Ya gonna do some moves about all these white cops gunnin’ down the brothas?  Or are ya gonna be a Bitch like that Marcia Clark ho?  The Bama ain’t doin’ shit.  How bad ya want our votes?”

“Very bad.  I’ll make you and your Bros Special FBI Agents and Justice Department Investigators.  I want to be inclusive.  Can you and your Bros drug drinks in a drive-by?”

“Dear Undisclosed Recipient:  Your email ballbusting@hotmail.org is in process of being phished by us.  Please clicky-click below linky to pay us to stop.  Thanky you.”

“You dirty male pig Chinese hackers!  You wait!  In 2017 I’ll be coming to Beijing to make a big speech about Women’s Rights, like I did at the World Conference On Women in ’95.  Then, with bazillions of Chinese women reading my little red book, Quotations From President Hillary, and rampaging around in a new Cultural Revolution, all you male pig bastards will have to move to Vermont and open up Chinese restaurants.  Then I’ll appoint Peter Sterling my Health Food Czar and he’ll tax all your asses until the U.S. recovers that 7.4% of our national debt you bastards have bought.  You wait!”

“Hi.  I’m a 26 year-old woman who wants to be President too someday.  Can you help me?”

“Well, I would suggest you first marry a guy who’ll become President some day.  Then, when he’s discovered having had illicit sex with White House aides, claim they put drugs in his drinks and move to Vermont and run for the U.S. Senate.  If that asshole Bernie Sanders is still alive, put drugs in his water at the debates.  But if you don’t go that way, and I’m elected in 2016, don’t fuck with my third term!”

“How do you stand it?  I mean, like gross–All this Benghazi stuff.  And I gotta know, and tell my friends–Do you buy your own outfits?”

“Bill buys all my outfits for me.  It’s what I gave him to do.  He has to do something, and he likes ladies clothing stores.  Benghazi?  Was that something on Facebook?”

“Madame Clinton–We the people of the Islamic No-Sense-Of-Humor Brotherhood respectfully ask you how you stand on cartoons poking fun at Allah?”

“I AM Allah.”

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, VT.

I don’t know about you, but the glut of environmental issues and international crises is taking its toll on my ability to rise to each new wave with renewed energy and determination.

There is one item on that agenda that is so absolutely essential to human survival that it can not be set it aside even to attend to other problems.

That essential is clean water.  Without it, life, human or otherwise, would simply be over… in relatively short order.

It is, we are learning, an extremely finite resource, pushed further to its limits by over-development and climate change.  Even though we still flush it down the toilet without a thought, twenty-first century living is rapidly exhausting its  supply.

The very idea of ramping up commoditization of that ubiquitous necessity is only a recent development, aimed at lining people’s pockets rather than encouraging more responsible habits.

That is why, even with everything else I have to do, I plan to be in Montpelier tomorrow, March 17, for Clean Water Day, sponsored by the Vermont Natural Resource Council (VNRC), Vermont Conservation Voters, CLF, the Sierra Club and the Lake Champlain Committee.  

It runs from 9:30 AM – 12:PM in the Statehouse, and provides an opportunity for us to buttonhole our legislators and remind them how very important this single issue is to us.  If you can’t be there in person, this is a good time to drop a note to your legislators to tell them that this is a high priority for you as a voter.

Right here in Vermont, our main water concern at the moment is the critical condition of our beautiful Lake and how it impacts recreation and tourism opportunities; but it is not inconceivable that we may one day find ourselves joining other places in the country that face clean water shortages of ever expanding magnitude.

Last week in his topical monologue, Bill Maher quipped that LA has only one more year’s worth of water.  Everyone laughed, so I looked for the story online. Sure enough, there it was in the LA Times.  

The artificial Garden of Eden created in California by sucking-up life-giving ground water from as far away as Colorado  to support a twentieth century explosion of agriculture and development, is now nearing its logical conclusion.  

Even if business interests and private citizens can somehow be kept to strict rationing, future “California dreaming” will be mostly about water.  

At least the sunshine state has, for some time now, been trying to turn things around before it really is too late. Aquifers are also shrinking at alarming rates in states like Texas and New Mexico, where any kind of regulation is met with suspicion and resistance.

Vermont, touted as the “most progressive” state of all, is still blessed with adequate water supplies, but we chafe at limits on development related to wetlands protections, grouse at “over regulation” of stormwater, and no sector that can afford to is willing to make the kind of investments required to ensure recovery of our lake.

We can’t raise taxes on the uber-rich; we can’t increase rents established seventy years ago for public lands leased to the ski industry; and we can’t increase permit costs that might inhibit the expansion of impervious surfaces that act as highways for rapid delivery of pollutants to state waterways.

I’m going to Montpelier tomorrow to hear where the money is supposed to come from.  I have a feeling I won’t like the answer.

Crossposted here and updated to reflect a mis-read on my part.

H477 is a bill that aims to make a handful of what might seem like administrative changes to Vermont’s election laws, but could have a bigger impact than at first glance. In this age of terrible voter turnout, this could serve to further disenfranchise people from engaging in the electoral process.

There are a few basic and probably uncontroversial principles I want to stake out:

• Elections are extremely important but limited mechanisms for voters to communicate their wishes about government
  
  
• Retail (that is, single-person) election fraud is rare, but easily detectable
  
  
• Wholesale (compromising an entire polling place) election fraud is rare, but less detectable
  
  
• People legally eligible to vote should have their votes counted correctly
  
  

The first, third, and fourth principles are violated by this bill. Several of the changes included in H477 are as follows:

1. Making voters’ physical addresses public records (this has been on the wish list for the Vermont Democratic Party for several years now)
   
   
2. No longer counting an “X” or a cross to the right of a candidate’s name as a legal vote
   
   
3. Making it harder for candidates to run under multiple parties Update: this portion was struck from the bill on March 18th
   
   

At present, many people (like Lt. Gov. Phil Scott, for example) list their Post Office Boxes on their voter registration to maintain their privacy, and candidates and political parties requesting their contact information only receive this mailing address, but not where the person actually lives. With H477, both addresses would become public records.

While it might seem redundant to require voters to “fill in the bubble”, there are a significant number who still mark their ballots with an “X” or a checkmark. Here’s an example. The ballot tabulators can read these correctly, but H477’s proposed change could classify those as invalid markings. Of the ballots from the 2014 General Election that I have access to, I found the following numbers of ballots marked with an “X” or similar:

E. Montpelier: 10/1094 (0.9%)

Fayston: 10/532 (1.9%)

Manchester: 43/1581 (2.7%)

St. Johnsbury: 10/1960 (0.5%)

Westminster: 5/943 (0.5%)

Wolcott: 12/559 (2.1%)

Total: 90/6669 (1.3%)

Because any recounts of these ballots will be done with a tabulator, there will be no option for a human election worker to decide voter intent, and all of these votes could conceivably be discarded.

People like me, who ran under the label of two different parties in 2014, will also find it much harder to do so should this bill pass, especially in light of the roadblocks put up to disenfranchise voters who would write in candidates. Chris Pearson put it this way:

Chris Pearson and Sandy Haas intend to introduce an amendment when this comes up to a vote tomorrow to allow the nomination process to remain, and while I’m not a fan of any of this bill, their amendment at least makes it slightly better. Please contact your State Rep and ask them to support the amendment, but vote against the bill.

Recent comments by Franklin County legislators Rep. Lynn Dickinson and Rep. Corey Parent make it clear that they are doubling down on their plan to take funds from the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board to fund lake water quality efforts. They claim that these funds, revenues from the Property Transfer Tax, should be reallocated because “lake Champlain is our new conservation priority.”

This plan was never going to get any traction, and the cynic in me says that they knew it from the start. Those of us in the Champlain Valley have heard the call loud and clear for lake cleanup efforts to be prioritized, but that doesn’t mean the legislators from other regions are going to gut a popular and effective program to do it. The only viable way to get new spending on Lake Champlain-and sustain it beyond the next fiscal year- is to raise revenue through a new, dedicated source.

If you’re going to say that water quality is a priority, you have to be willing to ask someone to pay for it. Some of these Water Caucus members are reminding me of that friend who says we just “have to order the Hong Kong Calamari”, drinks five beers, orders the most expensive entree on the menu plus dessert-then wants to go halvesies on the check.

H.35 finally takes some long-overdo steps to address small farm contributions to water nutrient pollution. It puts some water quality conditions on those enrolling in Current Use. The bill would overhaul municipal stormwater management. To do all of this work it would establish a new Clean Water Fund.

Everyone seems to agree that this is important, but no one wants to pay for it. Tom Torti and the Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce don’t want Rooms surcharges or an increase in the Meals and Rooms Tax. Ag advocates can’t support a fee on fertilizer. Everyone loses when we do nothing, especially those of us who like to swim in a clear, clean Lake Champlain. I’m willing to pay an extra 5 cents for every $10 I spend at a restaurant, but that’s just me.

My prediction is that the GOP members of the Water Caucus won’t support H.35 unless it’s funded their way, by cutting VHCBs ability to fund and administer affordable housing and land conservation efforts. They might surprise me and support the bill, even with some new revenue source, but unlike a Saint Albans Bay homeowner on a hot August day- I’m not holding my breath.

Usually when a new political party racks up a big win they're eager to tout their success as a sign that they are now an important voice in their community, but somehow that's not happening in Montpelier.

Montpelier's newest political party, Vibrant and Affordable Montpelier (VAM to its members, the Austerity Party or Chai Party to its opponents), racked up a big win last week, holding the mayor's office and two council seats, and defeating the school budget.

Funny thing, though. They have no problem talking about their municipal office wins but they're trying to duck the blame credit for the school budget defeat. When you look into it, though, their disclaimers don't seem legitimate. 

 Speaking at a School Board meeting the night after Town Meeting Day, VAM leader Phil Dodd said:

 “This year, however, with the projected 13 percent increase in the school tax rate on top of 9.4% last year and projections that we will see more big increases in the future, some – but not all – VAM members started to express concern about the school budget. In the end, we never as a group pushed for a no vote on the school budget, though we did express reservations and urged people to attend school board meetings to express their own opinions.”

 If you're paying attention to politics in Montpelier, however, you can see that Dodd is understating VAM's involvement in the school budget debate.

Start with Thierry Guerlain, reelected Council member and one of the founders of VAM. In response to questions in the Montpelier Bridge, here's what he said about the school budget:

 I support excellent schools but can’t support a 13 percent school tax rate increase this year, on top of last year’s 9.4 percent increase, with next year’s increase projected to be as large as this year. That’s a 40 percent increase in just three years!  Montpelier incomes have not gone up 40 percent. How can taxpayers pay for this?

VAM's opposition to the school budget goes beyond that, however. Green Mountain Daily has obtained e-mails from VAM leaders to their membership that makes clear that the organization was providing operational support to the school budget opposition, even if the group never took a formal membership vote to do so.

In an e-mail to VAM supporters from Phil Dodd and forwarded by school budget opponent Dan Boomhower, Dodd said:

 While VAM has always supported good education and understands there are problems with the complicated state education financing system, we think the board should consider taking a harder look at the budget in light of this large projected increase”

Maybe not exactly a statement opposing the budget, but damn close. 

 Then, in an e-mail to VAM membership on February 2, VAM leader Phil Dodd, writing on behalf of the VAM Steering Committee, said “As you know, the proposed school budget tax increase of 13% has caused some consternation in town. . . . VAM is supporting the idea of forming a citizens’ committee to study the school budget with the goal of minimizing future tax rate increases.”

In a follow-up e-mail to the VAM membership on February 7 Dodd, again on behalf of the Steering Committee, devoted one full paragraph of a two-paragraph message to the school budget:

 “Meanwhile, some VAM-affiliated folks and others are mounting an effort to urge voters to vote no on the school budget so it can be sent back for reconsideration. This is not an official effort of VAM at this point, but if you are opposed to the proposed 13% school tax increase and want to get involved, please read the following e-mail.” (Emphasis added.)

And the attached e-mail was from another VAM leader, Carol Doerflein, and argued for creation of a coordinated campaign to oppose the school budget:

 Too often, items on the school budget published in the Times-Argus and the Bridge go without any citizen response. This is a lost opportunity for those of us who believe the school budget to be unsustainable and who have constructive points to make in favor of rationalizing and prioritizing the budget ahead of Town Meeting day. 

Informed voters able to consider critically the proposed FY2015 school budget before they head to the polls will offer us the best chance to send the budget back for reconsideration by rejecting the current proposal. 

 We need to get our views out there in a continuing way between now and March 4th. The more people who express their opinions publicly, the greater the likelihood of creating a favorable environment for reining in property tax increases by encouraging voters to return the proposed school budget for further review.  A new budget with reduced expenditures achieved through sensible prioritization would serve the interests of the whole community, lessening the impact on taxpayers while refocusing efforts to make high quality education in our city sustainable for the future.  Should we fail this year, we may usefully lay the groundwork for success next year by gaining enough votes to draw the attention of budget-makers and thereby increase chances for a more responsible school budget proposal in FY2016.  

This process won't be useful or credible if it is the same people writing the letters. We need new names, and new perspectives, on changing topics that can be large or small, on many issues that concern us all or on a single issue that particularly engages one individual.  Even a handful of letters could make a difference. 

In light of this organized campaign, is it really believable that VAM was not actively trying to defeat the school budget?

You can draw your own conclusions, but I think the answer is a clear no. Maybe the fact that they're trying to hide from their victory is a sign that they're afraid their anti-school budget campaign may not be as popular as they thought. 

Just when you thought they couldn't sink any lower, the members of the Republican  majority go and prove you wrong.

Last week it was Boehner having Netanyahu speak to a joint session of Congress to undermine President Obama's negotiations with Iran, but now the Republicans in the Senate have topped him.

Monday 47 Republican senators sent an open letter to the president of Iran again seeking to undermine the nuclear weapon negotiations by means of a veiled threat to refuse to ratify any treaty reached by the parties, and to rescind any executive action Obama may take to implement an agreement.

Their letter says, in part:

First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them.  In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote.  . . .

 Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.

What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei.  The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

Sadly, this repeats a pattern the Republican Party has been guilty of before. In 1968, when he feared that Hubert Humphrey might seize victory from the jaws of electoral defeat, Richard Nixon dispatched Anna Chennault to South Vietnam to encourage them to block any possible negotiation in the Paris peace talks, promising a better deal if he was elected. Nixon's sabotaging of the peace talks may have extended the war for another five years, at a cost of untold tens of thousands of lives.

Once again, the Republicans have chosen to put their partisan interests ahead of the national security of the United States. If they are successful, the product of their betrayal will be the defeat of the nuclear weapons talks, the immediate resumption of nuclear weapons development by the Iranian government, and the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran within a few years.

Boehner, McCain, Orrin Hatch, and most of the Republican extremists in the Senate (along with so-called moderates like Kelly Ayotte) seem intent on a 2015 version of the October Surprise plot of 1968.

Have you ever seen anything more contemptible?

When first elected several years back, he was the first democratic governor of his northern state in years, a millionaire who just beat a Republican opponent by a narrow margin. And how has it turned out? Well  he is “[the] most liberal governor in the country in terms of his willingness to raise taxes and to spend.” according to one University political scientist. 

Huh? The northern governor isn’t Vermont’s erstwhile “liberal” Democrat Peter Shumlin, but Minnesota’s Democratic Governor Mark Dayton.

Governor Dayton is getting glowing reviews on helping to substantially improve the Minnesota economy. In fact, this northern state was rated one of the better growing economies in the country. An increase in minimum wage is scheduled next year and bills improving workplace protections for women and guaranteed equal pay legislation were enacted. Spending on public education was increased along with a tuition freeze at public universities and two-year colleges and increased unionization.

And part of how he did it was by raising taxes on the wealthiest. In fact taxes were raised 2 percent on couples making at least $250,000 per year. Thus did Minnesota become the fifth-highest taxed state in the nation. The earth did not open up and swallow Minnesota, and — oh, by the way — there was no exodus of high earners.

So what befell Minnesota? Well…

Since 2011, Minnesota has been doing quite well for itself. The state has created more than 170,000 jobs, according to the Huffington Post. Its unemployment rate stands at 3.6% — the fifth-lowest in the country, and far below the nationwide rate of 5.7% — and the state government boasts a budget surplus of $1 billion. Forbes considers Minnesota one of the top 10 in the country for business.

Dayton said of his tax raise on high earners “politically it was the right thing to do.”

And meanwhile Vermont is struggling with a $112-million-dollar hole in the budget and “liberal” Governor Shumlin is hoping to solve it with a cobbled-together patchwork plan.

Shumlin says he wants to take a “balanced way” to a balanced budget, and

“…That means real cuts. That means finding efficiencies … And I recommended a small amount in revenue,”

The proposed plan includes his proposal for another heavy round of “real cuts” — $30 million in cuts to services, salaries and benefits of state workers, for starters.

Sadly, Shumlin is sounding more like Wisconsin Republican Governor Scott Walker than Minnesota Democrat Mark Dayton. And he’s downright obtuse on raising taxes on the well off. Not exactly the “very model of a northern liberal Governor.”