The Cool Blue Blog

Asked and answered

So members of the Vermont Legislature want to know how Vermonters feel about Gay Marriage.

The leaders of the state House and Senate said yesterday they have appointed a commission to ask Vermonters if the Legislature should allow same-sex couples to marry.

The 10-member commission will be led by Tom Little, a former state representative who served as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in 2000, the year the Legislature passed a law that granted same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities of marriage through civil unions.

This is a little misleading. While it is true that the Vermont Legislature "granted same-sex couples  the rights and responsibilities of marriage through civil unions" they only did it because the Vermont Supreme Court ordered them to do so.

The volunteer commission will hold public hearings and is scheduled to complete its study by the end of April and report to the Legislature.

"I think many people saw civil unions as a first step," House Speaker Gaye Symington said after a Burlington press conference with the Senate president pro tem, Peter Shumlin. "I think for many Vermonters the question has been when, not so much as whether, we would eventually recognize same-sex union through marriage."

Well, if they want to know how I feel about it, I'll tell them.

If Gays want to be able to marry each other, I say fine.

I could care less.

I do not believe that their ability to marry will bring about the collapse of Western Civilization; though it might just might be one more reason for Islamist terrorists to hate us. But who cares? We already have Paris Hilton and I doubt she is going away anytime soon.

It might make Vermont a priority on their "to bomb" list but we can handle it. We have the Green Mountain Boys to stick up for us.

But here are my requirements before that happens:

Do not, and I mean DO NOT, try to settle this in the court again. If you can't get it through the Legislature, then try again. And if you never get it through the Legislature, leave it the hell alone.

Mandating Gay Marriage through the court can very well precede the death of Western Civilization. And before you get all legal on me, I will repeat what I have written before

1. Simply stating that marriage is a basic human right doesn't make it so. There is no right to marry either in the US Constitution or in the Vermont Constitution which is why Judge's typically use the "equal protection" argument.
2. The equal protection argument is bogus because no individual is being discriminated against; no males may marry another male regardless of their sexual orientation. So everyone is being treated equally on an individual basis. Simply because a heterosexual male would not likely want to marry another male is immaterial. The same is obviously true of females.
3. And the statement from Judge Kramer that the laws discriminate against the "basic human right to marry a person of one's choice" is a dangerous precedent. Does this mean that in the future a 50 year old male should be allowed to marry a 13 year old girl? How about a 13 year old boy? Should a brother be able to marry his sister? Should a father be able to marry his daughter?

So you want a Gay Marriage law? Fine. Here is what you should do to get my support.

When you run for the Legislature next, make it clear how you would vote on a same-sex marriage bill

When you craft the bill, make sure that you craft it finely enough to precisely define who this law covers and who it does not. You do not want in inadvertently allow 50 year-old men able to marry 12 year-old boys. And if you "adverently" put this in the bill, and you did not make clear before I voted for you that this is what you were going to do, I will be really, really upset.

If Vermont wants Gay Marriages, that's what they should get.

But if it doesn't want it, then just leave it on the table until they do.

Reports

Michael Totten is embedded in Baghdad with the 82nd Airborne with whom he recently went on patrol.

The battalion I’m embedded with here in Baghdad hasn’t suffered a single casualty – not even one soldier wounded – since they arrived in the Red Zone in January. The surge in this part of the city could not possibly be going better than it already is. Most of Graya’at’s insurgents and terrorists who haven’t yet fled are either captured, dormant, or dead....

Before the surge started the neighborhood was much more dangerous than it is now.

“We were on base at Camp Taji [north of the city] and commuting to work,” Major Jazdyk told me earlier. “The problem with that was that the only space we dominated was inside our Humvees. So we moved into the neighborhoods and live there now with the locals. We know them and they know us.”

Lieutenant Lawrence Pitts from Fayetteville, North Carolina, elaborated. “We patrol the streets of this neighborhood 24/7,” he said. “We knock on doors, ask people what they need help with. We really do what we can to help them out. We let them know that we’re here to work with them to make their city safe in the hopes that they’ll give us the intel we need on the bad guys. And it worked.”

Congressman Kevin Brady of Texas recently visited Iraq and reported to Congress

Mr. Speaker, traveling to Iraq this past weekend to see firsthand how the surge is working, I really expected the worst. Instead I am very encouraged. Communities all across Iraq are turning against al Qaeda and working with Iraqi and coalition forces to take back their cities. Half of Baghdad is no longer safe for insurgents. Al Qaeda is not down and out but clearly back on its heels rejected by the very communities and religious leaders its claims to fight for. Make no mistake, there are still serious challenges, including high profile bombings, the need for Iraq ’s government to resolve key issues now, and Iran ’s continued support for terrorism. I’m convinced the new strategy is working and we have impressive leaders and impressive troops in place to see even more progress. Mr. Speaker, while congress has the right to debate this war, it has the responsibility to help win it as well. That means letting this new strategy work to the end of the year or the beginning of the next if we are truly serious about a stable Iraq and safer America.

Clearly success spells danger for Democrats. Because they tried but can't get a defeat amendment passed, Democrats are holding up considering the the Defense Appropriations, like they attempted with the War Supplemental, and instead are going to demand reports from the Pentagon about their favorite subject

“The need for the committee to know the status of Department of Defense redeployment planning is clear, yet past efforts by individual members to obtain this information were rebuffed,” the four senators [Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Evan Bayh of Indiana and Jim Webb of Virginia] say in their letter.

Um, forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but there are no plans for redeployment. The Democratic leadership lost that vote.

How about getting behind providing political and economic freedom to the people of Iraq, rather then devising ways to allow them to be enslaved by Islamists?
 

Vermont's foreign minister

Two thirds of the Vermont Congressional delegation went to visit the Middle East. Senator Patrick Leahy and Representative Peter Welsh "along with a delegation that includes four other U.S. senators, met Wednesday afternoon with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on the fifth day of a weeklong visit to the region."

The Iraq war has shifted the United States' focus away from what is a larger crisis in the Middle East: The continuing violence and unrest between Israel and Palestine, two members of Vermont's Washington delegation said.

According to the Senator, "The clock is running out very, very quickly." Does he mean its running out more quickly than when President Clinton was in office? Why wasn't the issue settled then? Because the realit of the situation is that there are groups in the Middle East who do not want peace with Israel, they want Israel destroyed. Is the Senator suggesting that we send in US forces to kill them all?

Leahy faulted the Bush administration for not doing more to nurture talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders. He said both sides still look for the United States to use its stature as a world power to bring the two sides together.

Now this is interesting given that 59% of Israelis still believe President Bush made the right decision by going into Iraq and given the opinion of Prime Minister Olmert who said that the American operation in Iraq brought stability to the Middle East.

But Democrats didn't want to hear that when he said it

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert drew fire from Democratic Party members Monday by publicly praising the war in Iraq.

And clearly they still don't want to hear it now.

There is a fight that is unfinished between Israel and Syria; a fight which flaired up last Summer with Syria's (and Iran's) proxy, Hizbollah. With the US in Iraq, there is less chance that Iraq will be able to get into the fight, as they surely would have done had Saddam still been in charge.

With Saddam out, there is one fewer country to gang up on Israel. And without an occupation force in Palestine, there is no way attacks against Israel are going to cease until Hamas is defeated or is kicked out by Palestinians themselves.

There will be no peace there until Palestinians want peace and no amount of negotiations are going to change that fact.

But Leahy and Welsh just found another way to bash the Administration on foreign soil which just a few years ago would have been considered appalling.

But is now considered common practice for the "loyal" opposition.

Radical change

They opened the town meeting on impeachment with a rousing rendition of "Let's impeach the president, hallelujah," sung by the Raging Grannies. Vermont Representative to the US House, Peter Welch, was on the hot seat.

Euan Bear of Bakersfield quizzed the Congressman by havin him recite his oath of office.

"I will uphold the Constitution," he said.

"Protect and defend," she corrected him.

"Protect and defend," he repeated.

"Do you believe you are doing that now by using a non-optional provision in the Constitution that says those who violate the Constitution should be impeached?" she asked.

"The point of the question here is that Bush has committed impeachable offenses; therefore it is the duty of Congress to impeach him"

Of course Euan Bear failed to enumerate what precisely those "impeachable offenses" were. This didn't seem to bother anyone because that "impeachable offenses" were committed by the President and Vice-President was a given.

Peter Welch did not want to come out and say to this crowd, or any other, that there are no impeachable offenses for which the House can impeach. Instead he agreed with them, but said he would not ask for the President and Vice-President to be impeached.

"I'm not going to argue with you at all! Of course I'm not going to argue with you about whether this man deserves impeachment. The question that I have on impeachment is will that prolong or shorten the war. It's my judgement that it will lengthen it."

The arrogance and self-centeredness of the "impeach Bush crowd" was reflected by commenter Peggy Sapphire of Craftsbury

"It isn't about what you believe. It's about what we believe. We voted for you because we felt you would represent our voice,"

Perhaps, but not just your voice, Peggy, he also represents Doug Tuthill of North Pomfret, a veteran of the first Iraq war who also attended

"there are people in this room, maybe 200 of you, but you sure as hell don't represent me and you don't represent the state of Vermont. So I wish you'd stop referring to 'all Vermonters' because you're not all Vermonters."

That would seem so obvious that it wouldn't even need to be pointed out.

These "impeach Bush" activists think they are the majority. They point to the fact that some 40 towns voted to impeach Bush during town meeting day in March. They rarely acknowledge that this number represents only about 15% of the 255 towns that exist in Vermont. Mr Tuthill is right that these 200 hundred people don't even come close to representing Vermont.

They tried to get the Vermont Legislature to impeach Bush and Cheney too. And, of course, the Legislature took up the issue. It passed in the Senate was didn't pass in the House. And regardless of the fact that most Vermonters aren't Leftists, Vermont's government, with the exception of the Executive Branch, is over-represented by the radical "Progressives". Much like the US Congress.

Vermont is rapidly becoming an unlivable place because of them: too many taxes, too few young people staying and working, too few new businesses and too much Statism.

But hey, I've already decided I'm just passing through. I'll continue to work here but I'll spend my retirement someplace else.

Unless there is a radical change in Vermont politics.

Meanwhile, the Vermont Leftists continue to hope

"If you can impeach the president and the vice president, I'm sure President Pelosi will bring the troops home."

Like they care about the troops

Tax, tax, tax

On the heels of the announcement that Vermont's tax burden on individuals is the highest in the country, comes the news that the State coffers are overflowing with cash.

Secretary of Administration Michael Smith said financial analysts expected the flow of taxes into the state's General Fund might exceed official targets by about $15 million. "I don't think anybody expected this."

Now you'd think that these two stories, when put together would indicate that people are taxed too much. I mean clearly, if you have a surplus, then you have taken in more money than you need to run the government.

But no. This is Vermont. So everything is backwards.

For instance, since Democrats now control the House and Senate, one of the big priorities for the Vermont Legislature this year (aside from impeaching Bush and Cheney) is Global Warming. So in Vermont we have a nuclear power plant which produces a third of the electricity used in Vermont, charges only 3.95 cents per kilowatt hour, and has a carbon footprint of zero: i.e. it produces no greehouse gases.

What's more, the owners of the Vermont Yankee power plant already contributes $2.5 million a year into the state's Clean Energy Development Fund.

So what does the Legislature want to do with this obvious good Green neighbor? Why, tax it more, of course.

In the name of Global Warming.

So they can buy buses.

Which pollute the air and spew greehouse gases.

Make sense to you?

Welcome to Vermont.

Nothing important

The Vermont State Legislature started out with Democrats in control of both Houses, high hopes, and a full plate.

More than 600 bills were introduced in the Legislature this year.

A relatively small percentage have passed one chamber or the other.

Only a handful will pass both chambers by the end of the session....

Among pending bills are amendments in Catamount Health Care, the recently vetoed budget adjustment act, and, of course, the general fund, transportation and capital budgets.

Of course, many of these important things have left to languish while the Legislature wasted a few weeks debating whether or not they would impeach the President. They decided against it but the Democrats constituency were not happy about it.

An impromptu, and at times contentious, 40-minute meeting between Speaker of the House Gaye Symington, D-Jericho, Senate Pres. Pro-Tem Peter Shumlin, D-Windham, and more than 100 people in support of an impeachment resolution this afternoon ended abruptly when Shumlin walked out of the room....

Currently, a resolution with 20 co-sponsors remains in the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. William Lippert, D-Hinesburg, and has yet to receive a hearing despite more than 100 calls in favor, according to Earle.

Wow. A hundred calls in favor. How can they stand the pressure?

Before this, they sent a bunch of time debating Global Warming. But that didn't work out either.

Since this year’s session vowed early on to do something about global warming, its members must now put up or shut up. And they’ve decided to go with the latter.

House Speaker Crystal Skies says a little less talk could make for a lot more action.

Skies: Since our endless chatter seems to just be contributing to human-induced climate change, we’re going to put our mouths where our money is and adjourn a little earlier this year.

   

If only...

So far, 25 bills pave passed both houses of the Legislature. Nine (or 36%) involve approving changes to the charters of various towns around Vermont. One allows people to make beer and wine in their homes. Another mandates that

The department of tourism and marketing, within the agency of commerce and community development, shall be responsible for the publication of Vermont Life magazine.

Great. Well there's (supposedly) only a few weeks left in this session and they have yet to vote on issues like, you know, tax relief because, you know, we Vermonters pay more taxes than anyone in the whole United States

A national group's recent ranking of the state as tops in tax burden became an "I told you so" moment for Gov. Jim Douglas, who has campaigned nonstop about the need to make Vermont more affordable.

"Vermont residents are paying the nation's highest state-local tax burden this year, 14.1 percent of their income," concluded Curtis Dubay, an economist at the Tax Foundation, in a 2007 comparison of tax burdens among the states.

Although it might seem odd that a governor would spotlight such a dubious honor attained while he was in charge, Douglas has made tax burden the theme for his legislative agenda this year....

But of course our legislature is too busy screwing around with things they have no control over instead of concentrating on things that they do have control over. Like the amount of taxes we pay.

In fact, under the auspices of "fixing" Global Warming, the legislature is considering raising taxes because, you know, the State doesn't have enough money to fix the roads.

This week, for example, a House committee has taken testimony on a proposed tax on gas-guzzling cars and trucks, to help fill some of the shortfall in funding for roads, bridges and buses. Douglas opposes this tax. Earlier in the session there was talk of a tax on heating fuels.

Yeah, we narrowly dodged the heating fuel tax bullet.

"Vermont is recognized by tax experts as having one of the most progressive systems," argues Doug Hoffer, an independent policy analyst from Burlington. He notes, for example, that 76 percent of Vermont income tax filers pay 3.6 percent or less.

Progressive is code for an unfairly distributed tax burden.

"We pay more in taxes than many other states," Hoffer says, but adds, "Groups like the Tax Foundation focus exclusively on the amount paid and ignore the other side of the ledger -- that is, what we get for the taxes paid."

Yeah, well, we don't get well maintained roads and bridges as is clear from that fact that they want to raise taxes to get 'em fixed.

We also don't get an inexpensive in-state tuition rates for State Universities. The University of Vermont is the 3rd most expensive State college in the country.

And the vast majority of the state is serviced by volunteer fire departments and rescue squads.

What we do get is that the State Government as the largest employer: not a good sign.

We also get high auto and health insurance rates because the State (under former Governor Dean) forced most insurers out of the state with onerous restrictions.

You'd figure that living up to the claim that we Vermonters get alot for the taxes we pay would be a priority. But clearly that's not the case.

It's also pretty clear that most Vermonters must be more concerned with Global Warming and impeaching the President than electing legislators who will deliver the goods.

People get the government they deserve.

Vermont's Emergency Pork

The Senate Democrats had as much trouble rounding up Senators to vote for defeat in Iraq as the House was finding Representatives.

Similar legislation drew only 48 votes in the Senate earlier this month, but Democratic leaders hoped that changes made since then would be enough to persuade holdout Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas to swing behind the proposal and ensure its survival.

What changes might those be? The House's solution was to buy votes with pork. The Senate Democrats figured they might try the same. In discussing this subject last Friday, ABC News noted

Because Democrats may not have the 51 votes to pass their bill, they may have to water it down or add some pork to entice reluctant senators to support it.

Well they didn't and they did: 20  Billion Dollars worth of pork.

Several Republicans took to the Senate floor on Monday, criticizing Democrats for including about $20 billion for domestic programs in the spending request. Senators were also considering attaching such issues as the minimum wage increase to the legislation. The version that passed in the House last week included a long list of items not related to Iraq.

Now Vermont's Senator Patrick Leahy is not a guy you have to buy. He has a terminal case of Bush Derangement Syndrome. But at the same time, he's not one to pass up bringing home the bacon. And bring home the bacon he did. During the debate

Conservatives say appropriators have circumvented an anti-earmark pledge made during consideration of the fiscal 2007 continuing resolution (PL 110-5). Appropriators rescinded $2 million from that measure and redirected it to the supplemental to start the “Educational Excellence Program” at the University of Vermont.

Why? Because he could

               

Vermont Democrat Patrick J. Leahy is an Appropriations subcommittee chairman.

The Senate version of the Emergency Spending Bill to fund the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will likely pass the Senate by a narrow margin, is special because it does not count against the budget. And earmarks (pork) don't get voted on.

This bill will be vetoed by the President. But no veto can erase the fact that some used our Military men and women who are risking their lives in order to further the perogative of corruption.

We may not know who all of them are, but the ones we know will be stained.

Not that it matters. For they are shameless.

All constitutional again

It seems that the ACLU has decided that the Patriot Act is now Consitutional

The ACLU said it was withdrawing the lawsuit filed more than three years ago because of "improvements to the law." The Justice Department argued last month that amendments approved by Congress in March 2006 had corrected any constitutional flaws in the Patriot Act.

"While the reauthorized Patriot Act is far from perfect, we succeeded in stemming the damage from some of the Bush administration's most reckless policies," Ann Beeson, associate legal director of the ACLU in New York, said in a written statement.

Of course, it's also true that the ACLUs (former) position was to the Left of the American public, but to the Right of many Democratic members of Congress; especially members of the House and most especially to the whole Vermont delegation to Congress.

It turns out that 174 members of the House of Represntatives voted against reauthorizing the Patriot Act, the bill that allows the US Government to go after terrorists in the same way that it was able to go after organized crime. Among those voting against the Patriot Act was Rep Bernie Sanders, the man who would be Senator from Vermont. He was joined by the likes of Representative Kucinich - the man who would be Chair of the National Security subcommittee if Democrats win the House - and Representative Peolsi, the Woman who would be Speaker and third in line for the Presidency if Democrats win the House.

On the Senate side, cooler heads prevailed in that only 10 Senators voted against reauthorizing the Patriot Act, all Democrats (or "independents") and 20% of that number were from Vermont. Both Senators Leahy (the man who would be Chairman of the Judiciary Committee if Democrats took the Senate) and Jeffords.

So this amounts to every member of the Vermont Congressional delegation is to the Left of the ACLU. Now that's extremist.

I wonder if Vermonters will reelect extremists next week.

A dying breed

Erin Kelly of the Burlington Free Press asserts that if Martha Rainville is elected to the US House of Representatives, she will join an elite, and dying group of moderates

Rainville, running in a close race against Democrat Peter Welch, has said she wants to work to strengthen the moderates' voice in Congress if elected. The problem is that there are almost no moderates left, said Roger Davidson, professor emeritus of government and politics at the University of Maryland.

"They're on the verge of disappearing," Davidson said.

In the 30 years from 1968 to 1998, middle-of-the-road members of Congress plummeted from 64 percent of House members to 28 percent, according to "The Case of the Vanishing Moderates," a study by University of Texas political scientist Sean Theriault. During the period, moderates in the Senate fell from 54 percent to 36 percent.

While I agree with this, it is telling that Peter Welch is not being judged a moderate. Which would make Mr Welch an extremist. A leftist extremist.

But does the country want moderates? Does Vermont?

As the Nov. 7 congressional election draws near, Republican moderates are among the most vulnerable incumbents.

One could argue Vermont wants to elect Extremeists. I mean we've elected Socialist Bernie Sanders how many times now? And now we may make him a Senator?

And while Bernie is an extremist, Tarrant is clearly a "Republican" moderate.

But maybe Vermonters don't want "moderates" representing them in Washington.

Maybe, Vermonters like their extremists.

Campaign Strategy

I noticed in the past that it appears that the only thing Peter Welch can think of to sell himself to voters is that he's a Democrat. More precisely, he's not a Republican. It appears that to Mr Welch, this isn't a bug, it's a campaign strategy.

Peter Welch, has made party identity a focus of the campaign. Rainville would, by voting for Republican House leaders, leave Congress' priorities unchanged, Welch has argued.

Welch campaign spokesman Andrew Savage said Monday, "Sending another Republican to Washington will only further enable the leadership and committee chairs that have launched a frontal assault on basic environmental protections."

Maybe it'll work, but generally I want to vote for someone, not against something.

And if one were to take such a tack, I have to wonder why it is anyone would vote for a Democrat. I mean in general (because that's how you have to think using this strategy), Democrats have been more concerned with terrorist rights and not American's rights.

They are not impressed with the power of tax cuts and against all evidence to the contrary, put their faith in higher taxes.

They see corruption as everyone else's problem but theirs and ignore it when it involves them.

And if they are so damned upset about congressmen abusing their trust with pages, why did they do nothing 20 years ago when it involved one of their own?

What I see is that when corruption and predatory behavior is uncovered among Republicans, they excise it publicly. When Democrats uncover corruption and predatory behavior, they sweep it under the rug or call it noble.

And it wasn't me who called Democrats "Defeatocrats" is was the man who came stumping for Welch, ex-Marine John Murtha.

But there is little doubt that Democrats, in general (and that's what we're talking about, right?) want to cut and run. They generally want to treat the War On Islamists as a law enforcement issue. Ask the French how they like that.

Now maybe Peter Welch has something going for him other than being a Democrat. But I can tell you this, I sure as hell ain't gonna vote for him because he's a Democrat. I may vote for him because I like his views. I may vote for him because I like his positions on the issues that are important to me like taxes (I'm generally against them), like fighting Islamists (I'm generally for it), like Socialized medicine (I'm against it). Hell I may even vote for him because I think he's a man of integrity.

But he sure as hell won't get my vote simply because he's not a Republican.

To reach me as a voter, Peter Welch needs a new campaign strategy.

And make no mistake: I will vote.

Update: Left Listing New York Times columnist Paul Krugman gives another reason to avoid voting Democrat

[W]hile the Democrats won't gain the ability to pass laws, if they win they will gain the ability to carry out investigations, and the legal right to compel testimony... Those who think it's a good idea to investigate, say, allegations of cronyism and corruption in Iraq contracting should be aware that any vote cast for a Republican makes Congressional investigations less likely. Those who believe that the administration should be left alone to do its job should be aware that any vote for a Democrat makes investigations more likely.

via TigerHawk