vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

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

11.23.2007

Pre-tryptophan

Before he'd had his turkey dinner and a healthy dose of tryptophan to calm him down, gubernatorial spokesman Jason Gibbs was feeling a little defensive Wednesday about the governor's global warming announcement of the day before.

Jason sent an e-mail that's much too long for me to share in its entirety. I don't want to give you all eye strain. But here are some excerpts:

"I had to get this off my chest…

"It’s clear from the coverage that the central complaint of the Governor’s critics is that "it doesn't do enough".

"Unfortunately, they had their talking points written before taking the time to evaluating the next steps and the vision the Governor presented yesterday. If these critics had taken just a few minutes to think about what the Governor has proposed—rather than going immediately for the shallow, political rhetoric—they would have realized that he has outlined the framework for a long term, sustainable, self-perpetuating funding mechanism to fund and implement almost everything they outlined in the GCCC Plenary Group report. (Which incidentally carries a $5.2 BILLION price tag—hardly a realistic target without a major, sustainable revenue stream.)

...

"Because we already lead the nation in this environmental policy area—and others—by a significant margin, the current recommendations from the plenary group would cost hundreds of millions of dollars (in total, they could cost $5.2 billion) to have only an incremental effect in our ongoing efforts and accomplishments. What the Governor has noted is that we would never be able to implement any of these, much less most of them, without a real and sustainable funding mechanism—these things ain’t free or inexpensive.

...

"That is why leveraging our environmental assets into carbon offsets credits that can be sold, and using that money (and we’re talking about millions of dollars here) to fund the recommendations, and other climate change initiatives, is the way to go. It will be a very significant boost to our efforts to reduce GHG. At the same time, if we do this right, we can create a new economic environment by bringing a substantial portion of the emerging, multi-billion dollar carbon credit industry to Vermont—just like we did with captives. This is why we need UVM and other partners in order to achieve this endeavor.

...

"But for some, no matter what the Governor does it will never be enough. The more he does, and he has spent millions of dollars on environmental efforts and climate change, the more VPIRG, VNRC, (et. al.) clamor for spending millions more. Millions, by the way, that has competing interests, such as vulnerable Vermonters, health care, housing, economic development and education.

"Others say he has done far too much. In my view, that’s an indication that what he is doing is just right.

"The Governor’s vision is comprehensive and well thought out.

...

"Best Jason"

Couple things to note:

Jason puts a million-dollar price tag on the carbon offsets, but the governor at his Tuesday announcement said he didn't know how much it might bring in, that the idea was brand new. This is the same governor who ripped the Legislature for proposing what he called an ill-defined all-fuels utility.

The governor was responding to the Governor's Commission on Climate Change but at his press conference discounted the value of reaching the goals he had set for the commission and discounted most of what the group recommended. Then why did he appoint the commission?

- Terri Hallenbeck

posted by vt.Buzz | 4:38 PM |

Comments:

Jesus Gibbs. Is this your manifesto? Should we be concerned about your mental health? Little too defensive for my taste. Work on adding more feeling.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:34 PM, November 23, 2007

How about Elizabeth Courtney for governor?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:37 PM, November 23, 2007

"How about Elizabeth Courtney for governor?"

Great - so we can raise taxes by $5.2 Billion. That's a smart move.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:09 PM, November 23, 2007

Why would he, or any sensible person for that matter, pay any attention to a $5.2 billion unsustainable proposal? It is just one more non-sensical proposal offered by the VT citizenery. It is really time to expect our state to be run by qualified professionals that understand financial responsibility.

It's a shame the GCCC(who was given a great opportunity to have positive, permanent impact on our State) didn't serve up something executable to begin with. They were entrusted with the responsiblity of making a sound recommendation on our behalf, given the funding needed to do their job and then delivered a work product that could not be implemented. So what did they achieve and why are they not being asked to be accountable for the misguided use of the state's resources?

I would be more upset if Douglas committed the state to an unfunded $5.2 billion liability than I am that he ignored the commission's report.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:48 AM, November 24, 2007

What's it gonna cost if they keep on putting it off?

That's 10 days in Iraq, Sport and unlike Iraq, it makes the Country and the World a better, safer place.

If Reagan hadn't dropped the ball on this stuff 27 years ago, we'd be a lot further along and gotten a lot more bang for our buck than flushing it away on Iraq and Star Wars.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 3:31 PM, November 24, 2007

"What's it gonna cost"

JW,

You can toss in the first $5 billion. Where do you think this is coming from sport?

The only place this makes any sense is in your fantasy world.

All you tree huggers had a chance...you failed to present a plan that can work

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:03 PM, November 24, 2007

We did, eh?

How's your "Only the Absence of Forests can Prevent Forest Fires workin' out, sport?

Oh, yeah. Your plan is why I can get ya a good price on a Malibu Beach House?

Always a pleasure.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 4:44 PM, November 24, 2007

JWPoop, you didn't answer the question:

"You can toss in the first $5 billion. Where do you think this is coming from, sport?"

Answer it, "sport."

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:10 PM, November 24, 2007

I doubt it. My guess is that jwpoop has never paid any taxes in his/her/it's lifetime.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:20 PM, November 24, 2007

Vermonters use about 700,000 gallons of liquid fuels a year costing about $2 billion. We spend about $600 million per year for electricity.

A $5.2 billion twenty year 5% tax exempt bond would cost $410 million a year.

If we reduce our energy consumption by 16% we can cover the bond. If we project increases in energy costs of 5-10% the savings will be huge.

Such an investment would trigger an economic boom in Vermont, make Vermont an exciting place that attracts young people, and save people more money than any property tax plan being discussed.

I'm sure there is much to figure out and the investment could certainly be phased in over time.

Mainly I want to make the point that bold leadership would be looking at something big. We need to be another "greatest generation" and do what needs to be done to reduce energy consumption to: 1) give us the leverage we need to negotiate with energy producing nations and help bring peace to the world, and 2) reduce CO2 emissions, and 3) reinvent the Vermont economy.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:56 PM, November 24, 2007

You guys can argue all you want with each other but I am a Democrat and I don't think the Vermont Democratic Party has a clue! It is so depressing.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:58 PM, November 24, 2007

How can you even THINK about such a project in Vermont when even such a beginning as small windmills are shot down by the flatlander elite that don't want to "have to look at" them. Or the elite that don't want gas pipelines, transmission towers, cell towers, etc. etc. Liberals are always coming up with some fantasy to save the planet with OTHER peoples sweat and money. Look at what Al Gore uses for electricity in his mansion or the fuel in his private jet; look at that fat phony Ted Kennedy and his family fighting wind towers that might disrupt his sailboating! Not to mention the jet-setting Hollywood "liberals" and their jaunts around the world in THEIR jets! Give me a break!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:32 AM, November 25, 2007

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:52 AM, November 25, 2007

JWCoop is the best thing to happen to this blog in the many months I've been reading it. Long may he continue his literate, trenchant, and very funny comments. (and he's right, besides.)

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:04 AM, November 25, 2007

Terri -- you should be doing a story that exposes jason Gibbs and Gov Douglas with just the questions you ask or points you make at the end of your bolg report.

WHY? WHY?
Are you not raising these issues in the regular news story?

The blog is read by so few people!

Terri, you and Nancy should not be afraid of Gov Douglas, Mike Smith or Jason Gibbs -- Expose them for what they are - ultimate hypocrites only intent on re-election and not really addressing Vermont's problems!

Or is it possible that Jim Cary is telling you what to write?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:45 AM, November 25, 2007

"Trigger an economic boom in Vermont"! This is the same crap I have been hearing from liberal fools for 30 years! Back then it was Solar Panels, now it is windmills that will never be built. These pipe dreams always seem to come from the usual suspects, college professors, "organic" gardeners, and the trust-funders that have WAY too much time on their hands. Like Stalin's 5-year plans of the 30's and 40's these plans will never amount to a hill of beans because government is incapable of doing anything successfully. Where ideas like this CAN succeed is states where free enterprise is still allowed to function.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:32 PM, November 25, 2007

"JWCoop is the best thing to happen to this blog in the many months I've been reading it. Long may he continue his literate, trenchant, and very funny comments. (and he's right, besides.)"

No, he's not.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:38 PM, November 25, 2007

"...these plans will never amount to a hill of beans because government is incapable of doing anything successfully..."

Yeah, you clowns keep provin' that every time you're in office for one reason or another.

Always a pleasure.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 3:05 PM, November 25, 2007

JWCoop is the best thing to happen to this blog in the many months I've been reading it. Long may he continue his literate, trenchant, and very funny comments. (and he's right, besides.)

If you think his sarcastic, combative, and downright nasty-jerky style is "the best thing to happen to this blog," then you'd have to agree that Bill O'Reilly is the best thing to happen to television broadcasting, sport.

Always a pleasure.

You can show yourself out.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:05 PM, November 25, 2007

Anonymous said...
"JWCoop is the best thing to happen to this blog in the many months I've been reading it. Long may he continue his literate, trenchant, and very funny comments. (and he's right, besides.)"

"No, he's not."

Really? For example?

Always a pleasure.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 3:38 PM, November 25, 2007

If you think his sarcastic, combative, and downright nasty-jerky style is "the best thing to happen to this blog," then you'd have to agree that Bill O'Reilly is the best thing to happen to television broadcasting, sport.

Note I said "literate, trenchant, and very funny." Bill O'Reilly is none of those things. And excuse me, I must have misunderstood the vitriol that regularly passes through these pages, e.g. Bubba, attacks on Doug Hoffer and the slew of remarks from Anonymous clods. Apparently, they are polite, respectful, and non-confrontational.

Get over yourselves.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:46 PM, November 25, 2007

"Such an investment would trigger an economic boom in Vermont, make Vermont an exciting place that attracts young people, and save people more money than any property tax plan being discussed."

"Proof, please."

As noted previously, the Governor's own Dept. of Public Service hired consultants to estimate the costs and benefits of an all fuels utility. The consultants found that AFTER the investment, it would save Vemonters almost $500 million (including $200 in savings for businesses).
see http://publicservice.vermont.gov/pub/other/allfuelstudyfinalreport.pdf
page 8

And oh yes, saving three to four dollars for every dollar you invest is usually considered sustainable.

This is just one component of the supposed $5.2 billion. And BTW - where did that figure come from?

If you don't think saving $500 million qualifies as an economic boon, then I guess you set a pretty high bar. And that doesn't even count the jobs created and the huge multiplier effects of keeping the money in VT instead of sending it out for imported fuels.

Gibbs' effort to present this as responsible is interesting. Masked as fiscally prudent (don't spend any more until we raise it), it is really just a way to delay action.

Making investments for the future sometimes requires borrowing money. States do it all the time. So do electric utilities. So do towns when they build a new wastewater treatment plant. The Governor's refusal to differentiate between operating expenses and long-term investments is putting us farther and farther behind. And yes, sometimes we have to tax ourselves to raise the money necessary (as we do for roads & bridges and other essential investments).

Where is the vision?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:21 PM, November 25, 2007

"that doesn't even count the jobs created"

Which jobs?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:37 PM, November 25, 2007

"Note I said "literate, trenchant, and very funny." Bill O'Reilly is none of those things. And excuse me, I must have misunderstood the vitriol that regularly passes through these pages, e.g. Bubba, attacks on Doug Hoffer and the slew of remarks from Anonymous clods. Apparently, they are polite, respectful, and non-confrontational."

First, you may think jwcoop is "literate, trenchant, and very funny," but the rest of us don't. We just think he's nasty and jerky, sport.

Second, Bubba's attacks on Hoffer don't excuse of justify jwcoop's just-as-nasty attacks on everyone else. As Hoffer himself has stated, two wrongs don't make a right.

The Democrats don't need their own version of Bill O'Reilly and Jim Barnet.

You can show yourself out.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:41 PM, November 25, 2007

Vision? You're talking about jim Douglas, remember? The guy's never done anything besides be a political hack. Actually more like a political lapdog, filling whatever office the party tells him to run for. Too bad about that 92 race with Leahy, Guv.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:41 PM, November 25, 2007

You've got to be kidding. O'Reilly and Barnett? In fact, as creepy as he was, it's not fair to lump Barnett with O'Reilly, who is just a twisted, lying, bully. Barnett actually believed, as does Jason G. And they practice the game with diligence.

I don't get your objection to JW. This is an open blog and you don't get to show people out. You can not like someone's opinion and comments -- and god knows I often don't -- but they still have a right to be here and express their opinion.

You know? Like that democracy thing GWB is always talking about?

Oh, and BTW, you can always leave if you don't like the dialogue....

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:50 PM, November 25, 2007

"Which jobs?"

Investing tens of millions in efficiency doesn't happen by itself. It requires lots of trained workers. Those jobs.

And for all those who complain about the cost of energy being an impediment to business creation & expansion, this is EXACTLY how we should deal with it. Those jobs too.

And the $300 million saved by households means they get to spend it on something other than imported fuel. That's a lot money money circulating in the local economy. Those jobs too.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:51 PM, November 25, 2007

We heard all of this years ago and as far as I know the only "job" created was for Scudder Parker. BTW, I really get a kick out of lefties hatred of Bill O'Reilly for "outing" their pals Lippert, Cashman and company. Gee, and I always thought liberals loved whistle-blowers! Guess it depends on who's ox is getting gored.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:04 PM, November 25, 2007

Perhaps if you read the report instead of relying on what you "heard", you might learn something new.

Besides, you couldn't have heard this years ago because the report is dated January 2007.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:14 PM, November 25, 2007

Bubba,

Douglas is the roadblock to using wind energy. Why is NYS so far ahead of us/

The Governor of California, no screaming liberal, that has the stones to look to the future. He us triggering a veritable boom in the California solar energy industry.

We are not talking radical stuff here. Douglas likes putting a million into a failed plywood factory for a one day headline. Better to invest in the future.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:22 PM, November 25, 2007

Bubba,

That would be "whose," not "who's.

And there was no outing of Judge Cashman -- who did exactly the right thing given the facts of the case and the state of VT law - or of Bill Lippert. There were ambushes of both and the most puerile simplification and distortion of the facts.

I don't hate Bill O'Reilly; I find him pathetic and completely immoral. And dishonest; he doesn't believe a word of what he's saying half the time. He's a shrill shill for the Right.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:35 PM, November 25, 2007

"I don't get your objection to JW. This is an open blog and you don't get to show people out."

Huh? Have you not been paying attention, schmendrik?

"You can show yourself out" is jwnasty's line.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:35 PM, November 25, 2007

Lippert has single-handedly prevented Vermont from joining almost the entire U.S. in fighting child predators by refusing to even consider a Jessica's law. But I guess a pathetic liberal who has to hide behind a fellow lawmaker's skirt when confronted by a single reporter for FOX knows more about protecting our children than the rest of the country.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:00 AM, November 26, 2007

I take it all back. You have redeemed yourself with schmendrik. Have a good day, schmegege :)

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:02 AM, November 26, 2007

"A $5.2 billion twenty year 5% tax exempt bond would cost $410 million a year."

$410 million divide by 300,000 taxpayers is $1,367/ person. Will you reduce your fuel bill by more than that? Enjoy the extra tax burden.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:03 AM, November 26, 2007

"I take it all back. You have redeemed yourself with schmendrik. Have a good day, schmegege :)"

I trust you realize I used "schmendrik" on purpose. It is another of your beloved jwnasty's favorites. He's used it to address people about 20 times in the last month.

I think you get my point.

Always a pleasure.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:38 AM, November 26, 2007

Anonymous said...
I don't get your objection to JW. This is an open blog and you don't get to show people out.

"Huh? Have you not been paying attention, schmendrik?"

"You can show yourself out" is jwnasty's line."

Yeah, it is.

Oy Vey, what a putz.

First of all, sport, it's shmendrik. Secondly, you're gonna have to do more than steal my lines to class-up your gop-slop spewin' nonsense.

You coalition of the clueless loons are all the same. Every blog is the same damned thing. You attempt to bully anyone and everyone that doesn't buy your wing-nut nonsense. In other words, upwards of 70 percent of the population of this Country and upwards of 80 percent of the State of Vermont.

Ya come in spewing the same thoroughly-discredited 2002 fox noise talking points and attack the courage and patriotism of anyone you deem to be liberal, progressive, a tree hugger or surrender monkey without a shred of evidence to back up your invariably bogus contentions.

Then you whine whenever somebody like Hoffer, Miller or me call your pathetic bluffs and take ya to task for consistently offering nothing more than your ignorant, ill-informed opinions as evidence.

If you can't do anything but whine about Hoffer's manner or me smackin' ya back every time you try to bully somebody, SFW.

Wake me when ya get to the part where I'm supposed to give a damn.

Get yourself some facts and I'll give ya the time of day. Keep doin' what you've been doin' and you'll keep gettin' what you're gettin', shmendrik.

Always a pleasure.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 11:22 AM, November 26, 2007

JW for governor. What a campaign it would be!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:49 AM, November 26, 2007

Drat! Censored again...

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:31 PM, November 26, 2007

"Shmendrik, Putz, OyVey"? Can't you even speak English, moron? Learn English or go back to where you came from!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:34 PM, November 26, 2007

"$410 million divide by 300,000 taxpayers is $1,367/ person. Will you reduce your fuel bill by more than that? Enjoy the extra tax burden."

1. I still don't know where the $5.2 billion figure came from. But for sake of discussion, let's assume it's correct.
2. Even if it's a good estimate, your assertion that it would cost $1,367 per taxpayer is inaccurate.
3. State bonds are generally repaid from the General Fund, which consists primarily of income, sales & use, rooms & meals, gasoline, and corp. tax revenues. A considerable portion of sales, rooms & meals, and gasoline taxes are paid by tourists and other visitors so the instate "burden" has to be adjusted downward. [Note: Failure to account for this is a flaw in the Tax Foundation's "tax burden" reports.]
4. Since 4% of GF revenue is from corp. taxes, that portion will not be paid by the 300,000 family & single filers (actually 348,148 in 2005 if you include out of state residents paying income tax in VT).
5. The income tax is progressive (graduated) and does not fall equally on all filers (another flaw in the Tax Foundation methodology; do you know anyone named "per capita"?).
6. The income tax represents 34% of all GF revenue so approx. $139.4 million will be raised from that source. In 2005, 36% of income tax revenue came from those earning more than $200,000 (and I don't think the extra "burden" will hurt them very much).
7. That leaves $89.2 million to be raised via the income tax from those earning less than $200,000. For that group, it's a 28% increase. For a family reporting $60,000 - $75,000 in AGI, that means their avg. state income tax payment would go up from about $1,767 to $2,261, an increase of $494.
8. Since almost 80% of all filers in that income range are married filing jointly (42% overall), the cost per person for a family of four would be about $123. While this is not trivial, it's a heck of a lot less than $1,367 per person.

Certainly, those folks would also pay more in sales & gasoline taxes, but even together the total is likely to be less than the income tax increase.

Bottom line: Even using the $5.2 billion figure (which I cannot verify), the impact is nowhere near as great as you suggested. Whether all of those costs can be recovered in savings is another matter, and I don't know what programs were recommended by the commission. But using per capita (or per filer) figures for any type of so-called "tax burden" analysis can be very misleading. I don't think you intended to do that but we should be careful about stuff like this.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:56 PM, November 26, 2007

Oh don't try to verify any numbers. Just pump them into the discussion and then say we can't do anything. No one cares. They just look at the big number and say "it must be right, someone typed it."

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:18 PM, November 26, 2007

It would be annoying that Terri et al aren't posting anything new except for the swivet you're all in about the Amazing Coop. Highly amusing and I hope like hell you keep it going.

(Except for the idiot who either doesn't understand yiddish or truly considers Jews to be foreigners. He/she can definitely show himself/herself out.)

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:45 PM, November 26, 2007

"You attempt to bully anyone and everyone that doesn't buy your wing-nut nonsense."

Whoa! Call the kettle black, much, jerk?

"If you can't do anything but whine about Hoffer's manner or me smackin' ya back every time you try to bully somebody, SFW.
Wake me when ya get to the part where I'm supposed to give a damn.
Get yourself some facts and I'll give ya the time of day. Keep doin' what you've been doin' and you'll keep gettin' what you're gettin', shmendrik."

Tough words for an anonymous poster.

Jerk.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:17 PM, November 26, 2007

Keep you hands off my $494.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:18 PM, November 26, 2007

"First of all, sport, it's shmendrik."

Hey, DB, "schmendrik" is a recognized alternative spelling of shmendrik.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmendrick

http://wordsmith.org/words/schmendrik.html

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=schmendrik

Fool. Busted being a smartass and getting it wrong. Looks like you're the schmendrik, sport.

What a surprise.

You can show yourself out.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:40 PM, November 26, 2007

Great Google skills. You really showed him.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:56 PM, November 26, 2007

Anonymous said...
"It would be annoying that Terri et al aren't posting anything new except for the swivet you're all in about the Amazing Coop. Highly amusing and I hope like hell you keep it going."

You're too kind. I'll do me best.

"(Except for the idiot who either doesn't understand yiddish or truly considers Jews to be foreigners. He/she can definitely show himself/herself out.)"

They'd get lost along the way. Think Bush in Mongolia and Spinal Tap in Cleveland.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 10:44 PM, November 26, 2007

People should stop attacking each other and stick to the issues.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:14 AM, November 27, 2007

jwpoop doesn't understand issues.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:13 AM, November 27, 2007

BUBBA doesn't understand the issues.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:18 AM, November 27, 2007

I understand that you and sport have plenty of 'em, bubbles.

Dismissed

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 3:47 PM, November 27, 2007

move on or get some help

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:34 PM, November 28, 2007

I thought the CCC during the Great Depression was a case of government creating demand for labor at a time of economic downturn that had stagnated the private sector's demand.

It seems to me the only way that taxing somebody to artificially create a demand for labor (in this case people to install weather stripping, solar panels, etc.) can benefit the economy is if there's no downside on the tax end.

I can't imagine that if the state decides to redistribute $50 million or whatever the number is to this end, that there will not be some impact on Vermont's economy. If it's Yankee, there will be an inevitable response when Vermont seeks to renegotiate its power contracts with them or any other possible generator.

I'm trying to understand how any redirection of resources at the levels being discussed can fail to have an impact on Vermont's economy.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:15 PM, December 01, 2007

Hoffer?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:26 AM, December 05, 2007