The future of the Moran Plant

I’m going to take a break from railing against socialism to talk about something local.

The Community and Economic Development Office (CEDO) has released the results of the Moran Plant survey we filled out when we voted (the yellow ballot). Regarding use of the space: 86% liked or strongly liked the idea of a waterfront park. 74% liked or strongly liked the idea of a community recreation center. Regarding the building: 66% said whether to keep it or remove it was dependent on the decided use. 55% said they wanted it torn down. Only 34% voted to fix it up. The complete results are available on the CEDO website here.

In a Free Press article from March 17, 2006, CEDO Director Michael Monte said that there would most likely be a specific plan with a price tag placed before the voters in November.

I think it’s great that the city government has finally gotten the message that the voters want to be consulted on waterfront development matters. What concerns me, though, is that they want to put this on the November ballot.

This November, we have for the first time in ages, congressional races that warrant real attention. We have a US House and a US Senate seat that are open. We also have elections for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and State Legislature.

The voters of Burlington should be, and will be, focused on these state and national races. Then is not the time to decide the fate of the waterfront.

Next Town Meeting Day, there will be little of note happening. We will have our standard ward races for one City Council seat and one School Board seat. There might be a ballot item that draws attention. Other than that, there will be nothing distracting us from an open and lively public debate about whatever proposal is put forth for the Moran site.

The citizens of Burlington have made it clear time and time again that we want the waterfront development to be a public process. Shouldn’t the vote wait until a time when that discussion can have our full attention?

What do you think?

Long live the French

In honor of Tirade25 and her love of the French, I thought I’d post this excerpt from Cal Thomas’ column, “The French job funk,” featured today on Townhall.com.

France's flirtation with and eventual embrace of socialism goes back more than a century. The late President Francois Mitterand effectively implemented socialism as national policy in 1981 when he issued his "110 Propositions," which included a program to nationalize many industries. Seven of France's largest 20 conglomerate industrial companies were nationalized, as were 36 banks and two finance companies. Mitterand's misguided plan was designed to ensure that the government would have sources of capital for the nationalized sectors.

The French state accounts for about one-fourth of the industrial output of France. Among those employment enterprises with 2,000 or more employees, one-half are in state enterprises.

In typical socialist fashion, Mitterand tried to reverse a stagnant economy with collectivist tactics instead of using capitalist tools. As would be proved in other socialist states, a heavy government hand stifles initiative, restricts capital creation and leads the worker for the state or state-subsidized enterprise into a false sense of job security. It also makes it more difficult for one to achieve independence and success, as part of an upwardly mobile career in a position that produces products and services consumers truly want and need. In a socialist society the reverse always occurs, resulting in despair, high unemployment, mutually shared poverty and riots in the streets to protest the broken promises of the state.

I’ve always been curious as to why so many Americans, the bulk of which seem to be centered in a few liberal cities like Burlington, believe that we will be able to do socialism better.

For example, why do they want socialized medicine, even while Canada experiences out-of-control costs and excessively long waiting lines?

Why does anyone in this day and age insist upon repeating the failed experiment that is socialism? Is there something I don’t know or understand?

I don’t doubt that these people are intelligent, or at least have intelligent people among them, so there must be something I am missing. My common sense, backed by historical evidence, tells me that a government-controlled economy will be disastrous in the long term.

That’s the worst part of this whole matter. If the current forces behind US socialism ever have their way, they will have a glimpse of their utopia and die feeling like they saved us from ourselves. It will be future generations that will be left trying to salvage the ruins of this once great nation.

Livable wages

Today, I am going to pick on livable wages. If you have never heard this term, you can school yourself here. I am going to jump right in with the assumption that my readers have a base knowledge about livable wages.

Here is what I never understood about the whole concept: the actual wage figure is dependent upon one’s family situation. The average livable wage for a single person is $12.79, but the livable wage for working parent of two children, with the other parent not working, is $22.53. How can we base wages on family make up?

So, does that mean that if a guy marries a woman with two kids and they decide that she will stay at home, then he should get a $10 raise? That is the part that never made sense to me. Does an employer have to pay for an employee’s lifestyle choices? I don’t get that.

I also question their figures. According to the figures, my household does not earn a livable wage, yet we have all of our basic needs met and still manage charitable giving. We pinch pennies, but we are able to live on this wage. I am not saying they should base the calculations on my personal lifestyle. What I am saying is that there is such a wide variety of choices people make that to name a livable wage figure is completely arbitrary. (You can look at the breakdown of how they figure the needs here. Look under Livable Income/Basic Needs.)

How much money we make and spend all boils down to personal choices. For example, my husband and I decided that for now he should stay at his job (making an un-livable wage) because the hours are predictable and he gets a lot of vacation days. We made a personal choice that puts family time before money. He knows others who have left his company for a higher wage, but are now putting in more hours and even traveling. That arrangement does not suit our family.

Work schedule is an intangible factor that is not considered by the need calculation. I once worked at a job that paid lower than I would have liked because the hours were 9-5 with an hour lunch, but we got paid for an 8 hour work day. At the time I was a single mom and I needed the later starting time to make daycare drop-off easier. I also liked having the hour for lunch to run errands. I could not place a dollar amount on those benefits.

Contrary to the premise behind the livable wage figures, a person’s family situation should not determine their wage. An employer determines how much money the position is worth and what other benefits it will include. It is our choice whether or not to take the job.

Let’s say that you are forced to take a job or go hungry – as is often the argument made. In that case, you still have control over how you spend your money. You can choose not to spend the amounts of money that are allocated in each area used to figure the livable wage. For example, it says that a two parent household with one wage earner and two kids spends $592/month on transportation. Well, if you choose to take a lower-wage job, you could also choose to spend less on transportation. Or you could choose to spend less than $785/month on food or less than $270/month on personal expenses (that figure is excluding clothing). If you make changes to your own budget, your non-livable wage could work fine for you.

Another good point was made by Jeremy Ryan when running for City Council. The VT Livable Wage Campaign asked the candidates two questions. Part of his response said, "I also believe in the right to work. If someone wants to work and is lacking in skills, but willing to learn and work at a lower wage, we should allow them the opportunity. I dislike mandatory policy that would exclude people from serving our community."

My point is that employers and employees should have the freedom to determine the situation that works best for them. The government should not force this issue. It not only takes away the employers’ rights to make their own business decisions, but it also takes away the workers’ rights to find jobs that suits their personal needs.

The Kiss Countdown

Mayor-Elect Bob Kiss will be sworn in as Burlington's 35th Mayor on April 3 at 6 pm at City Hall. I thought it would be fun to have a little countdown meter to keep track of how much longer Clavelle will be in office.

Over on 802 Online, Cathy Resmer, of Seven Days fame, posted a "conservative edition" of her "Tuesday Deadline Linkdump."

Among others, it features a link to a post on She's Right, as well as one to a post on my second-favorite blog Tirade Parade.

Cool.

Social, but independent

I don’t have a lot of time to write today because we are doing a lot of homeschool activities that need my undivided attention today, but I wanted to throw up a thought.

This morning, my two-and-a-half-year-old son came into to the room I was in and announced with absolute glee that he had done something by himself. He was waiting for me to do it, but I was in the middle of something, so he tried it and accomplished it without my help.

It got me thinking about a comment Haik, owner of the now defunct BurlingtonPol.com, said on the right to healthcare thread. I went to quote it, but I see that he has erased all his comments on that thread. Luckily, I have all comments e-mailed to me by Blogger, so I was still able to get the direct quote.

He said, “At our core humans are social animals. We need each other to do just about everything. Alone in the woods, none of us could build a computer or phone or a pair of shoes. The whole point of civilization is that we work together. That is why socialism is a much more natural philosophy that ‘conservatism.’”

First, I must point out, as I did in the comments, that there is a difference between what people should do and what the government should make us do. Conservatism does not say that we should not work together. It says that the government should not force us to do anything that violates our rights (as long as we are not violating anyone else’s rights).

Now back to my son. I do not deny the fact that we are social creatures. That is a fact, but what socialism seems to overlook is another human trait, which is our natural desire to do things for ourselves, our desire for independence. The pursuit of that feeling of accomplishment when we are able to provide for ourselves and do not need to rely on others to provide for us. If you could have seen the look on his face when he realized that he does not need to wait for mommy to do everything for him and that he is capable of doing things for himself, you would understand where I am coming from when I say that reliance on the government to provide us with our basic needs is not a philosophy that is in tune with human nature.

Tax breaks for the rich?

A few months ago, the Burlington Free Press started running a column by Ed Shamy. It is usually very amusing and somewhat irreverent, but always enjoyable. I can’t say that about much in that paper.

On Thursday, March 23, he wrote a column comparing the House vote to raise the gas tax by 4 cents (6 cents on diesel) to a Republican proposal to entice mover-makers to come to Vermont to make their movies by exempting 25% of their Vermont-earned income from Vermont income taxes.

He opens by asking who deserves a tax break and sets the following scene:

Our first candidate is a single mom, hustling homeward at dusk from her thankless and lousy-paying factory job. Before picking up her youngsters at their after-school program, she stops at a convenience store to buy bread so she can wake up before dawn to make the kids' school lunches. While there, she pumps gas into her 1990 Plymouth Horizon and tearfully shakes her head at the price of fuel. It has risen again.

Candidate No. 2 is a well-tanned dandy just arrived from Beverly Hills. He carries in his shoulder bag a lhasa apso with a ribbon in its hair. He wears an ascot. Beneath his pencil-thin, David Niven-esque moustache, he clenches in his pearly whites a cigarette in a holder.

We can’t help but feel bad for the mom, but this is not really a fair comparison.

First, by juxtaposing the gas tax increase with the name of the Republican legislator who supports the movie-making tax incentive, one might imply that the Republicans are the ones raising the gas tax. That is not the case. In fact, the Republicans were, for the most part, fighting the gas tax.

Second, it is not as if they are raising the gas tax in order to give a tax break to Hollywood fat-cats. They are completly unrelated - especially since a big budget movie has not been made here since 1999 (and this tax break would only apply to movies with budgets exceeding $1 million).

The other thing is the income tax break itself. I am not sure if I support the idea, but I understand the logic of it. Right now, we have no big movies being made here, so what is the income tax gain from that income? Zero – there is no income. If we did manage to lure movie makers here, we would reap income tax revenues on 75% of the income made here. Isn’t 75% of something better than 0% of nothing?

I get rather annoyed at the constant attempts by the press to unfairly paint Republicans as only caring about the rich. I would like to remind Mr. Shamy and the rest of you that the Democrats have such a solid majority in the State Legislature that you cannot blame anything on the GOP this year.

Vermont Maple Open House Weekend

I just thought I'd stop by and make sure everyone knows that this is the 5th annual Vermont Maple Open House Weekend. This event is an opportunity to visit sugarhouses and see how maple syrup is made and to sample fresh maple syrup and other maple products.

Visit www.vermontmaple.org to see which sugarhouses near you are participating in this event.

Speaking of universal healthcare...

www.russmo.com

The right to healthcare

Since only one person gave me a reason why conservatives are regarded as not caring about the poor, I will address that issue first: the right to healthcare.

I would like to hear more, so if anyone else wants to explain why they think conservatives do not care about the poor/only care about the rich, please post your comments on the "Conservatives don't care about the poor" post, two posts below this one.

The Right to Healthcare

A right is something you have the freedom to do (freedom of speech, right to vote, right to remain silent, etc.) or something you are protected from having done to you (freedom from cruel and unusual punishments, protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, etc.). A service provided to you by another person is not a “right,” it’s a service.

You know, come to think of it, they might be on to something here. Maybe services should be rights. My husband had to pick up a second job last fall so that we could afford snow tires and new brakes. We need a safe, working vehicle so he can go to work. That’s a need, so the service should be a right, right? How about universal car repairs?

Isn’t it the same thing? At one point, he was working almost 60 hours a week, my two-year-old cried himself to sleep at night because he missed daddy, and I was exhausted from having to pick up the chores he usually does. Meanwhile, there are CEOs making millions of dollars. To them, the hundreds of dollars we needed for car repairs are just a drop in the bucket. It doesn’t seem fair, does it? It’s our right to have a safe vehicle. We can’t help it that we can’t afford it. Those CEOs should pay their fair share to provide us with this right. Why should we have to struggle when they have too much excess income?

Please know that I don't really look at it that way, but that is often how the arguments go. How far could we go with this “right to services”? What else is a right?

Anytime you are giving someone a “right” to a free or subsidized service, it is depriving others of their property – in this case, the taxpayers who have to give their money, which was earned through their own hard work, and the healthcare providers who have to provide the services at lower, government-imposed prices. Property rights are in the Bill of Rights. They are fundamental to our constitution, yet they are being eroded all the time by big government in the name of these so-called rights.

The other point here, perhaps more important to this discussion, is that conservatives do not want to deprive anyone of access to healthcare. Last time I checked, poor people already get government provided healthcare. Not only that, but everyone has the same access to healthcare services and insurance coverage. No one is being denied access to healthcare.

The objection most conservatives have to the notion of a right to healthcare is based on the fact that we believe in FREEDOM. The balance between freedom and government control is a zero-sum game. Every time we give more control to the government, we lose more freedom. It really is that simple.

I really wish I had more time to get into this right now because it is a complex issue, but I will stop here and let you take over with comments.

Reminder: Barack Obama on Channel 17

I can't believe I almost for got to post this...

For those of you who missed the Barack Obama pep rally for Bernie Sanders and Peter Welch, Channel 17 is broadcasting it tonight, Thursday, March 23 at 10 p.m. and Friday, March 24 at 3 a.m., 9 a.m., and 3 p.m.

It also looks like they are re-running last month's interview with Rich Tarrant on the Live @ 5:25 show "Ideas Have Consequences" in the 45 minutes before the Obama air time. (That is, 9:15 tonight, etc.) Live shows are usually 30 minutes, but this one went over.

That is the live show hosted by Mike Quaid that Peter Freyne referred to in his Seven Days column last week, in which he described it as having "softball questions only" for Tarrant. Freyne knows darn well that those live shows are call-in. Seems to me that he could have called in his own hardball instead of rabble rousing with half truths.

About She's Right: The Show

"She's Right" is a monthly show on Channel 17, the government access channel in Burlington, VT. It is part of Channel 17's weekday Live @ 5:25 series.

She's Right airs on the third Friday of the month at 5:25 PM. It is a live call-in show.

The show features a look at the issues of the day from the perspective of a conservative woman. This perspective is lacking in much of the mainstream media in the area.

Sometimes I have on guests. Sometimes I just talk about issues myself. I always take callers questions.

If you would like to listen to past shows on-line, click here for the She's Right podcast page on the Channel 17 website.

To view the Live @ 5:25 show schedule, click here.

If you have questions or ideas for future shows, e-mail me at shesright@adelphia.net.

Conservatives don't care about the poor?

First, a couple of housekeeping items...

For those who might not have noticed, I am now posting under my real name, Charity, instead of "She's Right". This is really just a matter of consolidating all of my blogs under one name, so I don't have to keep logging in and out. (I have a crafting blog and a random thoughts-type of blog, too. Please, people, I have a life outside politics.)

Also, for anonymous posters, you can click on "other" instead of "anonymous" and fill in any name without creating a blogger account. That way I can see who is who. You can even name yourself anonymous 1, anonymous 2, etc., if you want.

Anyway, moving on...

The most common misconception about conservatives is that we don't care about the poor. (The way this is reconciled with the fact that there are so many non-rich conservatives is by calling the rest of us stupid. It's really quite flattering.)

I wrote this long thing about my background and current situation and why I am conservative even though I've always been poor to semi-poor my whole life. Then I thought, first, do I really want to share my life story? Second, do these people really want to hear my life story? And, third, why bother? Once I prove that I am or have been sufficiently poor to not "hate poor people," I'll just be called stupid for "voting against my self-interest." So, I concluded that I shouldn't bother.

Instead, I'd like to ask why people think that conservatives do not care about the poor, only care about the rich, don't want to give everyone a "fair chance," or any other of the multitude of anti-conservative slogans I might have missed.

As I have said before, you have to first understand people's misconceptions before you can correct them. This is one thing I never really understood. Instead of offering my best guess, I thought I would give you liberal readers a chance to offer me your best explanation.

Any takers?

Home Study Legislation

Today the Vermont Senate is expected to pass bill H.862, a bill that will make some changes to Vermont's Home Study statute. The bill originated in the House Education Committee and was the result of work done by Education Commissioner Richard Cate and a group of homeschool parents. It passed in the House and the Governor is expected to sign it when it presumably passes the Senate today.

Vermont has one of the strictest Home Study statutes in this country. Our state government does not seem to get that educating one's children is the parents' right, not the right of the state. At least our current elected officials have collectively agreed to lighten the paperwork burden for the parents. Of course, I'm sure the Department of Education had a more selfish reason for wanting to reduce the paperwork coming in to their office.

This bill was a compromise and it in no way accomplishes everything homeschoolers would like to see accomplished. Rarely exists a piece of legislation that does. In this case, the government is not ready to relinquish the power they took and give parents back their rights, but it is a good first step.

This legislation came about because of a "special interest group." It really irritates me that this is so often used as a dirty word. A special interest group is nothing more than ordinary people who unite for a common cause.

In this case the special interest group was a few homeschooling parents, led by one woman who worked day and night to get this legislation hammered out, while trying to accommodate the opinions of an eclectic bunch of parents who all homeschool for different reasons. She often faced opposition from within and without, but she kept on going for the benefit of other homeschooling parents, for her years of homeschooling are almost done.

I would like to publicly thank Retta Dunlap of Vermont Home Education Network for her tireless work on behalf of all parents' right to educate our own children. Well done!

Spending obscenities

There was a really great column By Cal Thomas in the Free Press today. It can be found on Town Hall here.

It really explains the difference between conservatives and the current Republicans in Washington, D.C. Thomas, who I would describe as a small government conservative, expresses the dissatisfaction that many GOP faithful, myself included, have with the party today.

Spending obscenities
Mar 21, 2006
by Cal Thomas

Not so long ago, in a country that now seems far, far away, Ronald Reagan told the nation: "we don't have deficits because people are taxed too little. We have deficits because big government spends too much."

Last week, a Republican Senate voted to raise the debt ceiling to nearly $9 trillion. Senators quickly passed a record $2.8 trillion budget. What would Reagan say now? He said then, ".the federal deficit is outrageous. For years I've asked that we stop pushing onto our children the excesses of our government." He called for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and labeled the budget process a "sorry spectacle." That Republicans are outspending the most reckless 1980s Democrat (and 1960s Great Society Democrats and 1940s FDR Democrats) is the sorriest spectacle of all.

Read more.

What is a conservative?

My goal with She's Right - the show and the blog - is to offer a conservative perspective on the issues. When I say conservative, it means something to me that could be very different from what it means to you. I am working on some writings that explain what a conservative is to me and what it does not mean.

What does conservative mean to you? What do you think conservatives believe? How do they view the roll of government?

The best way to correct misconceptions is to first understand what misconceptions exist.

Same-day voter registration

This morning's Free Press has a story that says the Vermont House decided to postpone implementation of same-day voter registration until 2008.

The legislative liaison for the Vermont Municipal Clerks and Treasurers Association, Stowe Town Clerk Alison Kaiser, said that the town clerks wanted to hold off implementation until the state-wide voter registration list has all of the kinks worked out.

There is also a short article about the mixed reviews from town clerks here.

This has turned into somewhat of a partisan issue, with Democrats and Progressives supporting and Republicans opposed. The Republican opposition is not based on any kind of calculated party-based benefit/harm. It is based on a legitimate fear of voter fraud.

I am at a complete loss as to why people are unable to register by a week before the election. Especially when I have seen plenty of candidates go door to door registering voters. Anyone can go to the Superior Court and become a notary public and subsequently register people to vote. They can even sign the person up for an absentee ballot at the same time. In fact, that is how I first voted in Burlington. I lived in the Old North End and someone came to my door, registered me to vote and filled out an absentee ballot request for me. He even gave me a follow-up call to remind me to vote.

What he did not realize is that I had no desire to vote for him. He was a total phony. He looked in my living room and saw I had a little kid and immediately started talking about affordable housing and child-care subsidies. When he realized that I was not interested in how government entitlements can supposedly make my life better, he immediately started talking about how bad the sidewalks are and how he wants to fix them. He was smooth, but phony. Sorry, no vote from me. I did appreciate how easy he made it for me to vote, though. The Republican candidate didn’t do that – oh wait, there was no Republican candidate. Oh, well.

Anyway, my point is that is it so easy to register people to vote. We don’t need to unleash mass chaos at the polling places and open up the process to massive fraud potential. But what do I know?

Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, said in reference to the opposition to same-day registration, "The effort that is being put into maintaining an unnecessary barrier to voting is astonishing."

What is so astonishing about wanting to prevent fraud?? What is so astonishing about wanting a system that the Town Clerks are comfortable with? Is he claiming that Town Clerks want to maintain barriers to voting? And how much of a barrier is it to require people register before the election? Rep. Peg Flory (R-Pittsford) suggested changing the registration to the Thursday before the election. That’s only five days before the election. If you have not thought about registering by then, you are probably not informed enough and probably shouldn’t be voting.

The bill still needs to be reconciled with the Senate version, which has a different implementation date, and get signed by the governor. Since the legislative session is nearing the end, that probably won’t happen this year.

The Governor’s spokesman said Friday, “The governor stands with Vermont town clerks and until they are satisfied the system will be free of fraud and easy to administer, he will continue to oppose the bill."

You can read the full Free Press story here.

What do you think about same-day voter registration?

Correction

Tonight on She’s Right, I received a call from a woman from Burlington City Arts. She had heard that I had a post on this blog about City Arts' budget coming from the city coffers and wanted to correct me. She informed me that only 9% of their budget comes from the general fund. I was aware that they received only a portion of their budget from the city (their website says 15% ), but I had gotten the number I was using from the city website.

She assured me that she knows the budget, which I do not doubt, so I am here to correct my mistake.

I had looked at the Burlington City Arts Budget of $ 821,110, but I neglected to take into account the following revenues:

Charges for services:
Arts Rent/Lease $ 56,250
Arts Ticket Sales $ 61,000
Arts Concessions $ 4,500
Arts Miscellaneous $ 66,900

Miscellaneous revenues:
Burlington City Arts Donations $ 388,780
Burlington City Arts Grants $ 163,500

I apologize for my error. My original statement still remains however, that a city should cut arts before police and fire. Obviously, the arts have support from elsewhere.

I am always happy to correct any misinformation that appears on my blog. In the future, I want you all to know that you need not wait until my live show on channel 17 to bring up the error or request a correction. Feel free to either comment on the blog itself or e-mail me for immediate action.

Thank you for reading my She's Right blog. I am not going to be able to put up any new content until later this evening - maybe even tomorrow morning - because I am busy preparing for the She's Right live show tonight at 5:25 on channel 17.

Feel free to use the comments field to talk amongst yourselves. Be sure to check back!

Charity

Open Letter To Secretary of State Markowitz

The following is an actual letter written by Vermont Republican Party Chair, Jim Barnett.

---

March 15, 2006


Hon. Deborah Markowitz
Secretary of State
26 Terrace Street
Montpelier, VT 05609


Dear Madame Secretary:

I was troubled to learn of your recent comments to legislators that indicated you believe same-day voter registration will benefit Republican Party candidates because Republican voters tend to be, and I paraphrase closely based on accounts from those who heard you first-hand, poorly-educated and of low income.

I object to your suggestion that Republicans in Vermont are too dumb to register to vote in a timely fashion. Rank and file Republicans in Vermont - regardless of education level - are perfectly capable of utilizing any of the 722 out of 730 days of the election cycle currently available to register.

I know that studies show that liberal Democrats very much dominate professorships within academia and are the disproportionate owners of PhDs, but I can assure you it does not take one in order to successfully register to vote.

Whether or not Republicans in Vermont tend to be disproportionately low-income I do not know, but I am puzzled at the suggestion that income level would affect one's ability perform the simple task of registering to vote - unless by low-income you meant dumb. In any case, your evaluation indicates that Democrats are prepared to accuse Republicans of being simultaneously both low-income and super-wealthy, depending on which description best helps them advance their political agenda.

I know many Democrats are big supporters of same-day registration, and I hope I do not sound too cynical by suggesting it is not because you believe the bill will aid my party. Indeed, our position is clear: voting should be easy, and cheating should be hard. Same-day registration - if done without due regard to election integrity - opens up all sorts of avenues for potential mischief at the polls and puts a heavy burden on local election officials and town clerks.

Auditor Brock has previously identified some serious issues that need to be resolved before the new statewide voter checklist built by your office can be trusted to guarantee the integrity of Vermont's elections, and both of us have testified as to our concerns with the same-day registration bill as it applies to election integrity. As you know, even now there are very few safeguards in place to identify voter fraud should it occur, and causing the voter checklist to be a moving target through same-day registration would only amplify the opportunities for fraud.

Attorney General Sorrell has claimed to the United States Supreme Court that Vermont's politicians are uniquely corruptible - enough so to justify campaign contribution limits equal to $50 per election in 1974 dollars for fear they will be bought by special interests if allowed to receive anything more. Certainly, if Vermont politicians can be so easily corrupted out of the desire to win election then one could imagine the lengths to which they might go to arrange for fraudulent ballots to be cast on their behalf.

With many elections each cycle determined by just a tiny handful of votes, the risk of passing a bill without appropriate safeguards could result in Florida-like electoral chaos.

I think you and I agree that in our democracy, every single legitimate vote is sacred and must be counted. I hope you and your fellow Democrats will agree, as well, that because every illegal vote cast disqualifies a legitimate vote, it is of preeminent importance that we guarantee the integrity of our elections using every method available and with at least the same level of enthusiasm as adding an additional single day to the 103 weeks we already have to register. You cannot claim to support the sanctity of the vote while you so casually dismiss reasonable concerns about the potential for vote fraud.

Madame Secretary, I hope you will reconsider your support for this bill until such time as its flaws are corrected. There are numerous ways to improve the legislation while maintaining the principle that each and every legitimate voter should be given easy access to the ballot box.

In addition, I hope you will issue a public apology for your mischaracterization of Republican voters.


Sincerely,

Jim Barnett
Chairman

Vermont Republican Party

A clean campaign?

In the Tarrant fans vs. Sanders fans on-line debates on several blogs, I have noticed one thing that keeps coming up. People claim that Bernie Sanders does not run mud-slinging campaigns. Every time I read this, I know it isn’t true and it irritates me. Maybe Mr. Sanders doesn’t come right out and throw mud – no he is much too clever for that. Instead, he gets his foot soldiers to do it for him. That is how good third party politicians usually work.

I remember reading something quite a while back about a Sanders campaign letter spreading dirt about Tarrant to Sanders' supporters. I finally decided to dig it up. I finally found it. It came from republicansareidiots.com. (How witty!)

It reads:

Rich Tarrant (R-FL)
August 8, 2005

Vermonters aren't that stupid, are they?
This is the guy who will likely be running for the Senate in Vermont against Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Problem is, he's, um, from, uh, Florida. Here is a thread at DU which apparently contains a letter from the Sanders campaign in which all the dirt is exposed on this guy Tarrant, who has, along with his right-wing friends, dirty bastards all, already been spending shitloads of money throwing shit at Bernie Sanders and trying to purchase Vermont's open Senate seat, currently occupied by retiring Sen. James Jeffords (I-VT). It might work, but then, Vermonters aren't known for being quite as stupid as Floridians. Anyway, here's the dirt on Tarrant in its entirety. http://bernie.org/documents/2005080305.asp

(Wow! Clever and potty-mouths!)

It goes on with two articles, one from Peter Freyne and one from The Brattleboro Reformer.

Conveniently, the links do not work. Imagine that. Is the Sanders campaign covering their tracks? I know you can't rely on everything you read on the internet, but I find it hard to believe that a site called “Republicans are Idiots” is fabricating stories for Tarrant’s benefit. I could be wrong.

In other Channel 17 news...

She's Right airs this Friday, March 17 live @5:25. It is a call-in show, so you can heckle me on live television! How fun!

I am not sure what I am going to talk about yet, but I am sure it will be informative, entertaining, and enlightening!

If you can't pull yourself away from your green beer or Guinness long enough to watch, don't fret. She's Right is now available as a podcast, along with the other Live @5:25 shows.

Charity

Barack Obama on Channel 17

From the Channel 17 e-mail list:

Did you miss Senator Barack Obama at UVM?
Here’s your chance to see the entire program!

Please join us at the Channel 17 Studio
294 North Winooski Avenue, Burlington
on Thursday evening, March 16
Two Showings: 6:30 and 8:30 p.m.

This event is free and open to the public!
Be sure to RSVP to Sam at 862-1645 x25 or smayfield@cctv.org as we have limited seating of 40 at each viewing!

Please feel free to bring dessert or goodies to share.
Copies of the program are also available for $20. Please contact Sarah at sberger@cctv.org

This program will be shown on Ch. 17 on Thursday, March 23 at 10 p.m. and Friday, March 24 at 3 a.m., 9 a.m., and 3 p.m.

Thank you for helping to spread the word!

Channel 17
at the Center for Media and Democracy
294 North Winooski Avenue
(Enter from the parking lot on the side)
Burlington

Comment of the day

You know how sometimes TV shows have those stupid clip shows to fill time between new episodes? Or how bands sometimes release an EP in between full length albums that is just old songs done in a different way (like acoustic or live)? Well, now I understand why. Sometimes you just can't get something new out, but you want the people to have something new to look at - even if it is only semi-new.

I don't have anything new to post right now, but I thought this comment was worth its own post. It's from the "The Infamous Contract with America" post and was in response to an anonymous comment that said, "Too bad that the entire Contract was a lie. The fools gained power and then threw all of their promises away. Now they are beholden to the big money & corporate interests. The Repubs don't serve us. They serve the big corporations that give them so much wealth. "

In response, Bob the Optimizer said:

It's true that they have violated their own contract, which is just plain wrong. But to use the tired old 'beholden to big money...' line implies that Democrats aren't. The people running big corporations aren't stupid. They donate to both parties. They need leverage regardless of who wins.

Also, big corporations need constant income, or else they would become small corporations. They get that income from people like us by providing goods and services that we want at prices we are willing to pay. This is tough for many liberals to accept, but these corporations need to make us happy or they won't get our money. This makes them accountable to us in a real sense.

Being 'beholden to big business' is still better than being beholden to big unions and lawyers goups, as the Democrats in Washington are (that's in addition to big business don't forget). The only thing I see from those groups are higher prices goods, lower quality, and frivolous lawsuits. There's something to strive for!

Thanks for your excellent comments, Bob. Thanks for reading She's Right.

BED seeks 23% rate increase

This morning in the Burlington Free Press, the public was informed that Burlington Electric Department is seeking a 22.82% rate increase. The City Council will consider their case tonight at 7:00 PM. You can read the explanation for the increase in the Free Press story.

This comes as no surprise to me. I have known this for weeks, if not months. I was told by a political insider that BED would seek a rate increase of up to 25% after the election.

I do not know who else knew this, but I am certain that Mayor Peter Clavelle knew this. There is no way that political insiders could know and not the mayor. And it is no coincidence that they waited until after the election.

We were asked to approve a school budget that would lead to a 10-cent (per$100) tax increase. We were asked to approve a 1% sales tax. We were asked to approve a bond to fix a sewer pipe (future increased wastewater fees??). We were asked to approve all of this extra spending; meanwhile our elected officials knew we would face a 23% increase in our electric rate.

Shouldn’t we have all of the facts about the city’s financial health before we are asked to vote on tax increases? Isn’t it about time that our elected officials were accountable to us?

I think it is long past time that we demand transparency in the city government. If they are going to continue to tax (and fee) people out of their homes, we should have a say in it. It’s our government. It’s our money. It’s our right.

(How’s that for a Monday morning conservative rant?)

The Infamous Contract with America

Yesterday, I wrote a post about the renewal of the Contract with America, or at least the portions of it that were not fulfilled. I thought I would post the link to the actual Contract, which still resides on the House website.

I was a sophomore at UVM the year that the Republicans took back the House and Newt Gingrich became speaker. It was during a defining time in my life when I was just beginning to understand politics and where my views fit into the political spectrum. And, man, was it a great time to be a conservative.

I remember my freshman year in Political Science getting ripped to shreds by a liberal professor for expressing my views, which happened to contradict the liberal BS he was feeding us. I almost completely swore off speaking in class, until a guy from down the hall, who just happened to be conservative, swung by my room to tell me that he agreed with what I had said and that the professor had no right to treat me like that.

Well, the next year, I had the last laugh. Thanks to the brilliance that was the Contract with America, the GOP took control of the House and the liberals on campus had plenty to bitch about for the next...oh wait, they still do.

I remember there was this great graphic on the cover of Time Magazine that depicted an elephant trampling a donkey and the donkey’s eyes were bulging out. I cut it out and hung it on my bulletin board. Ahh, those were the days.

Okay, enough rambling. Here it is in all its glory, The Contract with America.

Termite warning an anti-corporation scare tactic

Today, I saw a warning about termites in mulch made from trees that were knocked down during hurricane Katrina posted on a homeschool message board. It read:

If you use mulch around your house be very careful about buying mulch this year. After the hurricane in New Orleans many trees were blown over. These trees were then turned into mulch and the state is trying to get rid of tons and tons of this mulch to any state or company who will come and haul it away. So it will be showing up in Home Depot and Lowes at dirt cheap prices with one huge problem; Formosan Termites will be the bonus in many of those bags. New Orleans is one of the few areas in the country were the Formosan Termites has gotten a strong hold and most of the trees blown down were already badly infested with those termites. Now we may have the worst case of transporting a problem to all parts of the country that we have ever had. These termites can eat a house in no time at all and we have no good control against them, so tell your friends that own homes to avoid cheap mulch and know were it came from.

The post was accompanied by this link with information from Louisiana State University Agricultural Center.

Later someone exposed the truth. The truth, according to the site snopes.com, is that there are steps being taken to prevent spread of the termites. There is even information on the LSU AgCenter website about the quarantine, on another page of the same site that was referenced in the warning.

Furthermore, Home Depot does not even use mulch from suppliers in that area. Here is their statement on the matter:

The Home Depot does not use any mulch suppliers from the New Orleans area. We have very strict policies and procedures in place to ensure the integrity of the mulch products sold in our stores. In fact, all our mulch suppliers are required to be certified by the Mulch and Soil Council (MSC), who created the industry standards and criteria for mulch and soil certification and inspection. You can find the MSC certification on the back of every bag.

I am sure the message board poster was just trying to be helpful by passing along the info. What she posted was word for word what is on the snopes site, so she is obviously not the originator. What I want to know is: what was the motive of the person or group who started this rumor?

I think the motive is clear by the fact that they specifically mention the two big box home improvement retailers Home Depot and Lowes. The motive was to try to undermine the sales at these retailers.

How low are the anti-corporation extremists willing to stoop to try to sabotage big retailers? So, if they can’t get people to agree with them that corporations are evil and stop people from shopping there, they will just start a smear campaign based on lies that play on people’s fears?

I think I might go out to Home Depot and buy some mulch just to show my
support. Although, I’m not sure what I will do with it.

Raj for Congress

This is so funny! Did any of you watch "The Apprentice" second season? Remember Raj? Well, according to an AP story I just read on-line, he is running for Congress as a Republican!

You can read the story here.
Or visit the Raj for Congress site here.

Will "The Contract" be Renewed?

There was a column on Town Hall today by Tim Chapman, called "The Contract with America: Renewed," about the GOP (that’s Republican Party, in case you didn’t know that) possibly re-signing onto the Contract with America. Of course, this is a plan by a small group of Republicans who are actually conservatives, but the tough part will be getting the others to sign on. See the contract only works if you can get all of your candidates to sign on to it.

You can read the column here. I think it is exciting and I would love to see the GOP get back to the roots of what gave them the power they now have. As it says in the column:

At yesterday’s press conference, Congressman John Shadegg (R-AZ), who voted for the Contract in 1994, said that “virtually every Republican in Congress was elected on a promise to curb government growth and spending.” For Shadegg and his RSC colleagues, this budget boiled down to one thing, “It is time to keep that promise.”

Actually, it’s past time to keep that promise, but I suppose that it’s better late than never.

The reason I bring this up is a good friend of mine (a very conservative friend of mine) e-mailed me some comments about this column. I have been trying to get this friend to start a blog and this rant is a perfect example of why.

It's kind of like renewing wedding vows, isn't it?
The problem is that the republicans have violated their own contract. I don't think they deserve to be re-elected in this election cycle. Ideally, they should be replaced by republicans who will do the job. Unfotunately, they'll be replaced by Democrats.
Yeah, I think the republicans can kiss the house majority good-bye, maybe even the senate majority too.
I know how bad that would be, but do you really think they've done a good job lately? They should have shut Bush down years ago, especially with that Medicare crap that was passed a couple years ago. He used billions of dollars (and future trillions!) to buy off the issues that the Dems would attack him on. He has pissed all over the republican ideals and they have let him.
I mean, it got so bad that the Dems stood up, and in total truth, attacked them for spending too much!! What an insult.
It would be nice if this would put some sense into them, but I think it's too little too late.
The only thing that scares me about them losing is what the Democrats will do. If republicans lose the majorities and then to a Kerry style wuss, gas masks and duct tape will be in everyone's closet, when we're not wearing them, that is.

So what do you think? Is this the ranting of Burlington’s next conservative blogger?

My (a little too long) after election rant

I was just watching the re-run of the channel 17 election coverage. I went to bed last night after I found out who won and I did not see the footage of Miller and Kiss at their respective after-election parties. I just had to see it.

Miller is not a very gracious loser. I can only imagine the crushing blow she felt at losing every single ward, including her own, but she was absolutely snide in her remarks to the channel 17 interviewer, Rob Reiber.

She implied that her opponents did not run a clean campaign by saying, “We took the high road, always the high road, and I can't say that for my opponents.” But then sort of backpedaled and cut the interview off when he asked her if she was inferring slander.

She also said that Burlington is a complicated town and that she is a little concerned and frightened. She did not exactly say why, but she went in to how we need to grow and change and hold onto what we hold dear. I guess she thinks she was the only one capable of doing that.

Anyway, enough about Sen. Miller.

The real reason I started this post was to talk about the future of Burlington, which clearly is not Hinda Miller. The real news of the night was that the Progressive Party is alive and well. When they experienced their temporary sell-out, or rather their figurehead in Burlington sold-out, people thought they would just get swallowed up in the ever increasingly liberal Democratic party of Burlington.

We found out last night that that is no where close to the truth. The Progressive Party is alive and well in Burlington and still the masters of the stealth grass-roots campaign. Their unassuming candidate flew under the radar and caught the city by surprise, leading the Progressives to a victory characterized by City Councilor Cheryl McDonough as a “mandate” from the voters.

That is when my heart just sank. As I listened to one Progressive after another talk about affordable housing and livable wages, I just could not stand it. For one brief moment, with Clavelle not running, I thought that perhaps, if only for three years, we could finally have a government that would actually concentrate on providing only what government should be providing and do that well for a change.

But alas, ‘twas not meant to be. Not here in Burlington. As long as I live here, I am going to have to face the reality that I will never be on the same page as my city government.

Don’t misunderstand, I think we need more housing that is affordable, I just don’t think we need more affordable housing because that is code for government subsidized housing. I just don’t think that it is the job of the government to provide housing. The same goes for “livable” wages. It’s just not what government needs to do. How about paving the damn streets for a change? Isn’t that something the government can do? There’s a thought.

I thought perhaps I was over-reacting, so I took a look at the Progressive Party platform on their website.

Everything sounded like good things to support, things like equality and ending poverty, but as with many things, the devil is in the details.

I don’t have time to do a full dissection (maybe I will do a series), but here is the scariest of all. From their statement of principles: “Basic needs, including housing, food, health care, education and energy should be affordable to all and not the means for private profit.”

Do you know what that is saying? Well, since the government provides education and they are currently trying to get the government to provide health care, I take it to mean that they believe government should provide housing, food, and energy, too. Government provided food? FOOD???

Man, this is depressing. On the bright side, Burlington is so darn expensive after 25 years of “we care so much about affordable housing” Progressives ruling the roost, that a stay-at-home mom of three with a husband working an “average” office job can’t afford to buy a home here, so I doubt that I will still live here a year-and-a-half from now. (God willing, and man, I hope He is.)

I am so feeling like this place totally sucks right now. Man, after election blues really bite. Could be worse, I could have been a Miller supporter.

Comments?

The Ballot Items

The official election results are available at the City’s website here.

Here is how the ballot items shaped up versus my predictions.

1. SCHOOL BUDGET: Passed (My prediction: Fail in NNE, pass overall. It did fail in the NNE. I said “barely” pass, but it passed by a large margin.)

2. LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX: Passed (My prediction: Will fail, just like last time.)

3. ELIMINATING RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR DEPARTMENT HEADS: Failed (My prediction: Pass)

4. REVENUE BOND FOR WASTEWATER: Pass (My prediction: pass)

5. STATEWIDE TEACHERS' CONTRACT: Passed (My prediction: I think this might pass.)

6. VERMONT AIR NATIONAL GUARD: Failed (My prediction: Fail)

7. NEIGHBORHOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS: Passed (My prediction: Pass)

8. USE OF STATE EDUCATION FUNDS: Passed (My prediction: Pass)

9. FLUORIDATION OF WATER: Failed (My prediction: This one will fail and fluoride will stay for now.)

Not too bad. I knew I was wrong on the sales tax as soon as I wrote it. It should have failed, but people are wimps. Threaten to cut vital city services and they just cave. The reality is that with a new administration, most if not all of the city budget shortfall will be made up in the lower salaries. The people there now have been there for a while. New people will start at a lower salary.

One more thing about the budget. It is interesting that the Mayor said they would have to cut $800,000 of vital city services – including police, fire, and plowing – yet there is over $800, 000 in the budget for City Arts. I am not against arts - I am really into the arts, actually, but come on, now. We cut fire and police before arts?!? Priorities, people!

Update: I have been informed that the $800,ooo+ budget of City Arts does not all come from the city, most of it is from donations. See correction here.

I love Burlington City Arts – especially the summer camps for kids where you spend $150 per child for a one week camp that meets for 3 hours a day! What a rip off for a tax-payer funded organization. We scrimped and saved to send our kids last year and they were not even impressed. How hard is it to impress an 8-year-old??

Seriously, though, I love art. I make sculptures, actually. But who in their right mind would cut the police and fire department, yet fund an art program?

The point is not that we should cut City Arts, but that there were other things to cut before vital city services. It was an empty threat and anyone who voted for it because of that threat should feel like a sucker.

That is the down-side of living in a democracy. When other people don’t agree with you, you just have to accept it. It’s a small price to pay, really. It could be much worse. At least I am free to complain about it on my blog!

It is too bad about the sales tax. With surrounding shopping areas looking to adopt the tax, too, and Williston already having it, we gave up an opportunity to say, “Come shop in Burlington and avoid the higher tax rate.” Oh, well. C’est la vie.

Election Coverage

It was a sad night for the channel 17 election coverage. Usually, the candidates go right over to channel 17 and they have the results, as well as candidate interviews. I was there myself last year as the GOP Chair (and a losing City Council candidate). The place is always hopping and the coverage is great.

This year, the election results were all tabulated at City Hall, instead of ward by ward, so all of the candidates were there. Channel 17 still had great coverage, with crews at City Hall, but it was not the same. The studio was dead and you could tell that the hosts were disappointed at the change.

They still had the results first, for the home viewers. They are still the best place to go for local political coverage. And when Burlington Telcom is up and running, they will have the ability to broadcast live from City Hall.

Here are the results from last night's election from the Channel 17 website. These are unofficial results.

Mayor Kiss

Wow! Was I wrong or was I wrong? I never would have guessed that Bob Kiss would come in first and that Hinda Miller would lose even in her own ward!

Well, I guess everyone has to be wrong at least once or twice.

Congratulations Mayor-elect Kiss!

Channel 17 Elections Results

Watch Channel 17's Live Town Meeting results broadcast beginning at 7:30pm tonight.

I always love watching the election results on Channel 17 because often the candidates come in for live interviews.

Be sure to tune in.

Predictions – Part II

Here are my predictions for the ballot items.

1. SCHOOL BUDGET: This is a hard one to call. It is a big tax increase, but there has been no one speaking out against it. The school board is saying that this is only going to affect your tax rate by $.02 because the rest of the tax rate is set by the state, but this is misleading at best.

The local part of the tax rate is based on above block spending – that is, spending per pupil above the state block grant amount. It is true that Burlington’s above block tax rate will be going up from $0.13 to $0.15, but the fact remains that we will be spending 15-cents/$100 home value above what we would have to if we could keep spending to the block grant level. (That’s $300 on a house valued at $200,000 more just for the above block spending portion.) The block grant from the state is going up from $6,975 to $7,330 per pupil this year. So, the state increase is not enough, the School District needs to go even higher?

Just five years ago (FY02), Burlington spent $6,326 per pupil. This year’s (FY07) budget proposes $8,458 per pupil. That is a 33.7% increase per pupil in just 5 years. Why is that? (And I’ll take, “Things That Make You Go HMMMM…” for $500, Alex.)

In other words, the school board needs to rein in spending. They keep passing the buck (…it’s Bush’s fault...it’s the state’s fault...) the fact is, the buck stops with them – it’s their fault.

Now that I am done ranting about school spending, my prediction is: It will fail in the NNE, but pass citywide, barely.

2. LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX: Will fail, just like last time.

3. ELIMINATING RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR DEPARTMENT HEADS: Pass

4. REVENUE BOND FOR WASTEWATER: Pass

5. STATEWIDE TEACHERS' CONTRACT: Another tough one. I can’t say how many people value local control. I think this might pass.

6. VERMONT AIR NATIONAL GUARD: Fail

7. NEIGHBORHOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS: Pass

8. USE OF STATE EDUCATION FUNDS: Pass

9. FLUORIDATION OF WATER: This one will fail and fluoride will stay for now. There was not enough time for people to get all of the information. Just this morning I read in the North Ave News, in Bill Keogh’s column he said that if you don’t want the fluoride, get a Brita filter. The truth is that fluoride is not filtered by an inexpensive water filter such as Brita. To filter fluoride, you need a much more expensive filtration system. My point being, a lot of misinformation has been spread on this one. I think this issue will stick around and support to stop fluoridation will grow as more people get the facts and more people discuss alternatives and explore the costs of those alternatives.

Predictions

I’m not much of a betting woman. I tend to reserve my opinion for the times I am quite certain to be right. Fortunately for me, that is quite often. (That was a joke.)

I am going to make my predictions on the election anyway, though.

First, my analysis. Based on the buzz I am hearing, if Hinda does not make the 50% threshold on the first round, she will not win. People who like her are ranking her first. People who do not like her enough to rank her first really, really do not like her and will not rank her second, either. I honestly believe that the second place finisher in the first round will win the final vote count (assuming Hinda finishes first).

The problem with my analysis is that it is based on the premise that people are paying attention and the reality is that people do not pay attention. I hope that the fact that this is the first time in 17 years that we will not be able to vote for Clavelle means more people are paying attention.

Now for my prediction. This prediction only considers Miller, Curley, and Kiss. I really do not think we will see much of an impact by the other two. I think Hinda will finish first with 40%. Curley will come in second with 35% and Kiss third with 25%. From what I am hearing, Curley is really popular in the NNE and they have such a huge voter turn out that it can really sway things. In the last election, wards 4 and 7 cast 41% of the city’s votes. The interesting thing about that is they have the lowest number of registered voters out of the seven wards in the city, so it is not that they have more people. It’s just that they care more about voting.

I could be wrong about Kiss’ low numbers, but I think that this election will show the difference between the liberals who really care about the poor as their top priority and the ones who just say they do so they can feel morally superior. The later group will vote for Hinda, the former, for Kiss. I think a lot of the progressive-types are really excited about the wonder that is Hinda Miller. (The legend in her own mind – as one of her former Jogbra associates of 17 years described her in the Free Press article.)

With the second tabulation, I think the Kiss votes will be split between Miller and Curley 65-35, in Curley’s favor. It might be higher in Curley’s favor, but I am trying to be conservative. That would give Curley 51% and Miller 49%.

My prediction is that Curley will win by a hair thanks to IRV. Ahhh, the irony of that would give me more satisfaction than I could ever articulate. In case you don’t understand why, the whole reason for IRV was to make sure no Republican ever got elected again. You see elitist liberals (not all liberals are elitist, so that is not redundant, really) think that they own all of the left-side votes. In other words, Hinda Miller owns the Kiss votes. That is the spoiler argument. The reality is many of the people who are vote Progressive do not like elitist liberals. I do not know anyone who is voting for Kiss and Miller – except maybe Jane Knodell.

Well, we’ll see if I am right, close to right, or way off the mark. Maybe this is all just wishful thinking on my part. Let’s see.

A Run-Down of the Ballot Items

1. SCHOOL BUDGET: The Facts: The proposed budget is $38,113,325. That is up $2.2 million, or 6.42 percent, over the current budget. The budget includes a tax increase of 10.28 cents per $100 of assessed value. This means a property owner whose house is assessed at $200,000 would pay $205.60 more a year in taxes.

Those are the facts. Vote away. I am not going to tell you how to vote. I’m not going to tell you how I will vote. The situation we are in is because we do not have contested school board races. The school board is made up of two types of people: those who want to waste too much money and those who want to waste way too much money. If we vote no, they will come back with the same budget and a list of threats, such as football and other things that people love. It will pass by the third try and I bet it will be this same number.

If you are really tired of the school budget going up yearly at twice the rate of inflation, run for school board or find someone who will. Otherwise, this will continue to happen year after year.

2. LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX: I already had a post on this item. Click here to read. Quick summary: vote NO like we did last year.

3. ELIMINATING RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR DEPARTMENT HEADS: I go back and forth on this one. On the one hand, I think that a Department Head should live in the city because then they are more directly impacted by their decisions and they will have a better understanding of what Burlingtonians want.

On the other hand, if I was the Mayor, I would want to have the ability to find the most qualified person I could and would not want the restriction of a residency requirement. Also, my husband had a good point, if the person did not live in Burlington, we would know that he is not favoring his neighbors (for example, the Director of Public Works would not be able to plow/pave his street first.) Interesting point. Maybe we are better served by someone who does not have a vested interest in Burlington.

Either way, I don’t even know how I will vote on this one - or if I will. It is always an option to leave a question blank if you don’t know or care about it. In fact, more people should exercise this option.

4. REVENUE BOND FOR WASTEWATER: This bond covers the new sewage pipe running beneath the Winooski River. According to Clavelle, “This will be financed with wastewater revenues and will have no impact on property taxes. Approval allows us to secure financing at very low interest rates.”

Well, it might not have an impact on property taxes, but we still pay for it. Where does he think wastewater revenues come from? Yep, the fees we pay. And yes renters pay too. What do you think the landlord will do when the water bill goes up? All together now, “Raise the rent.”

The fact remains that this needs to be done, Clavelle’s complete misleading of its impact notwithstanding. He screwed up and let the pipe go unmaintained, but we still have pay for it to get fixed. We should vote yes on this one. (This is actually an example of what the City should be doing with our money.)

5. STATEWIDE TEACHERS' CONTRACT: This question tells the legislature what we think about state-wide or regional teachers’ contracts.

On one side, it would eliminate the leapfrogging effect of the teachers whining that the teachers in the next town over get more money. That is a leading factor in the huge 6% raises they often get. (Those raises are across the board and not merit based, in case you were wondering.)

On the other side, we have this little thing called local control. Just because the state took away our control of the tax rate, and just because the school board is completely inept at contract negotiations with the teachers, that does not mean we should give up our last shred of dignity… I mean, local control… to Montpelier.

6. VERMONT AIR NATIONAL GUARD: This question says, “Shall the City Council be advised to use all lawful means to keep the men and women of the Vermont Air National Guard at home to provide air defense for the state and nation, and to prevent their overseas deployment to drop bombs in wars of aggression against other nations?” or at least that’s what was on the mailer I received.

While the proponents of this one are trying to paint it as just another way to protest the war, having no effect on the Guard, the fact is if this is passed, they will try to convince the City Council and Mayor that the people were voting yes to tell the City to end the contract with the Guard at the airport. If the Guard base closed, among other problems that would create, the City would be responsible for replacing the fire and rescue functions the Guard provides to tune of $1Million or more.

This is such a bad idea, the City Council voted unanimously to urge the public to vote NO.

7. NEIGHBORHOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS: "Shall the Burlington School District be advised to continue to maintain its current configuration of six neighborhood elementary schools?"

No, the city should do what it needs to do to keep down costs. That being said, closing schools is a bad idea because when enrollment eventually goes back up, they will have an even bigger problem.

This type of decision should not be politicized in this way. That being said, vote however you want.

8. USE OF STATE EDUCATION FUNDS: There is more to this issue than meets the eye. The governor proposed using excess in the education fund for roads because if the state can’t come up with the matching funds, we lose the federal money. It was a quick solution.

On the other hand, if there is excess in the education fund, we should get a lower property tax rate next year. Understand this simple concept, please, a surplus in the government means they are taxing us too much! If we are car-pooling and I say I need you to give me $5 per week to cover your share of the gas, but you find out that gas prices went down and I have a $1.50 “surplus” in the gas fund, would you want me to keep it, spend it, or give it back? It’s your money.

Face it, the government will not be giving us back our surplus. In fact, Sen. Jim Condos and the other liberal Democrats in the pocket of the teachers’ union have already proposed how to spend it – expand public education to cover pre-school for all children for free under the umbrella of our public education system.

Now, while I get off my soap box, you should vote yes. Ed funds should be used for education only.

9. FLUORIDATION OF WATER: “Shall the City Council be advised by the voters to discontinue the practice of fluoridating the public water supply?” In a word, yes. I already posted about this. You can read more here.

Note: A YES vote means stop fluoride, a NO vote means keep it in.

I find it unfathomable that the candidates for Mayor cannot come up with an alternative method to dispense it to low-income children. Hello, schools? Check-ups at the doctor? It’s not rocket science people, come on now.

So there you have it – the ballot questions in all their glory. Now just don’t forget to VOTE tomorrow!

IRV - Instant Run-off Voting

As you must have heard, this year we get to elect our new mayor using the Instant Run-off Voting method – IRV. There are some people who are intimidated by this method and are afraid of being confused. If you or someone you know falls into that category, please do not let it deter you from voting.

There is more information at www.burlingtonvotes.org. That site has a flash animation demonstration of the process.

In January on She’s Right, I gave a detailed description of the process, which one caller described as the best explanation he had heard of IRV. You can listen to the podcast here. And I didn’t even charge the city $5,800!

Last year, the IRV supporters toted around Terry Bouricius, a former Progressive state representative from Burlington, who now owns a consulting company Election Solutions, to explain to voters why we need this system. I saw him on at least two channel 17 shows, including the Burlington Progressives live @5:25 show. He was arguably the biggest pusher of this new system.

Once the system was adopted, the city set aside $10,000 for voter education. (Of course one of the reasons we just had to have IRV was to save the city money from a costly run-off election, even though we haven’t had one in how long?) Wouldn’t you know it, a $5,800 contract was given to none other than Election Solutions. So the guy who convinced everyone that IRV was what we needed to solve a problem that we didn’t have was awarded a city contract to educate the voters after IRV passed. Isn’t politics grand! (What was that liberals keep saying about the GOP giving government contracts to cronies?? News flash – their hands are not clean either.)

You can contact City Hall if you need more help understanding IRV. I would say contact your City Councilors, but one of you might try to contact Carmen George. (That’s sort of an inside joke. She has been asked more than once on channel 17 and in other situations to explain it, but she cannot do so satisfactorily, even though she supported it.) If you get really desperate, e-mail me. I understand it well. Back when I was with the GOP, I had a lot of people express to me their fear of being confused at the ballot box, so I learned all about it I could. I couldn’t risk losing what few GOP votes we get to a process that is really easier than it sounds. There will also be people at the polls who can help you. (Just don't listen to them when they tell you who to vote for. Tell them they are not supposed to do that.)

I think IRV will work fine. It’s not that hard. Most of the ballot will be filled out normally. The only difference is the mayoral section. When you get to it, simply find Kevin Curley’s name, moving to the right fill-in the first oval next to his name. It will be in a column marked “1st choice” at the top. You can stop here or you can find Bob Kiss’ name and fill in the second oval to the right of his name, under the column marked “2nd choice” at the top. Be careful not to fill in the first oval next to Kiss or you will spoil your ballot. Allegedly, they will kick out spoiled ballots and let you re-vote, but I have little to no faith in the elections officials. Maybe I will test it and see if they really do kick it out and let me re-vote. You can see a sample of what an IRV ballot looks like here.

For another fun ballot configuration, you can fill-in the write-in section with “I would rather elect a dead dog than Hinda Miller.” Ahh, I crack myself up. It’s funny how even I was singing Hinda’s praises for a second choice and now I would even rank Louie the Cowman above her. Haik Bedrosian over at BurlingtonPol.com did the same thing, only he had her ranked first and has since demoted her to fourth, and he would never vote for Louie the Cowman. It’s the same idea though; the more people really listen to her, the more they really dislike her. Let’s just hope that everyone has been listening.

Last Mayoral Debate

For anyone who has not already read it, over at burlingtonpol.com, there is a really funny re-cap of the last Mayoral Debate. It is the funniest thing I have read all day. (Of course, it was the only thing I read all day other than the paper, but it was really funny.)

Vote Tomorrow!!

Tomorrow is the big day. Get out and vote. Polls are open from 7AM to 7PM.

If you suddenly take ill and end up in the hospital, call City Hall (865-7000). They have a little known program where two Justices of the Peace (from two different parties) will bring you a ballot so you can still vote. The reason I know about this is because when I was GOP Chair, Jo LaMarche (Asst. City Clerk) called me to get the name of some Republicans she could swear in as Justice of the Peace for a day, since there is only one Republican JP in Burlington (I think there are none now). The City Council approves their one day honor. I wonder if they can marry people on that day. I don’t think they would have time anyway because they are out delivering ballots all day.

Just think, at the end of the day tomorrow (hopefully, or else Wednesday morning) we will know who the next Mayor will be (barring any unforeseen hanging chads). I realized this morning that I am way too much into politics. I have an upset stomach and a serious case of anxiety. The same thing happened when Howard Dean was not in the gubernatorial race (for the first time in my voting life) and when Clinton was not in the presidential race (for the first time in my voting life). It is so exciting, the possibility of a real change. The excitement keeps me up the night before. I remember when we had the first election when Douglas was elected, I woke up at the crack of dawn. It was going to be the first time I could vote for a candidate I actually liked (I was not a Dwyer supporter). I was out the door to the polls at 7:00 AM sharp! Yes, I need to get a life, this I know.

Anyway, the point is – VOTE!

Oh, quick Hinda Miller story – I heard that at a house party last week she said one way she would save money is to close the library four days a week and leave it open only three. This is unsubstantiated, but holy crap! Is she an idiot? I’m sorry, but close the library?? On the bright side, it would never actually go through, I’m sure. She would have people lined up outside (and inside) City Hall protesting. I know a lot of homeschool families that practically live at the library and we have all day to picket, if needed. Real education in action. Can you imagine a better way to teach your kids about the beauty of our freedom and democracy? (Since the written word often omits the intention of the writer, that was a joke, albeit one with undertones of truth.)

Thanks for reading the irreverent (or is that irrelevant?) ramblings of Charity Tensel. I’ll be back later to post about the ballot and other last minute voting info. Right now I have children to teach. (Wait, I thought homeschool was where the kids got to watch TV all day while the mom blogged? It’s not?)

Free Press Letters

Here's my letter that appeared in today's Free Press:

The Free Press mayoral endorsement acknowledged that Kevin Curley was the candidate who was focused on the city's spending problems, yet opted to endorse Hinda Miller because of her enthusiasm for Burlington and her support of arts and culture. Burlington has no shortage of people who support arts and culture. What we need is a mayor who will rein in spending. We need a mayor who is familiar with the city budget and can jump right in on day one and begin the process of making the necessary changes, not someone who is going to have a "significant learning curve." I urge you to consider voting for Kevin Curley for mayor. Being on the City Council and the Board of Finance has put Kevin in a position to understand the problems that this city faces. Now we have the opportunity to put him in a position where he can use his knowledge to solve those problems.

Here is another letter that I thought was really interesting:

Most qualified for job of mayor

As a social liberal still driving around with my John Kerry bumper sticker, it would never cross my mind to vote for a Republican. Yet as I listened to the candidates during the debates, it seems to me that City Councilor Kevin Curly is the most qualified person to manage Burlington for the next three years.

Let's get past party politics and ideology, and instead ask who has the most relevant work experience and knowledge of local issues. This election is not about George Bush and the GOP. It's about managing a fiscally challenged city, repairing an aging public infrastructure, examining city services and making tough choices on what it can and cannot afford to do at this time. It's about overseeing the public process of deciding if, how and where Burlington should grow. It's about keeping families and businesses and not losing them to the suburbs. Kevin seems to support seniors, children, ordinary working folks, and small businesses with equal fervor.

While other candidates are talking conceptually about their social values and vision, Kevin is talking about specific program ideas like senior housing retention and performance measures for city departments. Kevin has a good grasp on city financial challenges. He doesn't need his "first 100 days" in office to meet and greet the staff, and he doesn't need to convene a "summit" to study the city's budget. He's been sitting on the City Council and Finance Committee for many years. Burlington needs its new mayor to hit the ground running.

Look past labels and ideology because at the moment, Kevin Curley seems the most qualified and experienced person running for the job.

ERICA SPIEGEL
Burlington

One of my neighbors said the other day that she went to the last debate and thought Curley was the best, but the fact that he's a Republican scares her because she hates Bush so much. I almost had to laugh. I told her that I used to be the GOP City Chair and I know for a fact that Kevin is not in the pocket of the Republican party. It will be a tough sell, though. She once told me that I am personally responsible for the war in Iraq. Oh, well, maybe she'll rank him second or third.

Neighborhood schools

Okay, I just had to post this because it is so funny…

I was giving my husband the run down of how he should vote on Tuesday – just kidding – I was going over what would be on the ballot and giving him the low-down on the issues and I was using the Clavelle website as a reference, since I had just posted it here (see preceding post).

When I got to this:

7. NEIGHBORHOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS: Shall the Burlington School District be advised to continue to maintain its current configuration of six neighborhood elementary schools? We have worked hard to create community schools in Burlington. We cannot retreat from that commitment. We need to make certain that all of Burlington's kids receive a quality education. By doing so, we will attract more families to Burlington neighborhoods and make our public schools the preferred choice.

He said, “Attract more families? If that’s the case, then why is enrollment dropping? They already have the neighborhood schools, so why aren’t they attracting more families now?? What a load of BS!”

It’s so true. This is probably funnier to me because I know him. He’s not very into politics, so I think it is a riot when he rips on politicians. I guess you had to be there.

We are really negative about the public schools these days. We took our two boys out at the beginning of this year and I have been homeschooling them. From our perspective, the schools were a huge disappointment. There were some great staff people there, but over all, public education stinks. And even though we have to come up with the extra $600+ a year for homeschooling supplies, our rent is still going up due to increased property taxes to pay for a system that failed our children. It is frustrating. Especially since the fix would involve a huge paradigm shift that probably isn’t ever coming.

Okay, now this has digressed into an anti-public school rant. It’s way past my bedtime. ‘Night.

Not that we care...

I can't imagine that anyone will be basing their votes on the advice Peter Clavelle gives them, but for what it's worth, check out Mayor Clavelle's take on the ballot issues.

http://www.ci.burlington.vt.us/mayor/

Local option sales tax on the ballot again

I decided to move on and talk about the ballot items we will be voting on Tuesday.
I already have an entry about the fluoride question (click here).

Once again we get to vote on whether or not Burlington should have 1% local option sales tax. Didn’t we already say, “No” to that same question last year?

I guess the Mayor decided to take a page out of the school board’s playbook - if at first a tax doesn’t pass, try, try again, but this time threaten to cut something they really want.

According to the Mayor, the City will have to cut vital city services, like police and fire, if this tax doesn’t pass. Other threats..er, recommendations are: cut library hours, cut snow plowing, and cut parks and recreation programs.

First let me say, now we all know why Clavelle isn’t running again. The guy is so inept that he has no other solution other than bringing back the same sales tax that failed last year.

Second, in 2004, we, the voters of Burlington, approved a 4-cent tax specifically “to maintain services in Police, Fire, Library, Public Works, and Parks and Recreation.” (That is a quote from one of the Mayor’s Friday letters (6/4/2004), click here to read.)

Let me explain this. That dedicated tax was not revenue neutral when we had the reappraisal. That means what was previously a 4-cent tax levied on the grand list value of $18,997,012 is now a 4-cent tax levied against a grand list value of $36,068,069. In other words, this year the city received a windfall from that 4-cent tax because of the reappraisal.

First, we were told to pass the tax because it was for police, fire, library, and parks and recreation. We passed it because we value those things. And now, two years later, we are told that if we do not pass this new tax, we will experience cuts to these things despite the fact that the City is now receiving almost double the amount it did last year from that dedicated tax.

If you are not completely outraged, go back and re-read that. We have been completely screwed by Peter Clavelle and our City Council. Like I said before, now we all know why Clavelle is not running again.

I say we do not pass this tax. I say we do not allow ourselves to be bullied into saying yes when we already said no. There are other things to cut and hopefully we will elect a new mayor who is willing to make the right cuts.

The tax is a bad idea. Burlington is losing ground as the best place to shop. We should continue to have as many enticements for shopper as we can.

The argument has been made that other communities will adopt the tax, too, and it will not be a disadvantage to us. Well, let other communities do it, and then we will have an advantage over them. Isn’t that what we want – to bring people here to shop?

If you think the tax is a good idea then vote for it, but don’t vote for it just because you are being bullied into it by a washed-up mayor, who's out of fresh ideas.

The Jogbra view of Hinda

The Free Press interviewed two former Jogbra colleagues of Hinda Miller's, co-founder Lisa Lindahl and Jan Kimbrell, who was national sales manager for Jogbra and worked with Miller for 17 years.

They did not have good things to say about Hinda and both said they would not vote for her if they lived in Burlington.

There are a lot of people in Burlington singing Hinda's praises, but one must give pause when the people who worked so closely with her have such strong negative opinions of her.

Excerpt from the Burlington Free Press story on Hinda Miller today, by John Briggs
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=MILLER

[…]

The co-founder of Jogbra, Lisa Lindahl, had a different experience with Miller.Lindahl spoke reluctantly of her 15 years working side-by-side with Miller, but said that if she lived in Burlington rather than Colchester, she would not vote for her former partner. She spoke, she said, to avoid being complicit in an illusion.Miller, as mayor, would have the ability to present a picture, or tell people what they want to hear, Lindahl said, but does she have the chops to do the city, given the needs? ... The short answer is, I don’t think so.She criticized Miller both on grounds of her business acumen and on grounds of character.

The company was founded in 1977, and Lindahl became president. She said that as the company began to grow, she issued equal shares to designer Polly Smith, who created the first Jogbra prototype, and to Miller.Lindahl said Miller betrayed her trust by later secretly acquiring Smiths shares to become the majority shareholder. She said I’d have to do what she said. Smith describes it this way: Stupidly I did sell her 80 percent of my shares, without calling Lisa. It was just horrible ever after that. Because (Jogbra) was Lisa’s idea. Hinda had always been a bystander in the company. Miller, presented with Lindahl and Smiths description of her purchase of the shares, declined comment.

Another former Jogbra colleague, Jan Kimbrell, spoke of Miller from her home in California. Kimbrell, who was national sales manager for Jogbra, worked with Miller for 17 years. She said a visitor from Vermont recently asked her opinion of Miller and asked whether she would recommend her for mayor.I told that person directly and emphatically, No, she said. Burlington is a wonderful town. It seems to need a stronger personality with stronger credentials, rather than the legend in your own mind. Kimbrell described Miller as insensitive and calculating, and added, She has a chameleon style. Shes a very bright woman. She can read situations and adapt. Is it necessary to have sincerity behind that to be effective? In politics, I don’t know. I think she’s sincere about her aspirations.Often we worked around her rather than with her, she added. She made things personal to the detriment of good business decisions.Informed of Lindahl’s and Kimbrell’s remarks, Miller said, I am not going to get into this. I am not going to talk about what people said about me 20 years ago. I respect Lisa for the work we did together at Jogbra. We had an extremely difficult partnership, but together we ran a very successful business. And anyone who has been in an intense business relationship for 14 years understands that you don’t always come out friends.

Free Press story on Miller

The Burlington Free Press ran the candidate profile on Hinda Miller today - yikes! It was not too flattering. I was going to link it, but for some reason the on-line version is having problems.

Here's the front page link, anyway. It's the top story. Maybe it will work soon.
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage

I will try to update later with more on the story. Right now, I am dealing with a migraine and a sick husband and kids.

Basically, her past business partners had very unflattering things to say about her. It seems there is much more to candidate Miller than meets the eye.

Lately, I have been thinking about some of the conversations here about her, as well as the things I said in yesterday's post, and I do not think my conscience will allow me to vote for her in second place. After reading the Free Press article, I am sure of it.

See, folks, this is why it pays to wait until you have heard the entire campaign before you make up your mind. That is why I hate the fact that so many people vote absentee ballot very early on in the race. The juicy stuff never comes out until the final stretch.

More later...

Mayoral Focus

In what has to be the most shocking development in Burlington politics ever, this morning, The Burlington Free Press endorsed Hinda Miller for mayor. Yes, folks, that was sarcasm.

You can read the endorsement for yourself at the Free Press website, by clicking here.

The Free Press endorsement highlights exactly what is wrong with the thinking at that paper’s editorial board, which makes the endorsements and determines other editorial stances on issues.

“Republican Curley deserves credit for forcing the candidates to focus on the need to control city spending. Progressive Kiss made sure Burlington's most vulnerable citizens, including the homeless and low-income, weren't left out of the discussion.”

In the end, they chose Hinda because these things – controlling spending and helping the poor – are not as important as what Hinda brings to the table. “She's a strong proponent for what is right about this city, including supporting the arts and culture.” And of course we all know that “the next mayor must be a cheerleader for everything wonderful about Burlington.”

Each candidate has addressed all three of these areas to some extent and the Free Press did highlight her credentials in those other two areas.

In the area of fiscal restraint, they claim that “Miller's four years as Chittenden County state senator, serving on the powerful Appropriations Committee, have provided lessons in squeezing public spending into a tight public budget.”

Wait, is that the same “tight public budget” that needs a new 6-cent gas tax to help fund a shortfall? Is that the same “tight public budget” that appropriated money last year to extend the already strapped public education budget to cover two more grades (pre-school)? I would not want that on my resume as an example of my ability to control spending. And where are the examples of how she worked to tighten the budget? Surely she has accomplishments in that area to brag about, no?

In the area of caring for the needy, they list “Miller was a founding board member of the Child Care Fund of Vermont, taught yoga to female inmates in Vermont's prisons, and fought for legislation providing unemployment insurance to battered women.”

I don’t mean to discount her obvious commitment to women’s issues, but what does she plan to do for the homeless, give free yoga lessons at COTS? I do not see how any of these things really demonstrate her understanding of the struggles of our city’s poorest residents.

So there you have it folks. The Free Press has summed up each of the candidates for their strong points: Kevin Curley will focus on fixing the budget problems; Bob Kiss will focus on the needs of the poor; and Hinda Miller will be a cheerleader for arts and culture.

They made their choice about what is most important – what’s yours?