Vermont's Voice

New video calls for Veto Override on Campaign Finance Reform Bill

Colleen — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:38:00 +0000

Check out this great new video by a volunteer asking the Legislature to override Governor Douglas’ veto of the Campaign Finance Reform bill.

Every voice counts when democracy is at stake. So call your legislator and ask them to vote yes on the veto override of S.278 by calling 802 828-2231

New York Blogger Takes Douglas to Task For IRV Veto

Sean — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:23:00 +0000

It seems we're not the only ones who think IRV is a common sense way to hold fair elections:

From the New Yorker blog of Hendrik Hertzberg

Yesterday, the governor of Vermont vetoed a bill that would have instituted instant runoff voting for that adorable state’s (sole) representative and (two) senators in Congress.

Instant runoff voting, as you (being a reader of this blog) probably know, eliminates the “spoiler” effect in the one-winner elections standard in the United States; guarantees that the winner has at least grudging support, of a majority; and guarantees that a candidate whom most voters really, truly don’t want can’t get elected. The way it works is this: (a) You list your choices in order of preference. (b) If someone gets an outright majority of first choices, that’s it. (c) Otherwise, there’s an “instant runoff”the biggest loser gets dropped from the counting and his or her voters’ second choices get counted along with everybody else’s first choices. (d) Repeat (c) till someone has a majority, though this is almost never necessary. I.R.V. is used in Australia and Ireland, where voters like it fine, and in several American citiesincluding Burlington, Vermont.

Anyway, the Vermont I.R.V. bill passed with impressivebut, alas, not quite veto-proofmargins in both the state senate (16-12) and the state house of representatives (81-60). It had the support of lots and lots of upstanding Vermonters, including Howard Dean, Senator Bernie Sanders, Congressman Peter Welch, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, and the citizens of more than fifty bucolic communities who had passed resolutions of support in their town meetings.

Nevertheless, the governor, James Douglas, nixed it. Third-party candidates often run in Vermont, and usually they’re Greens or other leftish types. In Vermont, therefore, I.R.V. would probably help Democrats more often than Republicans. Governor Douglas is a Republican. So he vetoed it. This was expected.

Also expected was that he would not mention partisan considerations in his veto message. What was unexpected was the message’s laughably abysmal intellectual quality.

Let’s take a look at some key passages in the order they appear in Douglas’s message.

There are serious flaws with this proposal to alter Vermont’s system of elections. This system has served the people of Vermont well for more than 200 years.

Wrong! Vermont has no two-hundred-year-old “system of elections.” It has, and has had, a whole bunch of systems, most of them closer to I.R.V. than to simple plurality. Throughout the nineteenth century, a candidate for U.S. senator or representative had to win an outright majority to be elected. Otherwise, they’d just run the election again and again until someone did. This hardly ever happened, but it was the law. From 1916 until 1940, if no one had a majority they’d have a runoff. And right now, in gubernatorial elections, if no one has a majority the legislature picks the winner.

[T]he process offered by this bill cannot result in a candidate being the top choice of a majority of voters. It is mathematically impossible for the candidate chosen by the IRV process to receive a majority of first votes cast. In other words, use of an IRV system requires a significant number of second and third choicesnot the voter’s real choiceto be counted. It is therefore not valid to conclude, as the advocates and special interests do, that the winner of an IRV election would receive a majority of the vote.

Wrong! I.R.V. “cannot result in a candidate being the top choice of a majority of voters”? Such an outcome is “mathematically impossible”? Do I really have to explain why this is crazy wrong? (If I do, try this: In an I.R.V. election, if a candidate has a majority of first votes, that candidate is electedbecause, er, he or she has a majority of first votes. What’s mathematically impossible about that?)

Perhaps the governor meant that if no candidate receives a majority of first choices, thener, no candidate has received a majority of first choices. But we already knew that.

Finally, this system would undoubtedly lead to backroom deal making between candidates who urge supporters to vote for or against a second choice candidate if no one receives a majority. This would erode public confidence in the process.

It is certainly likely that I.R.V. would, for example, encourage like-minded candidates to urge their supporters to make each other their second choice. I.R.V. encourages coalition-building and discourages negative campaigning. But that’s a feature, not a bug.

Never fear, I.R.V. fans. One of these days, Vermont will have a different governor.

Three Victories For Vermont In Two Weeks

Sean — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:54:00 +0000

Over the last two weeks we’ve seen some huge victories for the people of Vermont. First, the Senate passed a bill that would cut the cost of Mammograms in the state to a flat rate of $25 per person. This is huge. Why? Because in breast cancer, like any cancer, early detection is the key to a quick and healthy recovery.

Second, the House and Senate have now both passed S.209. Some of you may remember this bill as H.520, the Comprehensive Global Warming and Energy Effeciency bill that we all worked so hard to pass last year. The one main difference: There is no tax on Vermont Yankee. We’ll still see great things for renewable energy and for energy efficiency out of the bill. On this one specifically I want to thank you all for your hard work. It’s been a tumultuous year but in the end, we won.

Finally, the House. has passed a bill that would tighten regulations on lead used in housing. This bill specifically focuses on tenant housing like apartments. As many of you know Vermont has some of the oldest housing stock in the nation and while that makes for some beautiful homes, it also means there is quite a bit of lead out there. If passed by the Senate this bill will go a long way to help reducing the amount of that dangerous toxin in our homes.

None of these battles could have been won without you. Thank you for all you do.

Sean

House Committee Passes Campaign Finance Bill

Sean — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:36:00 +0000

In a victory for common sense, the House Government Operations Committee voted 9-0 in favor of a VPIRG-backed campaign finance bill on Friday, Feb. 8th. The bill (S.278) had Democratic, Progressive and Republican support, and it now heads for a vote of the full House on Feb 13th.

If youre more than a casual reader of political news in Vermont, you know that VPIRG has been attacked by a bevy of right-wing ideologues lately including John McClaughry, Jack McMullen and Rob Roper. One of the reasons theyre so upset is because weve been leading the charge for fair elections in the state. It apparently bothers them to no end that the public wants more of a voice in how candidates are elected and legislators of all political stripes are listening.

Even Gov. Jim Douglas, who vetoed the campaign finance bill last year, has adopted a much more moderate tone this year than the head of his party, Mr. Roper. Roper has aligned himself instead with Indiana attorney Jim Bopp, who insulted and threatened legislators after being allowed the courtesy of testifying by phone.

Since the bill had support from all three major parties in committee, its likely to pass with overwhelming support on the House floor. We expect that it will have the support of more than two-thirds of those present. That will be a strong message to the governor.

Douglas wanted legislators to leave a massive loophole in Vermont law that allowed unlimited giving from political parties. They declined. So, will he veto a bill that puts reasonable limits on what individuals, corporations, political action committees and parties can give to candidates?

We cant predict that. But if he does, its likely he will be overridden and we would not be surprised to see moderate Republicans in both chambers joining with independents, Progressives and Democrats to support the bill.

This is a good time to let you House member(s) know that you support S.278 and you expect them to do so too!

Paul

Campaign Finance Debate About More Than Just Elections.

Sean — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:21:00 +0000

(The following is Executive Director Paul Burns response to Jack McMullen's op-ed published in the Burlington Free Press and Rutland Herald decrying VPIRG's work on campaign finance reform)

Jack McMullen criticized the public interest effort to prevent special interest money taking over Vermont elections as it has elsewhere in America.

To his credit, McMullen noted that the Vermont Public Interest Research Group has a long history of success in fighting in the public’s interest for things like clear air, clean water and safe cars. He could also have added that in standing up for average Vermonters, VPIRG challenges some of the most powerful corporate interests in this country.

Why do we do it? Because for over 35 years, VPIRG’s mission has been to protect and promote the health of Vermont’s people, environment and locally-based economy. To no one’s surprise, citizens who support this mission often find monied special interests vigorously blocking reforms that would allow Vermonters to live more prosperous and healthy lives.

For instance, International Paper wasn’t about the public’s interest when it proposed burning tires for fuel and polluting the lungs of Vermonters downwind. The U.S. auto industry didn’t sue Vermont to stop the state’s new clean car standards because of its concern about the health of our kids. And health insurance companies that deny reasonable coverage and oppose cost-effective reforms sure aren’t putting patients first. Big corporations typically pursue their own narrow interests.

The tremendous wealth of these corporations gives them power, pure and simple. Whether it’s the lobbyists they hire to work every day on their behalf, or the campaign contributions they give directly to candidates, political parties and PACs, the special interests buy influence that can swamp the ability of working Vermonters to be heard by their government.

That’s where VPIRG comes in. We’ve never wavered in our fight to win concrete results for the people of this state on issues like affordable home heating, prescription drugs, product safety, health care, climate change, and fair elections. Not because we have a financial stake in the outcome, but because we fight for the public interest.

Fortunately, there are [better to pick a real number than leave it vague] of Vermonters from all across the state who have donated their time or money in support of our work. Some of these citizens also agree to serve on VPIRG’s Board of Trustees without the pay, benefits and stock options that motivate members of corporate boards. Rather, service on our Board is one more way for these citizens to give back to the state they love. Let’s be clear, VPIRG Trustees are not anti-business. In fact, as McMullen notes, many of them are successful business entrepreneurs in their own right. But they also believe that effective democracy depends on the power of the people, not the special interests.

That’s what this year’s campaign finance bill is all about. It ensures that everyone is invited to participate in supporting the candidates of their choice and that a few individuals, PACS or corporations cannot dominate an election.

The bill (S.278) sets reasonable limits on campaign contributions ranging from $500 for House candidates up to $2,000 for gubernatorial candidates over the course of an election cycle. It also sets a cap of $40,000 on what any individual may give in a two-year cycle to influence the outcome of state elections in Vermont. Are those who oppose that looking out for the average Vermonter or for those few people eager to give more than $40,000 to buy influence?

Some groups, like the Right to Life Committee and the Republican Party might prefer to see no contribution limits at all so that a few well-healed ideologues can funnel as much money as they want into Vermont politics. At VPIRG, that strikes us as giving more power to people who don’t need it. Better to even the playing field, so the public’s interest is served.

~Paul Burns

Lead Bill In Dangerous Position In House

Sean — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:04:00 +0000

A bill that would protect children from lead in housing is currently before the House Human Services Committee and may be voted on as soon as tomorrow. While H.352 is a much needed next step, opposition from landlords may be leaving legislators in doubt. It is critical that an outspoken few not prevent us from protecting children from the dangers of lead.

Approximately 3,000 children in Vermont have dangerous levels of lead in their blood. Elevated blood lead levels can result in a variety of health problems and can damage the future development of children. As Vermont has some of the oldest housing stock in the nation, lead-based paint in housing is the primary source of lead poisoning in Vermont.

Our current law does not do enough to address this issue. We need a multi-pronged approach that is both practical and protective of our most vulnerable population. H.352 takes that approach by:

1) Further safeguarding the health of children in rental housing;
2) Expanding protections to children in owner-occupied housing as well as rental housing and;
3) Ensuring that all 1 and 2 year olds are screened for elevated blood lead levels.

Vermont is faced with a public health problem that we all must play a role in resolving. This means that landlords, homeowners, parents, the medical community, and the State of Vermont must all do our part to ensure that our children are safe and healthy.

You can let the members of the committee know that this bill is important to the children of Vermont by going here:
http://capwiz.com/vpirg/issues/alert/?alertid=10904081&type=CU

~Chairty

Senate Gives Overwhelming Support to Campaign Finance Bill

Sean — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:54:00 +0000

The state Senate passed VPIRG-backed limits on political contributions on a quick voice vote on Friday. In the roll call vote on the bill (S.278) taken the day before, the vote was 24-5 in favor of the bill. The vote was almost entirely along party lines with Democrats, though Sen. Diane Snelling (R-Chittenden) crossed party lines to vote in favor.

Sen. Jeanette White - Chair of the Gov. Operations Committee, and Sen. Ed Flanagan were the chief backers of the bill. Two Republicans, Kevin Mullin and George Copprenrath, argued on the floor of the Senate against the bill's passage but their arguments were more rhetorical than factual, and they failed to generate any support.

James Bopp, an Indiana attorney and the best friend the fat cat special interests ever had, also spoke out against the bill by phone during committee hearings. The litigation-happy Bopp is threatening to sue the state again as he did 10 years ago on behalf of the Right to Life Committee and the Republican Party.

The bill also drew attention from a right-wing lobby group near Washington, DC. The Center for Competitive Politics sent an urgent memo opposing the bill to members of the House and Senate this week. CCP was founded by Bradley Smith, former head of the Federal Election Commission. Before being appointed to head the FEC, Smith called for the repeal of the very law that established the agency. Smith thinks the Swift Boat attacks demonstrate a vibrant democracy. He's said that "the ideal system is ... no regulation." And he claims that "soft money is one of the good things in the system, and it continues to puzzle me why soft money in particular creates such outrage."

Will Gov. Douglas also side with soft money advocates and Swift Boat defenders? Or will he decide to side with voters this year and sign the bill? We'll know soon enough; the House begins consideration of the bill next week and it should be passed by both houses before the end of January.

Paul

Health Care, The Hottest Topic of the New Year.

Sean — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:36:00 +0000

And we’re back! Hopefully you all enjoyed the holiday season as much as we did. While we were gone, Congress passed legislation to extend federal funding for the SCHIP program through March 2009. Unfortunately, the program’s funding will hold steady at current levels, which means that the more than nine million American children who are currently uninsured will not be able to enroll. Additionally, the passed legislation did not include any provisions that would aid in reaching out to the more than 6 million uninsured American children who are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP but are not enrolled.

What does this mean for Vermont? The good news is that none of our kids enrolled in Dr. Dynasaur will lose their health insurance. The bad news is that an important health care policy issue is left unresolved, an issue that has and will continue to impact our Catamount Health Plan.

As you may remember, President Bush wanted to limit SCHIP funding to children of families earning below 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL). Just as he was announcing this new policy, his administration was ruling on Vermont’s application to use federal dollars for Catamount Health. The Bush administration had previously assured Vermont’s health care administration that it would be permitted to use federal dollars to subsidize health insurance premiums for Vermonters living at up to 300% FPL (approximately $60,000 per year for a family of four). But in the face of the SCHIP debate, the Bush administration went back on its word and agreed to fund only up to 200% FPL. The Vermont Legislature and Governor Douglas have pledged to make up the difference with state funds until the federal funding issues are resolved.

Based on the outcome of the SCHIP bill, it looks like we might have to wait until there’s a new administration in the White House.

Speaking of Catamount, here are the 2007 enrollment figures from the Douglas administration: As of December 31, 2007, 165 Vermonters had enrolled in the Catamount Health Plan at full cost, while 1,187 enrolled in Catamount with premium assistance and 313 had enrolled in the employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) premium assistance program. Enrollment goals for fiscal year 2008 (which technically extends from July 1, 2007 through June 31, 2008, but enrollment in Catamount Health could not begin until October 1, 2007) are as follows: 1,447 for Catamount Health at full cost; 2,798 for Catamount Health with premium assistance; and 656 for ESI premium assistance.

This means that the administration is nearly halfway to meeting its goals for enrollment in the two premium assistance programs. So far, so good. Now, on to the legislative session! Check back later this week for my legislative preview and update of the early health care issues we’ll be looking at in the State House.

Bush Vetos SCHIP... Again

Sean — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:48:00 +0000

As expected, last night President Bush vetoed Congress’ second attempt to extend and expand the SCHIP program. The media is now speculating that Congress will pass a resolution to extend SCHIP in its current form through the end of the fiscal year. According to one report, a veto override vote has been scheduled for January 23, a few days before Bush is scheduled to give his State of the Union address.

SCHIP currently provides health coverage to 6 million children of working families who earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance. Democratic and Republican lawmakers and governors, as well as 80 percent of the public, support expanding the SCHIP program. After the president vetoed the first SCHIP bill, Congress adjusted the bill to address the president’s concerns, but the president said Congress did not go far enough.

Holiday Help For Safe Toys

Sean — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:21:00 +0000

As the holiday shopping season is now upon us, parents are hitting the stores to find the perfect gifts for their young ones this winter. But before you whip out those wallets, there are some tips for toy safety that should be considered.

1) Choking is the most common cause of toy-related deaths. Parents and caregivers should avoid buying small toys or toys with small parts for children under 3 years old. If you have doubts about what “small” means, use the toilet paper roll test. If a toy fits into a cardboard toilet paper roll, than it can probably get lodged into your child’s throat.

2)Keep magnetic toys away from children under 6 years old. These magnets are not weak refrigerator magnets. These are powerful magnets that, if swallowed, can attract to each other in the body and can cause life-threatening complications. If your child swallows even one magnet, you should seek medical attention immediately.

3)Be cautious of potentially toxic toys. The recent recall of millions of lead-tainted toys has made the need for caution evident. If you’re worried that your child’s toy may contain lead, home lead test kits are available at hardware stores. It is your responsibility as the parent to make sure every toy that your child owns is safe. If you think a toy is dangerous throw it out! If you hear about a similar product to something you own being recalled get rid of the toy. Your child’s health is simply more important. You can find about recalled toys at www.cpsc.gov

4)Report dangerous toys to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. If you think a toy is hazardous, contact the CPSC and file a report. You can contact them at 1-800-638-2772 or at info@cpsc.gov.

To view our entire list of toy safety tips go to our Trouble in Toyland report or to our brochure on toy safety.

Have a safe and happy holiday!

Health Care Updates: The Latest on Catamount and SCHIP

Sean — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:42:00 +0000

Catamount Health
Last Thursday, VPIRG released its first scorecard rating the implementation of the Catamount Health plan. The report, Scoring Catamount Health: Examining Vermont’s Progress Toward an Equitable Health System, available [here], gave the Douglas Administration an overall grade of B, noting that the initial development and implementation of the program has been successful thus far.

The report evaluates the administration’s work in five areas: 1) the inclusiveness of the development and implementation process (in other words, the administration’s attempts to involve key stakeholders); 2) messaging and marketing; 3) timeliness and efficiency; 4) fiscal stability; and 5) regulation of private partners.

While the administration earned a high score overall, we did note a few concerns. First, as many no doubt remember, in April 2007 Gov. Douglas attempted to divert millions of dollars out of the Catamount Fund and into other investments. While he later withdrew this proposal, his actions cast some doubt on his commitment to the program.

Additionally, many Vermonters were expecting to have health care coverage through Catamount Health on October 1. In fact, legislators, advocates, and even members of the administration were under the impression that coverage would begin on that date. During the summer of 2007, it became apparent that others in the administration were working toward the October 1 deadline as the start of enrollment only, not the start of benefits. Ultimately, nothing could be done to rectify the situation and Catamount Health beneficiaries had to wait until November 1 to get their health care benefits.

It is only fair to note that the law states that “Catamount Health shall not be sold prior to October 1, 2007.” (8 VSA § 4080f(l)). Thus, the administration technically was not required to ensure that Vermonters had health care coverage as of that date. Nonetheless, the act establishing Catamount Health was signed into law on May 25, 2006. It wasn’t until June 4, 2007 that the confusion over the October 1 start date became apparent.

As noted above, despite a few setbacks, the administration has done a good job in implementing Catamount. Going forward, we hope that Gov. Douglas and others are able to build on this initial success and provide more Vermonters with access to quality, affordable health care.

SCHIP
In late October, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a second bill to reauthorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). This was a compromise bill drafted in the wake of President Bush’s veto of the original SCHIP legislation. The Senate passed the compromise bill as well, but the House held off on sending it to the President, as he had once again promised a veto. The compromise bill was sent to the President on Nov. 30th and SCHIP is currently scheduled to sunset on December 14, 2007. Many are expecting that Congress will pass a long-term extension of the existing program after the President’s veto and return to the SCHIP debate next year.

We will keep you posted.

Steppin’ It Up Montpelier Style

Sean — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 21:50:00 +0000

On Saturday Nov. 3 200+ hardy folks came to the steps of the golden dome to make their voices heard on climate change. With the national theme of “Whose a leader?” everyone was encouraged to offer their ideas on how Vermont and specifically our governor can be a leader in addressing climate change and steering the state toward a clean energy economy. Needless to say no one at the Montpelier rally was shy. And with excellent tunes from Paul Markowitz and the Great Brook Blues Band keeping our hands clapping and toes tapping and deeelicious cider, apple pie and ice cream from Cold Hollow Cider Mill and Ben & Jerry’s no one seemed to mind the chilly temperature and cloudy skies.

The rally was cosponsored by VPIRG, Vermont Natural Resources Council, Vermont Alliance of Conservation Voters and the National Wildlife Federation and it drew one of Vermont’s most historic leaders to the podium. Former Gov. Phil Hoff spoke movingly about the challenges he faced as head of the state during the turbulent times of the civil rights movement and issued a challenge of his own to the assembled activists: “I find that environmentalists as a group have tended to talk to themselves and I think the challenge now for those of us involved in the environmental movement is to get down and talk to the average person on the street.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders also sent a message to those Stepping It Up in Montpelier, outlining recent action in Washington and urging Vermonters to keep the pressure on Congress to pass meaningful legislation on climate change and clean energy.

Once again, as at past Step It Up and other climate change events, Vermont’s Governor Jim Douglas, although invited, did not show up. His absence was noted with an empty chair and a giant pair of scissors.

Burlington Steps It Up Again!

Sean — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:23:00 +0000

This weekend in Burlington I had the honor of being a part of Step It Up 2: Burlington. Months of work and organizing culminated in a 3 hour event at Battery Park where more than 500 Vermonters gathered to ask their leaders to Step it Up on Global Warming policy at every level of government.

We had more than 25 tablers with all sorts of info, American Flatbread with their unbelieveably cool portable hearth, sugar snap, and host of other great vendors. We also had a slew of elected officials. Attorney General Sorrell, Speaker of the House Symington, Congressman Welch, Mayor Kiss, and Former Governor Madeline Kunin all made impassioned pleas for those not yet with us on this issue to get informed and get active!

But most importantly, we had you, the people of Burlington and Chittenden county came out in droves on an overcast and chilly day to show your support for stepping up our fight against global climate change. Thank you all so much for coming, it was an important day. But it cannot be the last day. We must continue to organize our friends and mobilize our communities or there will will be no movement and we will not turn back the tide of global climate change.

Thanks again! And the pictures are coming soon!

Exposed: Vermonter's Care about Toxins In Our Homes

Sean — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:11:00 +0000

Last night VPIRG hosted a panel discussion on our increased exposure to toxic chemicals and what Vermont can do to protect its residents. The panel included Mark Schapiro, author of Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and What’s at Stake for American Power, Senator Ginny Lyons, and green business owner Amy Todisco.

Schapiro kicked off the event by a highlighting the major findings of his book. Among Schapiro’s biggest discoveries was the existence of two very different universes with regard to chemical regulations – the stringent standards of the European Union and the laissez-faire approach in the United States. As a result of these diverging paths, the U.S. has lost its foothold in setting international standards and has become the dumping ground for chemicals that other countries prohibit. Not exactly confidence inspiring for a Vermont crowd that was clearly concerned about our daily exposure to known and potential toxins.

But luckily Vermont-based legislative solutions to many of the issues discussed were named by Senator Lyons. This included a series of bills that VPIRG is working with Senator Lyons to advance including legislation to reduce Vermont’s exposure to lead, pesticides, mercury, and toxic flame retardants. In addition to legislative solutions, Amy Todisco offered suggestions and tips for reading between the lines and making wise purchases.

All in all, it was an informative and engaging discussion that makes me want to rethink those bottles on my bathroom shelf!

Another SCHIP Vote Today

Sean — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:23:00 +0000

The U.S. House of Representatives will be voting today on a new bill to extend and expand the SCHIP program. Right now, very few details have been leaked to the public, but reports indicate that the bill contains some of the changes requested by Republicans, including a cap on the income levels of families eligible for SCHIP and new provisions to encourage SCHIP families to remain on private health insurance. From what we understand, the bill will still expand the program by $35 billion over the next five years and will do so through an increase on tobacco taxes.

We’ll keep you posted.

Give the People What They Want!

drew hudson — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:11:00 +0000

Three down and two to go and the will of Vermont has never been so clear. More than a hundred residents came out to the Montpelier Elks Club last night for the third in a series of DPS forums designed to gauge public opinion on Vermont’s energy future. The clear sentiment – Vermonters want wind and renewables, not nuclear and fossil fuels!

Those in attendance ranked coal, oil, and nuclear power among the three bottom choices for Vermont’s future energy mix. The top three choices - you guessed it – energy efficiency, wind, and hydro.

Other noteworthy findings include the following:

97% wanted to see Vermont increase energy from renewables;
70% strongly agreed that Vermont should require that a minimum of electricity sold should come from renewables;
78% would strongly support a wind farm even if it were visible from where they lived;
81% thought that over the next 10 years Vermont should increase efficiency spending;
And voters were most “extremely concerned” about radioactive waste and greenhouse gases.

This forum was a great exercise in democracy. Give the people a voice and they’ll make thoughtful decisions. Let’s just hope that our leaders and the DPS take the wants of Vermonters seriously!

To sign up for the last two hearings, click here.

By Charity Carbine, VPIRG Environmental Health Advocate

House Fails to Override SCHIP Veto by 13 Votes

Sean — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 04:19:00 +0000

The U.S. House of Representatives fell 13 votes shy today of overriding President Bush’s SCHIP veto. The final vote was 273-156. Earlier in the week, House Democrats vowed to pass another SCHIP bill if veto override efforts fell short. President Bush has said that he’s willing to work with members of both parties in both the House and Senate to find additional money for SCHIP. (In fact, he was even willing to admit that putting poor children first might take “a little more” than a 20 percent increase in SCHIP funding. What a guy.) SCHIP is currently set to expire on November 16, 2007, so hopefully the Bush administration will get to working with Congressional leaders soon rather than later.

Burlington: "Wind good, Yankee Bad"

Sean — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:36:00 +0000

Last night I was lucky enough to find myself along with 150 other folks at the Tuttle Middle School in tropical South Burlington for the Department of Public Service’s second hearing on Vermont’s energy future. From the get go I was quite concerned by the fact that the DPS did not seem to anticipate such a large turnout and thus had to close registration days before the event. Thankfully, Raab Associates (the group doing the polling) modified their website so that people could sign up for an online poll that would be taken into consideration with all the other data. Lesson to be learned:

A great number of people care about Vermont’s energy future and planning by the state needs to reflect that.

So, on to the festivities. Sitting in a middle school cafeteria dredged up some horrendous flashbacks from my tenure in 5th grade. I was, and still am, a geek and thus the moment I walked in was prepared to be mocked mercilessly by the 5th grade football team. Thankfully, I found a much warmer welcome in the form of chocolate chip cookies and diet peach Snapple.

Once you sign in they give you a little key pad and assign you to a table after which you are free to grab some dinner (see aforementioned Snapple) and chat with your table mates. Mine were great, intelligent and caring community members who, while we disagreed on some issues, all wanted what was best for the community and the State.

After dinner and the get-to-know-you the program begins in earnest. There was a quick round of demographic polling before we finally got to the meat of the matter, the energy presentation. The problems with this presentation can be seen fully in Drew Hudson’s blog post about the St. Johnsbury DPS hearing so I will not belabor that point here.

The presentation ended with a charge to sit down with your group to discuss and think up some questions. Our group discussion was great, we had everything from relatively pro nuclear to totally anti nuclear. But one place we hit an absolute consensus was that our energy portfolio must become diversified. And the question we ended up asking the panel was “How could large companies be incentivised to start producing power on site?” The answer from DPS was, “we’re starting to sit down with businesses to get that done right now.” Well, right on then.

Last but definitely not least was the all important polling section of the evening. Here is a rundown on the numbers:

1) Those polled disagreed strongly with continuing to purchase energy from Vermont Yankee.
2) 76% of those polled believed that we need to institute a Renewable Portfolio Standard.
3) 97% of those polled believe we need to increase the amount of renewable energy we use in the state.
4) People would be willing to more than $6 a month extra on their energy bills for renewable production.
5) 81% of those polled would strongly support a wind farm they could see from their homes.
6) 80% of those polled want the state to increase funding in our energy efficiency program.
7) On a scale of 1 to 9 where 9 is critically concerned the visual impacts of wind rated a 2.26 where as radioactive waste score a 7.63
8) On a scale of 1 to 9 where 9 is a critical threat to Vermont’s beauty utility scale wind rated a 2.65 and residential wind rated a 1.79.
9) On a scale of 1 to 9 where 9 was critically important decreasing greenhouse gasses scored a 7.99, decreasing nuclear waste scored a 7.62 and increasing investment in renewable resources scored a 8.02.
10) Those polled stated that their three highest energy priorities were wind, hydro and energy efficiency and their lowest priorities were coal, nuclear, and oil

Once again, score one for the good guys. Hopefully there will come a day when our law makers and administration see that the people want change and are dedicated to the kind of changes it takes to combat this global climate crisis. Last night gave me hope, let see if it will give our law makers some ideas.

Congress Ready to Rumble for Kids' Health Insurance

drew hudson — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:38:00 +0000

Tomorrow, members of the U.S. House and Senate will vote to override President Bush’s veto of legislation that would extend and expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. The bill in question, a compromise between the House and Senate, would extend SCHIP for another five years, provide an additional $35 billion in funding, and provide health care for an additional 10 million uninsured children whose families make too much to qualify for Medicaid but too little to afford the typical private insurance plan.

In vetoing the bill, President Bush, always an ally of the private insurance industry, claimed the legislation was a move toward “federalized” health care and that he believes in private insurance. Oddly enough, under the SCHIP program, children are typically enrolled in private health insurance plans, and there is no federally established or recommended benefits package.

Additionally, Bush has claimed that the SCHIP legislation extends coverage to families earning over $80,000. However, the bill in question limits SCHIP dollars to children in families with incomes at or below 300 percent of the federal poverty level, which is approximately $60,000 a year for a family of four.

Why such discrepancies between the President’s statements and the actual bill? Well, several things might be at work here. It’s possible that President Bush has not read the legislation. It’s also possible that he’s receiving bad advice from his cronies. It’s also possible that he’s purposely trying to mislead the American public so that folks will get behind his veto. It’s much easier to sell bad policy with “truthiness” than by admitting that this veto was made in deference to the private insurance industry and big tobacco companies (much of the new SCHIP funding comes from an increase in tobacco taxes).

Whatever it is, one thing is clear: Bush’s veto makes no sense. It’s an exceedingly bad policy decision that puts children across this country at risk. Let’s hope that Congress can muster the votes tomorrow to override the President (and the insurance industry and big tobacco) to provide health care to children who need it the most.

We’ll keep you posted.
-By Stefanie Sidortsova, Health Care Advocate

Entergy Push Poll Can’t Hide the Truth

Sean — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:03:00 +0000

I guess Vermonters can’t be trusted to think for themselves. At least that’s what Entergy Nuclear, Vermont Yankee’s owner, thinks.

In recent days, irritated Vermonters have reported being the victims of an Entergy push poll. For those of you unfamiliar with this unscrupulous tactic, push polling is often used in political campaigns as a way to manipulate the opinions of voters and circulate negative information on the opposition. What’s worse is that this shifty attempt to sway voters is veiled as a legitimate survey!

In the case of Entergy, the recent collapsed cooling tower and emergency shutdown have created such a public relations maelstrom that the poll was pushing “positive” information about Vermont Yankee. Unfortunately for Entergy, no amount of spin is going to save them from the truth…Vermonters don’t want or need an aging nuclear facility that is literally falling apart!

This was made evident in the first of a series of Department of Public Service (DPS) regional energy forums. At the St. Johnsbury hearing last week, Northeast Kingdom residents showed overwhelming support for renewable energy and strong opposition on our continued reliance on nuclear power. And if we know Vermonters, we anticipate similar outcomes for the remaining public engagement hearings. Perhaps this is why Entergy felt the need to conduct the poll?

So don’t let Entergy “push” you around. Let your voice be heard and register for the upcoming forums in Burlington, Montpelier, Springfield and Rutland!

Click here to register for the hearings. Much like an election, if you don't register you can't vote, so sign on up!

Charity Carbine

DPS energy hearings start with a BANG!

drew hudson — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:14:00 +0000

Last night’s energy forum in St. Johnsbury was a BLAST! Faced with the tough choice of how to meet our future energy needs, voters came through with the answer :

We can choose to continue relying on dirty and expensive sources like Yankee and fossil fuels with disastrous consequences for our climate, economy and environment. Or choose a brighter energy future that creates thousands of jobs, cuts global warming pollution, and leaves our children a legacy of prosperity.

I was pleasantly surprised, with a few caveats, that the forum presented the choice before Vermonters in reasonable terms. Presented with that evidence, an overwhelming number of the Northeast Kingdom voters who showed up wanted renewable energy and energy efficiency to meet our future electricity needs. They also strongly opposed continued reliance on nukes, fossil fuels, and imported power.

Some examples:

84% of voters wanted Vermont to get more power from renewable sources;
When asked if government should require utilities to to provide a minimum percentage of power from renewables: 53% strongly agreed, and only 15% strongly disagreed;
75% support increased funding for Efficiency Vermont;
and, when asked to rate their level of concern about various environmental impacts, voters were nearly twice as concerned about nuclear waste and global warming as they were about the visual impacts of wind turbines.

(more results in the full report)

I’m excited about the upcoming forums in Burlington, Montpelier, Springfield and Rutland and encourage everyone to join us at one for a powerful evening where voters have a real chance to shape our energy future….don’t forget to register!

Here’s the full (long) report.

Health Care Updates from the Desk of Stefanie Sidortsova

Sean — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:38:00 +0000

Catamount Update

Yesterday marked a historic new beginning for health care in Vermont, as enrollment began in the state’s landmark Catamount Health program. Catamount Health is part of Green Mountain Care, a family of state- and federally subsidized health care programs for uninsured Vermonters. The health care administration is launching the program slowly, hoping to iron out all kinks before facing a deluge of applications. The Green Mountain Care advertising campaign is scheduled to begin in earnest on November 1. VPIRG will be issuing a scorecard on the Catamount outreach and enrollment process later this month. Click on the button below to sign up and see if you are eligible for benefits!

National News

You’ve probably already heard that the House and Senate passed a “compromise bill” that extends the highly popular State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) for another five years. The bill was a compromise in that it combined previous SCHIP bills passed by both chambers. If the new bill becomes law, children in Vermont who are currently insured under our Dr. Dynasaur program will retain their health insurance. In a move that shocked no one, President Bush vowed to veto the bill. Stay tuned.

The real truth about Campaign Finance Reform

drew hudson — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:36:00 +0000

Some of you may have seen the opinion piece written by Rob Roper, Chairman of the Vermont State Republican Committee, attacking VPIRG, the Attorney General and two-thirds of the legislature for trying to limit the influence of big money in politics.

Notwithstanding Mr. Roper’s unique take on Vermont politics - which seems to attribute nearly all action in Montpelier to VPIRG’s (no doubt dubious) plotting – what is this all about?

It’s about money.

VPIRG agrees with most citizens and most legislators in believing that money has too much influence in elections and special interests can have too much influence over elected officials. We think the scandals that led to the downfall of Jack Abramoff and former Reps. Randy “Duke” Cunningham and Bob Ney are a national disgrace that should never happen in Vermont.

That’s why VPIRG backed S.164, a modest campaign finance reform bill that set reasonable limits on how much individuals, corporations, political parties and PACs can donate to candidates in Vermont. The legislation had support from Democrats, Progressives and Republicans (see for instance the bill's 28-0 passage in the Senate on second reading last March (more in the blog here).

But the Governor vetoed the bill in a shameful decision to put politics ahead of principle. Again, a bi-partisan group of legislators stood up for voters in the Senate, but in the House the Republican leaders twisted arms to prevent even principled Republican representatives from voting for what they knew was a good bill. The override failed the House by a single vote (more on the override here).

Roper talks about money too, but he uses it as an effective but ultimately dishonest act of misdirection.

You’ll remember misdirection as the part of the trick where a magician gets you to look at one hand, while the other hand does something distinctly un-magical. But if you are doing what the magician wants, all you see is something vanishing –MAGIC!

Roper wants you and the Vermont legislature to focus on the recent decision to settle on legal fees related to the long battle over Vermont's campaign finance reform law that was struck down by the US Supreme Court last year. “Beware,” say Roper, “passing this sort of law will only create more court bills!”

So what’s in the other hand? Those fees being collected from Vermont taxpayers are going to … you guessed it, the lawyer representing the Vermont State Republican Committee. You see, it was the State Republicans, along with the Right to Life Committee and others, that have always objected to Vermont’s ability to regulate money’s influence on politics. It was their lawyer, James Bopp, who argued for nearly a million dollars in legal fees.

Looking beyond Roper's rant, there is good news:

First, with strong backing from Republicans, Democrats, Progressives and Independents in the House and Senate, we have high expectations that a good campaign finance law will be passed swiftly next session. And this time we’ll have the two-thirds vote we need to make a veto irrelevant - should Gov. Douglas stick to his position of opposing any reasonable limits on contributions.

Second, if Roper and his allies are really concerned about the impact of these laws on Vermont, they can return the money they’ve billed the taxpayers for and not sue. No magic, just clean, Green Mountain style politicking.

Sanders Bill poised to change Health Care

Sean — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:09:00 +0000

Yesterday afternoon, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders introduced the "States’ Right to Innovate in Health Care Act", a bill that, if passed, would provide federal funding for five states to implement health care demonstration projects with the goal of achieving “a cost-effective delivery system of universal, comprehensive health care with simplified administration.”

The bill stipulates that at least one of the state plans approved for funding must be a single-payer system. We at VPIRG applaud Senator Sanders for introducing such an innovative and forward-thinking bill and believe this legislation could prove to be an important step towards nationwide quality, affordable health care.

Once the text of the bill is online you will find a link to here. So stay tuned!

Stefanie Sidortsova
Health Care Advocate.

Governor Douglas Stands Up For Vermonts Kids

Sean — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:11:00 +0000

We at VPIRG would like to congratulate and thank Governor Jim Douglas for standing up for Vermont’s children by denouncing the Bush Administration’s proposal to restrict funding for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) as “an unconscionable reversal of federal policy.” The new federal guidelines, which impose harsh restrictions on states that wish to use SCHIP funding to cover the children of families with incomes greater than 250% of the federal poverty level, could result in over 2,000 Vermont children losing their health benefit next year. Although Governor Douglas will undoubtedly come under immense pressure from the National Republican Party and private health insurance companies, he has chosen to do the right thing by publicly speaking out against the Bush Administration’s decision. We applaud the Governor’s action and encourage him to continue to put the needs of Vermont’s children ahead of big business and partisan politics.