Sign Petition to Ban Corporate Campaign Contributions & SHARE

http://vpirg.convio.net/site/MessageViewer?em_id=8477.0&dlv_id=13564&pgwrap=n

The Vermont Senate passed S.120, a VPIRG-backed bill that would ban corporate campaign contributions in the state. But now we need your help as the bill moves to the House Committee on Government Operations.

We need to let legislators on that committee know that Vermonters care about corporate influence over elections. That's why we'll be hand-delivering our petition to them in the days ahead. The longer that list of signers, the larger the impact this petition will have.

If you haven't already, add your name to this petition in support of S.120 — the ban on corporate campaign contributions in Vermont.http://vpirg.convio.net/site/MessageViewer?em_id=8477.0&dlv_id=13564&pgwrap=n

Despite the fact that corporations have been prohibited from giving direct campaign contributions to political candidates at the federal level for more than 100 years, Vermont still treats corporations the same as people in terms of the contributions they are allowed to make to political candidates.

At VPIRG, we know that corporations are not people and should not have the same rights that people have when it comes to elections. 

As a matter of public policy, corporations have been given certain advantages over real people, such as limited liability and unlimited life. But these advantages were intended to help our economy flourish. They were not intended to result in undue corporate influence over the political process.

This year, we have our best chance ever to make sure Vermont joins 22 other states and the federal government in passing this long overdue measure to rein in corporate power.

We’ve never before gotten this bill passed by either chamber. So this year is already different. But now it’s critical that we let legislators know it’s time to put an end to direct corporate influence over elections in Vermont.

In 1905, President Teddy Roosevelt forcefully declared that, “All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law.”

We agree completely, and that is why we’re supporting S.120. 

Thank you,

Paul Burns
Executive Director, VPIRG

Call for Responses to Racist Op-Ed

From Bill Kuch

Conor Casey is urging us to respond to the piece in VtDigger. We should respond. 

Here is his message to me:

"Any chance you can put out an alert to have folks respond to this ridiculous commentary about systemic racism by Deb Buckram (TJ's former opponent):

https://vtdigger.org/2018/03/02/deborah-bucknam-systemic-racism/

Her comments about Kiah Morris are pretty horrific!"

From: Elizabeth Filskov <lizfilskov@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: Response to VTDigger piece
To: Bill Kuch <bkuch@vtdemocrats.org>
Cc: Conor Casey <ccasey@vtdemocrats.org>, Julian Fenn <julian.p.fenn@gmail.com>

Hello -

Here is what I have written. I bounced it off of a friend at the NAACP, and she gave it a go.

As a public school teacher, I do not have the same rights to free speech as non-educators. As such, I ask that someone else use what I’ve written. I am a single mother and cannot afford to be accused of, “behavior unbecoming of a teacher”, which would result in termination, as charged by a parent, community, board member or otherwise. You will recall I teach in Rutland City. I have a Master of Arts in Teaching French and Francophone Studies, with an emphasis on African and Antilles cultures, just as an FYI. 

Thank you for your understanding. 

Please use/share at your discretion.

Yours truly,

Liz Filskov

I am writing in response to Deborah Bucknam’s March 2 op-ed in VT Digger, which reads, alarmingly, as a monolithic, ethnocentric diatribe of white supremacy. It is riddled with contradiction and reinforces racist stereotypes.

Bucknam writes that, “The (American, public) educational system for African-Americans is something to get away from”. She attests that administrators tolerate bad behavior and low academic achievement of African American students, and that, thusly, African American students are poorly educated and fare less well than their white counterparts in life.

This is a sweeping proclamation. Rather than acknowledge the brutal and inhumane (history of) systemic racism and oppression against People of Color in the United States, she makes a hopeless case. Is she implicitly making a case for segregation then, or of not educating People of Color? Rather than acknowledge racism, and the facts of systemic lower wages and higher rates of incarceration of People of Color for the same wrongdoings by their white counterparts, she professes the very racist stereotypes that plague people of color, while contradicting the argument she is trying to make.

She maintains that the “bias-free” policing of predominantly non-white communities is backfiring. She argues on the one hand that People of Color are NOT victims to be saved (an imposed, white narrative for People of Color by whites), and in the same breath paints in dubious hues the validity of a bias-free initiative precisely because people of color are dangerous and need to be managed (read: by white people). Her white, elitist lens makes the case for racial hierarchy while trying, unskillfully, to argue against it.

Bucknam posits that the ancestors of African Americans in this country have been “acculturated” in the United States for long enough, suggesting that African Americans today should be able to attain the academic rigor they encounter in their predominantly white culture, citing specifically the police exam. Police brutality in non-white communities is so well documented (Bucknam suggests it is non-existent in predominantly white ones) that the FBI has investigated the “infiltration” of white supremacists in local and state law enforcement.

Academics know that course content and the assessments built to demonstrate their erudition is culturally imbued. Again, Bucknam’s proclamation is a racist reinforcement of a stereotype and a denial of the African American experience. She maintains that, “…white elites compound… racism by instituting easier and easier academic standards… (that) African Americans cannot master (the academic rigor required of the police examination)”. Bucknam makes the ethnocentric assumption that White Anglo culture *is* the culture of African Americans – or at least it should be by now. The expectation that African Americans should be acculturated by now is a grotesque display of white supremacy through the lens of a colonizer.

Last, Bucknam paints Representative Morris’ account through the white supremacist, infantilizing lens of victim-needing-to-be-saved. Indeed, the white-male legislator who opposed the BLM resolution was “ignorant” of Morris’ experiences. He is not a Woman of Color. The dismissal and unwillingness to acknowledge any experience that isn’t white and privileged has become a right-wing counter to the Black Lives Matter movement. This isn’t a matter of a media outlet pushing a black stereotype of victimhood – it is a matter of privileged whites rejecting the voice and the experience of a Woman of Color.

I am deeply concerned that Ms. Bucknam teaches at all, but that she teaches law. There is indeed systemic racism in Vermont and elsewhere, but that doesn’t mean it should be perpetuated and not fully acknowledged. It is you, Ms. Bucknam, who is clearly ignorant of the Black Experience. You do not speak for white people as a whole, and you certainly do not speak for the Black community. You represent a camp afraid to listen; I represent a camp willing and ready to cede the floor. This is not a risk, but rather an opportunity. 

Universal Primary Care Action URGENT

Message Committee:

We need to support S.53 now, before Tuesday.

Thanks to Bob Zeliff for creating these talking points and call to action.

Bill

Universal Primary Care S-53

Tim Ashe and Jane Kitchel are reluctant to properly support S-53 as currently drafted.

He and Jane Kitchel, are proposing a revised bill, that calls for the Green Mountain Care Board come up with a report on Universal Primary Care in 6 months.

The problems with this:
 • Scott has significantly cut the GMCB budget/staffing so even their normal tasks will be at risk.  Who will do this report?
• This report, even if done, will likely not have the needed input from the Judiciary( legal details and advice), Joint Financial Office (cost impacts), Provider inputs (how the hospital would want to implement), etc
• This report will likely be poorly done.
• This report would be cause delay and be pointed to why supporters of UPC have not done their home work, UPC would not be ready for implementation!

We need to move the current version of UPC S-53 out of Senate Appropriations and the Senate next week.

Now is the time to call our Senators to ask them to Vote S-53 out of the Appropriations Committee and the Senate.

Every one should call and e-mail Tim Ashe, Senate Majority Leader, and Jane Kitchel, Chain Senate Appropriations before Tuesday!

Example, if you need it, :

Dear Senator Ashe,

Universal Primary Care is needed by Vermonters, those without health insurance and those with obscenely high deductibles, are self-rationing, going without needed care NOW.  This is good for Vermonters and Vermont, will save money in the long term by treating illness early vs later when more severe and costly. Please vote the original version out of the Senate 

Susan Supporter
Home town, Vermont

Status

Senator’s Claire Ayer Health Care Committee voted S-53 UPC out Finance Committee last week.    

It now needs to be voted out of the Senate  Appropriations Committee (only 1 sponsor!!). Then it must be voted out of the Senate. Tim Ashe support is critical to this.  

Members of the Appropriations Committee:

Jane Kitchel, chair,              802 684 2482      djkitchal@leg.state.vt.us
Alie Nitka, v Chair,               802 228 8432      danitka@leg.state.vt.us
Dick Sears                                                       rsears@leg.state.vt.us
Dick McCormick,  sponsor   802 793 6417                      rmccormack@leg.state.vt.us    
Tim Ashe                              802 318 0903     tashe@leg.state.vt.us
Robert Starr                         802 988 2877      rstarr@leg.state.vt.us
Richard Westman                802 644 2297       rawestman@leg.state.vt.us

Universal Primary Care    Senate S53, House  H248 

Senator Claire Ayer is the lead sponsor, she is chair of Senate health care committee.

Rep William Lippert, chair of House health care committee.   He supports

Resources:

www.VermontForSinglePayer.org      vthca@sover.net

Report to Legislature:  Cost Estimate for Universal Primary Care
In accordance with Act 54 of 2015, Sections 16-19  Dec. 16, 2015
Google this in state files.  Saving summary at end of this paper.


Possible additional talking points:

• Will provide Primary Care for All Vermonters.

• Private Insurance and self insured employers would no longer have to pay for primary care services.  This should allow them to reduce their premiums, thus offsetting part of the total costs.

• This would provide free (paid by taxes) primary health care to those Vermonters who have no insurance.

• This would provide free (paid by taxes) primary health care to those Vermonters who have high deductibles (so they no longer have to self ration their own health care).

• Reduce total Vermont health care costs by finding serious health issues early when treatment is LESS costly.

• Cost of Current Health Care Insurance Policies should be reduced by the amount saved by Vermont Universal Primary care.  (no need for duplicate insurance)

• Some what offset the expect health care reductions the Trump Administration continues to push for.  Including but not limited to the expected Medicaid and Medicare cuts.

• Universal Primary Care is widely supported by Vermonters as a way to move toward Health Care for All Vermonters.

Confronting Sexual Assault & Domestic Violence Event THIS THURSDAY

ACDC fundraising and sexual assault awareness event THIS Thursday, Mar 22! Spread the word!

Education Spending & Union Busting URGENT

A major vote happening in the House sometime Tuesday re H.911 (ed spending bill). The Harrison Amendment was added Friday afternoon which is the state- insurance takeover Scott proposed last year. We need to call our reps in the VT house during the day tomorrow (MONDAY) and tell them to vote NO to the Harrison Amendment. 

Details include: 80/20 split, $400/$900/$1200 out of pocket cost, mandatory HSAs, insurance no longer under collective bargaining, legislator-controlled insurance.

SHARE!

Protect our Unions!

Mimi Smyth

Pro-Gun Rally at UVM

Getting a bit of backlash to gun safety measures currently in the house. Any response is helpful along with calls and e-mails of support to legislators.

___________________________________________

From the VT DiggerContact:

Jace Laquerre, Jace.Laquerre@gmail.com, (802) 399-0994 (c)

Burlington, VT- Conservative student groups Young Americans for Liberty and Turning Point USA will be hosting gun rights event at the University of Vermont. The event will be in conjunction with the Gun Owners of Vermont and other 2nd Amendment advocacy groups. Students from high schools and colleges around the state will be joining. Tickets are free and can be obtained through the UVM ticket office at tickets.uvm.edu. There have been over 300 tickets given out thus far.

This is in response to the new proposed gun control measures in the Vermont legislature and in response to Governor Phil Scott failing to uphold his campaign promise of no new gun law in Vermont.

There will be speeches from:

State Representative Janssen Willhoit (R- St. Johnsbury)

State Representative Patrick Brennan (R- Colchester)

Eddie Cutler, President, Gun Owners of Vermont

Chris Bradley, President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen Clubs

William Moore, Firearms Policy Analyst, Vermont Tradition Coalition

Bob Depino, Vice-President of Gun Owners of Vermont

The event will be March 8th at 7:30pm and held at UVM’s Ira Allen Chapel. All are invited to attend. Open to media.

Sign the VDP Petition for Stronger Gun Laws in VT & SHARE

From Bill Kuch with VT State Messaging Team

Message Team:

This is a message from Rob Hipskind asking fro signatures on a petition.

"Hey, I sent out a larger email to our list asking people to sign a petition in support of several gun safety measures currently in the legislature. I also wanted to reach out to those of you who we know care deeply about gun safety in particular to ask that you help to share the petition (vtdemocrats.org/gunsafetynow) with your networks. I know I saw several of you at today's press conference as well, but it you could help push this petition out I'd really appreciate it. Thanks,"

Healthcare Access - Call for Comments

https://vtdigger.org/2018/03/04/rachel-lee-cummings-right-track-health-care-reform/

Let's try to get away from "personal responsibility" tropes, and get back to "everyone deserves healthcare".

Please comment and share!

Talking Points for Gun Safety

(From Bill Kuch at VT State Messaging)

Talking Points

Core Values: Security, safety, protection, freedom

Topline Messages:

• We should have the freedom to be safe in our homes, our neighborhoods and at work, without the constant threat of gun violence hanging over our heads.
• We’ve learn that we are not immune in Vermont. We’ve heard a variety of root causes of gun violence: irresponsible gun ownerships, mental health issues, and destabilized families. To make our families, our schools, and our communities safer, we need to change some laws…now. That’s why we are working hard and taking action to pass gun safety laws to prevent gun violence
• Our communities can’t be safe if we allow guns to be sold to felons or the dangerously mentally ill.

DON’T SAY…	SAY…
Gun control	Prevent gun violence
Stricter gun laws	Stronger gun laws
You oppose the 2nd Amendment	Support for the 2nd Amendment goes hand-in-hand with keeping the guns out of the hands of dangerous people

General Points

• Current laws allow easy access to guns for criminals, mentally unstable people, and even terrorists.
• Our police officers are at risk every day when they confront criminals who are armed to the teeth with military-style weapons that are freely available

• This isn’t a conversation about your grandfather’s hunting rifle.  Extraordinarily dangerous, military-style weapons are now within easy reach across America.
• The NRA’s lobbyists aren’t defending everyday folks. They’re a giant operation defending powerful gun manufacturers at every turn.
• 74% of NRA members support requiring background checks of anyone purchasing a gun. It’s the NRA’s out-of-touch officials and lobbyists who are the problem.
• For decades, NRA officials, the firearms industry, and their allies on Capitol Hill have waged a relentless effort to gut common sense gun laws and to pass reckless measures that put more people at risk.
• You don’t hear much from the NRA and their allies when violence strikes. That’s because they can’t possibly defend their reckless agenda in the face of such terrible human pain and suffering.
• There isn’t a shred of credible evidence that more guns and more shooting save people’s lives. There is lots of evidence that more guns and more shooting mean more tragedy.
• We need stronger gun laws to free us from the gun violence that threatens or homes and our communities.

• Stronger gun laws protect our children and keep people alive.

Gun Safety Bills Update & ACTION

Gun Bills as of March 5.

Please write letters, post on Facebook, Twitter, call your legislators and the governor.
Below are talking points and the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Governor’s phone numbers. Call Gov. Phil Scott, at:  802-828-3333

Call the Sergeant at Arms and leave a message for any Senator or Rep. 802-828-2228

• S. 221 Passed the Senate by a 30 to 0 vote and will move to the House Chamber after crossover
• Extreme Risk Protection Order This bill proposes a procedure for law enforcement to obtain an extreme risk protection order… that would prohibit a person from possessing a firearm for up to one year if the Family Division of the Superior Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person poses a significant danger.
• S. 6, Universal Background Checks, was  amended to another existing bill, S 55, and passed the Senate 17 to 14. This bill now goes to the House
• This bill proposes to require that a background check be conducted on the proposed transferee before a firearm may be transferred…. unless the transfer is between immediate family members.
• H. 422  passed the House last session (last year) and will now be considered in the Senate when they reconvene 
• Differences need to be reconciled between House and Senate versions. 
• Provides for the removal of  weapons from a person cited for domestic assault. This bill proposes to require a law enforcement officer to confiscate a dangerous or deadly weapon from a person who is arrested or cited for domestic assault

We need to urge our legislators to support these bills. We can’t let up now. There is an
opportunity now that no one anticipated. We can’t let it slip by.


From Bill Kuch, VT State Messaging Team

Universal Primary Care Information Session Article

Call for comments of support!!

http://www.addisonindependent.com/201803single-payer-advocates-make-health-care-pitch

Single-payer advocates make health care pitch

Posted on March 5, 2018 | 
By Christopher Ross

HEALTH CARE ADVOCATES Mike Fisher, left, and Deb Richter spoke at the Bristol firehouse Thursday about bills before the Legislature that would ensure that universal primary care in Vermont. Independent photo/Christopher Ross 

BRISTOL — Vermonters are dying because they cannot afford health care, Montpelier physician Deb Richter told a gathering of concerned citizens at the Bristol firehouse Thursday night. Patients with little or no health insurance often delay seeking primary care until it is too late, she added.

“Our health care system is a catastrophe,” Richter said.

A longtime advocate for single-payer health care, Richter teamed up with Lincoln resident Mike Fisher, health care advocate for Vermont Legal Aid, to lead a discussion about universal primary care. Bristol Democratic Party chair Linda Andrews organized the event, which drew about 40 people.

Richter told the story of one patient who waited four days before seeking treatment for severe shortness of breath. The patient by then was panting and could barely speak. It turned out the patient had suffered a heart attack, Richter said.

In another case the cost for a single-dose prescription treatment had risen from $5 to $450 because the drug maker now had a monopoly. Richter was able to obtain the medicine from Canada for $6.

“How many such stories could we come up with in this room?” Richter asked.

And it’s not just the uninsured who are struggling, Fisher said. Stuck with bills they thought their insurance companies were supposed to pay, some ill Vermonters just give up, feeling like they’ve run out of treatment options. The free healthcare hotline Fisher oversees fields about 4,000 calls a year from frustrated, confused and sometimes desperate Vermonters.

This is why Vermont needs universal primary care, according to the duo.

Committees in the Vermont Legislature are considering a bill — S.53/H.248, sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Clair Ayer, D-Addison, and co-sponsored in the House by Rep. David Sharpe, D-Bristol — that would “establish a system of universal, publicly financed primary care for all Vermonters beginning in 2019.”

The bill, if passed, would cover chronic and preventive care, as well as mental health and substance abuse care.

Though it represents less than 6 percent of the state’s overall health care costs, primary care is “the front door to the health care system,” Richter said. Universal access would save both lives and money, she noted.

Once Vermonters see the results, Fisher added, the other components necessary for creating a system of publicly funded universal health care will look like no-brainers.

Though supporters are hopeful about the bills’ prospects, it’s a long way from being a done deal. Richter said if the bill makes it to the full Senate it might still need two votes to reach a tie that would have to be broken by Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman.

Lawmakers are wary of creating another Act 48, Fisher said, referring to legislation then-Gov. Peter Shumlin signed in 2011 outlining the benefits of a universal health care system without specifying how those benefits would be paid for. In the end, universal health care never came about in Vermont.

“They’re afraid of overpromising,” Fisher said.

Richter acknowledged the current bill doesn’t include a funding mechanism.

Democratic gubernatorial candidates James Ehlers and Christine Hallquist spoke briefly in support of the bill. Speaking as an employer, Hallquist, who is CEO of Vermont Electric Coop, acknowledged cost-saving benefits of such a bill. Ehlers, who heads Lake Champlain International, urged supporters to keep up the pressure on lawmakers.

No movement on the bill was expected until the Legislature reconvenes after Town Meeting Day.

Christopher Ross can be reached at christopherr@addisonindependent.com.