A Must Read Editorial

Below is an editorial published in the Burlington Free Press today. It really hits home on how irresponsible the Democratic Party is acting in the Vermont Legislature.

Editorial: Move Past Old Battles on School Funding
Click Here for the source

Here we go again. The Legislature is again tinkering with the way we pay for public schools, this time seeking to overturn a plan passed last session even before people have had a chance to try it out.

This constant fiddling with the funding mechanism is a distraction from the real issue of figuring out what kind of education we want our public schools to provide for our children, and how much of it we can afford.

That's the question voters will be dealing with at town meetings around the state as many communities cast ballots on school budgets.

The provision before the House is what's known as the "think twice" plan, under which school budgets are split in two if the increase tops the rate of inflation plus one percentage point. This gives people a chance to vote separately on a "basic budget" and on the additional spending increase.

Think twice was the result of a last-minute compromise at the close of the last legislative session, a way to include a "cost containment" provision in the education funding bill insisted on by Gov. Jim Douglas.

This was a flawed concept from a start, based on the assumption that voters fail to grasp the significance of school budget increases they were approving. Splitting the budget in two also can give the wrong impression that the proposed spending above the cap is somehow optional or less a part of the overall needs of a school district.

The attempt to repeal the think-twice provision is unlikely to get far with the Senate unenthusiastic about reconsidering the plan. Yet, to attempt to go back on the agreement with the Douglas administration by repealing the plan cast doubt on the sincerity of legislative negotiators who worked out the deal, and the lawmakers who approved it. That is a formula guaranteed to sour talks between legislators and the administration next time a controversial issue comes up.

Most of all, another debate over the think-twice plan is one more distraction. Vermonters are ill-served when legislators insist on re-fighting past battles. When it comes to paying for education, lawmakers need to keep their focus on the difficult task of helping to create the public school system we need at a cost we can afford.

VERY IMPORTANT!

Because Vermonter's have insisted on electing Democrats that are way out of touch to the needs of Vermonters; we're springing to action to warn you!

The Vermont Democrats have sponsored a bill that taxes the consumer 17 cents PER PLASTIC BAG when making a purchase. We're with you, we know it's tough and very expensive to be a college student these days. So please, for your sake... ask for a paper bag, and absolutely under no circumstances ask for a double-bag!

Here's the excerpt from the Vermont Republican Party's weekly e-mail.

On, Thursday, January 31st House Republicans made another attempt to adjourn the legislature one month early, saving $1 million. This money would be used to help low income Vermonters with their heating bills this winter. An amendment, offered by Rep. Patti Komline that would have accomplished this, was voted down largely on party lines. Every Democrat and Progressive voted against it. They need that extra month to do important things…

…Like tax your grocery bags and sandwich wrappers.

Yes, this past week saw the introduction of H.743, A Tax on Plastic Bags. This bill reads in part:

There shall be paid by the purchaser or recipient a tax of $0.17 on each plastic bag purchased or received in a retail transaction in this state or purchased or received for use in this state…. "Plastic bag" in this section shall mean a bag or wrapping provided by a wholesale or retail seller… (For details, CLICK HERE)

As the bill is written, this would mean that a Vermonter purchasing a box of two hundred fifty Ziploc sandwich bags would pay $42.50 in additional taxes on the purchase (plus 17 cents more if he or she "would like a bag for that").

No doubt this is not what the writers of the bill intended. But they never intend for the painful and expensive UNintended consequences of their foolish attempts to govern every single aspect of our lives.

So, are we ready to send them home early yet?

No wonder college students are fleeing the state. Gotta love the ideas that these Democrats come up with!

Montpelier Democrats just don't get it...

Once again, Montpelier Democrats have shown that they have a severe lack of understanding of fiscal responsibility. Check out this op-ed written by Jack McMullen published in the Burlington Free Press this week:

VPIRG has become a special-interest advocate

The U. S. Supreme Court says elimination of "corruption or the appearance of corruption" is the only legitimate reason for a state to abridge the First Amendment rights of its citizens through campaign finance legislation. Using this standard, the court struck down in June 2006 a 1997 law promoted by the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG).

In 2007, VPIRG was back with another campaign finance bill -- different but with comparably strict contribution limits.The Legislature, controlled by Democrats, passed the new law despite expert testimony from the ACLU and the attorney who won the last round of lawsuits that the new bill was likely unconstitutional as well. As the voice of common sense, and probably saving Vermont taxpayers from having to foot the bill for another multimillion-dollar Supreme Court battle, Gov. Douglas vetoed VPIRG's campaign finance law.

Now, VPIRG and its Democratic allies are back again. Why is VPIRG so determined to try to pass a campaign finance law of the type just declared unconstitutional? And why is the Democratic Party so willing to go along with what is an obviously bad bill that unnecessarily puts Vermont taxpayers in legal jeopardy?

Time was when public interest research groups like VPIRG really did serve the public interest. We have such groups to thank for much safer cars, much cleaner air and water, and the ability to know what's in the food we buy.

But in recent years VPIRG has been, in reality, little more than a lobbying enterprise for special interests which, in large measure, fund it -- primarily corporate wind power and alternative energy interests. Ironically, these are heavily taxpayer-subsidized corporate projects of the type public interest groups used to advocate against.

In this role, VPIRG appears to have the Democratic Party firmly under its thumb. It comes, then, as no surprise that that party's agenda is tightly linked, not to the most pressing concerns of the people of Vermont, but to the personal agendas of VPIRG's board of directors.

For instance, David Bittersdorf and Mathew Rubin, two men with active wind power enterprises in Vermont , are trustees of VPIRG, as is Dave Rapaport, who worked for five years for Mathew Rubin's East Mountain Wind Tower Co. Trustee Leigh Seddon founded Solar Works Inc., a renewable-energy design and contracting firm. VPIRG's five registered lobbyists work the state Legislature tirelessly for more taxpayer funding for renewable energy. VPIRG also spends a lot of time demonizing major competitors of its supporters -- lobbying to close Vermont Yankee, a carbon-neutral power source, and to classify Hydro-Quebec as a nonrenewable energy source.

This brings us back to the campaign finance bill. The chief reason for this bill appears to be to handicap in future elections the political opponents of the policy agenda of VPIRG. VPIRG's activities, many of them indirectly in support of candidates of the Democratic Party, would be immune from the campaign contribution and spending limits the new law would impose on political parties and others active in directly backing candidates. VPIRG can raise as much money as it likes from its allies and doesn't even have to disclose who they are on required annual reports. Nor does it need to let voters know how it is being used.

The campaign finance bill in question was sponsored by Democratic state Sen. Ed Flanagan, who is also a member VPIRG's board of directors. In addition, Scudder Parker, who ran for governor as a Democrat last time around and has served as the Democratic Party chairman, is now a hired lobbyist for VPIRG. Senate leader Peter Shumlin has been referred to only half-jokingly as the senator from VPIRG. And the current Democratic chairman, Ian Carleton , has also worked with VPIRG. If the Legislature is looking for corruption or the appearance of corruption to fix, it should start by looking at VPIRG and its relationship to the Vermont Democratic Party.

Jack McMullen, a strategy consultant to Fortune 500 and technology-oriented companies, lives in Burlington. He was the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in 2004.