IF IT AIN’T BROKE, BREAK IT 

Eighty percent of Vermont women with children under six are in the workforce - the highest percentage in the United States. Vermont parents spend more than $200 million per year on child care. Some parents pay a friend or neighbor. Others choose a small-home setting, a faith-based program, or a larger, licensed facility. In a sense, we have full preschool choice.

We also have an income-sensitized voucher system of sorts. Subsidies for low-income families in Vermont totaled $27 million in 2001. The state’s share, $5 million, remains unchanged since 1998 and 38 percent less than in fiscal year 1996, and ranks Vermont 47th in the nation for investment in early education. Vouchers and choice.

THE NEED

Why has Montpelier kept child care on a starvation budget? Many young families struggle mightily to pay, on average, $5,500 per child per year for preschool. The average subsidy per child paid to low-income families barely covers half this cost. At the same time, providers must struggle along on what parents can pay, caregivers averaging less than $8 per hour. This leads to high staff turnover, fewer trained and experienced caregivers, and decreased quality of care.

The U.S. military invested in their child care system in the early 1990s by increasing compensation and staff training. Staff turnover rates were cut in half, skill levels increased, and quality improved dramatically. Vermont could make a similar investment. With a little help, our free market child care system could be improved considerably.

IF IT WORKS, STARVE IT

That Montpelier failed to respond to this situation when the economy was strong in 2000 is remarkably troublesome. Senate bill S.60 was introduced to reverse the decline in state support for child care. The bill would have assured full child care subsidies for families with incomes below 125 percent of the federal poverty level, and partial subsidies for families with incomes up to 255 percent of that level. The bill would have injected $5 million into our cash-starved child care system, but it never even made it through committee. (Read it here: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/DOCS/2000/BILLS/INTRO/S-060.HTM).

Additional bills have been introduced in the past two years to provide tax credits for child care expenses, credits for wages paid by providers, credits to employers who provide child care, credits to encourage advanced training of caregivers and accreditation of programs, and the like. These bills were never even taken up. Nor did the Department of Education get behind these initiatives. The Governor was in Iowa.

IF IT DOES NOT WORK, FUND IT

What the Department of Education wants is to bring early education into the public education system via Act 60. Commissioner Ray McNulty says public schools need to provide on-site preschool services for the community. The Department of Education Web site proposes a takeover of pre-kindergarten education, complete with funds for the construction of facilities and an expansion of Act 60 general state support grants to cover preschool tuition (Read it here: http://www.state.vt.us/educ/new/pdfdoc/pgm_earlyed/ece_initiative_bullets.pdf). The Commish is reportedly putting the final touches on a bill to be introduced by Senators Vincent Illuzzi (R-Essex/Orleans) and Jim Condos (D-South Burlington).

Already there has been an increased flow of Act 60 money into Department of Education-controlled preschool initiatives, about $4 million/year; not to strengthen the private child care sector but in many cases to start demonstration preschool programs in public schools.

This is just plain wrong. We currently have a horribly underfunded income-sensitive child care voucher system. The Department of Education has never tried to increase funding to improve traditional child care. Instead, they are proposing to replace our current free market system with a public school model.

Within a few years home-based preschools will not be able to meet new rules and will become a thing of the past. It's also likely that preschool teachers will be organized by the Vermont NEA and the public will be paying through the nose.

GOVERNOR DOUGLAS WEIGHS IN

We asked the Governor. "I support preschool education. Both our children went and benefited greatly. While I support preschool education, we ought not by extension impose the state and its bureaucracy. We need to look at ways to encourage more participation. We should work to make a greater commitment but not to require it." 

WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE 

We mentioned our disappointment with the House Ways and Means Committee, though they have now passed Governor Douglas's proposed reduction in the statewide property tax. Yet, we suffer still more disappointment. The topic is school choice. The Governor loves it, supports it, spoke of it in his Inaugural Address: "If we are serious about every child attending a safe and drug-free school; every child having access to the best teachers and the best curriculum; if we are serious about accountability; if we are serious about every child having an equal chance, shouldn't every parent have an equal choice?" At his press conference this week, he reiterated his support for school choice.

Yet once again, a Republican Committee Chair, Representative Howard Crawford, R-Burke, Chairman of the House Education Committee, does not seem to understand that the home team sits in the governor’s office now, that his party’s Governor supports school choice, wants and needs the support of his Education Chair. If last week’s snub of Vermonters for Better Education Executive Director Libby Sternberg, her members, and supporters is any indication, Crawford does not. The Vermonters for Better Education press release on this matter is posted below.
 

YES MEANS NO 

This week several national experts were slated to ride into town and spend part of the day testifying before those committees. At the last minute, the event's organizer, Libby Sternberg, received emails from both Rep. Howard Crawford, R-Burke, and Sen. Jim Condos, D-Chittenden, saying yes but meaning no.

Yes, the experts could testify, but no, not about school choice, only about Act 60 reform, early education initiatives, and No Child Left Behind. Crawford said yes to hearing about choice under NCLB but directed that one witness, who's not an expert on this area, testify about it - again, a yes that was really a no.

Since Condos is a Democrat and his party appears to be, at times, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the NEA, his stance is not surprising. But Crawford? Well, unfortunately, we've seen this behavior before. Last year, word is that Crawford was instrumental in keeping a high school child from testifying about harassment because of his views on homosexuality, even though the child and his parents took off the day to come to Montpelier at another committee member's request. Again, a yes that was really a no. 

NOT AGAIN 

The governor's office would be wise to take Crawford off the "friends" list - he's tepid, at best, about school choice, and another initiative Governor Douglas wants to see, being able to appoint the Commissioner of Education. Crawford would not even agree to co-sponsor that bill. 

FRIENDLY'S 

Check out web sites. Some like Department of Labor and Industry have all the staff listed with email addresses. Others like Department of Commerce do not. We have tried to speak with Secretary Dorn for a week. We have played phone tag. There is no email listing, no voice mail system, no directory.

Surprisingly, if you call after 4:30 P.M., they are closed. Guess we are not open for business for West Coast companies, to say nothing of Hawaiian or Alaskan ones. 

PERMITS TO TAKE DOWN TOWERS 

Vermont Pubic Television’s President John King testified that they have spent over $750,000, in part your money as the state sends them money, to co-locate three towers onto one. This means that they are trying to remove two towers from the top of Mount Mansfield and hang everything they need on one shared with others. What's so hard to understand? 

JOB GROWTH 

Senate Pro Tem Peter Welch was quoted in the Times Argus: "We all campaigned on jobs and economic development. Now we are acting on it." What great earth shattering program or policy was he talking about? The Vermont Senate gave final approval to a plan to rename the General Affairs and Hosing Committee. The new name is Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs. Feel better?

Story here: http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/State/Story/60587.html

UNEMPLOYMENT GIFTS 

Who would believe that the House Commerce Committee became the House Labor Committee? They passed out a bill taking a million dollars out of the Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund to give to workers to replace the $18 a week bonus lost from the feds. Seems again curious that the Speaker would make the Commerce Committee a Democrat majority committee. He puts one more Republican than needed for control on the House Ways and Means Committee, then leaves the House Commerce Committee one Republican short.

The result would be a likely increase in the required payroll deduction tax for unemployment compensation. In that this rate applies only to the first $8,000 of income, its regressiveness should be of more interest to the Democrats than gift giving.

The Governor said that it was not such a bad thing, at least it was an appropriate use, not one of the many raiding schemes that the Democrats traditionally come up with such as using the Trust Fund for paid parental leave. Still, it seems like one of the "obstacles to job creation" he regularly cites. 

GONE FISHING 

Two small local businesses told us similar stories. They had separately recruited two former Ethan Allen employees to begin work when their expected unemployment ran out. Both wanted the employees earlier, but the employees wanted the time off, a "vacation" they called it. Each called when the thirteen-week extension was passed to inform their waiting employers that they would continue on unemployment so that they could go "ice fishing."

Cool or what? It used to be that to continue to qualify for unemployment benefits that you had to meet with you counselor weekly, show them signed interview slips from employers offering work. Not now. Just dial an 800 number, go through a quick menu, and your check comes in. Periodically, the Department of Employment and Training will spot check, but you are pretty much home free. 

INCOME REDISTRIBUTION ADVANCES 

Folks who must pay outrageous property taxes because they do not benefit from the generous income sensitivity provisions of Act 60 may be encouraged to know that our Senators are looking at modifications to the law. They may be less encouraged by the comments of Senate Finance Committee Chairwoman Ann Cummings (D-Washington). Her goal with Act 60, Cummings told the Rutland Herald, "would be to make it more progressive so people at lower incomes would pay less toward education than the wealthy." Story here: http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/60446.html

Guess she was not at Governor Douglas's press conference this week. When pushed by the press to accept replacing the property tax revenue to support Act 60 with an increase in the income tax, Douglas said, "That would not be positive for economic development. We are now 3rd highest in the nation in marginal tax rates. Many a Vermonter with means has decided not to be Vermonter, left the state, and in some cases their business went with them." 

THE POWER OF THE BULY PULPIT 

Governor Douglas thought that it had gone on too long. He called them to his office. He told them that it was time for the trustees of Fletcher Allen to understand "that they certainly bear the responsibility, that they had a fiduciary responsibility that was not met," and that they should resign, all of the trustees not recently appointed.

Newly minted Chair Louise McCarren said that it would be chaos to have a "wholesale change." Douglas replied, "It is chaos now."

Douglas added, "I have no direct control,but I expect that they will be in touch soon." According to WCAX, eight trustees resigned shortly after his press conference. Not so McCarren. McCarren ran unsuccessfully for the GOP Lieutenant Governor nomination in 1990 to face then Lieutenant Governor Howard Dean and was recently let go by Verizon. She said that she planned to devote more time and energy to Fletcher Allen and was promptly elected Chair. 

WALDO SOARS 

It was faint praise. Well not even. It was recognition. The Wall Street Journal editorialized: "It was entirely predictable that Iraq would follow Powell’s damning report with a new display of cooperation. It is also entirely predictable that some people - the French, the Chinese, Howard Dean - will want to believe it’s real."

Notice they assume everyone now knows who Howard Dean is. There is no "former Vermont Governor..." or "presidential aspirant..." or "unlikely Democrat contender..." Just "Howard Dean." Wow, who would have guessed that by Valentine's day, 2003, about a year before the first presidential primary vote, that the Wall Street Journal would believe that no one in their worldwide distribution would need any introduction to Howard Dean? 

WALDO IS THROUGH THE EARLY PRIMARIES 

That’s right. Dean now commands 16 percent in New Hampshire and 8 percent in Iowa. This puts him in the top tier. With the field potentially growing with Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Senator Bob Graham of Florida. Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, and who knows whom else, Dean stands out. He has carved out a clearly differentiating position on health care, the war with Iraq, and civil unions. His downside is that he is buckets short in ponying up the necessary cash. 

WE DON'T WANT TO KNOW 

Burlington Free Press, "Setting it Straight," 02/07: "AIR PASSENGER: Austen Bemis is a University of Vermont student. His sex was mischaracterized in a story about Northwest Airlines on Page 6A of Wednesday's Free Press." 

IRAQ 

»» Jack McMullen, Burlington: Your analysis of the hypocrisy of the French on the impending Iraq war is both timely and revealing. The French frequently act in the former colonies as if they were still running them, asking no one for permission to intervene in them at will, often without even disclosing their interventions until French troops are on the ground.

But let the United States try to step in to correct twelve years of deception and deceit concerning compliance with, and even outright flaunting of, U.N. Security Council resolutions prohibiting Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction and France is there to threaten a veto and posture as a great power helping the world by tempering our supposed arrogance and recklessness.

It's all about the power and glory of France. The Russians have proved better friends.

Editor's note: Jack this week threw his hat into the ring once again to take on Senator Patrick Leahy next year.

»» Pete Chagnon, Burlington: On September 11th, 2001, the President of the United States realized that we were being attacked by an insidious enemy, unlike any other, and that the Age of Appeasement had come to an end. He reacted like any other leader would when his nation faced an attack by a determined foe. In his address to this nation, he made it perfectly clear what we were up against and how we were going to achieve victory. This war,if it happens, is another step towards that victory. It has to happen.

There is no way we can continue to be victimized by these two-bit dictators. There is no way other people and nationalities can continue to suffer under their brutality. It's nice to cry out about "Human Rights" and the death of innocents. It's another thing to ensure those rights and protect those lives in the end. Saddam Hussein is not alone. We have many enemies in the world and if they believe that we will not do what has to be done to protect our nation, selves, and others, 9-11 will be just another tragedy in a long list of tragedies. President Bush has no choice, and neither do we as a people, but to take out Saddam. 

I WANT NAMES 

»» Barbara Richardson, Amsden: Eighty-seven of our Vermont "lawmakers" sign a letter to president Bush against going to war, and you don't even mention it in your newsletter? I'm disappointed in you. Here's a headline from the Rutland Herald of Wednesday, February 5th: "Veterans, Republicans Support Peace Letter". I'd like to know the text of the letter and who signed it, other than the five named in the article. 

ERRATUM 

»» Bruce Shields, Treasurer, Vermont Farm Bureau: Minor point on the Farm Show. The Vermont Farm Bureau would love to take credit for organizing the event, but in truth we are exhibitors like the others. The Farm Show is organized by a volunteer committee typically chaired by an employee of the Vermont Department of Agriculture. Several members of the Farm Show committee also belong to Farm Bureau, just as they may also belong to Grange or NOFA. 

ACT 250 DEFENSE DISINGENUOUS 

»» Ralph Colin, East Dorset: I read with interest the interview Bruce Edwards conducted with Mark Sinclair in the Business section of the 02/03 Rutland Herald. When responding to Edwards' question pertaining to the possible reform of Act 250 and its appeal process, Sinclair resorted to dragging out the now thoroughly discredited sententious exculpation "that 98 percent of all the developments proposed are approved." This "statistic," as he refers to it, is so patently false that one might be expected to be too embarrassed to quote it at this late date.

Many of these so-called "approvals" are so laden with impossible conditions that they are tantamount to denials and, to the applicants, are not worth the paper on which they are written. Moreover, this "statistic" completely overlooks all the prospective applications for projects which never see the light of day because the applicant, recognizing the untoward potential expense, the long, drawn-out time element frequently required and the unpredictability of the possible result, foregoes entering the fray altogether.

If such discussions are to be held and if they are to be productive, let's abandon the use of phony numbers and stick to facts. For those who have had to weather this habitually frustrating process with its often disappointing outcomes, Mr. Sinclair's statistic is an insult. 

A CALL FOR SECONDS 

»» Rob Mazza, Colchester: The comments from "Jay Murnick" about James Ehlers are just more trash from this unknown "sniper" from "la la land", he does this time after time. Mr Murdick should seek professional help with this obsession he has for Mr Ehlers. Mr Ehlers has never strayed from his concerns on Champion, public access, and why the Nature Conservancy was given an easement on 33,000 acres for $10.00. As far as the comments about the environmentalist upset with Wayne Laroche, they are upset all the time anyway!

»» James Ehlers, Burlington: All the attention Jay Murnick gives me certainly is flattering, but I am little concerned he is a bit obsessed with me. Think I should be worried?

My offer is still good to publicly debate the issues with him, anytime. I know he prefers to be sneaky, and I understand why, but eventually he may want to be able to take credit for all the deceit he crafts. In the meantime, I thank him for all the PR. 

MONKEY SEE, MONKEY DO 

»» David H. Millson, New Haven: I'm beginning to think you've come down with the Democrat Disease. You know, the one that forces them to chant in unison, "Mean-spirited, mean spirited," at passing Republicans; to scream that our President should be bombing North Korea but should make nice for a little while longer to the Torturer of Baghdad; to paste on the bumpers of their Saabs, Volvos and Beemers "Dumb, dumber, dumbest" stickers along with "W"'s photo.

Your shot at Mark Larson (...alone gazing about as the reverent moment passed quietly") joins the Dems' "if we hate 'em, we can say anything about 'em" ranks. In short, I know nothing of Mr. Larson's motivation... and neither do you! You can do better -- often do. Take back the high ground. You'll only get dirtier down there with that Democrat sort of paranoid name-calling. 

DARROW VERSUS BRYAN 

»» Richard & Mragaret Waite, Braintree: "Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread." No one ever commented on your visit to Cheddar Caves in England, and your climb up "Jacob's Ladder" to the tower. Apparently all of your readers accepted the concept of a very old earth, and a short time for man upon it (224 step stairway, and comparing the thickness of a piece of paper to it as "man's presence on earth"). Obviously, whoever erected the storyboards, believed in evolution, either naturalistic or theistic, and not in a recent Creation for both earth and mankind.

At the time the account of your visit appeared in early December, I was composing a letter to send to my elected representatives about taking an oath, and just "happened" to read Section IX in the Vermont Constitution of 1776. I have not yet compared it to the present day Consitution, but here is the second part, after swearing "by the ever living God" (or affirming "in the presence of Almighty God") not to do anything "injurious to the people"(you need to read it all): "each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: "I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the Protestant religion".

As you can see, Vermont has come a long way up or down, depending upon your viewpoint, but you can tell by the language of the oath and declaration, the citizens of Vermont and probably the rest of the U.S.A. would not have any problem with a Governor or a President who called upon God for help.

This "fool" would suggest that only people who have been convinced that evolution is a fact, and that therefore no Creator is needed, would object to our President's recent speech. Most Americans would like to think that we are "in the right", and that our motto: "In God we trust" still holds true. We want to know that our leaders, both religious and political, do consider themselves accountable first to the Creator (John 1:1-3), and finally to do no harm to the people who elected them (Sect. IX in the Vermont Constitutuion of 1776).

For an excellent source of information, visit http://www.icr.org on the Internet. You will not find this information in your local newspaper or library. 

LOOKING FOR INFORMATION 

»» Rich Lachapelle, Huntington: I saw a bumper sticker the other day: "I Love Vermont, But I Fear Montpelier". I would love to know where to get a few for myself. Does anyone know the source?

Also, is there anywhere to get a transcript of the Vermont Legislature's Joint Hearing of the Natural Resources Committees when they took public comments last week? I feel a Free Press letter coming on and need some good references.

Keep up the excellent reporting and commentary... 

THEY LIKE US 

»» Louise Bolduc, Orleans: My jaw literally dropped when you let us know that Jane Dwinell is your sister. Amazing! Thanks for fun and insightful newsletters. 

THE LEFT LECTURES ON CIVILITY 

"The lack of civility he [Rush Limbaugh] demonstrates toward liberal politicians is really dangerous to our political public. I hate to say it, but I wish the guy would have gone deaf. I shouldn't say that, but on behalf of the country, it would be better without Limbaugh and his 20 million listeners." --Eric Alterman on "civility" in the current Esquire (as cited in The Federalist). 

Do you enjoy the Dwinell Political Report? Think of a voluntary subscription. For $25, you can receive the newsletter for a year and help offset the costs of production. Make checks payable to JDLS Publishing, LLC and mail to 610 Mason Road, Randolph, VT 05060.

The Dwinell Political Report is published weekly by JDLS Publishing, LLC.
Portions of the Dwinell Political Report may be reprinted with attribution.

Contact the Editor with news & comments at: Dwinell@adelphia.net or 802.728.4793

The mission of the Dwinell Political Report is to give readers another view of the news that is refreshing, provocative and sometimes irreverent. 

Subscribe here!