vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

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

10.11.2007

Hearing etiquette

Two men arrived early at the auditorium at Johnson State College where the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection planned its first hearing. One asked commission chairman Tom Little where he could sign up to speak. Little said he would put out the sign-up sheet in about 45 minutes. The commission planned a meeting and briefing on the history of civil unions prior to its public hearing.

As soon as Little set out the sign-up sheet, the man who arrived early signed up. The whole first page of the sign-up sheet was filled by the time Brian Pearl, long an opponent of gay marriage and the state's civil union law, inquired of me where to sign up. I directed him to the table where the commission's assistant had put the pad.

I was checking the sheet to add names and towns to my notebook. It's critical to get spellings (assuming handwriting is legible) because once a hearing starts, it's hard to chase people around a room and still listen to the next speaker. With a deadline looming, I couldn't hang around after to track down speakers.

Returning for a final check of the list, I noticed Brian Pearl had put his name at the top of the list, squeezing it above the name of the man who arrived early and signed up first. I couldn't help myself. I went over to Pearl, seated in the back row, and asked him what he was thinking by jumping in line. He said he did it because there was room above the first signer's name. Really. And that's a good reason?

Pearl wants to be taken seriously in politics. He says he's going to challenge Gov. Jim Douglas in the Republican primary. He says he speaks for social conservatives across the state. His explanation for this little ethical infraction -- I did it because I could -- provides a glimpse into the man behind the moral rhetoric.

-- Nancy Remsen

posted by vt.Buzz | 9:51 AM |

Comments:

Pearl is one deeply repressed gay man.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:30 AM, October 11, 2007

Pearl is one deeply repressed gay man.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:30 AM, October 11, 2007

Rob Roper will be going ballistic about this. If there are no contested Democratic primaries in September 2008, Democrats could vote for Pearl in the Republican primary - creating another Tuttle-McMullen scenario. Jack McMullen and other Republicans have been trying for years to limit access to the Republican primary ballot to candidates who have been pre-approved by a convention, and they will use Pearl's intention to run against Douglas as a case in support of their plan.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:31 AM, October 11, 2007

Anybody that wants to run should have the chance - period.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:18 PM, October 11, 2007

I actually think that its a good thing for the Vermont GOP if this nutjob runs in the primary.

Most Vermont Republicans are very liberal on the social issues relative to their peers in other states. After all, the Vermont GOP is the part of Aiken and Jeffords - Jeffords only left the GOP because of his disagreement with the GOP in Washington - not Vermont.

The Vermont Democratic party has done a great job of tainting the VT GOP with this image of Vermont's Republicans as these right-wingers thanks to George Bush and his cronies.

A primary between Douglas and this idiot would be a godsend for the VT GOP - it would expose the fact that there are probably only about 100 - 200 whackos in this state. Douglas would win BIG and the VT GOP could demonstrate that its not the Kansas GOP.

I for one am looking forward to a renewed Vermont GOP that can clearly articulate a set of centrist/moderate values that represent Vermont. If they can breaktrhough the Democratic anti-Bush spin, they'll start to see some gains.

Message to Brian Pearl - run baby, run!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:44 PM, October 11, 2007

Under the leadership of Rob Roeper, the Vermont GOP certainly isn't moderate.

Roeper has taken the party in an ultra-right wing direction.

If the VTGOP was so moderate, they wouldn't stand for this nutjob.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:13 PM, October 11, 2007

Brian Pearl received 4357 votes in the September 2000 Democratic primary against Howard Dean. Sad to say it, but there are more than 100 - 200 whackos in Vermont.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:36 PM, October 11, 2007

We call that tactical voting.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:46 PM, October 11, 2007

So will Pearl do better or worse against Douglas in 08 than he did against Dean in 00?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:01 PM, October 11, 2007

Assuming that there is no more than one Democratic candidate in the primary, Pearl will do better against Douglas, because all the Democrats will pile in and vote for the nutjob, just to spite Douglas.

Again, its called tactical voting. But whether its 4000 or 10000 votes, Douglas will win by a landslide.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:12 PM, October 11, 2007

Democrats won't vote for Pearl.

And Democrats won't let him have the nomination.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:44 PM, October 11, 2007

"Under the leadership of Rob Roeper, the Vermont GOP certainly isn't moderate. Roeper has taken the party in an ultra-right wing direction."

I think I would disagree. I don't think the party chairs reflect the view of many of the rank and file party members, or speak for them.

Ian Carleton, the Chair of the State Democratic Party, is just as much a firebrand on the left as Roper is on the right. Many of us Dems don't agree with Carleton's rhetoric.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:55 PM, October 11, 2007

"Ian Carleton, the Chair of the State Democratic Party, is just as much a firebrand on the left as Roper is on the right."

Give me a break - At least Ian doesn't stretch the truth or outright lie like Roper.

Roper wouldn't know or understand the truth if it hit him in the face.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:02 PM, October 11, 2007

The Chair of a party is elected by it's members.

Roeper was elected by Vermont Republicans. They elected him as their leader.

And he's a nutjob.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:19 PM, October 11, 2007

As always, a high level of discourse ensues. I didn't realize so many psychiatrists sent comments into this blog.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:24 PM, October 11, 2007

Well at least we all agree that Pearl is a nut job!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:41 PM, October 11, 2007

I'm a Dem who will gladly vote for the nutjob, just to spite Douglas. Can't wait!!!!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:28 PM, October 11, 2007

"Well at least we all agree that Pearl is a nut job!"

Here, here. I'll drink to that. If you peel back the rhetoric, there is a lot of common ground between the parties.

Most Vermonters agree that you can't fly a plane on one wing.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:01 PM, October 11, 2007

Matt Dunne for Governor - let's go!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:22 PM, October 11, 2007

Brian Pearl for Governor....

...of Kansas.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:26 PM, October 11, 2007

Actually, Brian Pearl's positions aren't at all different from Rob Roeper's.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:43 PM, October 11, 2007

Brian Pearl is HOT HOT HOT!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:32 AM, October 12, 2007

"Give me a break - At least Ian doesn't stretch the truth or outright lie like Roper."

Yes, that's exactly what Carleton does in his weekly website and press releases. He stretches the truth, he omits facts, and he spins things. I read his stuff every week and that's exactly what he does. Every week there are multiple attacks on Gov. Douglas that go beyond fairness and honesty. I agree he's not a nutjob like Roper, but he still falsifies the record.

And as for party members electing their Chairs, only a tiny fraction of "activists" show up at the statewide meetings at which the Chair is elected. In addition, electing a Chair (by the few people who actually do it) is no predictor of how partisan that person is going to be in his job.

I repeat: the positions that the Chairs take does not necessarily reflect the positions of the rank and file party members.

The Chair's job is to organize the Party and increase membership. Somewhere along the line, it has developed that the Chair's job is also to send out press releases viciously attacking any state officeholder from the other party and telling untruths or half-truths about those people.

Vermonters deserve better.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:37 AM, October 12, 2007

I agree that Vermonters deserve better than all of the half-truths and BS that the parties spin out.

However, the Chair is elected by the party to promote their views and positions.

The party members don't elect someone who they disagree with. They elect someone who they AGREE with -- who closely resembles their beliefs.

Elections are open to all party members. If the rank-and-file members of the VT GOP didn't like how Roeper was doing his job, the dude would be tossed on his ear.

Nope, the rank and file of the VT GOP loves Roeper and all of the crazy crap he says.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:11 AM, October 12, 2007

Have you, who are so excited to vote for Brian Pearl, ever met the guy? He's creepy. He sits for hours, staring at women in the state house. Please, I beg you, before you give away your very precious vote, meet the guy first. I promise you that you will reconsider.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:03 PM, October 12, 2007

Brian Pearl is a hater, that's all there is to him.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:03 PM, October 12, 2007

Matt Dunne is the best choice!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:18 PM, October 12, 2007

I have a hard time believing that Brian Pearl spends a lot of time leering at women.

Leering at men ... yes, I'd believe that.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:32 PM, October 12, 2007

Never met the guy, but his actions regarding the list are sleazy.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:14 PM, October 12, 2007

Here's a perfect example, but just one example, of less than honest reporting by the Chair of the Dem. Party. In this week's issue of his newsletter, he "links" Douglas to Bush. This has nothing to do with Douglas' position on Vermont issues:

"In Case You Missed It

Douglas' winning pick is a loss for Vermont

At his press conference last week, Douglas was repeatedly asked if he still supports President Bush. Though the governor danced around the issue, we can think of a few reasons not to support this president: the war in Iraq, the veto of health care for kids, undermining Vermont's ability to set higher vehicle emission standards, refusing to grant us more health care flexibility so we can implement Catamount Health and more.

Douglas' response proves once again that this governor is more interested in political victories than substantive policy. Check it out here."

Asking whether Douglas "supports" President Bush is just dumb-ass, plain and simple. As a Governor, I really don't give a sh** if he "supports" Bush or not. The Governor's job is neither to "support" or "not support" the President of the U.S. For the VT Dem. weekly newsletter to report this shit as worthy political news is pretty disgraceful.

If there needs to be a weekly newsletter from the state party leadership, it should discuss the details of policy, not engage in lowest-common-denominator partisan race-baiting.

To even ask a Governor that question is meaningless

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:44 PM, October 12, 2007

I think you made the case perfectly well - why Jim Douglas is wrong for VT, out of touch with Vermonters (which I can't understand since he is out of his office 80% of the time), and really is a partisan political animal interested in getting re-elected and not solving Vt's problems.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:59 PM, October 12, 2007

Out of touch with the Veronters who re-elect him year after year?

Or is it Gaye, Peter, and Ian who are out of touch with Vermonters?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:07 PM, October 12, 2007

If the Dems stopped whining and holding prayer vigils for world understanding, and instead put a pro-business moderate Democrat like Howard Dean up for Governor, they might have a shot at taking back the Governor's seat. Heavens!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:10 PM, October 12, 2007

The Governor is doing a great job and the obstacle to solving Vermonts problems is the legislature. The fact that this crazy guy Pearl would run against Douglas is an indication that the Gov must be doing it right.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:56 PM, October 12, 2007

Great job??!! HUH??!!

He does nothing. He whines about taxes, but has NOT proposed a single tax cut.

He does nothing.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:11 AM, October 13, 2007

As opposed to:

Gaye and Peter pretending to support the interests of working class people, but doing everything they can think of to make Vermont less affordable and to drive away any employers who provide working class and middle class jobs in Vermont?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:35 PM, October 13, 2007

What about the Governor's proposal to stop the owners of multi-million dollar homes from scoring huge property tax rebate checks and returning that money to low and middle income property tax payers? You know, the one the democrats didn't support.

Or, what about his cap gains change that would have lowered income taxes for middle income workers? You know, the one the democrats blocked.

Give me a break.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:32 PM, October 13, 2007

I'm afraid you are mistaken about the Governor's cap gains proposal. Almost all of the benefits would have gone to the wealthy who, not surpringly, get the lion's share of cap gains.

How he sells proposals is not always what they seem. Think spin.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:55 PM, October 13, 2007

Again, the sainted Hoffer to the rescue with "the truth."

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:50 AM, October 14, 2007

Do you know anything about the proposal? Have you looked at the data provided by the Tax Department when it was debated? If not, then how can you comment on it one way or the other?

If you have some facts, please share them with the group.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:44 AM, October 14, 2007

Can anyone take Brian Pearl seriously, he tried to start a militia and won't talk about that incident in California?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:41 PM, October 14, 2007

Anyone ever seen his compound up in Grand Isle........ All the green painted vehicles he drives........fruity.........

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:51 PM, October 14, 2007

Actually, Mr. Hoffer, you're wrong about that cap gains proposal. It would have gone to the middle income bracket--that's why Speaker Freed, a wealthy republican with lots of cap gains, killed it.

You are a partisan's partisan. Look up every news report ever written about it and you'll see that you're wrong. Oh wait, you're never wrong, you're an "analyst"

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:57 PM, October 14, 2007

Even better, he's an "independent policy analyst."

They're never wrong.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:51 PM, October 14, 2007

I misunderstood your first comment. You said the Governor's "cap gains change...would have lowered income taxes for middle income workers".

That is incorrect.

The Gov. wanted to lower all the marginal tax rates (large benefits to the wealthy, tiny benefits to the middle class). But the cost would have been prohibitive so he said let's eliminate the capital gains exemption to help offset the cost. But I don't think he did his homework in advance.

The loss of the cap. gains exemption would have wiped out all the savings for the wealthy, who get the vast majority of the benefits from the exemption. And that's why Freed and the other Republicans were pissed off. It had NOTHING to do with the middle class (who wouldn't have seen big costs or savings either way).

And as for the "savings" from the proposal to reduce the income tax, here's something to chew on.

1. The estimated savings for a family of four earning $50,000 would have been $28 a year or a 2.7% reduction.
2. The estimated savings for a family of four earning $300,000 would have been $1,008 a year or a 4.8% reduction.

Sound like a big benefit to the middle class?

It's possible you just misunderstood the proposal and confused the income tax piece with the capital gains piece. But I can't imagine why because eliminating the cap gains exemption is not a savings. Read a little more closely next time.

And BTW - Even if there had been a proposal to cut the cap. gains rate, it could NOT have provided much benefit to the middle class because 70% of the middle class don't even have capital gains (and those that do have very little).

And as for partisanship, do you really expect us to believe that Walt Freed acted out of concern for the middle class? The figures are clear; the middle class would have gotten almost nothing from these proposals.

It was spin, pure and simple. And you got played - again.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:27 AM, October 15, 2007

The rich don't pay capital gains.

Too many loopholes and there is no "capital gains police" monitoring what is being marked as a loss.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:51 AM, October 15, 2007

Good point. The IRS spends much less then it did years ago for auditing the wealthy. And the state spends very little auditing anyone.

But it's true that in VT wage earners pay taxes on all of their income, while those with capital gains only pay on 60% since the first 40% is exempted from taxation.

And if the intent was to encourage more investment in VT (and, presumably, to help create jobs), there is absolutely no data to tell us one way or the other.

According to the Tax Dept., the exemption costs VT $20 - $30 million per year in lost revenue and we probably get nothing for it. So why do we do it?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:12 AM, October 15, 2007

"The rich don't pay capital gains."

I posted this based upon what I have witnessed.

I've seen some pretty shady things. In my opinion, the state does not do any enforcement.

I have no data to say if my observation is true or to quantify the extent of the abuse if it is true.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:20 AM, October 15, 2007

There is some evidence from other states. As they are more pressed for money (with the feds backing away from many commitments), some states have beefed up audting capacity and had very substantial returns on that investment. We should do the same here in VT.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:40 AM, October 15, 2007

Did some one say Doug Hoffer was an ananalyst or needed an analyst ??

Seems to have pent up frustration knowing many Vermionters have done better that he has

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:25 PM, October 15, 2007

Everyone isn't in a competition to die "with the most toys." Some people are more altruistic than that.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:02 PM, October 15, 2007

Oh, now Mr. Hoffer is an altruist! So when the Peace & Justice Center hires him to prove whatever foregone conclusion he and they have already come to, he doesn't take the money, right?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:20 PM, October 15, 2007

Hey pretty funny. You guys must be a riot after work.

The point of doing more auditing of the wealthy is not to pick on them (or out of envy). If we find that they have avoided their legal tax obligations, the likelihood of recovering good money is much greater then auditing people who make $30,000. That's called looking for the greatest return on investment, a term all capitalists are familiar with (and a sound principle for gov't. as well). Don't you agree?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:25 PM, October 15, 2007

Wasn't commenting on Mr. Hoffer (as I don't know him), just pointing out that everyone's goals are not the same as the writer assumed.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:34 PM, October 15, 2007

Why should we tax capital gains less than earned income?

1) the capital was taxed already when it was originally earned the first time

2) to offset inflation: if inflation has gone up 30% over 10 years and your investment has gone up 30% in the same time frame, you actually have no real gain - although the tax code says you have a taxable gain.

3) to encourage savings. Americans' savings rates are at ridiculously low levels today.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:52 PM, October 15, 2007

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:52 PM, October 15, 2007

The point about inflation is often made but is not the whole story. Below is a quote from a report by the Congressional Budget Office in 2002.

"The way the tax code treats capital gains income is in certain respects more favorable and in others less favorable than the way it treats income from some other sources. Because of inflation, the difference between the sale price of an asset and its basis overstates the income that the asset holder earns; taxes are thus imposed on phantom income created by inflation, a characteristic that the taxation of gains has in common with the taxation of interest income. At the same time, gains are treated favorably by not being taxed when earned but when realized, which is often many years later. Because money today is worth more than the same amount of money in the future, deferring payment of capital gains taxes is a powerful advantage and can overwhelm the disadvantageous effects of inflation, especially for assets that are held a long time. Finally, realizations of long-term capital gains—defined generally as those on assets held for more than a year—are taxed at rates lower than those imposed on regular income. The result is that even after inflation is taken into account, capital gains are generally taxed at effectively lower rates than are most other forms of income."

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:01 PM, October 15, 2007

Man, that paragraph is instant headache.

I feel like I just did my taxes.

I need a beer.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:14 PM, October 15, 2007

I expect a comment like that from a republican.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:11 PM, October 15, 2007

Dumb comment. You have no idea which party the poster belongs to.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:34 AM, October 17, 2007

Just remember that Doug Hoffer is a paid leftist gun. He will come to any "conclusion" the people that are paying him want him to. What amazes me is that anyone, even in fruitcake Vermont, would ever pay attention to his "facts"!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:59 PM, October 17, 2007

gimme a break

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:06 PM, October 17, 2007

I've had it with you, Bubba.

Go ahead, I dare you. Touch your "e" key.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:25 PM, October 17, 2007

Doug Hoffer is indeed a paid leftist gun.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:58 PM, October 17, 2007

But he's right handed.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:51 PM, October 18, 2007

Just like bigots of the past, Pearl thinks his historical privilege entitles him to do as he pleases.

This includes denying others rights he already enjoys (assuming he is heterosexual as he claims).

To him, the profound impact of inequality on gay couples and families is not important. What's important to him is that he not be asked to suffer the minor, transient emotional inconvenience he might experience if he is asked to accept change toward equality.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:43 PM, October 18, 2007