Party Politics

Earlier this month we saw party politics in action as both Shumlin and Leahy endorsed Clinton as the Democratic nominee. I am not surprised and neither should you be surprised.

Senator Leahy has long been an elder. As long as Senator Leahy has been representing Vermont, he will not be our Senator for another lifetime. That is a good thing. Lifetime service as a politician cannot, in this climate, be given the respect it deserves. Too many lifetime politicians have spent too long bilking the public while enriching their own pockets, Wall St and their corporate masters. This has led to deserved skepticism as people begin to equate a lifetime in politics with corruption and lying. Unfortunately, guilt by association harms Senator Leahy’s legacy, as the American public’s approval rating of the Congress and Senate continue to plummet. Yet his reputation at home is intact and well deserved. But he is a party man. The Democratic Party, and all of its financial donors, have benefited Sen. Leahy and he is obliged, as all those who take the money are obliged, to toe the party line; regardless of the appropriateness or benefit to their constituents.

Shumlin must wonder if his days as Governor are numbered. His dismal showing in the election in November had to have given him pause. Shumlin has been involved in Vermont politics at the state level since 1990, always a Democrat. With the possibility of losing the Governor’s seat a reality, Shumlin should be able to expect the help of his party. If Bernie wins (J) or if Leahy decides to retire, Shumlin could look to replace Welsh as he moves into a Senate seat. All conjecture, of course. Letting my imagination play. But not out of the question.

The underlying problem is that these guys rely on money from the national party which, as we all know, takes its money and marching orders from the same leaders as the Republican Party and for the same reasons. Access to influence can be, and has been, purchased by lobbyists for giant corporations, banks, and investment firms, most of which are not from Vermont and are not concerned with Vermont.

No matter how good or honorable a person is, the people who pay them have an expectation of service. Quite frankly, despite the fact they the taxpayers shell out large salary and benefit packages for representation, it is paltry compared to what Monsanto or Cargill or Caterpillar can afford. We can pretend all we want that it is different here, but we know better don’t we? Dirty money taints all who come into contact with it. So while we may believe that our representatives are good and honest men, we cannot discount the fact that they all take money from businesses and interests outside of Vermont, beyond their salaries and beyond the donations of their constituents, to do a job that we are paying them to do. If you took money from a supplier to influence your boss’s selection of vendors and the supplier was paying you twice as much as your employer, where would your loyalties lie? Would you be tempted to make certain that the supplier who was giving you the bulk of your income stayed happy? Even if it meant doing something that wasn’t in the best interest of your boss? It is true that one cannot serve two masters. 

All of this has led to the rise of the ultra-wealthy and an imbalance in the distribution of resources greater than the world has ever seen before. People are suffering the effects including stagnating wages, anemic job growth, and an economy flirting with another recession. Perhaps we have finally reached that tipping point, that moment when the forces of nature that rule us all assert their ultimate authority. History has shown us time and again that wealth inequality ends. It always ends. Because it is not sustainable. Once one group has all the wealth, the game is over. History has also shown a propensity for ending resource imbalance and wealth inequality in 3 common ways: War, Taxes, or Revolution.

There is a fourth way available, but I am not convinced that it is feasible in this culture. The fourth way is that the side with all the wealth realizes that the game is about to end, and in the time honored tradition of children everywhere, gives some back so that the game can continue. That would actually mean that the wealthiest 1% would voluntarily redistribute the resources by utilizing a combination of paying higher taxes, raising the minimum wage, revising the current tax code, expanding Medicare, and feeding and educating the workforce that it wants available to utilize in the next round of the game. This would allow the game to begin anew. The economy would grow, the rich would get richer and they would be supported in this by a vibrant and healthy middle class. There would be a safety net to protect the most vulnerable citizens and guaranteed healthcare and food and education so that all can contribute to their best ability. You know this can happen. Unfortunately greed has trumped common sense and it seems that the 1% would like to squeeze every drop out. So, given the circumstances, I chose Bernie’s “Political Revolution” over the other options.

These are also the reasons that it bums me out, Bernie running as a Democrat. Even though I understand the strategy, it leaves a bad taste. Yet, if one looks at the glass in a half full reality, Bernie could be the catalyst for disruption of the two party system. That would be a very good thing. I'm going to lend my energy to that end.

Oh, and as to Peter Shumlin’s decision to attempt and steal Bernie’s thunder, subtle Gov. Nobody thinks it was intentional and we all believe it just happened that way.

Party Politics. Pathetic.

Post Script: I just realized that I haven't heard Peter Welsh offer an endorsement yet. I must have missed it. I'll look it up tonight on the interwebs.

"A New England Food Vision" is a must read

Recently, in my search about a topic that had come up on my podcast (foodscenevermont.blogspot.com) I came across the website www.foodsolutionsne.org and downloaded A New England Food Vision. This is a fascinating document that lays out a plan for New England to provide for half of its food by 2060. The thing I found most interesting were the maps that laid out proposed land use throughout the region. In each scenario the Champlain Valley provides the lion’s share of the crops.

Now I don’t intend for anyone to take this out of context, you should really read the plan. It is well written and well thought out. But what tweaked my nosey Nellie is the thought of what that actually represents. Think about it. The Champlain Valley is an important resource not only for Vermont, but for the whole region. As we plan our land use and develop our rules and regulations, we would do well to think ahead to what the future of our food systems will realistically entail. While food should be a basic human right in an advanced society, the types and amounts of foods we consume as a regular part of our diet will, in many ways, be dictated by the trade agreements the state and region enter into with other states and other regions. The better the agreements, the greater the availability of sustenance beyond mere survival.

Vermont would do well to take a proactive approach to agriculture and begin to consider the ramifications of what we grow and raise and how we do so as an integral part of our future planning. Encouraging the types of agriculture that will make Vermont stronger both as a society and as an economic trade partner is in the best interest of the citizens. So the discussions should be open, transparent and public.

Artisan industries and small farms are vital to Vermont and our way of life. Making sure that a market exists for our products means making sure that our products are attractive to the market. By careful analysis, like that done in the aforementioned plan, Vermont can plan it’s economic and agricultural future and Vermonters can take their rightful place in the discussion about where we are headed and how we intend to get there.

It isn’t just for politicians any more.

Run Bernie, run!

There are several reasons that I am excited about a Bernie Sanders campaign for President. I first became aware of Bernie Sanders when I moved to Vermont in 2000. A friend was working his campaign and so I went to one of his town hall meetings. Really good chicken and biscuits, hot coffee and tea, cookies. A whole heap of straight talk about what he was focused on that year. Strangest campaigning I'd even seen.

I've never seen a negative Bernie campaign in the 15 years I've been in Vermont. He just doesn't roll that way. He tells you what he thinks and he votes that way and you can look it up. He is the rarest of all species.........an honest politician. He believes. He believes in this country. He believes that we should fulfill our promises to our elders and our veterans. He believes that kids should go to college for free so that we can compete on a global scale and he believes that the wealthy whose businesses stand to gather the most profit should pay for it. He believes that the system is corrupt. He believes he will not take PAC money. He believes that I will give him $5. And he believes that all of those $5 represent the will of the people and that they are powerful enough to drive out the Kochs and all the other billionaire handlers that have invaded our political system. But probably most importantly, Bernie believes that he can win. Or should I say WE can win? Because he believes that he is part of a grassroots team. Just listen to him speak and hear the wewewewewe drumbeat. It may be the only time you will hear a politician mean it.

I love the fact that Bernie has been an independent for so long. I think it took a real love of country to decide to run as a Democrat. Choosing to use the opportunity to present his opinions in a way that, while challenging the status quo, will not end up "splitting the vote" in the general election. I would have preferred that he run as an independent if only because it is important to break the two party strangle-hold on our political system. The American people are smart enough to choose from more than 2 pre-ordained candidates and a planned coronation. They have a right to hear from more than corporate interests.

 Bernie is not a young man. At 73, there is a fair chance that, were he to win, he would only serve a single term. But that just might be enough time to shake the electorate out of it's stupor, it might be enough to interest the millennial generation, who is going to inherit this mess, enough to see real change come to our system of governance.

I don't agree with everything that Bernie believes. But I believe that this year, for the first time, I will vote in the primary.....

Agriculture

I am not a farmer, though I have friends that farm. So I don't pretend to understand the business end of farming. What I do know is that our food chain has been irreparably altered over the last decade. Whether you "believe in" global warming or not, changes in our atmosphere have led to larger and more violent storms, drought, flooding, and a host of other issues which have changed temperatures on both land and in the sea. Warm "blobs" spreading through the Pacific Ocean may turn out to be one of the causes, along with over fishing, of the collapse of the sardine and anchovy populations. Droughts are causing difficulty in growing water heavy crops such as avocados. Beef supplies are expected to decline by over a billion pounds this year. That is on top of last year's decline. Avian flu is decimating poultry flocks in 12 states as you read this. The world is losing one food species every 6 minutes right now. And let us not forget the colony collapse disaster facing our pollinators.

All of this indicates that food, along with clean water, will become priorities for all communities over the next decade. Vermont is uniquely situated to provide for her people, but only if we act with clear intent as we craft laws that define and make profitable the agricultural industry in Vermont. We can create an agri"culture" in Vermont by making the industry a priority in planning and funding. Giant factory farms will not increase tourism, as smaller family farms could. Factory farms are not focused on the people of Vermont, as family farms are, they are focused on profit and their goods most often leave the state. A strong farming community will be vital to Vermont's future both as a secure food source for our population and as a draw to tourists. Along with deliberate, thoughtful action developing Vermont as a destination, agriculture is one of our most valuable resources.

Supporting a strong farming community should be a priority for the state. Legislators, farmers, and citizens should be invited to develop plans detailing a vision for the future of Vermont agriculture in light of the now present food security issues developing around the globe, mindful of Vermont's tourist industry and the balance required to maintain both.

Vermont has a small population. Small enough that we should be able to come together and plan our own future. We can, and should, feed ourselves. If we can grow 75% of the average Vermonters diet, then we should and we should encourage Vermonters to buy that local food. We should serve it in our schools, hospitals, prisons, and government offices. There are many ways to accomplish such a goal. Let's explore them. Let's not hand control of our resources over to those who are selling their influence and selling us out.

Which brings us to the minimum wage...

I am so torn about this topic. On the one hand, I think that government should stay out of business as much as possible. On the other hand, when business runs out of control and its actions are bad for the people of the country then something must be done. If we were operating under a system of true laissez faire capitalism it might be possible to let the market work itself out. But we are not. We operate under a system whereby the deepest pockets are able to purchase laws and ordinances that favor them and injure the public. You will hear complaining about government interference in business....its because corporations purchase politicians and then the politicians vote in favor of rules and regulations that favor the corporation that is paying them. Mind you, this is not mom and pop stores, this is not small businesses. They are as screwed as the rest of us, in spite of the fact that they have a prominent position as a economic force. They aren't collective and independently cannot spend the same amounts of cash that Monsanto or CAT can spend.

After giving it a lot of thought, I think that Vermont should set a rate of $16.82 per hour as the minimum wage. This is not a lot of money, $35,000 a year for a full time 40 hour a week position. This is right around what I make now. It is never going to make me rich and I have to watch every penny I spend. But I'm not destitute. I own my house. I have a car and a motorcycle. Mind you, I don't have a Lexus and a Harley, I have a Subaru and a Ural. Still, gets me to work. My house will always need work but hey, idle hands and all, it's probably a good thing I have something to do. So $16.82 is not going to make anyone rich, but it is not going to break the bank either. The cost to companies could be offset by the reduced needs for social safety benefits in the state and by increased spending on the part of consumers.

The best course of action, in my opinion, is the implementation of the Fair Tax Act on the federal level, removing the onus of income tax collection from businesses. This, in addition to a livable minimum wage, would jump start a true economic recovery. Not to be confused with the "economic recovery" whereby Wall Street is getting richer and the rest of us are getting poorer.

Let's talk about welfare...

I have heard people talk about the bums collecting welfare, no jobs, kids running wild, etc etc
Hear's the thing, most of that crap is just not true. And I'm not saying that there aren't people who game the system, there are, but they represent a very small percentage of welfare recipients. I can't speak to any experiences but my own. So I'm going to talk about the food service industry. Food service employees, industry-wide, collect around $9 BILLION dollars in welfare benefits a year. That is about $197,000 a year per Olive Garden location. Why? They have jobs. They work, often far beyond 40 hours a week.

Here's why. A corporation exists to produce profit. If they hire full time workers and pay them good benefits they might save money on turn-over and training. But they WILL save money if they hire all part-time workers and give them no benefits. Although the rate of attrition is high, the overall savings is higher. As a food service worker I have often found myself in a position, mostly when I was a young single parent, of having two and three part time jobs in order to pay the bills. But I lived in fear of someone getting sick or having an accident. I raised my kids hand to mouth and it sucked. Yet here we are, 25 years later, corporations posting record profits, CEO's making obscene salaries 300 times the pay of their average employee, and still, still we blame the worker who, trying to put food on the table, turns to welfare.

This is corporate welfare folks. This is the taxpayer subsidizing the income and benefits of the worker while Wall Street reaps the profits. So, they build companies utilizing publicly funded infrastructure, like roads and the power grid which taxpayers paid for, then they screw the taxpayer again by forcing them to subsidize the wages of their employees. To top it off, they use their welfare check to purchase favors and influence from the public officials that WE PAY.


Thing is, both political parties are taking the payola. If they weren't there would be no such a job as lobbyist. Both parties work diligently to convince you that they are looking out for your interests and both are lying. Listen, everyone knows you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

I wish Elizabeth Warren would run for President.

Hillary ate at a Chipotle in Iowa. No tip.

The Hillary video

Did anyone see Hillary's "I'm running for President" video.

This thing embodies all that is wrong with our political system. It assumes the audience is stupid, that we can't tell that the diner is fake and the logo is corporate. Rehash of the same old crap. She may well be a wonderful person, but we will never know it. Because it is damn near impossible to have both the people and the corporations like you at the same time......their needs are too different.

People need decent wages, affordable medical care and medications, healthy food and enough of it. We need good schools where our children can learn how to read and write and complete mathematical formulas. We need teachers who are competent and well paid to do the VERY IMPORTANT WORK of educating the next generation......who will be caring for us in our decrepitude. We need medications that have been tested and that we can trust are safe and not just profitable. We need a smaller government and a larger vision.

Corporations need    PROFIT.

That's it. Profit. When they make money they can pay decent wages and work to maintain a healthy, educated, productive workforce. ROFLMAO!!! Like that has happened at any point in the last quarter of a century.

Listen, corporations are not inherently bad. Neither is capitalism as a system. Pretending that corporations are people. Abusing your workers. Buying politicians and selling lies and poison. Destroying our planet for a buck. Those things are bad. But they were done by the collective decisions of people. Because corporations cannot make decisions. They are not people. In spite of what the folks running these corporations work hard to make us believe. Capitalism, like religion, is easy to twist and distort.

These are real people that make the decisions that are hurting the little guy. They make those decisions so that they can maintain the privilege we have allowed them to assume. Until we say no, they, like children, will continue to push the boundaries. Because in capitalism, as in life, rules are needed to help shape our choices and decisions. It is no more wrong to expect a livable wage than it is to expect your child to say please and thank you.

Look, the simple truth is that we really don't know what we would do if we were given the keys to the kingdom and no rules to follow. But like Lord of the Flies, the results would probably be ugly. We, as citizens, have failed to maintain control of our society and it has become something very ugly. We can either take it back, set some boundaries, and get to the task of building a great town, state, and country or we can say screw it. The choice is ours to make.