How much freedom will we give away for a dollar?

Er..make that 3.7 million dollars, I guess.

Two of my favorite Vermont bloggers share their perspectives on the primary enforcement seatbelt law being considered (i.e. they get to pull you over just for not having a seatbelt on).

Jeff Soyer weighs in at Alphecca.
As does Geoffrey Norman at Vermont Tiger.

Take a look.

President Wright

Jack over at Green Mountain Daily was wondering why the Burlington Dems elected Republican Kurt Wright as City Council President.

Well, let's ask them. Democrat Ed Adrian of ward 1 had this to say:

Adrian explained why he is voting for Wright in a message he posted on the Buell Street Neighborhood Forum. He said Wright, a state representative as well as councilor, has more experience than Ashe, would offer a balance to the Progressive administration of Mayor Bob Kiss, would be fair, would be unable, as one of just three Republicans on the council, to "stack" council committees, and, Adrian pointed out, Democrats, even with five of them on the council, don't have a candidate for president this year.

Jack makes the common mistake of assuming that the Democrats and Progressives are part of the same team. That might be true often on state issues and even more so on national issues, but the truth is, the Democrats, Republicans, and Progressives all have distinctly different visions for this city.

If the Democrats had elected a Progressive to lead the City Council, that would have given a notable advantage to the Progressive agenda.

City politics in Burlington is a strange beast. It gives new meaning to the phrase "politics makes strange bedfellows." There are no clear lines and most issues are decided by unexpected coalitions.

Electing Wright will not give any kind of advantage to the Republicans, who occupy only 3 out of 14 city council seats. It was a smart move, giving the Democrats more influence than electing Ashe would have.

What strikes me about this is the inability of state Democrats to get the city Dems to vote for Ashe. The Free Press report claims that they tried to do so. Obviously they failed.

That is not unlike the legislative experience of the Democratic leadership in Montpelier, which cannot seem to accomplish anything it set out to do, despite having a veto-proof majority in both chambers.

I have to wonder how a party with complete legislative control in the bluest state in the nation cannot seem to get anything done.

I have my own theory, but you are going to have to wait to hear it...

Legislative Stupidity Update (and Blog Note)

I should start a new feature called: Stupid Things the Vermont Legislature is Doing.

Entry one.

Sorry, I'm not going to quote it, you have to read the whole thing.

Blog note: I have been working on the big post about the environment (which might end up a two parter), but I am not going to be able to get it up today. I have the rarest of all opportunities to spend the whole day with my first born, 10-year-old son, D, I'll call him, alone, without his brothers. This has never happened before. So, I really can't justify working on a marathon blog post.

It is possible that he will ditch me around 3:00 when his friends get home from school, so check back in the late afternoon. Otherwise, it's going to be over the weekend.

I'll leave you with a funny story. Last night, I was working on my web portfolio because I want to get back into freelance writing. I went into the bedroom to get some newspaper clippings from the filing cabinet and my husband was in there, so I showed him one and said, "Hey, check her out." He replied, "Wow, you were really hot back then!"

Gee, thanks.

Yeah, guys, don't say something like that to your wife. It really creates a non-winnable situation for you.

Although, I guess I should have been flattered. It's not every day someone calls me hot. Even if he was referring to a four year old picture that I do not look like anymore.

Have a great day, folks!

"End of Life Choices" Bill Defeated and Other News

I actually read something in the paper this morning that I was not expecting:

In a vote that surprised people on both sides of the issue, the House on Wednesday defeated a bill that would have allowed doctors to help terminally ill patients hasten their deaths.

The 82-63 vote, which came after almost four hours of debate, ends the legislation's chances for the two-year session.

Voting yes, 55 Democrats; 4 Progressives; 2 Republicans; 2 Independents

Voting no, 46 Republicans; 35 Democrats; 1 Progressive

The full story is here. (If they move the link, it is in the top news today.)

In other news, six demonstrators were arrested protesting at Congressman Peter Welch's office. Recognize any of the names? Here's a hint: Snarky Boy was there, too.

Okay, I hate to say this, but it's back to bed for me. Trust me, I would rather be blogging, but I can't seem to stop the room from spinning.

Have a good one!

Education Spending and the Legislature

I'm sorry for the link posting, but I am yet again (what is this the tenth time this season?) battling a stinking cold.

Wondering what the legislature has done to fix education spending (and property taxes) this session - one of their campaign promises?

Vermont Tiger has the low down and it's not pretty.

As one of my callers said on Friday's She's Right, hopefully people will get mad enough when they get their property tax bills that they will finally want to hold someone accountable for this.

But, hey, at least the legislature held hearings on things they can do something about, like global warming and troop withdrawal from Iraq.

By the way, the podcast of Friday's show is up here.

Governor's Term: Two Years, or Four?

I was watching a debate on RETN last night, between former Governor Madeleine Kunin and UVM Professor Frank Bryan, regarding the state's two-year gubernatorial term.

Here is the show's description, from the RETN website:

Vermont is one of only two states that still have a two-year governor’s term. Is Vermont best served today by having statewide elected leaders who serve for only two years? Would governance in Vermont be better served by longer terms and fewer election cycles? Should legislators be elected to longer terms, as well? If terms are increased, how do we maintain a constitutional balance of power and serve Vermonters best? The Center for Research on Vermont and The Snelling Center for Government present this public discussion and debate between former Vermont Governor Madeleine Kunin and UVM Political Science Professor Frank Bryan on this important civic issue. It is anticipated that bills will be introduced in the upcoming legislative session that will call for a constitutional amendment to expand term lengths. Should such proposals be initiated? If so, what are the structural changes that should be made? This is the first of a series of activities that are planned to raise awareness and involve the public in this important deliberation about the future of the structure of Vermont state government.

The program re-airs:
3-10-2007 @ 12:00 am and 7:00 pm
3-11-2007 @ 2:00 pm

For another view, Sandy Baird did a commentary on Channel 17 on this topic, which you can listen to here.

Speaking of Channel 17, the She's Right show I did with guest Haik Bedrosian of BurlingtonPol.com will re-air this weekend:

Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 11:34 PM
Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 4:34 AM
Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 10:34 AM
Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 4:34 PM

Impeach, Imshmeach

The lefty VT political blogs (and newspapers) are all a twitter about the impeachment votes on Town Meeting Day. I can't blame them; I mean, this is a huge victory for them. They successfully proved that a majority of politically active Vermonters are opposed to the war. All those who questioned that can now stand down. All two of them.

So, can I ask the question that no one seems to be asking? Or maybe, that no one wants to ask? Is anything really going to come of this?

All three members of our congressional delegation have already said that they will not pursue impeachment, and further, that it would be an impediment to their actual focus of brining the troops home. Now there's a convenient excuse. By the way, how's that coming along?

Mark my words, nothing will come of this. But, you already knew that, didn't you?

Yeah, I know I could have broached this topic in a gentler manner, but I can be a real bitch when I'm sick. Just ask my husband.

Exit Voices

I know I mentioned this yesterday, but it bears repeating. Don't forget to visit Exit Voices and post your Town Meeting Day comments. The Open Thread stays at the top. Be sure to check under it for additional content from political bloggers around the state.

Sheehan Comes to Vermont

Earlier this week, the word on the street was that, according to this post on GMD, the State Senate "can't find someone willing to testify in support of the war."

Apparently, such confidence breeds complacency. According to Snarky Boy's first person coverage of the hearing, the pro-war side came out in force and "the anti-war movement [got] its ass handed to them."

Oops. That's gotta hurt.

It kind of makes one wonder if the bench is really as empty as Odum speculated. The Republican-types tend to stay to themselves until things get too far out of hand. Then they just sort of come out of the woodwork in droves.

The big celebrity moment of the day - the speech given by the face of the anti-war movement, Cindy Sheehan herself - was a big let down. Says the Snarkmeister, "...it felt like Sheehan had simply cut and pasted some warmed-over sound bites, basically yawned them out, and then called it a speech."

Speaking of Snarky Boy, he mentions in his post that a "middle-aged man began booing [Marion Gray, mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, who spoke in support of the war, and against Sheehan] from the back of the room and shouting that she “was out of order.” He was quickly engulfed by the large numbers of security personnel and, from my perspective, immediately ushered out of the building."

The Free Press identified this man as one Michael Colby. Name sound familiar?

Interestingly enough, the snarky one's coverage ends there.

Freedom vs. Equality

Note: This is post is on local politics, but has application far beyond that, so you might want to read even if you are not a local.

Today the Free Press profiled the Ward 6 City Council race between incumbent Democrat Andy Montroll and his independent challenger Tom Licata.

It is noted in the article that the first time (of three) that Tom ran, it was as a Republican, in 2005. If you are up on your Charity Tensel trivia (which no doubt you are), you also know that I was chair of the Burlington GOP at that time. I sat down with Tom at the Bagel Cafe on North Ave. to find out more about him. I have to say that he was probably the single most impressive person I have met in local politics. That man knows economics. Our city would do well to have someone like that on the council.

(No offense to the other impressive people I have met in local politics. You know who you are.)

He had this to say in his personal statement in the Free Press this morning:

Nobel laureate and economist Milton Friedman captured Vermont's unacknowledged battle between freedom and fairness when he gave one of his last interviews in July. When asked about his thoughts on a China versus India comparison, he gave the following response: "China has maintained political and human collectivism while gradually freeing the economic market. This has so far been very successful but is heading for a clash, since economic freedom and political collectivism are not compatible." It's this incompatibility of tensions, defined as cognitive dissonance, between Vermont's collectivist leanings and prosperous economic wants that drives our current state-of-confusion. Meaningful progress as a city, and State, requires us to bridge this gap of incongruence.

The results of Burlington's collectivist leanings: 50% increases in property and sale taxes in 3 years; millions of dollars in under funded pension benefits; a refusal to provide tax relief through an objective productivity study of city operations; refusal to unlock tax revenue relief that a partnership of public and private developers would consummate in developing our waterfront; and prized Burlington properties and institutions co-opted to achieve political ends (City Market, our failed waterfront bus terminal, Intervale land sale, Moran Plant). This quiet campaign to leverage city assets to further an economically-challenged progressive movement has resulted in enormous opportunity costs in the form of lost tax revenues and higher taxes.

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is what Einstein defined as insanity; stop voting our entrenched incumbents into office.

Vermont's adopted 1778 State motto of "Freedom and Unity" and Mr. Friedman's view on this subject best summarizes our dilemma: "The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both".

Vote thoughtfully.

Odum Says Goodbye to Blogging (opts to keep job, feed family)

Okay, chances are you already read this somewhere else because either She's Right is not your first stop on the VT Blogosphere, or She's Right is your first stop, but you already came and went to another blog, since it is already after 9:00 am.

I'm sorry; I have kids to feed and stuff like that in the morning.

The news sending shock waves through the Vermont political blogging world this morning is that the much loved, and much hated, John Odum of Green Mountain Daily has left blogging.

Odum is the founder of Green Mountain Daily, Vermont's answer to the Daily Kos. (Funny thing about that, I had never read the Daily Kos when I found GMD, and still only read it when it is linked - usually by a GMDer.)

Odum - and GMD - has been a driving force behind the political blogging explosion in Vermont over the last year.

I met Odum at the blogger BBQ at Burlington's North Beach last summer, which he and popular VT blogger Philip Baruth of Vermont Daily Briefing co-hosted. Odum is a very personable guy, who did not deserve to be put in the position of having to choose his job (and by extension the welfare of his family) over his passion for political blogging. Not that anyone deserves that.

This is a great loss for political blogging. Odum's thoughtful posts and comments kept GMD in the realm of sensible discussion. He was an anchor, a rock, keeping the blog focused on remaining relevant and holding it back from slipping into the realm of radicalism.

Surely, GMD will continue to remain relevant in Vermont political discourse, but with out Odum, it will never be the same.

Today, the blogosphere weeps.

Related links:
Odum's goodbye post at GMD
Vermont Daily Briefing's reaction
Reason and Brimstone's reaction
Five Before Chaos' reaction
802 Online's linkdump-style reaction
Rip and Read's reaction

(Links will be added as they come in)

Bus Routes, BHS, and the Gas Tax (or some other modest non-property tax source)

On the Front Porch Forum for my neighborhood, there has been a conversation about the CCTA bus schedule and the start time at BHS.

See, the current CCTA bus routes from the South End get the students to BHS either a half hour before school starts or 10 minutes late.

For CCTA to fix the problem (within their current structure) would require a major schedule overhaul. So, some parents have asked the School Board to adjust the start time of the high school by 10 minutes.

According to a post by School Commissioner Fred Lane (W5) on Feb. 16:

Superintendent Collins told the Board that the principal is responsible for determining the start time for each building (within reason). BHS Principal Amy Mellencamp was planning on meeting with parents to discuss the issue this week (although that may have been delayed by the snow storm); one of her concerns is that postponing the start time even by 10 minutes will affect BHS student participation in after-school activities, including sports.

Okay, so the High School is not likely to alter its start time. Back to square one - the bus schedule.

In a post by CCTA Commissioner Chapin Spencer dated Feb. 21:

The big picture issue that I want to raise is this: The problem of convenient bus service to BHS is a symptom of a larger problem and would be solved instantly with one "simple" change: having bus service every 15-minutes during peak commuting times. One bus every 30 minutes is not convenient for the modern American. If we truly want to reverse climate change and keep Burlington a livable city, we need to provide convenient alternatives to driving. With 15-minute bus service, South End buses would connect to a North Avenue bus departing Cherry St at 7:30am, getting students to BHS right before school at 7:45-7:50AM .

The City of Burlington pays its fair share to CCTA - over $1.2M/yr in property taxes (~70% of the funds CCTA receives from all area towns). Our problem: transit companies outside VT receive more money from their regions and states. Here in VT, the State has given us no alternative than to be chained to the local property tax (sound similar to education funding issues?!?!). Rep. Keogh has proposed alternatives at the State level but has found little traction in the Legislature.

All we need to provide 15-minute service during rush hour for BHS students (and everyone else) is a penny on the gas tax or some other modest non-property tax source.

The final verdict from the school board was (as reported to Front Porch Forum by Ward 5 Commissioner Amy Werbel on Feb. 22):

The school board curriculum committee met on Tuesday night and discussed the South End BHS bus situation. We determined that it is more feasible to work with CCTA than to change the start time at the high school. Jurij Homziak (Ward 6 commissioner) is working with City Councilor Andy Montroll to draft a joint resolution urging CCTA to create reasonable bus routes that enable students to ride rather than driving or being driven. This is an obvious benefit for everyone.

I think we are going to hear a lot more about this issue in the coming weeks, or even months, while people work to find a solution to this problem.

Certainly, there is a need for more frequent bus routes during peak times, not just for BHS students but for all people who take the bus (and those who would take it if the schedules were more convenient).

That need will be weighed against the budgetary constraints that Vermont is in right now and the already too heavy tax burden.

Paying for Efficiency

This morning, the Burlington Free Press ran a story about one of the bills being proposed by the Vermont Senate as part of their global warming initiative.

The bill is still being shaped in the Senate Natural Resources Committee, but the gist is this: An efficiency charge would be assessed on all heating fuels, just as it now is on electric bills. The money would pay to help Vermonters make their homes and businesses more energy-efficient.

I must say that this article gave me pause given that the news last week was that fuel assistance programs were running out of money already and we are still in February (a mighty cold one, too, I might add). Odd that the Senate would propose to add to the cost of heating our homes.

The Free Press leads in with a quick look at the pro and con sides to this proposal.

Vermonters could save money, make their homes more comfortable and create jobs in the process, according to supporters of proposed legislation designed to enhance energy efficiency.

The trouble with it, detractors say, is that everybody's heating bills would increase to pay for it. There are other ways to achieve the same goal, they contend.

I really have no problem with energy efficiency. It is long overdue. In fact, I wish my landlord was a little more mindful of energy efficiency, given that I am the one paying the gas bill for my drafty apartment.

The bottom line is that Vermonters are tapped out. We don't have the money to pay more for our heating fuel. Many of us are barely making ends meet as it is.

I'm not trying to be alarmist. I am trying to be a realist.

My downstairs neighbor was borrowing my vacuum the other day and she was worried about how she will pay her gas bill. Mine just arrived today, and I can see why she was so upset. We keep our thermostat set at 65 and our bill is still much higher than it was this time last year.

Don't get me wrong, I would never propose that we base policy on my personal budgetary woes, or those of my hard-working neighbor, but I think that we are less the exception and more the rule.

There are no new sources of revenue that the legislature will be able to tap into. The money all comes from the same set of pockets and those pockets are fast becoming empty.

It is time for the Democrats to decide which things they want to keep, and which ones they will have to let go. We cannot afford to fund their entire utopian vision for Vermont.

Christianity, Same-Sex Marriage, and the Republican Party

The other day, Andrew Sullivan had a post about Giuliani's bid for President.

Giuliani is running as a secular, modern conservative to run what has become a religious, theological party. His fate is going to be a fascinating insight into what American conservatism can now mean. And the Christianists are not going to put up with secular, inclusive, reality-based conservatism.

I think that the label the Republican Party has earned in recent years,that it is trying to impose a theocracy, comes down to one issue: gay marriage.

Personally, I wish this issue would just go away, but it won't. So, instead, I decided that I should try and make some sense out of it.

I've been listening to a series entitled, "House or Home?" on the Christian radio series "Living on the Edge" that I download from iTunes every day. (This series is a must hear for any Christian family that wants biblical principles to guide them toward having a closer family.)

The first part in the series talks about marriage as a holy covenant. It was mostly about viewing marriage as a covenant for life, not something you will try, and see if it works out.

It goes on to talk about the things that we do that take away from the sacredness of this perfect union that God designed for a man and a woman. Those things include divorce, living together before marriage, sex before marriage, sex outside marriage, and homosexual acts.

It is clear if you are a Bible believing Christian, that God created man and woman to have different attributes. The union of a man and woman is meant to yield a partnership where each benefits the other with the unique gifts that God created them with, and results in a fuller life for each of them.

I believe this. I believe that God created man and woman to be in a lifetime partnership.

I also believe, as it applies to government, that people have the right to live their lives as they choose.

Not everyone is a Christian. Not every Christian believes the Bible. Not every Christian who believes the Bible, believes that practicing homosexuality is wrong.

I'm not even sure that it is wrong, per se, but I do believe that the divine design that God created was for a man and a woman to become united as one flesh.

But this isn't about what I think is right or wrong. That is the point of this post. Our laws are not about what one group thinks is the morally right or wrong way to live your life.

Surely divorce, sex before marriage, and sex outside of the marriage are just as violating to the holy marriage covenant. Yet none of those things are illegal. Why should same-sex marriage be any different?

I have yet to hear a good answer to that question.

Divorce among Christians is actually slightly higher than among non-Christians. If you ask me, what is destroying the American family is not same-sex relationships, it's divorce.

What about the children?

I think that God designed the family to have a mother and a father because they each bring a unique relationship to the child's life. I believe that this is the ideal situation for a child to be raised in.

Again, this is not about what I think is ideal. My own family isn't ideal. My older two children are not my husband's biological children.

More importantly, there are countless same-sex couples that are wonderful parents. And, let's not forget that there are countless heterosexual couples that are awful parents.

Do we really want the government to dictate how we should raise our children? Don't forget, there are people who claim that raising your child with religion is abusive.

It's funny, I've been thinking about this post for a couple of days, but haven't gotten around to doing it. Now it looks like same-sex marriage is going to be a big issue in the Vermont legislature.

This is the issue that could destroy the Republican Party - and I don't mean because swing voters are not opposed to gay marriage. It is the thing that could destroy the Republican Party from within. There is already a split forming between those who want the party to stand for liberty and those who want the part to stand for Christian values.

Once the GOP starts championing the governing of our personal lives, it ceases to be the party of freedom and smaller government. We have seen that happen over the last six years, as more spending and less freedom has replaced less spending and more freedom.

As a Republican, I do not want to see the party fractured beyond repair.

As a Christian, I do not want to see our freedom eroded. Living in a society that is largely hostile to our beliefs, we need our freedom.

It's so cliche, but it is the spending (stupid)

There is a story in the Free Press this morning about the legislative hearings on property tax.

Jim Stevens, 67, is retired, but works two part-time jobs as a mail carrier and bus driver to supplement his retirement income. He said he and his wife live on less than $24,000 a year in a home they purchased in Newark six years ago.

Thursday he drove to Montpelier with some of his neighbors to complain about the growing burden of his property taxes.

"My tax has gone up 53 percent since I came here," he told members of the House Education and Ways and Means committees, the two House panels charged with examining ways to curb school spending and property tax growth. "I don't know why you have to tax us to death."

When he thought lawmakers weren't paying close enough attention to the testimony, Stevens raised his voice. "Do you hear me? Do you hear the people who are talking?" he asked. "I'm not trying to tell you a sob story. I'm trying to tell you what is going on."

Stories like this are typical here. I remember that first time I ran for City Council and went door-to-door, I heard story after story of senior citizens who were being taxed beyond their means. One woman was almost in tears, wondering if she would have to sell her home. And that was in 2003. Taxes have increased substantially since then.

One commonly offered solution is a shift from property taxes to an income tax.

Rep. Harvey Otterman, R-Topsham, promoted greater reliance on the income tax in his testimony, noting the value of people's property doesn't represent ability to pay taxes. "The income tax is the one tax that does represent your ability to pay."

I agree that property tax is not a good indicator of ability to pay. I also know that the excessive property tax burden can make home ownership cost prohibitive for some people.

However, I caution people about embracing an income tax as the panacea for the school spending dilemma. If we do not get the spending under control, the income tax levels will inevitably creep up, even for those who cannot afford it.

According to this compilation of census data, the median income in Vermont for a full-time, year-round working male is only $32,457, and for a female that figure is $25,322. That means half of Vermonters make less than that.

If school spending continues to increase at current levels, the income tax will hit all Vermonters hard in a matter of no time.

When Act 68 was passed, it temporarily took the focus off the dollar amounts of the school budgets. Any new change in the funding mechanism could have the same effect. Hey, I'm not going to pay it, so of course I'll vote "yes."

What happens when the budgets get so big that the families who are just scraping by have to pick up part of the tab? Will the school budgets go back down?

This year, the Burlington School District is asking for a 9.08% increase. Our population is not growing at that rate. Our incomes are not growing at that rate. We cannot afford to sustain that rate of growth, regardless of the funding mechanism.

We need to control school spending.

The question is, will lawmakers take that seriously?

Roper New Chair of VT GOP

After spending the weekend in Massachusetts, it was great to come home to find out that the Vermont GOP elected Rob Roper as the new state party chair.

The left is already trying to portray him as an out-of-the-mainstream bigot, but this Vermonter welcomes someone who champions lower taxes and less government - not to mention, a coalition-builder - taking a position of party leadership in this state.

Blogger Down

Love him or hate him, all of us political junkies in Vermont make Peter Freyne, of Seven Days, one of our weekly reads.

Peter posted on his blog earlier today that he has been diagnosed with lymphoma and will be undergoing chemotherapy.

Stop on over and send your well-wishes.

Who Will Replace Jim Barnett?

I just read that Rob Roper is running for State Republican Party Chair. Roper is currently involved in the Vermont chapter of Freedom Works - the lower taxes, less government activist group formed by Dick Armey.

This could be a great day for the Republican Party. Hey, maybe a small state can lead the nation. One can only hope.

You can read the article here. I will be back with more commentary when I am feeling better!

VT Legislature Back in Session

Updated.
Updated again on 1/8/07.

So, the Vermont Legislature is back in session. They have only been there for two days and there are already 14 bills, (whoops, I meant 24, but now they are already up to 41!) that have been introduced. Look forward to laws about swimming pool fences and having to get a license for mineral prospecting. The legislature doesn't think we have enough laws to follow yet.

An anonymous commenter has made the case that the mineral prospecting bill was a bad example of a trivial bill. I admit that I threw this post up in a hurry when I wasn't feeling well, but my point still stands that we need to keep an eye on these guys. Read my comments for more discussion. For the record, the # of bills is up to 54 in just one week!

Is it me or does it seem like these guys have too much time on their hands? I say we cut it back to bi-annual. Last session there were 1,215 bills introduced! In a state of around 500,000 people!

And this year, they are really taking themselves too seriously. Check out this headline: "Legislature convenes with call for Vermont to offer global leadership."

I decided I should add a category for Vermont politics. I think I'll keep a closer eye on these guys this year.

Stay tuned!