The Cool Blue Blog

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

Outsource this

Congressman Bernie Sanders, in his bid to get a seat in the Senate, has campaigned that he is firmly against outsourcing.

"In America today, despite a huge increase in worker productivity the middle class is shrinking, poverty is increasing and millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages," Sanders said in a statement prepared for Saturday's event.

"There are a number of reasons for this, but one of the key factors is the loss of good-paying manufacturing and information technology jobs -- many of which are being outsourced by American corporations to China, India and other countries where workers are paid a fraction of the wages that American workers receive."

One of the industries being outsourced to India, is the production of Gasoline.

Sitting on the edge of the water in the Gulf of Kutch on India's western shore is one of America's dirty secrets. A mass of steel pipes and concrete boxes stretches across 13 square miles (33sq km) - a third of the area of Manhattan - which will eventually become the world's largest petrochemical refinery.

The products from the Jamnagar complex are for foreign consumption. When complete, the facility will be able to refine 1.24m barrels of crude a day. Two-fifths of this gasoline will be sent 9,000 miles (15,000km) by sea to America.

Given that "No new oil refinery has been built in the US since the 1980s as environmental legislation has tightened" would Rep Sanders propose we build Gasoline refineries in Vermont, or would he prefer his constituents pay higher prices at the pump?

And I wonder if Rep Sanders is opposed to foreign companies outsourcing their work to America. I wonder if he's aware that 3.2% of Vermont's workforce is employed by foreign companies. Vermont's neighbor, New Hampshire, has 5.1% of their workforce employed because of outsourcing.

Or perhaps Bernie is a one-way outsourcer, you know, one who doesn't mind other countries outsourcing to us, but doesn't want to reciprocate. But that would hardly be neighborly, would it?

And doesn't outsourcing to places like India and the third world help spread the wealth? It is quite true that with all of the business being thrown India's way, it now has a much larger Middle Class, which means a lower poverty level. Doesn't out sourcing really mean that a rising tide raises all ships?

Or perhaps Bernie is only interested in Americans being wealthy while the rest of the world can just starve. But the would be greedy, wouldn't it?

I guess I just don't understand how it is that a Liberal, of all people, could be against trade policies that help third world workers raise their standard of living and become full participants in what the modern age has to offer.

In any case, I hope someone asks him about the Refineries. I'd be interested in his answer.

Not Independent

Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords, who broke trust with his voters by leaving the Republican Party giving the Senate (briefly) to Democratic control, has been calling himself an Independent ever since. But while he keeps saying that, it gets harder and harder to believe especially now, when he calls Vermonters to not consider the Person in the upcoming House election, but the Party.

In a letter to Tom Reynolds, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, Senator Jeffords wrote

"While I must advise that while I think Martha Rainville is a talented leader, I feel very strongly that the country will be better served with the Democrats gaining control of the House of Representatives in the 110th Congress," the letter said. "Therefore, for this election I believe Peter Welch is a better choice for Vermont"

Interestingly, he didn't say that Peter Welch is a talented leader. Nor did he give any reason why Vermonters should vote for Welch over Rainville other than the fact that Welch is not a Republican.

That doesn't sound like an Independent to me.

What's more, Vermont's self-image is one of Independence. But can that possibly be true if Vermonters just vote for Democrats because they are Democrats?

Vermonters are more Independent than that. We have, and are likely to re-elect a Republican Governor. Hell, Vermonters voted for Jeffords as a Republican, while at the same time voting for the Socialist candidate Bernie Sanders in the House and Democrat Pat Leahy in the Senate.

But this is the second time I've noted that Welch and his supporters have appealed to Vermonters on the basis of Party.

What, is there nothing positive they can say about their candidate except that he's a Democrat?

it ain't good enough.

Sanders solution

Back in June, after the Supreme Court rendered the infamous Hamdan decision, Congressman Sanders said

Today’s Supreme Court decision is an important victory in the effort to reign in the abuses of power we have experienced under the Bush Administration. By ruling that the Administration’s military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees cannot operate in violation of both American military law and the Geneva Convention, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the basic tenets of our justice system and confirmed that no one, including the President, is above the law. We must do all we can to fight terrorism in this country but it is critical that we do this without undermining the basic constitutional rights that makes us a free country.

The decision by the court necessitated that trying of detainees at Guantanamo Bay has to have a procedure endorsed by Congress. Congress took up the challenge and produced a procedure entitled The Military Commissions Act of 2006, but Mr Sanders refused to vote for it.

He's been silent as to why that is. But, he was in good company, most Democrats voted against it as well.

I don't know what it is that Rep Sanders wants to do with the detainees there.

As of today, 260 detainees have been released and about 500 occupy Camp X-Ray. We know that at least some have returned to their old terrorist ways.

U.S. military officials say that despite being freed in exchange for signing pledges to renounce violence, at least seven former prisoners of the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have returned to terrorism, at times with deadly consequences.

At least two are believed to have died in fighting in Afghanistan, and a third was recaptured during a raid of a suspected training camp in Afghanistan, said Lt. Cmdr. Flex Plexico, a Pentagon spokesman. Others are at large.

Additional former detainees are said to have expressed a desire to rejoin the fight, be it against U.N. peacekeepers in Afghanistan, Americans in Iraq or Russian soldiers in Chechnya.

It is a fact that you can not simply have a regular trial for these folks even if you wanted to. Where is the police report? The "crime scene" investigation? How do you work the power of subpoena? And much of the evidence against them comes from intelligence sources that are under cover; to reveal them in open court would compromise their very lives. Are their lives worth less than terrorists?

You could simply, I suppose, return the detainee back to their country of origin. But not all of the countries of origin can be trusted.

And some don't want them back, like Britain for instance

The United States has offered to return nearly all British residents held at Guantánamo Bay after months of secret talks in Washington, the Guardian has learned.

The British government has refused to accept the men, however, with senior officials saying they have no legal right to return. Documents obtained by the Guardian show US authorities are demanding that the detainees be kept under 24-hour surveillance if set free - restrictions that are dismissed by the British as unnecessary and unworkable.

As the US Senator Rep Sanders hopes to become, what precisely would he propose we do with people whom even civilized countries don't want, but our enemies are more than willing to take?

Has he been asked?

Shouldn't he?

Would he give them US Visas?

The fact is, we have gathered much intelligence from at least some of the detainees at Camp X-Ray. Bernie is no fan of intelligence, clearly. But it's also true that detention keeps them off the battlefield potentially saving an American life.

So what would Bernie do?

 

How they think

When the Supreme Court decided Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, The New York Times said

The Supreme Court on Thursday repudiated the Bush administration's plan to put Guantánamo detainees on trial before military commissions, ruling broadly that the commissions were unauthorized by federal statute and violated international law.

Clearly they were wrong because The Military Commissions Act (HR 6166) passed the House today giving the President essentially the same ability to try terrorists that was taken from him by the US Supreme Court.  What the Supreme Court actually said was that the President needed Congress' participation in the process, which it now has done.

HR 6166 also clearly defines what is and is not torture so that when the US interrogates deadly killers, they don't cross the line.

After its passage, and subsequent introduction to the Senate, Senator Leahy introduced an Amendment to the bill that would grant terrorists the right of Habeas Corpus. It was rejected. In response Vermont's Senior Senator said

“This is un-American, this is unconstitutional, this is contrary to American interests, this is not what a great and good and powerful nation should be doing,” said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont.

But this is wrong as well. Habeas Corpus is guaranteed only to American citizens, not to foreigners who are trying to kill American citizens. Habeas Corpus was not granted to German or Japanese soldiers during WWII when they became prisoners of war. Habeas Corpus was not extended to North Korean prisoners of war nor was it extended to North Vietnamese prisoners.

Yet Senator Leahy believes it is un-American and unconstitutional to deny terrorists habeas corpus.

And so does Congressman Sanders.

Sanders sided with 160 Democrats in voting against the military commissions bill.

Similarly, HR 5825 The Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act updates FISA rules and gives the Administration the power, under law, to continue to spy on terrorists when they call on folks in this country.

Bernie Sanders voted against giving the President the power to prevent acts of terrorism within the US. Leahy will likely follow suit in the Senate.

Sanders, Leahy and many, many (but not all) Democrats believe that we are not, or should not be, at war with the Islamists. They believe we should be dealing with these people with rules that tie our hands and force us to pick up the pieces of an attack after they happen.

One of the problems with that strategy is that the more attacks we suffer, that we do not prevent, the greater the outcry will be to kill them all. This must be prevented at all costs because one of the main strategies of our enemy is to instigate open warfare against all Muslims, not just the Islamists. And to prevent such an outcome we need to be able to discover attacks before they happen by properly interrogating terrorist operatives, listening in on their conversations, and searching their homes without their knowledge.

And they need to be treated as enemy spys when caught because that is precisely what a soldier who wears civilian garb while conducting war is.

The Left, which it appears includes a large majority of Democrats, have lost all historical, and ethical perspective.