vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen

7.09.2007

Your best guess

Two days until the Montpelier midsummer drama - aka the Legislature's veto session.

So what will it be - the Case of the Futile 520 Override? Or will Batman swoop in and save the bill from the claws of veto death? Is campaign finance cooked for the year? Will our combatants continue with their slings and arrows or set their weapons down over glasses of sweet summer tea?

- Terri Hallenbeck

posted by vt.Buzz | 1:44 PM |

Comments:

Who knows. All we know for sure is that Team Douglas will bitch and moan because the press might have the audacity to actually cover the July 11 proceedings. "What do you mean we can't cancel the session?" questioned Douglas.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:26 PM, July 09, 2007

Wouldn't it be nice if they decided to go back to the drawing board and come up with something that is less devisive? All of the show-boating has gotten very old...
I think the legislature needs to stop trying to fix everything and maybe fix one thing, one thing at at a time. Expanding the exisitng weatherization program is very good place to start. Everybody wins.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:43 PM, July 09, 2007

I am sick and tired of hearing about this. Can we just impeach Shumlin and get on with our lives??!!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:44 PM, July 09, 2007

Can't we fix Douglas?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:27 PM, July 09, 2007

It's bad because it's "devisive"?

Isn't that like saying it's bad because you don't like it?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:55 PM, July 09, 2007

Alas, can't sit down for tea in the chamber...house rules forbid it!!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:36 PM, July 09, 2007

Douglas and the Legislature on energy

Bush and Congress on Iraq

Same story - out-of-touch executive has to govern by veto.

There won't be any progress on Iraq or energy unless a Democratic President and Democratic governor are elected in 2008.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:59 PM, July 09, 2007

Douglas is saving the state hundreds of thousands of dollars that would be spent on the lawsuit that Entergy would justifiably bring to stop this shameless money-grab.

If the Legislature were to go back and do this right, there'd be no grounds for a lawsuit.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:58 PM, July 09, 2007

Don't do the right thing because the big corporation might bring a baseless lawsuit ... ?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:26 PM, July 09, 2007

What lawsuit? Even the Vermont Public Service Board testified there was no agreement with Entergy on this alternative to the property tax. Ask for a copy of the agreement and they will say there is no agreement to send.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:09 PM, July 09, 2007

As for Anonymous 8:26, first of all, in my view the suit would not be baseless. There was in fact a deal that was reached on the amount of tax that VY would pay for power generation. It was a tax on power generation in liue of traditional property taxes since the value of the real property was declining. The Dean Administration wanted more money than the declining real estate value of the VY property would provide, so they asked VY to agree to a power generaiton tax instead. The Douglas Administration took over the negotiations and a deal was reached. Everyone in the government and the Legislature admits there was a deal, even Symington and Shumlin. The only difference is that a new group of Legislative leaders now claims the deal was "bad," so their solution is to just grab more. To hell with negotiating a new deal with VY. In addition to suing the state for breaking a recently-achieved deal, this money-grab may be unconstitutional for other reasons. Second what does "big corporation" have to do with it? That's a loaded political propaganda term. If a "small" corporation brought a suit, would that be okay? So why use the term "big?"

As for Anonymous 10:09, the Vermont Public Service Board does not "testify." So I don't know what you're talking about when you say that "the PSB testified that there was no agreement with Entergy on this alternative to the property tax." Even if the agreement reached between the government and VY had not put into writing doesn't mean there wasn't an agreement. But there was in fact a written Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on the deal. Even Symington and Shumlin admit there was an agreement. Some of the same Democrats in leadership now were in the Legislature when the deal was reached, and admit they went along with it.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:20 PM, July 09, 2007

Anonymous 3:55, it is not "bad because it is divisive", it is divisive because it is "bad".
Not liking H.520 is one thing, but not liking all of the greenwashing, the rhetoric, the ongoing efforts to misinform the public, the small-minded and short-sighted efforts to discount the existing weatherization program and the blatant favoritism toward the wind industry, have turned the public against this bill.
Let's move on.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:00 AM, July 10, 2007

You don't agree with it, therefore it's divisive.

Since it's divisive, (you argue) it shouldn't shoudn't be passed.

I don't like it = divisive = bad legislation.

or

I don't like it = it's bad legislation.

Your argument is flawed.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:11 AM, July 10, 2007

Anything created by Shumlin is automatically suspect.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:12 AM, July 10, 2007

In 1964, the Civil Rights Act was very divisive.

Legislation shouldn't be judged by how divisive it is.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:13 AM, July 10, 2007

Good thing the Republicans stuck to their guns and passed the CRA over the objections of southern Democrats, eh?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:19 AM, July 10, 2007

On both energy and campaign finance, one of the reasons things are now at veto impasse is that the Douglas Administration did not actively engage in the legislative process until the very end. The Administration never really tried to work with the Legislature on either of these issues - rather, they let the Legislature come up with a near-final version of the bill, then raised objections. When the objections were satisfied (e.g., the removal of the VY tax), they came up with more objections (the energy efficiency "bureaucracy," a claim the Administration has never raised about Efficiency Vermont). The style here - lay back and then set forth objections at the end of the process - is the hallmark of Mike Smith's modus operandi.

Jim Douglas is obviously very dependent on Mike Smith - to the point where in some ways Smith is the real chief executive of the state, with Douglas serving as the ceremonial leader. But Smith may have been in office too long, and keeping him on through 2008 may not serve Douglas' long-term political interests. It might be time for the Governor to encourage Secretary Smith to return to the private sector. This is most unlikely to happen, but Douglas could do better with a new chief representative to the Legislature. If Douglas feels he can't govern without Smith, he could take the legislative relations file out of his portfolio and give it to someone else.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:25 AM, July 10, 2007

"On both energy and campaign finance, one of the reasons things are now at veto impasse is that the Douglas Administration did not actively engage in the legislative process until the very end."

yep, and its not just these two issues. Everything Douglas does is last minute day late dollar short. And that makes for legislation that is incomplete and crippled.

And incomplete and crippled legislation does nothing for Vermonters irregardless of political leaning.

Nevermind Democrats, Douglas won't even work with the house and senate Republicans. He won't make any effort to form workable legislation...even Bush does a better job of working with those in his own party.

The fact is that Douglas wants crippled legislation because it serves his political agenda. He can appeal to both parties while in the background absolutely nothing is getting done.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:43 AM, July 10, 2007

"Good thing the Republicans stuck to their guns and passed the CRA over the objections of southern Democrats, eh?"

Led by a Democratic President from the south, the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed by 73-27 in the Senate and 289-126 in the House. More Democrats voted in favor than Republicans.

The 1965 Civil Rights Act, led again by a southern Democratic President, passed 79-18 in the Senate and 328-74 in the house. Yes, some Democratic nuts in the south filibustered (joined by a few R's), and there were many Republicans who opposed abolishing the poll tax.

But the leadership on this bills was hardly dominated by Republicans. Minority Senate Leader Dirkson worked for months to get the R voters to end cloture. And he battled against Ted Kennedy who wanted to eliminate the poll tax.

And the nutty Democrats in the south turned Republican when Ronald Reagan when to the site of Civil Rights murders in Philadelphia, Mississippi to champion states rights. The opponents to the 1964 and 1965 CRA's are in the Republican party now. You can have them.

Now the Republican Supreme Court reverses Brown V. Ed. A decision Eisenhower called "stupid" which resulted from what he called his biggest mistake as President, nominating Warren as Chief Justice.

Let's just drop the Republicans as Civil Rights leaders myth.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:02 PM, July 10, 2007

Terri --

Can we get an update from Jim Barnett? How are things going for the old boy over at the John McCain "campaign"?

Is our boy Jimmy breaking any fundraising records?

We'd love to know.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:32 PM, July 10, 2007

Terri -

Any word on when the House will vote to impeach Shumlin. We're thinking of moving from the state unless Shumlin is removed from office.

How about getting Peter Welch to get this train rolling? Since impeachment seems to be in vogue these days, why not jump on the bandwagon?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:58 PM, July 10, 2007

And I hear that Abe Lincoln's role in emancipation is an urban legend, too.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:54 PM, July 10, 2007

Interesting attitude.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:55 PM, July 10, 2007

"And I hear that Abe Lincoln's role in emancipation is an urban legend, too."

No, Abe was legit. Do you really need to go that far back?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:34 PM, July 10, 2007

Abe did officially emancipate the slaves -- two years into the civil war. Although we are lucky that he emancipated the slaves, he did it in the end out of political expediency. Lincoln's war was to keep the South from seceding, not to free the slaves. The North was getting tired of the bloodletting, but emancipation was popular in the North. He delivered the proclamation to rally support for the war effort and to shore up his declining popularity.

I think as a whole, neither the Democrats nor Republicans can necessarily claim true ownership of civil rights. The one thing that can be said is that the early 1960s effort was led by Democratic presidents Kennedy and Johnson, and that the former segregationist Dixiecrats are now mostly Republicans.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:18 PM, July 10, 2007

And Abe's emancipation only covered states in rebellion and not Delaware, Maryland, and other slave holding northern states.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:30 PM, July 10, 2007

Back to the original topic. The drama's over. Shumlin lost. The pity is that Symington chose to behave like a hypnotized person and follow Shumlin off the cliff on this one. She could have put her foot down a long time ago and said no to Shumlin's insistence on making VY singlehandedly pay for this program. Had she done so, the bill might have passed over the veto.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:59 PM, July 11, 2007

Shumlin has got to be living in a cave.

No Vermonter, dem or repub, is going to feel good about breaking any prearranged deal.

And Shumlin just bought himself a nick name "The Shumlin Tax" that will stick to him for the rest of his entire policical career.

His goose is cooked. He's done.

Symington at least has shown some moderation and it is unfortunate that she fell in step with this.

She will probably come out clean, since Jericho is Jericho.

Douglas antics are being overlooked. From his standpoint, it was never a case of being right or wrong, but rather their's versus mine. Why he can't meet with the Shumlin and Symington on a revised bill make no sense other than for self preservation politic-ing. Why he doesn't let Shumlin and Symington into the room where he's giving his post-veto session speech is again just pure politics. How fourth grade.

It never about what's right for Vermont. It' who can claim credit and Douglas has been playing this game for the last 6 years with different legislative bodies.

The fact is that the tax was ill conceived, but the other argument of creating a bureaucracy is baloney. Remove that and Douglas will keep citing problems with the bill. Douglas has said he would have signed the house bill, but then when offered to withdraw the tax and bureaucracy, he's a no show. Douglas wants the credit for the passing legislation, but he doesn't want to put forth any effort to create the legislation. He doesn't want to work with anybody.

So now we get Jim Douglas' plan which amounts to creating a larger handout program. Its not really any different than the bill without the tax, but with the bureaucracy. Douglas has already named a task force and task force is just another name for bureaucracy.
The difference between the two plans is minimal. The real irony is that even Douglas' plan is just a larger handout program based on tax dollars. The funding mechanism is tax dollars. Even John McLaughry thinks its bogus.

Enough is enough.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:38 PM, July 12, 2007

You're right. The legislative leaders (and I use that term loosely) are a bunch of third-rate politicians, and the Governor is a do-nothing who puts his own political well-being above good policy. So what's the answer? Throw every single one of them out of office next time. Every single one. Think that'll happen? Nope. The sheep voters of Vermont will reelect the Governor and also the same Democratic halfwits who currently run the circus, er, the Legislature.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:04 PM, July 12, 2007

The real test will be to see if the so-called Vermont environmental movement can mobilize its so-called troops to throw the bums out. I'm not holding my breath.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:55 AM, July 13, 2007

If there was such a group then Douglas would not still be Governor. Who are the Democrats going to run against Douglas this time?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:22 PM, July 14, 2007

Matt Dunne.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:51 AM, July 19, 2007

Oh, yeah!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:46 PM, July 20, 2007