Claremont residents may not know us, but they have probably seen us. We often stand at the intersection of Broad, North and Washington streets holding signs. We have been there since last November, reminding folks that one needn’t travel to march in a distant city (although that is fun and we’ve done it, too). We believe resistance begins at home, where we live and work. Sometimes people honk at us in support. Sometimes they flip us the bird. Sometimes they scream things like, “Get a job” (we are all set on that score, thanks) — or worse. That’s OK; people can have different opinions, right?
Then again, maybe not: A neighbor recently posted a “Black Lives Matter” sign on her property. It was shredded. She bravely went out once more, with a message we would hope everyone could get behind: “End White Supremacy.” Vandals again defaced it — this time with a bright red, large-as-life swastika.
We call on people of courage in our community to denounce this cowardly act just as vehemently as they have others. And we invite the individual or individuals who painted such a hateful symbol to come forward. Not with crude gestures or by yelling anonymous slurs as you drive past. Not by trespassing on private property. Not by defiling others’ signs under cover of darkness. Stand by your convictions. Put swastikas on your own lawn. Come out to the corner. Let us see you; we want to know who you are.
Liza Draper
Sam Killay
Claremont
Gov. Phil Scott was recently on Vermont Public Radio discussing the so-called crisis in education in Vermont. Like many advocates for school closures, his idea of crisis is rooted in an economic, rather than a moral, argument. Unfortunately, much public discourse these days treats them as one and the same.
The problem with the economic argument is that it is mostly wrong. While it is true that per pupil expenditure has risen, state spending on education as a share of the gross state product has been essentially flat for 20 years.
The governor insists that we focus on the trees rather than the forest. But were we to go further into the details, we would notice that this crisis has been manufactured, not only by selective attention, but also by the decisions of politicians in state budgeting. There has been a steady shift in tax burden from the general fund to the property tax, which exacerbates the pressure on school budgets because of the way they are debated at the local level.
More importantly, this manufactured financial crisis masks the more serious moral crisis facing public education, which is that it has almost completely succumbed to market logic. Gov. Scott echoes talking points of many school consolidation advocates, using phrases like “increased choice,” “flexibility,” “economies of scale” and “innovation.” Each of those concepts do have some value, but not if they sacrifice the traditional public goods education has aspired to: moral integrity, community responsibility, civic virtue and cultural enrichment.
Sadly, many of our democratic institutions have been eroded by a consumerist mentality that esteems convenience, standardization and cost efficiency over complexity, diversity and intrinsic value. Vermont thrives, not despite of its small size, but because of it. If we wish to continue to thrive, rather than merely survive, we need to protect what makes Vermont different from other places. We should not eliminate our differences from other states by emulating their debasement of public institutions for economic expediency.
Randall Szott
Barnard
Vermont Gov. Phil Scott recently said he is “not sure that there’s a financial threat” to Vermont as a result of climate change. Has he not seen the climate projections showing Vermont’s winter temperatures similar to those of Virginia or North Carolina, and Vermont’s maple trees migrating north out of the state by the end of the century? Does he not think those will harm Vermont’s winter sports and maple syrup industries?
What about the $733 million in damage to Vermont from Hurricane Irene in 2011 and the tens of millions of dollars that Upper Valley towns are currently spending to restore roads from flooding in July? How many more of these storms will it take before he sees a financial threat to the state?
Gov. Scott goes on to say he thinks Vermont might actually benefit from climate change by the hordes of destitute climate refugees driven here, fleeing wildfires, coastal flooding, hurricanes and severe drought. Wow! I appreciate his looking for a glimmer of hope in the face of this, but all I can think of is Brian Cohen and his fellow sufferers in Monty Python’s Life of Brian, as they kick dance and break into singing Always Look on the Bright Side of Life while being crucified.
Governor, please, get serious about climate change. Stop promoting use of the Volkswagen settlement money for “clean diesel” — whatever that is — and direct it instead toward electric buses, trains and charging infrastructure. Support expanding the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative to promote clean transportation. Support the Essex Plan carbon tax that will make fossil fuels more expensive, while lowering electric costs for everyone and protecting the poor. Then work to expand the program throughout New England. Support the Warm Home Bonds initiative to weatherize 10,000 low-income homes in the next three years. Support sensible wind development in Vermont.
The financial advantage to the state from climate change will be in the thousands of green-energy jobs created and billions of fossil fuel dollars no longer leaving the state each year from these changes.
Bob Walker
Thetford Center
Once again, it seems that a hair-brained idea is about to make its way to the Vermont General Assembly. Concerning the proposal for a “carbon tax” that I read about in the Dec. 10 Sunday Valley News, I would remark as follows:
The purpose of taxes is to raise revenues to fund government operations. It is not to burden people. Nor is to benefit others who use electricity, by making it cheaper for them. Were it so, one would still be obliged to ask this question: Where is the logical connection between stimulating electricity consumption and encouraging a shift in industry toward renewable electricity production? I find none. In fact, I find quite the opposite.
If one penalizes fossil fuel consumption while subsidizing consumption of electricity, one will encourage a shift in demand toward the latter. Lower energy prices initially will mean higher use. This in turn will strain the electricity generating industry, and make it more difficult, and less rewarding, for it to transition toward renewable sources. Current suppliers will be forced to rely more on nonrenewable sources. Suppliers coming on line with renewable generation capacity will face stiffer competition from older coal, oil and gas plant generators whose fully amortized capacity will be made more cost-competitive and thus given a new lease on life. Lower prices will not stimulate a shift toward investments in newer and likely more costly renewable sources. And eventually, this will circle back to the consumer in the form of prices that rise back up to where they were, thanks to artificially stimulated demand and increased marginal cost.
If this is “the best idea on the table” at the Legislature for getting Vermont to rely less on fossil fuels, then it should adjourn, and all of its members should retire and call for new elections, for it is absolute idiocy.
Tyler P. Harwell
Perkinsville
Sorry, Jim Rubens, no backsies. You cast your lot with Donald Trump when it counted and you got burned (“I Endorsed Trump; I Withdraw it Now,” Dec. 12). Too bad it didn’t work out for you, but you have to live with the consequences, as do the rest of us. You were always a Republican shill, and your regrets fall on deaf ears.
Steve Bentley
Fairlee