Everybody's gassing about gas prices

This morning, I stepped out my door to pick up the Free Press and the screaming front page headline - in larger than normal font - read, “Congress attacks $3 gas.”

Okay, this is it. I cannot believe the ridiculous depths to which this issue has rapidly plummeted. The Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to allow the Justice Department to prosecute OPEC member nations for price fixing. Someone please stop the insanity!

First, of all, I am opposed to the government doing ANYTHING to try to fix this “problem.” Understand this: the government does not fix problems, it only makes them worse.

The Democrats suggested suspending the federal gas tax for two months. Sounds good, but unless they plan to cut spending, too, we the people will just have to make up the money some other way.

The Republicans suggested sending everyone $100 checks, which sounds nice, but would cost too much to administer. The Republicans also support a price-gouging law. The Republicans!?! What is this world coming to? I think all Republicans should be required to attend a two-day economics seminar with Thomas Sowell before they can vote on any more legislation of any kind.

Back to the paper, next to the headline, there was, of course, a graphic of the Exxon Mobil quarterly profits. I have had it with the “blame the evil oil companies” game. Oil prices are set on the international market. Gas prices – like the prices for any product in a free economy – are only as high as the consumer market will bear. It’s supply and demand. There is a rapidly growing demand for oil products, but the supply is not keeping pace. That is why the prices are climbing.

The truth about Exxon Mobile’s profits is that they are not obscene. In 2005, they only made 9.7 cents on the dollar.

My grandfather owned a small store called Kelley’s Bargain Outlet, in a small town in VT that sold seconds wall paper from a supplier in Canada and random stuff my grandfather bought at close-out auctions.

When they had good years, they would do around $250,000 in sales, sometimes more. Would you call $24,250 profit obscene for a mom and pop operation like that? That’s what Exxon Mobile’s profit would be if they had only $250,000 in sales.

People keep yelping about record profits. Well, if you have record sales, you will have record profits. You can’t not have record profits when you have record sales. The consumption of gas is rising every year, and so it would follow that the profits will rise. That is how it works.

Is it obscene that Exxon Mobil paid $84 billion in taxes and duties to governments last year? That’s a heck of a lot more than their measly $8.4 billion first quarter profits for ’06. And now congress wants to raise taxes on the oil companies. Someone please explain to me how that will lower gas prices.

The problem is supply. When demand outpaces supply, prices go up. The company is now investing more of their obscene profits into new production. They are increasing their investment in capital and exploration projects by 41% over 2005; that's $4.8 billion. That is a good thing. Hopefully, it will lead to a supply and demand balance and prices will level off.

In the mean time, the government needs to stop trying to tinker with the free market and get off the blame-the-evil-oil-companies bandwagon. As for the rest of us, read some Thomas Sowell to learn more about the economics of gas prices, I’m sure he has plenty of columns on this topic, and visit Tirade Parade for some tips on how to save gas money.

Kiss on Channel 17

Last evening, Mayor Kiss had his first monthly call-in show on Channel 17. I planned to watch it, but some how I managed to miss it. You can listen to the podcast here. I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet, but I will post my comments when I do.

Peter Freyne also devoted much of his weekly Seven Days column to the new mayor. You can read that here.

Free Baby Stuff

Update: No one took me up on this offer, so I donated the stuff to the Lund Family Center in August.

Does anyone know of someone who is having a baby and does not have the money for baby stuff? I have a stroller/carrier/carseat combo in Winnie the Pooh, a high-chair (also in Pooh), a tub, a bike seat, a pre-natal yoga tape, a diaper genie, and some clothes that I would like to give to a woman in need.

I remember when I had my first baby and I was totally broke. I could barely afford food, let alone baby stuff. I would love to help out someone in that situation.

If you know someone, e-mail me at charitytensel@yahoo.com.

And if anyone has used baby stuff, you can post your info here. Maybe we could start a group that redistributes used baby stuff to needy mamas. That would be cool.

Equal Pay Day

This morning, I read a letter to the editor in the paper that it is “Equal Pay Day” today. Since women supposedly earn 77% of what a man earns, a woman has to work until April 25 to make as much as a man did in 2005.

I have always known that the whole wage gap thing was a bunch of malarkey. It is a total no-brainer that men on the whole would earn more than women because women often delay or interrupt their careers to take care of their kids. Not only that, but women do not typically need to define themselves by how high up the corporate ladder they can climb – the way men so often do – so, they are free to pursue careers that they love that pay less – such as childcare and social work.

I simply do not believe that it is in any way common for a woman to be paid less than a man for performing the same job, at the same level, with the same experience and education. I just do not believe it.

My first job out of college, I worked my tail off, always asked for extra work when I was finished, and took the time to learn all of the aspects to the project I was on. As a result, I ended up getting a big merit-based raise (which I know is not always how it works). I was making more than every man I worked with. (Of course, it helped that my woman boss was pushing hard for my raise, but she did have to convince her male boss to sign off on it.)

I know that one anecdote does not mean that gender discrimination never happens, but there are other reasons that I don’t buy it. For one, it makes very bad business sense. There are lots of women who are very good at what they do. It would be foolish for any company to risk losing valuable female employees due to discriminatory compensation practices.

So, why are there more men than women in the top jobs? Back to my own anecdotal explanation, I decided after a while of being in the working world that climbing the corporate ladder was not how I wanted to spend my life. I decided that I would rather make less in order to have more time to spend with my kids. I’m not only talking about fewer working hours, but also having a less stressful job, so I could leave work at the office, instead of bringing the problems home with me, as I did in that first job.

Now, I am out of the work force completely. When I do go back to work, probably not for many more years, I will not be in a position to make very much money. I’m okay with that and so should other women who make personal choices to put family above finance.

There will always be women like me and because of that, there will always be a gender wage gap.

Addendum: There was a column on Town Hall today called "The feminist complaint festival," written by Carrie Lukas about this same subject. She added some other factors that explain why women make less than men. She also mentions a book called, Why Men Earn More, by Warren Farrell, which talks about choices that factor into how much one earns.

Consumer-Driven Healthcare

Last Friday on “She’s Right” my guest was former State Representative Frank Mazur of South Burlington. You can listen to the podcast here.

The topic was affordability. Frank outlined five areas affecting affordability from Governor Douglas’ State of the State Address.

They are:

Containing/lowering health insurance costs
Keeping property taxes down
Making housing more affordable
Funding higher education
Creating more good paying jobs

We touched upon a few things, but we focused our discussion on property taxes and Frank discussed some of the things that we could do to lower property taxes. It all boils down to containing education spending.

I was disappointed that we didn’t have more time. The half-hour went by quickly.

We skipped over the healthcare cost issue because Frank had been on channel 17 the Friday before on "Ideas Have Consequences" discussing that issue. You can listed to that broadcast here.

Frank also has a really interesting piece on his website, www.frankmazur.com, about consumer-driven healthcare, which is a move away from excessive government regulation toward a free-market healthcare system.

Take a read. I would be interested in all your thoughts on that.

consumer freedom is overrated anyway

Ever wonder what our citizen legislature is up to under the golden dome? Why, they are looking for ways to make Vermont more expensive to live in, of course!

The latest offender is a bill that will mandate that only “energy efficient” appliances can be sold in Vermont.

You can read all the gory details in the Free Press here.

According to the article, “Some appliances will be more expensive because they have to meet stricter standards, some of the bill's backers acknowledged.”

But, they don’t really care as long as they are fulfilling their liberal obligation to make it look like they are doing something important, while in fact they are really just trying to break Vermont into that number one spot as the most expensive and business unfriendly state in the union.

Great job, guys! That's what we keep electing you for.

Among the types of appliances covered under the bill are furnaces, transformers, power supply cords like those used to recharge cell phones, and some types of floor lamps. The Department of Public Service will be charged with setting the efficiency standards. They can also add appliances that are in any of the categories listed in the bill. And of course, the legislature can always pass more legislation to add new categories.

I think it goes without saying that I dislike this legislation because I am an evil conservative, who hates the environment, but another reason to dislike this legislation is because it is another example of the government taking away our freedom as consumers and as business owners.

What I don’t understand is how, in a state full of liberals, we don’t already have an overwhelming voluntary compliance with the policy of purchasing energy efficient appliances. Maybe the legislature should call for a summer study committee to look into that.

On the bright side, VPIRG likes the bill, as does “Republican” Chittenden County Senator Diane Snelling.

Phew! That makes me feel better!

Says the VPIRG environmental advocate, “"If this goes into effect, it would generate enough in energy savings to equal the output of 26 wind turbines.”

Twenty-six fewer wind turbines needed? Maybe there is a bright side to this legislation after all.

Campaigning to lose jobs

What do Burlington, Vermont and Charlottesville, Virginia have in common?

Both the University of Vermont and the University of Virginia had a tent city on the green full of students “fighting” for a livable wage for university employees. Both schools ordered the tents to be removed. Both groups of students, though well-meaning, seem to lack an elementary understanding of economics.

There is an interesting article, Campaigning to lose jobs, written by a U. Va. visiting Economics Professor in The Cavalier Daily, explaining how instituting a livable wage could actually hurt the lowest skilled workers and proposing a better way for students who care to offer their assistance to these workers.

I saw this post about it on another blog and thought, wow - it really is a small world after all.

Reminder: She's Right tomorrow evening

Don't forget to watch "She's Right" tomorrow live @ 5:25 and call in with your questions for former State Representative Frank Mazur.

Frank was on Ideas Have Consequences on channel 17 last week with host Mike Quaid, another former State Representative. He talked about the high cost of health insurance. You can listen to the podcast here.

In case I haven't mentioned it lately, channel 17 is an awesome way to keep informed about local government and political issues that affect you. Check out the channel 17 website here, the program schedule here, and the podcast archive of all live @ 5:25 shows here.

If you think mainstream media coverage stinks, channel 17 is for you. (And I'm not just saying that because I have a show!)

Satirical Political Beliefs Assessment Test

On a lighthearted note, I found this “SATIRICAL POLITICAL BELIEFS ASSESSMENT TEST.”

It is pretty humorous. There are 179 questions and the answer that you would hear from an archconservative, a leftwing wacko, an antigovernment libertine, and a commie sympathizer.

From the “quiz”:

What follows are not official party positions. Rather, this is an inquiry into your personal beliefs to determine where you fall in the political spectrum.

Key to abbreviations in test questions that follow:

CONS: Conservative (Archconservative)

LIBL: Liberal (Leftwing Wacko)

LBRT: Libertarian (Antigovernment Libertine)

COMM: Communist (Commie Sympathizer)

I bookmarked it and have been reading it over the last several days. Some parts are hysterical, others just so-so.

Here is a sample:

1: Government's practice of stealing from the rich to give to the poor
is...

CONS: a crime.

LIBL: a brave, generous and heroic deed.

LBRT: a foolish, misguided attempt at social engineering.

COMM: an inspiration to us all.

5: What is your favorite quotation?

CONS: "The entire graduated income tax system structure was created by Karl Marx," by Ronald Reagan.

LIBL: "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization," by Oliver Wendell Holmes.

LBRT: "In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to another," by Voltaire.

COMM: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," by Karl Marx.

16: A cup with that only contains half a cup of water is...

CONS: half full.

LIBL: half empty.

LBRT: an example of shortages caused by government control of our water supply.

COMM: an example of inequitable wealth distribution caused by the inherent social injustice in free enterprise.

And one of my favorites because it reminds me of the first time my kids played in a team sport where they didn’t keep score:

32: What is the meanest most low-down thing a person can do during a kid's soccer game?

CONS: Cheat.

LIBL: Keep score.

LBRT: Play the game in a municipal park.

COMM: Hog all the glory by not being a team player.

So, check it out sometime when you are looking for a serious time waster.

On a related note: it was interesting to me to see just how many times I agreed more with the libertarian answer. I still consider myself a conservative, though.

Thoughts on the US Senate Race

I was driving out to Sam Mazza’s yesterday to see if they had any strawberry plants in yet and I passed a "Tarrant for Senate" lawn sign. That got me thinking about the whole Tarrant vs. Sanders race.

Two things came up. First, it’s funny how the Sanders supporters are constantly criticizing Tarrant for spending his own money, but the same people are all over Martha Rainville for taking donations. You can’t win with these people. They won’t be happy unless the GOP candidate has no money at all and they can just skate into office unchallenged. Real champions of democracy, these folks are.

Sanders takes the majority of his money from out-of-state. He also has special interest groups and the Democratic Party establishment financially backing him.

Tarrant, on the other hand, is not taking any money from out-of-state, special interest groups, or the Republican Party, from what I have read.

It does not sound like a bad thing that Tarrant is using his own money. At least we know he won’t need to compromise his principles for the people who financially backed him.

The other thing I was thinking about is how this race really is one of the few races I have seen in a while where you can really differentiate the positions of the candidates. There seems to be no need to squabble over irrelevant things when the candidates present clearly diametrically opposed philosophies.

Tarrant is a self-made business man. Sanders is an anti-corporation zealot, who has made his money as a career politician. You can’t get any more opposite than that. Tarrant is a proponent of the private sector; Sanders a champion of socialism. I challenge anyone to find a problem they would solve the same way.

There is really no need for either camp to go on about things that have nothing to do with each man’s views on the role of government or the policies they would support. They are doing a disservice to the voters to keep the focus on other things that bear no impact on what kind of senator either man would make.

I would love to see this be a campaign about the issues and political philosophies of each candidate and let the voters choose which one they like better.

Presidential Aide for a Day

I was just reading an AP story about Bush’s new Chief of Staff, Joshua Bolten. It talks about his task of putting together a new team for the President.

One of the jobs that are already open is domestic policy advisor. I am not exactly sure what a domestic policy advisor does, but if I had to guess I would say that person advises the president on domestic policy.

If you were the president’s domestic policy advisor, what would you suggest the president set as his domestic policy goals?

What, if anything, do you think the president can do domestically to turn around his abysmal approval ratings?


**Here is the link to the story I was reading. I have to note that it is kind of poorly written. Unless I am totally blind and missed it, the article does not name Bolten by his first name. It just jumps right in to calling him Bolten. Weird.

FYI

From the Burlington Free Press today:

The Burlington City Council has scheduled a public hearing for tonight on its spending plan for more than $1.4 million in federal development and housing funds.

Members of the public can address the council about community needs and about the spending recommendations for the 2006 Community Development Block Grant.

In other business, the council will take up a resolution authorizing the construction of a pocket park at the intersection of Riverside and North Winooski avenues, at an approximate cost of $178,000.

The city's Board of Finance meets at 4:30 p.m. today in Conference Room 12 at City Hall. The council will meet in a workshop on council priorities from 5:30 to 6:30 p.m., also in Conference Room 12. The council meeting begins at 7 p.m. in Contois Auditorium at City Hall.

You can read the City Council agenda at the city website here.

It seems like if they really wanted public input at tonight's hearing, they would have publicized it a little better, but what do I know?

So, what do you all think about the "pocket park"? Has anyone ever heard about this?

Wouldn't it be great if this kind of stuff was in the paper before the meeting day? Then maybe the citizens of Burlington could - oh, I don't know - voice their opinions about it. I don't know if it is the fault of the city or the paper, but someone ought to work on informing the public a little better. It would be great to have more public discussion.

Wasn't that a mayoral debate issue - making city government more accessible to the people? I know that Kiss just got in, but I wonder if he's going to work on this before or after he solves the healthcare crisis.

"She's Right" on Channel 17

She's Right, the channel 17 show, is on this Friday, live @ 5:25. My guest will be former State Representative Frank Mazur. I am really looking forward to it.

I am so not able to get into talking about politics today. Maybe it is because I am exhausted from a busy holiday weekend. Maybe it is because I had the awesome experience of attending an Easter service with over 2,000 other people all gathered together to worship Jesus Christ and I just don't feel like politics matters in the grand scheme of things. I can't say. Either way, I am sure I will feel like talking about politics again sometime soon. It really is one of my favorite pastimes - even if it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

Feel free to argue with each other in the comments field.

A Progressive Mandate?

Now that Mayor Kiss is starting to outline his agenda, many fiscal conservatives are beginning to wonder what the Kiss administration will hold for Burlington's financial future. Will he be able to solve our budget woes, as he suggested during the campaign, or will he further increase them in an attempt to fund the Progressives' socialist agenda?

There’s a commentary on the Burlington GOP homepage by a Republican voter, who helped elect Kiss with his second-place vote, attempting to clarify why so many Republicans gave their second-place vote to Kiss.

Kiss should not misinterpret the support he received from the Curley supporters that we embrace his ideological agenda. Let me be emphatic on two points. WE DON’T’ AGREE WITH YOUR IDEOLOGICAL AGENDA AND WE DID NOT AUTOMATICALLY BECOME PROGRESSIVES!!!! He said he managed an entity with a large budget. Therefore, we would expect that he would use his management skills to begin to manage the fiscal problems in Burlington, not add to them! Again, if you didn’t hear it loud enough during your race for Mayor, let me state it again. WE ARE TAXED ENOUGH!!!!! Let me remind you. You resigned from the Vermont State Legislature. You are now the Mayor of Burlington. Please act and manage accordingly!!

This topic was also discussed by City GOP Chair Fred Osier and newly elected City Councilor Paul Decelles on the Burlington GOP live @ 5:25 show on channel 17 last evening. You can listen to the podcast here.

An interesting question was raised on that program: Would voters have still voted for Kiss if he had mentioned that universal healthcare was part of his mayoral agenda?

You can look at the mayoral race results. If the GOP vote went to Miller, she would have won. Kiss only won by 775 votes. Kevin Curley had 2609.

On the show, Osier said he was convinced to give his second-place vote to Kiss by one of his supporters. I had that same experience.

It is way too soon to tell what kind of mayor Bob Kiss will be, but if he continues on with the priorities that he laid out thus far, I will have to say that the Progs did a great job of working us over. Those are not the same priorities we were voting for.

Note: Mayor Kiss’ speech before the Burlington Business Association (blogged about here) will air on Channel 17 Friday 4/14 @ 4:17 PM.

Afternoon blog reading

As I was doing my afternoon blog reading, I found a couple of things I wanted to share with yous guys.

Vermont Hum is a fun site that has little blurbs of news and commentary. And a Five Corners Update of what the blogger was able to accomplish while waiting in traffic at the five corners each day.

The Vermont Daily Briefing has an interview with Republican Congressional Candidate Mark Shepard. (What? There's someone challenging Martha Rainville in the primary? But the paper never mentions that!)

And Tirade Parade had a really interesting adventure at the post office. Luckily, Spiderman saved the day.

Funding government healthcare

Yesterday, the Vermont Senate Finance committee struggled to figure out how to pay for the Senate’s plan to expand government subsidized health insurance. You can read the BFP coverage of it here.

They decided employers would be assessed a fee for all workers who aren't provided health insurance -- whether they are full-time or part-time. Employers must contribute something toward the cost of the insurance to qualify as providing coverage. The assessment would be $365 a year for each full-time equivalent slot, with three slots exempted from the charge. The assessment would increase by an inflation factor.

With a hole still remaining, they debated adding a tax to carbonated beverages, but rejected the plan because they had not taken testimony about the impact of such a tax.

They finally decided to raise the cigarette tax by 60 cents in the fall and 20 more cents in 2009.

The governor does not approve of the Senate health plan in its current form. It is unlikely to pass this year.

You know, I wish that the state would put the question to a state-wide referendum this fall. I know that we don’t have state-wide referendums, but the legislature could change that. The closest thing we have had was when Clavelle ran for governor on that issue and lost. His loss (and that of the Democratic Lt. Gov. candidate, who also ran on the healthcare issue) should have been a clear message, but the Democrats, who gained seats in the legislature, read their wins as a “yes” vote for a government healthcare plan.

A referendum would give a clear message to all government officials.

Now that people have had a chance to see some of the proposed plans and taxes, they should have a chance to weigh in.

Al Franken the action figure

My two-and-a-half-year-old son has these preschool action figures of Spiderman and Doc Ock (or Octor Doctopus, as he calls it). My husband hates playing Doc Ock because...well, see for yourself.

More Americans Frustrated With Politics

I thought this was interesting. It's a story about how most people are growing tired of partisan bickering. It talks about the potential for a strong third-party candidate to emerge victorious.

This is not the first time there has been a story about this being good timing for a viable third-party candidate. Cal Thomas had a column on Town Hall a short while ago saying just that, in response to the outrageous government spending.

More Americans Frustrated With Politics

Wednesday, April 12, 2006 1:53 AM EDT

The Associated Press

By RON FOURNIER

WASHINGTON (AP) — Robert Hirsch wonders where all the statesmen have gone. Ed Laliberte wishes politicians would stop bickering and start fixing the nation's ills. Diane Heller says everybody in Washington is corrupt or out of touch.

"I don't see any great leaders on the horizon," says Heller, a Pleasant Valley, N.Y., real estate broker.

These voters are not alone. More and more, Americans are frustrated with politics as usual in Washington, where incompetence, arrogance, corruption and mindless partisanship seem the norm rather than the exception — a pox on both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Analysts say the public may be getting angry enough to give the U.S. political system a jolt, one way or another.

Voters could toss Republicans from power in Congress this fall, or turn the White House over to Democrats in 2008.

Maverick reform-minded Democrats and Republicans might shake up their parties.

Or perhaps voter unrest will fuel a credible third-party presidential campaign.

"There is certainly a lot of anti-incumbency out there and neither of these parties is doing swimmingly well," said independent pollster Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center.

His surveys suggest a throw-the-bums-out mentality is on the upswing, especially among independent voters.

"If they stop fighting and bickering and put the American people's interests in front of where they should be, they could cure a whole lot of problems," said retiree Laliberte, an independent voter in Bangor, Maine.

Nearly half of independents say the Democratic and Republican parties are equally corrupt. An AP-Ipsos poll in December found nearly 90 percent of all voters believes political corruption is a serious problem.

"I don't see either party doing anything advantageous for the population," said real estate broker Heller, a conservative Democrat. "I think the country is getting fed up. Big business is controlling everything."

President Bush's approval rating is at the lowest point of his presidency, and the public gives even lower marks to Congress. Republican and Democratic congressional leaders are held in equally low esteem.

"I'm not happy with either party on national security," said Hirsch, a Republican-leaning businessman from Chicago. "We have a lot of politicians but not a lot of statesmen."

While polls suggest more voters want Democrats to control Congress than Republicans, the Democratic Party's approval rating is no better than Bush's. A George Washington University Battleground 2006 survey in February found that 84 percent of likely voters believe lawmakers in Washington put partisan politics above all else.

Nearly 70 percent of the public believes the country is on the wrong track, a level of pessimism that rivals the nation's sentiment in 1992, when Bush's father was defeated for re-election, and 1994, when Democrats lost control of Congress.

"The mood is sour," said Republican strategist Rich Bond.

"If some larger-than-life personality — let's say Colin Powell — decided he wanted to launch a third-party candidacy for some office, I think he'd be an impact player," Bond said. "But he's not running."

Bond said the third-party candidacies of Ross Perot in 1992 and Ralph Nader in 2000 and 2004 made it easier for future mavericks to gain ballot access. The organizing and fundraising power of the Internet also lowers barriers to third-party
bids.

Still, it would take a special candidate. "You really have to have the proper mix of gravitas and quirkiness," Bond said.

Who might that be?

—Sen. John McCain has the "credibility and stature" to make a third-party run, Kohut said. But the Arizona lawmaker insists he would run as a Republican, a self-styled reformer promising to change politics as usual. Some wonder whether McCain would bolt the GOP if denied the nomination. Not Bond. "He's not the take-my-ball-and-go-home type," Bond said.

—Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani also could cast himself as a straight-talking, battle-tested leader, the type of politician who will be in vogue in 2008, analysts said. Whether that would help him win the GOP nomination as a moderate is open to question, as is his potential as a third-party candidate.

—New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg could launch an independent presidential bid. The ambitious billionaire is raising his national profile as friends and associates privately muse about his potential as an outside-the-mainstream candidate.

Asked recently whether he wanted to be president, Bloomberg replied, "Which letter of the word `No' do you not understand?"

These and other politicians don't necessarily need to leave their party to take advantage of the public's sulky mood.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., is exploiting voter unrest inside the Democratic Party. His call to censure Bush has won favor with frustrated anti-war liberals who believe party leaders kowtowed to the White House on Iraq.

Still, Republican consultant Ken Duberstein said voters may be angry enough to support a third-party bid. GOP pollster Bill McInturff said a third-party candidacy depends on who Republicans and Democrats nominate in 2008.

If the prizes go to polarizing figures such as Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Newt Gingrich, the pollster said, "the gap in the middle would be pretty profound."

Comments? Predictions?

School Choice

Here is an interesting piece from the New Hampshire Union Leader that I found in the Vermont Education Report. VER is a free e-mail newsletter from Vermonter's for a Better Education. You can sign up to receive it or look at past issues at their website: http://www.schoolreport.com/.

Basically, it says that Vermont spends $2,268 more per pupil on education than New Hampshire, but the test scores of the two states are comparable. In other words, we keep throwing more and more money at the system without seeing better results.

What can we do about Vermont's out of control education spending and schools that do not measure up?

Vermonter's for a Better Education is an organization that supports school choice. You can read their Q & A about school choice here. School choice would force schools to be accountable for the quality of education they are providing, or lose students (and dollars) to better schools.

I happen to think school choice is a good idea. When my oldest son was about 4, I started looking at kindergartens. I lived in the Old North End at the time, and no offense to anyone who lives there, but I did not want my children to attend Lawrence Barnes School.

I was fortunate to find an affordable apartment in the South End, which is where the elementary school that I chose is located. I am sure that there are many parents who want to send their kids to another school, but are not as fortunate in their ability to move.

But school choice should not stop with public schools. In my situation, I knew from kindergarten on that the public schools were not going to work out for my kids. I looked at Mater Christi (even though we are not Catholic), which was very impressive, but there was no way that we could afford it, even with financial assistance. We would want to have all three kids in the same school.

This is not just about a school's academic excellence either. There are kids who do not fit well into the traditional school model, who would really prosper at an independent school.

A good quality education should not be something that is reserved for the elite. If a child has the ability to attend a better school, he should have that opportunity. It is very frustrating as a parent to have children who are not reaching their potential because they are not in the right school.

We should be doing better than that (especially for the money the tax-payers are spending). Parents should have the ability to ensure that their children receive the best education possible and children should be able to attend the school that will allow them to thrive.

April 10, 2006

Do you know what today is? It's the 100th day of the year. I thought that was neat. I don't know why. For some reason, people seem to be preoccupied with milestones. Like the fact that thirty years ago today, I was born. My husband stayed home from work and had a really nice party for me. That's why there's no new blog action today.

Get off the computer and enjoy the sunshine. I'll be back tomorrow.

One more post on the Mass. Health Insurance Plan

I feel that to put another post up about the Massachusetts health insurance bill would be like beating a dead horse, but this horse is very much alive. Liberals nation-wide are clamoring for universal health coverage and any pilot program put in place will have repercussions in every state, not the least of which is our own, where liberals near and dear to us are making plenty of their own noise.

Last night I came across this story, entitled “Mass. Health Care Plan Riles Some Liberals.” As it turns out, some liberal groups are upset over the individual mandate. They feel that it is “unconscionable” to require people to purchase insurance.

Wow, I thought. Have I slipped into some sort of alternate universe where the conservatives are confusing government mandates with personal accountability and the liberals are the ones who see government control as a bad thing?

No; as it turns out, the liberals see the individual mandate as unconscionable because they wanted the legislation to be a mandate on employers instead.

Question liberal readers: Why is it okay to force a person who owns a business and provides jobs to purchase something, but not okay to force an individual to purchase it for himself?

(The right answer is that it isn't okay in either case.)

Kiss speaks to BBA

This morning, our new Mayor Bob Kiss spoke at the monthly meeting of the Burlington Business Association. Jeremy Ryan has a great summary of the speech and the Q & A. Over at the Burlingtonian, his wife Heavenly gets out her odd-meter for her observations about the meeting.

A big She’s Right thanks to these two exceptional citizens for providing the public with this information.

Bloggin' 'bout Healthcare

I thought that since the topic of healthcare always seems to be a popular one, I would do a round-up of all the bloggers blogging about this new health insurance mandate in Massachusetts.

The idea came to me when I was checking my site statistics and saw that someone came to She’s Right by a Google blog search on the words “Massachusetts insurance mandate.” Seems that was a popular blog topic with 3,087 results returned.

Here are a few of the good ‘uns from both sides of the spectrum. Okay, they pretty much all hate it, but I did throw in a “progressive” blog that hates it, too.

Coyote Blog – The Massachusetts insurance fiasco

The Art of the Blog – MAss Population Increase Pending

The John Galt Line - Massachusetts Solves Healthcare Non-Crisis

Res ipsa loquitur - In loco parentis in Massachussetts

The Third Estate – Massachusetts pretends to fix healthcare

And don't forget, She's Right - Massachusetts makes health insurance mandatory

I’m not sure how much I will be on-line tomorrow, but there are some really great blogs in that “linkdump” you might want to check out.

And there is still a comments field here for Haik and anonymous to argue on.

Further evidence that this blogging thing is addictive. Here's another Burlington political blog.

B4Burlington

A closer look at the federal budget...

FreedomWorks, a group that is leading the fight for less government, lower taxes, and more freedom, has an on-line tool that allows you to look at the proposed 2007 Federal Budget.

Here is the site: http://www.freedomworks.org/budget/

This table reflects the President's requested $2.8 trillion budget for
fiscal year 2007, which starts in October 2006...

Sadly, these staggering numbers are simply budget authority-- they do not completely reflect the increasing practice of placing tens of billions of dollars in routine and predictable spending, like FEMA and military operations overseas, outside of normal budget accounting.

Even worse, this budget, as enormous as it is, is not enough. The Senate has already "busted" this proposed budget by adding more than $6 billion in new social spending, and some Capitol Hill observers doubt the President's budget will ever become law.

The site is really cool, but this out-of-control government spending is not! Here is your chance to see it up close. Unfortunately, you cannot get into the nitty-gritty details of what the money is being spent on.

Massachusetts makes health insurance mandatory

What do you do when an individual makes the choice to remain uninsured, yet has the resources to afford health insurance? Why, you assess a tax penalty, of course!

Massachusetts lawmakers passed a bill yesterday that will mandate health insurance for every resident. The very poor will receive "free" healthcare from the state/federal government. People who fall below 300% of the poverty level will receive subsidized plans with sliding-scale premiums. And people who can afford their own care, must do so or face tax penalties. Businesses that do not provide a plan for employees will be assessed a $295/employee yearly fine.

This bill passed with near-full, bi-partisan support and the Republican Governor (and 2008 Presidential hopeful) Mitt Romney is expected to sign it.

You can read the full story here at Bloomberg.com.

There is at least one good point to this legislation. The state is using private insurers to cover the low-income population instead of creating a bloated government bureaucracy. That is a great step toward utilizing the free-market.

The glaring problem with this legislation is, of course, the fact that the government is forcing people to comply or else face a financial penalty. This is the problem with declaring health insurance a "right," the government then feels that they have the right to force their policies on the people.

I do not agree that the government has the right to force free citizens to buy health insurance coverage for the sole purpose of obtaining a statistic that they arbitrarily deemed desirable.

They can't just say, "Massachusetts is the first state where everyone who wants health insurance has it"? Isn't that just as good? No, they need to say, "Massachusetts is the first state where every man, woman, and child has health insurance."

They can add to that, "Massachusetts is leading the charge toward full erosion of individual freedom."

Update: There is a great article in Business Week that gets into the details of the Massachusetts situation. Of the 500,000 uninsured, 40% are have a high enough income to afford insurance , but choose not to. Another 20% already qualify for medicaid, but are not signed up. That means at least 60% of the Massachusetts uninsured do not need this legislation to solve their insurance "problem".

(Wasn't I just saying the other day that I seriously question the number of uninsured that is used to justify universal coverage? I rest my case.)

Take Action Burlington

Owen Mulligan, one of the driving forces behind the efforts to get the fluoride out of our tap water, has formed a new group in Burlington aimed at increasing voter turn-out.

Take Action Burlington, or TAB, is a non-partisan, non-profit organization promoting citizen engagement in politics through voter education, registration, and participation.

As a voter outreach group, TAB organizes voter registration drives along with follow-up phone calls and emails to make sure new voters have all the information they need to vote. TAB also offers free rides to the polls and non-partisan information about the candidates and ballot questions.

The website looks like an excellent resource with links to all information a voter might need. It is one of the few places where I have seen all of the candidates for office listed.

(And I am not plugging TAB just because She’s Right was included in on their links page.)

Where is the party of limited government?

I was just looking at the Russmo comic archive and I came across this one. This is exactly what has been happening with the GOP in Washington - they are moving away from the conservative values of limited government that they were elected to uphold. It is frustrating for a conservative like me because the alternative is the Democrats and they will only be worse. No wonder voter turn-out is so low.

Notice the date of this comic is 12/04. It's gotten even worse since then.

(Russmo is a libertarian cartoonist. Visit www.russmo.com.)

Oh, how I love campaign season...

This whole brouhaha over Republican Congressional candidate Martha Rainville’s acceptance of a $2,000 donation from a Republican PAC (which received donations from *gasp* Republicans) is just a taste of how messy this years elections are going to be.

Yes, I know, the PAC also received money from “big” tobacco (would it be okay if the money came from small tobacco?), but the thrust of the criticism has gone something like this: DeLay (the bad, corrupt, evil Republican) gave money to the PAC. The PAC gave money to the Rainville campaign. Ergo, Martha Rainville is a bad, corrupt, evil Republican (or at least she will be one when she gets to Washington). So, don't vote for her.

So basically, the Democrats plan to run on the “Republicans are evil” platform. Good luck with that. It worked so well for Clavelle (when he ran against Gov. Douglas).

There will be a lot of that this year. The Democrats are desperate for power and the Republicans are equally desperate to hold on to that power. If you ask me, the whole lot of them should be run out of there. I think we should just start all over – no incumbents. (Yes, including Bernie Sanders.) It’s the only way we will be able to stop this insanity.

The problem is that now in order to be competitive, a candidate needs a boatload of money. An average everyday person could never run a successful campaign against any incumbent or any candidate heavily supported by a major party. They all have gigantic war chests full of money.

I can see why she would want to take the money. How soon we all forget the Barack Obama love-fest/fund raiser that Peter Welch (Rainville’s opponent) was a part of. There will be gobs of money pouring in from all corners of the country to try and win that seat for the Democrats, yet there will be screaming from the rooftops over every penny Martha Rainville receives from out-of-state GOP groups.

The State Democratic Party even has a petition asking her to give back the money. Let me get this straight, the Republican Candidate for Congress should take orders from the Democratic Party? Can someone explain that one to me? So is Peter Welch ready for State GOP Chair Jim Barnett’s list of demands? Talk about absurd!

Perhaps the funniest commentary on this issue comes from The Vermont Daily Briefing, which wins the Drama Queen (or King in this case) Award for this little gem. (This comment was originally written with regard to the prospect of a Progressive candidate entering the race and “splitting the vote.” It was repeated in this post about the Rainville donation.)

“Not this race, not now, not if it means throwing Bernie Sanders’s seat — of all the seats in all the aisles in all of the halls of Congress — to this particularly corrupt gang of Republicans. It would be like watching Gandalf relinquish his place on the Council of Elrond, only to have Saruman somehow slither into it.”

Hold on, folks, this is going to be a messy election year!

Burlington's new Mayor

Burlington now has a new Mayor. I will withhold judgment for the time being, even if the State of the City address gave me material for at least a few posts. I'll try to remain cautiously optimistic for the time being. You can read Mayor Kiss' State if the City speech from last night in its entirety on the Burlington Free Press website here.

Is blogging fair use?

I was reading PoliticsVT the other day and I noticed this:

We would also like to note that we will no longer be displaying material from the Burlington Free Press. The editors there, despite our citation, links and references did not appreciate our re-printing of material. We eventually realized that this was a copyright infraction and the two groups came to a decision that it would be best not to print any material from the Free Press, in the future. Which is totally fine, and we understand their concern. We will provide links to articles from the Free Press, however, we will not post any material. This will be our strategy for all our news stories for the future. It will save room and also headaches.

What do you think about that?

I am not sure if it really is a copyright violation because of the fair use doctrine, but I doubt there are too many bloggers that would dare risk the legal mess that could result if a media giant like Gannett, owner of the Free Press, decided to pursue that avenue. I, for one, could not afford to fight it out in court, even if it is fair use.

I hate to sound like a liberal, but this is the problem with corporate controlled media. They can just bully people around, knowing that small non-profit blog owners do not have the resources to compete with their legal teams. Don’t get me wrong; I do not want the government to control the media, but there is a downside to corporate media.

It is good for our democracy to have blogs where the news can be debated freely. They add a value that most newspapers do not provide. The newspapers should be the ones to profit from their hard work in reporting, but they should not stand in the way of bloggers referencing their material for comment, criticism, discussion, and debate.

Welcome back!

The long wait is over. BurlingtonPol.com has finally returned.