Posted by Steven Howard on 07/05/10
Last updated 07/09/10

Monday, July 5, 2010

A thank you note

To: President Hancock, Mr. Adams, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Franklin, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Livingston, and the Congress Assembled
Dear Sirs:
I have been taught that for every gift a note of thanks is in order. On this anniversary of your most precious gift to me and my family, I write you this note of appreciation for the gift given all those years ago.
It is hard to summarize the wonder and beauty of the gift you have granted me. Though I am sure you were aware of its majesty when given, I don't think you quite realized how truly awesome such a gift would be. Adding to the myriad charms of your gift was the wrapping in which it came. The document which enveloped the gift was a work of art whose words still echo with clarity, purpose, and power. Each time I read that document, I am amazed by how it moves me and how it summarizes for me what it means to be an American. It not only presents a claim, but also an ideology, the American ideal.
When you gave this gift, it was clear that it required a great deal of you all. It was not a simple offering, made with hardly a thought. It was a gift forged in a time of uncertainty, a time of war, and time where by simply offering the same placed much in jeopardy. The gift was not easy, a great labor of time, energy, and faith. Yet, I know that it was a labor of love. Love not only for yourselves and your families, but for all who were to come, including me and mine.
I doubt at the time of giving that you had any idea what it would mean for future generations. I do know that it was a gift filled with potential and promise. It was an opportunity filled with chances and failures, but one that allows us all to hope and dream of our own futures.
Yes, you gift gave me liberty and freedom, but I recognize that it also placed great responsibility on my shoulders. Sometimes those responsibilities can be overwhelming. To be ever vigilent to protect my gift. Requiring me to be active and engaged in the world around me. To demand more of myself so that I can hold my servants to the same standard. None of these things are easy or simple. Yet, I am thankful for them. Perhaps more so than the freedom that necessitates them because they make me a better person.
Unfortunately, in this day in which I live, there are many who have your gift, but do not cherish it. Some grasp tightly the words of freedom and ignore the responsibilities of the same. Some have tucked their gift away, ignoring or unaware of the true meaning contained therein. Still others show off and laud their gift, but do not understand how to use it. Finally, there are those who dismiss your gift, calling it anachronistic and inapplicable to our modern times. I sometimes find myself driven to despair when I see how little value so many place in your gift.
However, I know that you faced the same problem even at the time of giving your gift to this land. You were not perfect. I know that you did not always know whether what you were doing was right or inevitable. Many a misstep made your progress difficult and dangerous. And even as the darkness of ill-fortune plagued you in the midst of revolution, you stood by your ideals and saw them through to the end. You kept great faith in your beliefs even when it seemed that was all you had. It is your example that empowers me to continue and gives great meaning to your gift.
So, as the sun sets on this 234 year anniversary of your great gift, I wanted you to know that its light and energy still lives in this land. The times may grow dark and the wisdom of your age may sometimes be forgotten, but so many of us are thankful for your efforts and seek to sustain your gift for generations to come.
Therefore, I thank you for my liberty, freedom, responsibility, and the ideology that animates all of them. I thank you for your example, your faith, and your sacrifice. I thank you for your good works, ideals, and finely crafted words. Most of all, I thank you for creating a world where I can say, I am an American.
Your grateful son,
Steven J. Howard

Posted 08/20/10 bshohet springfield, VT

Stephen I really like your thank you note to our founding fathers. You always seem to have the right words to express what most of us usually are thinking at the same time. Thanks for putting down in print what I wish that I could put down in print. Please keep the good posts coming. Your friend the Bakerman in Vermont.

Posted by Steven Howard on 05/23/10

Yesterday, a lesson in civic activism and Vermont tradition was administered to Washington bureaucrats. Saturday, May 22, 2010 a public hearing was held by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regarding its plans for the border post at Morses Line, Vermont.  In an atmosphere indicative of a town meeting, over 150 Vermonters from around the state came out to oppose this plan. 

The reason for the meeting was to discuss DHS plans for the border crossing on the Rainville Farm.  The farm is located on the Canadian Border at Morses Line in the little village of Franklin, Vermont.  DHS sought to expand and improve the border post.  The post in question currently processes cross border traffic on an average of 2.5 vehicles an hour.  These improvements would mean taking from the Rainville Farmer at least 2.2 acres of prime pasture land thereby threatening the farm's future existence.

The response from the Rainville Family and almost everyone in attendance was "No." or "Hell, NO!"  Over twenty-five citizens lined up to express their displeasure and opposition to the DHS plan.  Tears flowed and voices broke as passionate pleas and defiant stands were made by representatives of the Rainville Family and others from the area.  Former members of the customs and immigration service also spoke up in opposition to their former employer, questioning several assertions regarding the need for the expansion of the post.  Historic preservation experts and professionals in design and architecture also spoke up against the plan noting that no real effort had been made to explore renovating the existing post.  The crowd also gave little deference to the staffers at Homeland Security, correcting any misstatements made by them immediately and unreservedly.  The consensus from the public was to close the border crossing and leave the Rainvilles alone.

In a moment of telling honesty, the representative from DHS who was running the meeting admitted that their usual experience in other places when something like this occurs is quiet acceptance or even enthusiasm from the community.  Morses Line was a noteworthy and compelling exception to the rule.

As an observer of the passion and unity demonstrated by my fellow citizens yesterday, I could not help but recall that the confrontation in Franklin Town Hall was a modern day reenactment of Vermont's early history.  Over 240 years ago, sheriffs from New York came into Vermont to seize from local farmers their lands under the writ of governmental power.  The farmers in desperation would call for help. In response the Green Mountain Boys led by Ethan Allen would gather from all over the State to defend their neighbor's land.  In this modern age, a call was made.  And on May 22, 2010, the grandchildren of those patriots of the mountains heeded that call once again.  As one speaker said, "This cannot stand.  We will not accept this.  This, sir, is Vermont!"

Posted by Steven Howard on 04/12/10

The We Can't Afford It Tour is approaching it's last two stops. So far it has been a great success and very well received by the public. Montpelier has an attendance of nine people and Burlington had twenty-two. Both crowds were active and engaged. With the Burlington stop, we shot through the 100 attendees goal I set for the tour with a few to spare.

In Montpelier, Andy Potter of WCAX came to the meeting to report on the proceedings. He gave us a fair hearing and report. In Burlington, our meeting was to have ended exactly at 2 pm so that a meeting of Veterans for Peace could hold their regularly scheduled meeting in the same space. Interestingly enough, several members of the latter organization arrived early and sat in for the tail end of the presentation. After our meeting ended, a couple of members of the other organization approached me and complimented our efforts and message of citizen activism.

As usual, both of the meetings resulted in people hanging around for at least an hour talking amongst themselves. Some for socializing, some for information/discussion, and some for organizing future efforts. Very few left those meeting not energized to do more and with the feeling that they were no longer alone in their beliefs.

At one point in the Burlington Meeting, I was challenged by an audience member that what I was talking about was "Civic 101" and that I wasn't offering an answer to the incredible problems pointed out in Tom Licata's presentation. My reply was three-fold: 1) a majority of the public (including those in liberty movement) need to be reminded that citizenship is not just voting and paying taxes; 2) that the situation we are in is due to people leaving the problem of governance to other "professionals"; and 3) there is no silver bullet, one candidate, or one law that will cure all of the evils we face. It requires the constant vigilance and hard work of all citizens to turn the tide.

With Rutland (April 13^th) and Saint Johnsbury (April 24^th) to go, Tom and I hope to end the tour strongly. But even as we see the light at the end of the tunnel, a potential new stop or two could be in the making in either Colchester or Essex. So stay tuned.

Posted by Steven Howard on 04/06/10

Each day I am buried under by a wave of emails, hyperlinks, and articles from news sites which make a variety of claims regarding the current administration, or to be more accurate President Obama. These items filling my email and overwhelming my net-surfing activities can be divided into two camps: either its "Obama is taking us into a socialist hell" or "Obama is a sell out to the Corporations".

Even discussing the current state of the nation with friends and relatives, I find a similar split. My friends on the right think Obama is aiming for socialism. My friends on the left think Obama is a sell-out to the Kleptocracy.

Both sides have evidence to support themselves. Clearly the current policy decisions of the Obama Administration is focused on expanding the size and scope of government in our lives and communities. From health care, the economy, and the usurpation of powers usually held by states, communities, and individuals, one can clearly see the road toward serfdom that we are heading down.

However, looking at what has been the focus of his efforts, corporate bailouts, a healthcare bill that is little more than corporate welfare, on-going involvement in the war and empire building, renewing the Orwellian "Patriot Act", and continuing Bush's policies on torture, rendition, and unlimited detentions, it can be well said that Obama's policies fly in the face of traditional leftist politics and are more in line with the policies of the neo-cons of late. Therefore, it appears that neither side is happy with the current state of this nation nor should they be. In other words, they are both right and wrong.

What compounds their errors is the current state of politics. Today we practice the politics of personality. We create or have had created for us personifications of what is right and wrong with our country. We attach our hopes, dreams, fears, and hatreds upon a single individual. Our discourses about politics are about the man or woman, their personal problems, personalities, and perceived goals. They became and now are simply empty vessels in which we pour our hopes and fears about the world around us. Almost literally "empty suits", our modern leadership is more the function of what they represent to us than who they represent in reality. However, this world of appearances serves only to hide the true, underlying problem that faces us as a nation, the on-going battle between the needs of the individual and the demands of the State.

I think Obama, Bush, and the whole den of thieves in Washington (and Montpelier) are symptoms of a larger problem, Statism. Statism is the belief that government is the source of all answers and wealth. Statist hold that government is a surrogate for society, or is in fact society. They believe that whatever evil is visited upon the people of this nation can be cured by state action and only state action. In their world, people are inherently selfish, lack initiative, and are uninvolved in their community. They believe that nothing substantial or sustained can be done without the initial impulse from government and the continued use of "benign" coercion that is the state.

This very thought process is a cancer on the body politic and a greater danger than any act of any individual regardless of position or power. Whether it be Statism in the form of a Socialist Democracy or Fascist Empire, both are destructive of individual liberty, free markets and peace.

We, the citizens of this State and Nation, must break through the veneer created by the politics of personality. We must shake off the easy answers and immediate sense of gratification that the politics of "gotcha" gives us. We must re-affirm in ourselves and ultimately in our communities the appropriate relationships between citizens, community, society and government. What is that relationship?

The citizen must reassert his authority over his government and be responsible for it, not simply act the role of supplicant and be a victim of it. They must understand that they are part of a community and step up when that community needs them. They must see that society is more than governmental coercion but an interaction of free people coming together spontaneously to accomplish great and small ends. We must all see that society is something outside of government and a greater tool to address the needs of its citizens. It is greater because it is voluntary and by nature not coercive. We must allow ourselves to freely create community, to allow people of similar interests and hopes to pool there resources, explore their interests, and achieve their hopes without government intruding upon that community with regulations and restrictions. Finally, we must realistically see government as a necessary evil, an imperfect tool, which has an important but limited role to play. It's role can be summarized as providing the framework in which society, community, and the individual work, play, and live.

As long as we continue to focus on the politics of personality, we will continue to accept the false paradigm that to correct our current course requires only the election of the "right person". The "right person" is our knight in shining armor who will rescue us from the evils of the day. He or she will "change the atmosphere in Washington" and make a "kinder and gentler nation". They will do the right thing because they are good people. Yet, having lived through eleven presidential elections, I have yet to see this promised land and only more of the status quo. We must reject this form of politics, cut to the true heart of the matter, and begin to debate, educate, discuss and understand the real struggle before us.

Replacing one set of statists for another will not significantly change our current circumstances. However, by creating a political atmosphere which fosters candidates that are willing to fight for the individual; by demanding an accounting from our elected officials for their actions against our liberties, our communities, our future; by not playing the game of personalities; by stripping the veneer that obstructs our view and looking at the true state of things we can effect the real, necessary, and obvious change that we all know is wanted, needed, and possible. If we exert all of the energy now on display by that tsunami of electronic discourse toward the real danger before us, it will only be a question of time before real change can occur.

Posted by Steven Howard on 02/09/10

Arriving late due to work, I came into the Rutland Vermont Interactive TV Site hoping to find several fellow patriots concerned about our budget. I was disappointed. The room contained about 10 other people, each from some non-profit or a beneficiary of some non-profit, concerned and saddened that their particular group was facing budget cuts. Universal Healthcare Advocates and Worker's Center representatives also were in the audience. I signed up to speak and was the last on the list for Rutland.

Over the next half hour, person after person pled for their pet projects and related tales of sorrow over what life would be like without those programs. A few offered a simple solution to the budget crisis, more taxes. Yet, in this chorus calling for legalized theft of your hard earned money, there were voice of sanity and fiscal responsibility. Members from the Vermont Campaign for Liberty from around the state called on our elected representatives to follow the Constitution and obey Chapter 1, Article 18.

When it came to my turn to speak, I presented the following (please note that I don't write my speeches, but only refer to notes, so this isn't a exact transcript of my speech.):

"I want to thank the Committee for holding this public hearing and I agree with many who have gone before me that your job is not an enviable one.

Vermont is in trouble. We are facing a problem that we saw coming for years, but did little to prevent. Numerous voice sounded the alarm well before the most recent economic downturn calling to us, "this budget is not sustainable". Yet those voices went unheard.

In fact, even as the economy started to sour, Montpelier went on a spending spree. Creating programs, agencies, and mandates in such a manner that a drunken sailor would blush at how our tax dollars were thrown around. Even in the last two fiscal years, when the reality of what we faced could no longer be denied, Montpelier continued to created boards, commissions, and programs which further increased the size of government.

The truth is and was well known back before this fiscal house of cards collapsed. We all know that our economy goes through a cyclical process of boom and bust. In the last forty years, our economy has gone through six recessions of a years length or more. This equates to a recession occurring every six years or so. During each recession, we find ourselves in the same place. Falling revenues and increase budgetary demands leads to half measures and wishful thinking. We just squeak by with partial cuts and increase taxes. Yet, when the recession ends, we returned to our spendthrift ways and act as though the last year or so never happened. However, six years later, we are back again, the budget gap has grown larger and the revenue shortfalls greater. Clearly the budget and the size of government as it exists right now is not sustainable.

In preparation for this hearing I went to the Joint Fiscal Office's website and printed off their five year projection for budgets and revenues. I am sure you already know what I found, but I think it is important to restate the problem we face. According to the Joint Fiscal Office, over the course of the next three years, fiscal year 2011 through 2013, Vermont faces a combined debt of $462,000,000. The equivalent of about a third of our budget. However, these figures are based upon two optimistic projects by the Joint Fiscal Office. The first projection is that the budget will not grow more than the rate of inflation (approximately 3.5% per annum). Of course given the fact that simple inflation alone does not take into consideration mandated programs from Washington (generally un-funded) and the growth of costs associated with Medicare/Medicaid which has traditionally outstripped inflation by a mile. The Second, and the most suspect, projection is that revenues for the next three fiscal years will grow by 2.34% (FY 11), 6.87% (FY12), and 6.34% (FY 13). These incredible leaps in revenue are the only thing keeping our projected budget deficits from growing completely out of control. Without this optimistic projection in revenues, Vermonters would be facing a debt closer to $800,000,000 over three years.

So what traditionally has been the response of Montpelier when the budget goes out of balance? Well, as you know the government attempts to chip away at the problem, cutting a little bit here, trimming a little bit there, raising taxes on some, and fees on others. Yet, this approach rarely solves the problem nor does it provide a long-term strategy to prevent future crisis. A prime example of this tried and not so true method is the most recent Miscellaneous Tax Bill.

Under this bill, the legislature seeks to make up the shortfall in the 2010 budget by increasing fees, taxes, and other revenue generating payments. Yet, this bill is a "death by a thousand cuts" to the average Vermonter. The hard working Vermonter, who already has seen his stagnant wages diminish in value over time, will now face higher fees on his property, his licenses, and his access to governmental services. The people who you rely upon to pay their taxes and make this state work, the ones who have little money to begin with to make ends meet, are now to be milked in a hundred little ways of more of their expendable income. The sad reality of this bill is that it does not solve the problem it seeks to correct nor provides a long term solution to our recurrent fiscal problems. It is only a band-aid provision applied to a gaping chest-wound of a fiscal crisis.

So what is the problem? It is very simple. The problem is the paradigm in which budgets are made in Montpelier. The process is flawed because you approach the issue of budgets by saying "what is it we want?" and then you figure out how to pay for it. I would recommend to you that a sustainable and more fiscally responsible approach would be to ask yourselves, "what do we have for revenues and what does the state need?"

The Vermont Campaign for Liberty believes that the government serves an important, but limited purpose in society. The primary functions of government, that which that government needs to do, are providing for roads and bridges, law enforcement, courts, jails, and infrastructure. These should be of first concern and the first to be provided for. However, today our roads and bridges are in sorry shape, law enforcement is spread thin, our courts are understaffed and becoming harder to access for average citizens, and our jails are overcrowded. Meanwhile, Montpelier continues to create more and more agencies and programs that have little to do with what we need and more to do with what we want. Fiscal responsibility demands that we identify the difference between wants and needs. Then pay for our needs before providing for our wants.

Tonight, you have heard numerous people call for the restoration of cut programs, but you have heard very little about how to balance this bloated budget. Therefore, I will do the unpopular thing and recommend the following to be eliminated, not cut, but permanently eliminated from the budget: Arts Council; Office of Chief Marketing Officer; Office of Economic Opportunity; Department of Education; Elevator Board; Film Commission; Commission on the Future of Economic Development; Department of Information & Innovation; Department of Libraries; Council on Physical Fitness & Sports; Vermont Scenic Preservation Council; Department of Tourism & Marketing; Vermont Life Magazine, Vermont Public Television Grant. Council on the Humanities, Early Education, the numerous (and often ignored) legislative studies, and land use planning grants.

These items are all well meaning and clearly something most Vermonters would like or want to have, but they are not necessary to the core functions of government. By cutting these items, the State Budget would be reduced by at least $60,000,000 and without effecting the traditional core functions of State Government.

As a conclusion to my testimony I want to make the following two observations. First, budget planning to date has always been done with good times in mind, but this ultimately leads us to the inevitable fiscal crisis like we are now experiencing during the bad times. Perhaps, we need to plan our budgets as though every year is a bad year. This method negates the constant recurrence of fiscal problems while ensuring that the budget is sustainable and can weather any changes in the economy. Second, I want to point out that the method of identifying your needs and paying for them first before pursuing your wants has been a method applied in most fiscally responsible households around the state for many decades. It has worked for them over the years and it will work for you.