JohnGreenberg | Seven Days | Vermont's Independent Voice

JohnGreenberg 
Member since Dec 28, 2012


Stats

Recent Comments

Re: “Walters: House Panel Trims Ethics Bill

Madeline Motta
Not to belabor the point, but why would those people call an ethics commission and not law enforcement?

Posted by JohnGreenberg on 04/16/2017 at 11:38 AM

Re: “Walters: House Panel Trims Ethics Bill

John Walters:
"Which seems downright strange, coming on the heels of former senator Norm McAllister's disgrace, the ever-simmering EB-5 scandal, and the unprecedented independent investigation of then-attorney general Bill Sorrell .... " Please explain how an ethics commission would have prevented any of these things or ameliorated them, especially since all 3 are instances of violations of existing law (if proved so in court).

I am not arguing against an ethics commission (or for one), but if these examples are supposed to show the need for one, then I agree with those legislators who you and others accuse of showing "a tone-deafness to outside perception."

2 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by JohnGreenberg on 04/13/2017 at 11:35 AM

Re: “Walters: Bernie Sanders Gets the Rock-Star Treatment

Arleen Henton:

FYI. The highest statutory corporate tax rate in the US was 52.8% in the late 1960s. The rate was above 50% only in the 1950s and 1960s. You're quite right to state that the EFFECTIVE rate has always been (and still is) MUCH lower than the statutory rate.

The PERSONAL income tax rate was over 90% in the 1950s, and was lowered to 70% under JFK.

Posted by JohnGreenberg on 03/20/2017 at 11:15 AM

Re: “Walters: Scott’s Customer-First Environmental Stewardship

The article says that "An annual membership costs a breathtaking $84,500." The Club's website says that a LIFETIME membership costs $85,000 for a family, with annual dues of $8,500 and for singles, $80,000 and $4,250. http://hermitageclub.com/join/membership-l…

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by JohnGreenberg on 02/24/2017 at 12:12 PM

Re: “Montpeculiar: On Bill Markup Day, We Ate Cake

Terje Anderson:

All 501(c)(3) organizations are non-profit, but not all non-profit organizations are 501(c)(3). See https://www.opensecrets.org/527s/types.php for lots of other types, many of which CAN make political contributions.

In addition, there are more than a few (c)(3) organizations which have legally separate organizations closely associated with them. During the last campaign, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund ran ads attacking Phil Scott, for example. It is legally and technically NOT the same organization as Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by JohnGreenberg on 01/27/2017 at 10:52 AM

Re: “Walters: Slouching Toward Transparency

To second Doug Hoffer's comment, Jeff Bezos owns 17.6% of Amazon. Who do you think "controls" the company?

13 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by JohnGreenberg on 01/20/2017 at 12:16 PM

Re: “Vermont Supreme Court Blocks Shumlin From Picking New Justice

Heat doesnt really concern me, especially from pseudonymous sources, but I do appreciate real thoughtful dialogue, so thanks again for the reply, Senator.

Only two possibilities make sense to me. Either the incumbent governor can make an appointment, he does so before the terms of the existing senators expire, and the senate is able to consent before all the relevant terms expire. Or the governor does not make the appointment before his term expires, or the senators terms have expired by the time it is able to consent, then the new governor and the new senate appoint a new JNB, which then makes a new set of recommendations, and then the new governor appoints and the new senate confirms. Unlike you, in that circumstance, I assume the old recommendations would expire with the old JNB.

Why should a new governor and/or a new senate be bound by recommendations from a JNB whose terms have expired?

You seem to believe that the JNBs job is to make the recommendations because the statute so commands. But that doesnt make much sense to me unless this is some kind of make work program for appointees.

The statute orders them to do so in order that the governor can make a (legally acceptable) appointment and for no other reason.

In effect, I see this as ONE job, of which there are 3 coordinated parts: the JNB recommends so that the governor can appoint so that the Senate can confirm. Take out any one of the three parts and the job is not complete.

It will, indeed, be interesting to see what the Supreme Court has to say. Theres a lot more here than first meets the eye.

4 likes, 10 dislikes
Posted by JohnGreenberg on 12/26/2016 at 7:24 PM

All Comments »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Keep up with us Seven Days a week!

Sign up for our fun and informative
newsletters:

All content © 2017 Da Capo Publishing, Inc. 255 So. Champlain St. Ste. 5, Burlington, VT 05401
Website powered by Foundation