I’ve got a pile of clips, tips and links piling up so please allow me to dispense with some of it real fast. Off we go….
The Vermont Press Bureau has been doing a yeoman’s job of late, kicking out timely and topical pieces. Today, for example, Louis Porter got the lead on the Times-Argus’ front page with his article on taxes in Vermont. The headline says it all: “Study Concludes Vermont Income Tax is Progressive.”
That’s not the kind of headline our doom and gloom governor, Jim Douglas, wants to see. As Vermonters know by now, Douglas has been doing his best to scare the wits out of everyone about how unfairly the state taxes its citizens – all while pretending to be promoting the state. Go figure.
But contrary to Douglas’ fear mongering on taxes, this report by the Legislature’s Joint Fiscal Office shows that Vermont is more tax friendly to lower and middle-income citizens than most other states. The report concludes that Vermont, more than most states, makes an effort to have a progressive tax code, thereby shifting the tax burden more towards those with the money. And who would that be? Well – ahem — Douglas and his well-heeled Republican friends, of course.
Douglas is no dummy. Let’s just say he knows who butters his bread. But does he have to continue to trash the entire state just to protect his country club buddies?
Speaking of the Press Bureau, Porter’s compatriot over there, Daniel Barlow, has an interesting piece today on the first public hearing of the legislatively-appointed commission looking into the issue of same-sex marriage.
As you’ll remember, the always-nervous Democrats in the Vermont legislature – led by Peter Shumlin and Gaye Symington – decided last summer that they needed this commission to help them figure out a way to go forward on the issue. Sorry, but one word comes to mind: Wimps. Yo, Dems, the way forward is very simple and does not require a commission to cover your backsides. It’s called having some principles, compassion and leadership skills. And then you simple pick up a pencil and write the bill that says something like this: Marriage – and all the benefits it entails – shall be granted to same-sex couples in Vermont in the exact same manner as they are granted to heterosexual couples. See, it’s really not that hard.
Given the attendance at last night’s first hearing, it’s pretty clear that the vast majority of Vermonters agree that it’s really not the issue that the Dems apparently want to make it. According to Barlow’s article, only two of the 75 people who showed up to the hearing spoke out against gay marriage. And one of the two who bothered to turn back the clock of social justice and speak out against the proposal was none other than Brian Pearl, one of the few conservatives in the state who can make WDEV’s Paul Beaudry actually sound reasonable. Yeah, he’s that bad. And then some. Just taste this from Barlow’s article:
Pearl, who was the first to speak, said he worried that legalizing gay marriage would result in minors marrying older members of the same sex. He added that same-sex marriage should not be recognized because the couples cannot procreate as heterosexual couples do.
Oh boy. You know, Mr. Pearl, sometimes procreation isn’t a good thing. Because sometimes it manages to create severely maladjusted individuals who can convince themselves that hate can be contorted into a “cause.”
The real kicker in the Pearl testimony was his proclamation that “you’ll never win” on this issue. And this from one of two people amongst 75 who showed up to oppose the issue at hand. Oh credibility, where were you when he needed you most? Goodnight, Mr. Pearl.
Now, please, can the Dems just promise to get on with the business of passing a gay marriage bill?
Judith Levine rocks. Yeah, the Judith Levine who writes the “poli psy” column once a month for Seven Days. She hits one out of the ballpark in her current column on the streets (and online) now. Read it, my friends. Levine masterfully dismantles the increasingly asinine notion that we all must “support the troops” during this time of illegal war. Taste this:
To speak of the virtues of soldiering is implicitly to ratify the values of militarism: that might leads to right.
Or this:
Ok, I’ll say it. I don’t “support the troops.” That is, I don’t support them as troops. I support them as people, just as I support – or rather, worry, grieve and rage on behalf of – the Iraqis: as people caught in a senseless, fruitless, apparently endless bloodletting.
Bravo. Now, could someone please tell me where the antiwar movement went?
Oops, out of time for now. Stay tuned.
Recent Comments