State residents see a new Dean in presidential race

State residents see a new Dean in presidential race

Auditor: He was a moderate as governor
By ELIZABETH MEHREN and MARK Z. BARABAK
Los Angeles Times


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------







Vermont







SOUTH BURLINGTON, Vt. - As Vermont governor, Howard Dean was known as a buttoned-down and bottom-line chief executive. He fought higher taxes, cut programs over the cries of fellow Democrats and often sided with business when the choice was jobs versus the environment.

Which explains why many people back home scarcely recognize Howard Dean the presidential candidate, who has stirred liberals across the country with his blunt talk and passionate antiwar speeches.

"A lot of us laugh and say, 'Howard, we hardly knew you,' " said Elizabeth Ready, the state auditor and a liberal Democrat. Added Bob Sherman, a Democratic lobbyist, "The Howard Dean I see running for president is a lot different than the Howard Dean who . . . governed Vermont. He was a moderate."

In an interview this week in his expanded campaign headquarters here, Dean said he has been candid about his range of views. Asked about his emergence as the champion of disaffected liberals, the former governor said he would leave the labeling to others.

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/recent2003/0713%5Fdeanvermont%5F2003.shtml

and not a liberal on fiscal policy. But look what his policies did for us!

From the day he decided that it was wrong to have a private monopoly issue state bonds to the day he decided it was wrong for Enron to rape the State of California, he had the same core beliefs.

Also, when faced with a surplus, the LAST thing Clinton wanted to do was cut taxes across the board. He decided that he should invest it in programs to make Americans even wealthier, happier and healthier.

for where we are now! Not to mention a host of other hostile-to-working-people acts, such as shredding the safety net.

Clinton was not a good president, unless you like Republicans.

Clinton was the best president we've had since JFK. Unless you've been living in outer Mongolia, you have to know that Bill Clinton is a D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T, not a knee-jerk ultra-left, anti-establishment, braindead hippy-type who doesn't know that the real world isn't sympathetic to idealistic dreamers who don't have their feet planted firmly on the ground and people who have never lived in the "real world" and who have never had a "real" job and who have never been the sole support of a family and have never had to deal with the realities of life.

The lowest percentile gained both in real terms and comparitiatively under Clinton. If this thread is still active when we get DU1 access I will find those stats. But they do exist. I won't claim that the gain was huge but it was existant.

would be common sense governor. I think the public needs to think of Dean as a man who will look after the interests of them, the middle class.

Dean also was on good terms with Vermont's business community - a relationship some considered too cozy. "His top advisers were all money people, brokers and bankers," said Ready, a regular Dean adversary when she served in the Legislature.

While Dean was instrumental in preserving hundreds of thousands of acres of open space, critics say he was too willing to capitulate to developers and allow growth that contributed to sprawl and the pollution of Lake Champlain, Vermont's natural gem.

"If the question was enticing new business in the state, giving them what they wanted or needed in terms of permits, locations, you could pretty much predict Howard would come down on the side of what business wanted, even if meant sprawling development," said Patrick Parenteau, a law professor at Vermont Law School and a former state environmental commissioner.

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/recent2003/0713%5Fdeanvermont%5F2003.shtml

Any surprsise there? Clinton (and Edwards, I'm guessing) dance with the ones that the brought them up -- the working and middle class...in Clinton's case, single mothers trying hard to give their kids a bright future, and in Edwards's case, young parents without any education at all, trying to give their children better chances than they had.

Which makes sense, since he is one.

or are you hoping to make trial lawyer a bad word like liberal? You know, the way Dean and his GOP allies did for so many years.

But please--wash your mouth out with soap for saying that about Clinton. He is the one who presided over the destruction of the social safety net.

To me, that's 'elite sense'.

is the mark of brilliance. Centrist, conservative, liberal... whatever the issue requires and leave the interpretations and labeling to the 'small.'

Dean '04... Ever Evolving

are.

A consistent message is vitally important for a candidate to succeed. A candidate needs to do two things: (1) you HAVE to have a message which people can reduce to a paragraph, or, even better, a sentence, that sums up exactly what you stand for, and (2) your message has to be better and more appealing than your opponents.

I honestly have no idea what Dean's message is. He is all over the place. What I'm left with is, he's a privileged white guy from a family of CIA agents and investment bankers, and doesn't seem to get what it is that's important to working and middle class people.

You may call what he's doing 'evolving', but, for the average voter, it's going to be CONFUSING, and it's going to mean that he'll never beat Bush.

his agenda. Some will be 'confused' and left behind. It's an inevitable part of politics.

Dean's 'plans' for Vermont are site specific as his 'plans' for the U.S. are site specific...as his 'plans' for the world (foreign agenda) are 'site specific'.

Providing simplistic, unchanging stances in an ever evolving world may be a comfortable life plan for many but is unworkable. Consistent intelligent solutions is the Dean way and will continue. The 'confused' have other unchanging, more easily understood candidates. Support them.

Dean '04...

Deans so called "EVOLUTION" is not evident yet, because talk is cheap.
There is no evidence of Deans evolution, because all he is doing now is making campaign speeches. His speeches as candidate to not resemble his actions as governor:

Vermont

SOUTH BURLINGTON, Vt. - As Vermont governor, Howard Dean was known as a buttoned-down and bottom-line chief executive. He fought higher taxes, cut programs over the cries of fellow Democrats and often sided with business when the choice was jobs versus the environment.

Which explains why many people back home scarcely recognize Howard Dean the presidential candidate, who has stirred liberals across the country with his blunt talk and passionate antiwar speeches.

"A lot of us laugh and say, 'Howard, we hardly knew you,' " said Elizabeth Ready, the state auditor and a liberal Democrat. Added Bob Sherman, a Democratic lobbyist, "The Howard Dean I see running for president is a lot different than the Howard Dean who . . . governed Vermont. He was a moderate."

In an interview this week in his expanded campaign headquarters here, Dean said he has been candid about his range of views. Asked about his emergence as the champion of disaffected liberals, the former governor said he would leave the labeling to others.

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/recent2003/0713%5Fdeanvermont%5F2003.shtml

There is absolutely NO evidence that Deans behavior as president will have evolved, that he has changed at all.

Deans so called evolution, over a period of less than two years, will not be as trusted by the media, as it is by those who choose to beleive that Dean actually intends to do what he tells them he will in order to be elected.

Dean has been well known to craft his campaign platform to get support, and then disregard the very things he campaigned on, going back to his original, very conservative agenda.

Dean claims that he has been candid about himself, but why then is itthat SO liberal make exhaustive claims of his liberality.
It may be the media, but the media fgets itsinfo about Dean from Dean's own political machine.

campaign and support has skyrocketed. As president of the U.S. he will have agendas unrelated to his governance of Vermont.

This shouldn't be confusing.

Dean '04

You can look at his records, and is ideas before he began to run for president, but you cannot find any evidence that he will actually follow through on his campaign platform.

That is the difference between Dean and all of the other candidates...

In less than two years Deans spoken platform scarcely resembles his actions as governor, to many who had to work closely with him, and especially, with many liberals with whom Dean's relationship was adversarial, rather than co-operative.

It is going to be very difficult for Dean to convince the media, that these numerous changes are real, and not simply a ploy to lure disaffected democrats in order to be elected.

The real Howard Dean lies somewhere in his terms as governor, rather than his current campaign.

media'. Adversarial relationships are common with men of integrity such as Dean. 'Go along to get along' is hardly enviable in any person and certainly not in a leader.

Dean detractors commonly don't see Dean's virtues as a statesman who represented the people of Vermont. The state of Vermont is now in better shape financially and otherwise because of his 'adversarial relationships'.


Dean '04...

tomato, tomAto

I was looking for articles like this for a handout I am making for the DLC convention in two weeks. I still have not decided whether to go inside and participate or rally with the rest of Philly for Dean outside, but either way I am making a handout that touts some of his more moderate credentials. So thanks for posting this. :-D

They say he's different now, but they can only cite a quote of his supporting the balanced budget amendment back in 1995, and today he says he goes back and forth on the issue because while it may not be very good policy, our gov't has been so irresponsible with money that we may be better off with it to prevent republicans from driving up the defecit again. Is that supposed to be some dramatic shift?

They are wrong about civil unions as well. Is this the LA Times article repackaged? Dean came out in favor of the ruling within an hour, and pushed to get civil unions passed instead of having a study on the issue which would delay action until after the election. He also has a history of support for the gay community before this.

I'm not sure about the business development angle, since no examples were given, but if the way Dean delt with Walmart is any indication, then Vermont is in good shape.

The latest act of courage and leadership in pursuit of tolerance started last December, when the Vermont Supreme Court ordered equal marriage rights and benefits for gay Vermonters. Both houses of the Vermont Legislature responded quickly and by mid-April the governor signed the civil unions bill -- in private, of course. Reporters and cameras were not allowed in. But the secrecy of the signing didn't keep the controversy down.

For incumbent Governor Howard Brush Dean III, it was a fight he never asked for. The four-term governor (two-year terms in Vermont), had refused for years to publicly state his position on gay marriage. Dean is a Yale graduate (1971) and a medical doctor. Fiscal conservatism and universal health care are his issues. Dr. Dean describes his seat on the mandala of politics as that of a "passionate centrist." Again and again he told the public he would not comment on the same-sex marriage issue because it was a matter before the court.

Then, within one hour of the Vermont Supreme Court decision that declared gay marriage constitutional, Dean clumsily told reporters that when it comes to homosexual marriage, he was "uncomfortable about it, just like anybody else."

At least he was honest. Gay marriage simply was not his issue. It dropped into his lap like piping hot tomato soup. He was clearly relieved the Supreme Court had offered an out -- creation of a parallel system that would grant the rights and benefits without the "marriage" title. "Civil union" was born.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/3867

Was not terrible supportive of it. Gays appreciated that he signed the act, but many, many who were not the leaders of gay organizations felt betrayed by Deans aparteid like choice (It is called an aparteid like choice in a Vermont Gay paper by an organization called Mountain Pride"

Both Edwards and Nitka, while acknowledging that gays and lesbians should have equal rights, voted with Little and five other members of the committee to leave marriage laws intact and pursue a parallel system of domestic partnership or civil unions.

Progressive Steve Hingtgen of Burlington reprimanded the committee in his remarks. Calling anything other than marriage was inadequate, he said domestic partnership would validate hate.

“It institutionalizes the bigotry and affirmatively creates an apartheid system of family recognition in Vermont,” said Hingtgen.

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/mar2000/news_cdu.htm

Dean support off base

I am writing to express my deep disappointment in the recent fundraising letter from Vermonters for Civil Unions, Inc. effectively endorsing Governor Howard Dean in his bid for reelection. Their call to make qualifying contributions to Dean’s campaign smacks of pandering and a desire to maintain the privilege of the few rather then seek justice for all. Governor Dean has clearly stated on any number of occasions that he does not support marriage rights for all people and that he does support maintaining an unjust, two- tiered apartheid system in which those of us who are deemed to be abnormal are not to be treated equally under the law...

Governor Dean signed the bill because he knew that he had no choice – he was locked in because he said on day one that he did not support gay marriage but did support domestic partnerships. If Dean could have avoided this issue, he would have. Let us not kid ourselves...

Governor Dean has proven that he’ll only support us when he’s trapped or it’s convenient. For example, his recent interview with OITM where he virtually begged the queer community to support him over Anthony Pollina is simple, pathetic fear-mongering. He feels trapped and he comes to us for help. It’s truly depressing to see the privileged elites of the GLBT community and the privileged elites of the Democratic Party falling all over themselves in an effort to suck up to one another. The Governor should be ashamed of himself for attempting to scare queer folk and progressives into voting for him.

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jul2000/letters.htm

Dean is touting his leadership in this area, when he did everything to avoid it, and those who many who the bill was designed to serve
feef ill served by it, and betrayed by Dean.

But the matter of civil unions - like the governorship itself - was foisted on him by external events.

In 1999, the state Supreme Court unanimously decreed that gay couples were due the same legal rights of marriage as heterosexuals. Dean left it to lawmakers to respond, saying only that he would not sign a bill permitting gay marriage.

After a prolonged and fractious debate, the Legislature reached its compromise, coining the "civil union" concept that allows gay partners such benefits as inheritance and hospital-visitation rights, but not the same recognition as heterosexual marriage. When the bill reached his desk, Dean signed it in the confines of his office, away from the reporters and camera crews gathered for a news conference. Critics bitterly quipped that he signed it in the closet. Dean says he avoided a showy ceremony to prevent further divisiveness.

To many people in Vermont, the episode captured the consummate Howard Dean, a governor who focused on a few issues - health care for children, a balanced budget, paying down debt - and pursued them with few distractions

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/recent2003/0713%5Fdeanvermont%5F2003.shtml


Again Dean was a two hit wonder. All he focused on was balancing the budget, and his ideas about health care for children, sacrificing EVERTHING else, and giving it little attention.

This same cmonitor article indicates that Dean always came down on the side of business in every issue that ever came before him.

ANd saw polls finally supporting the stance, especially at the NATIONAL level.


Democrats of the stripe of Dean and Gore know how to talk the talk. They don't move a finger to expand human freedoms or opportunities, then boast that they alone are the bulwark against right-wing attacks on such freedoms and opportunities. After undermining choice and gay rights for much of his Congressional career, Gore now tells women and gays that he is the prime defender of choice and gay rights. At a gay event in Los Angeles, Dean claimed the hero's mantle for signing Vermont's civil union law giving gay couples the same state benefits as married couples. But he was never out front on this issue, moved only under direct order of the courts and then, in an act of consummate cowardice, nervously scribbled his signature to the law secluded from press or camera.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Political_Reform/VoteHopes_NotFears.html

You can quote Dean all you want...

But there were MANY gays who abandoned the democratic party becasue of Dean.


The latest act of courage and leadership in pursuit of tolerance started last December, when the Vermont Supreme Court ordered equal marriage rights and benefits for gay Vermonters. Both houses of the Vermont Legislature responded quickly and by mid-April the governor signed the civil unions bill -- in private, of course. Reporters and cameras were not allowed in. But the secrecy of the signing didn't keep the controversy down.

For incumbent Governor Howard Brush Dean III, it was a fight he never asked for. The four-term governor (two-year terms in Vermont), had refused for years to publicly state his position on gay marriage. Dean is a Yale graduate (1971) and a medical doctor. Fiscal conservatism and universal health care are his issues. Dr. Dean describes his seat on the mandala of politics as that of a "passionate centrist." Again and again he told the public he would not comment on the same-sex marriage issue because it was a matter before the court.

Then, within one hour of the Vermont Supreme Court decision that declared gay marriage constitutional, Dean clumsily told reporters that when it comes to homosexual marriage, he was "uncomfortable about it, just like anybody else."

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/3867


But Rep. George Schiavone, R-Shelburne, a leading opponent of the new civil unions law, said the private signing was nothing more than an effort to avoid photographs that would later be used by Dean's political opponents.

"I'm appalled," Schiavone said. "He says it's not political. I think politics is the thing that is top on his mind and that's what this is all about. He just didn't want those photographs of him signing it."

Even some supporters of the measure agreed.

"It looked to me like they didn't want any photos," said Rep. Steve Hingtgen, P-Burlington, a member of the House Judiciary Committee. Hingtgen said he was disappointed by Dean's decision to forgo the ceremony, adding that he believed there was a way for the governor to publicly celebrate the fact that the historic bill had become law without gloating over it.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/vtruling/deansigns.html

Dean Dean act publically and openly on th3 signing of this bill. NO.

Did Dean advocate what gays wanted, gay marriage. NO.

ANd all but ONE of the articles you have cited came AFTER the Civil union act was signed, not before it was signed.

And this is a general way. Dean sponsored NO legislation, would not commit on a stance about the case regarding Civil Unions while it was in court, which is most cowardly, as most of the time, executives ALWAYS cite their opinion of cases in the courts and how they stand on the issues, prior to court decision. Presidents ALWAYS do. They ALways state how they would like the court to decide on issues they either support or do not. Dean was waiting to see which way the wind blows.

While legislation regarding gays was under consideration regarding the military, Kerry and CLinton clearly made their views known.

Until Dean saw that there might be an advantage to him in supporting gay rights, he was quite unsure of what stance to take. Except for a general statement calling fo civil rights for gays, what support did Dean give to any REAL support for gays between a phrase in a state of the union address, and being required to sign the Civil Unions act...

Gays say none.

from after the legislation was signed??? HOW does that make ANY sense? Hell, he's even quoting the same publications that you are.

The bottom line is that you can ALWAYS find opposing viewpoints. I'm sure the writers you quote felt the way they stated they did when they wrote the articles. There are many others who feel differently.

You have every right to suport Kerry. You also have every right to attack Dean, but don't count on your verbosity to translate into credibility for all of us. I realize that there will be people that choose another candidate. That's fine (although I'll try to change their minds through information supportive of Dean, NOT initiating negative posts about other candidates). I can't promise to refute every biased post you make, but I'll do my best.

I'll get behind Kerry if he's the nominee. I find it sad that you don't have the same committment to get rid of Bush if Dean is the nominee...

Heavily supporting gay rights or Civil Unions until after te bill was signed. He refused to give any idea of how he stood on the issue between the time the case was filed, or even until the court decided.

The true character of Dean can only be determined by how gays viewed his action at the time they needed him to say something, as noted here:

Governor Dean signed the bill because he knew that he had no choice – he was locked in because he said on day one that he did not support gay marriage but did support domestic partnerships. If Dean could have avoided this issue, he would have. Let us not kid ourselves.

If the people running Vermonters for Civil Unions want to pander to Governor Dean so they can retain access to the “man in charge,” so be it. But I will not support this travesty – I will work to smash the patriarchy and the privilege that goes with it. Then, and only then, will all people live in honor and dignity.

Governor Dean has proven that he’ll only support us when he’s trapped or it’s convenient. For example, his recent interview with OITM where he virtually begged the queer community to support him over Anthony Pollina is simple, pathetic fear-mongering. He feels trapped and he comes to us for help. It’s truly depressing to see the privileged elites of the GLBT community and the privileged elites of the Democratic Party falling all over themselves in an effort to suck up to one another. The Governor should be ashamed of himself for attempting to scare queer folk and progressives into voting for him.

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jul2000/letters.htm

Yes. articles after June of 2000, when polls indicated civil unions would only be an issue for 3 percent of the voters, Howard Dean could feel secure in stating he supported the bill.

Slight majority supports civil unions


State returns




• President by county
• U.S. Senate, House
• Governor, state offices
• State Senate
• State House




MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — The civil unions backlash that only sort of happened may be explained in part by an exit poll that found a narrow majority of Vermonters supporting the new law. Opposition to the law was believed to have influenced losses by several legislative incumbents who had supported the measure granting marriage-like rights and responsibilities to gay and lesbian couples. But it was not enough to put Republican Ruth Dwyer over the top in her bid to defeat incumbent Democratic Gov. Howard Dean, who signed the civil unions law.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/vt/main04.htm#readmore


A contrasting view was also offered on the floor, a view that spelled out the challenge ahead for the bill's supporters: Rep. Ann Seibert, D-Norwich, said that as Vermonters learned more about the bill, and learned that it defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, they were more likely to decide they could live with it.

Over the course of the session, Seibert said, she had spoken to several constituents who had started out disliking the bill but had come around to support it. "I never heard any one change their mind the other way," Seibert said.

Dean said he believed opinion polls also showed a trend in that direction. "I actually think public opinion is more favorable today than when it came out, and that's actually borne out in the polls," said Dean, who will face both Republican and independent challengers in the election.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/legislature/leg2000/politicalfallout.html



Dean directly lies about what the polls were when he signed the bill:

I want the President of the United States to explain to all American's why he doesn't believe all Americans should be equal under the law. I signed (the Vermont Civil-Union) bill six months before an election when it was at 35% in the polls. I never had a conversation with myself about whether or not I would sign the bill or not, because I knew if I was willing to sell out the hope and dreams of a significant portion of our people that I had wasted my life in public service."

http://www.octalouie.com/dean/


MONTPELIER, Vt. -- Based on the results of a recent poll, the Rutland Herald reports a majority of Vermonters disapprove of the civil unions bill signed into law last week, but with regard to upcoming gubernatorial and legislative elections, it does not appear the granting of legal benefits to same-gender couples will be a defining campaign issue for most voters.










The poll conducted last week by the Rutland Herald, Barre-Montpelier Times Argus and WCAX Channel 3 News, said that 52 percent of those polled said they disapproved of the civil unions bill, and 43 percent said they approved. But within those opposing the effort, only 16 expressed strong disapproval.

Asked if the issue would have an impact on their vote, only 24 percent said it would be important: 5 percent rated it as "very important," and 19 percent said it was "somewhat important."

Just over half of those polled (51 percent) said the issue wouldn't have much weight. Of those, 33 percent said it was "not very important," and 18 percent said it would not affect their vote at all. A quarter of the voters surveyed said they were not sure how passage of the civil unions bill would influence their choice in the governor's race.

http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=6916


Even more interesting were the figures by the time Dean signed the bill:

Gov. Howard B. Dean listed several of those issues at an impromptu press conference after the House vote on Tuesday, emphasizing his administration's achievements in improving health care for Vermont's children. Saying he would sign the civil unions bill, Dean also acknowledged the power the issue might have in the coming campaign.

"(I)f they only vote on this issue, clearly 46 percent of the people don't like this, and that's a tough spot to be in," Dean said, referring to recent public opinion polls. "In the end, the voters are my boss and if I've disappointed them I'm going to have to face up to that."

http://www.rutlandherald.com/legislature/leg2000/politicalfallout.html


Poll suggests limited fallout from gay bill

By JACK HOFFMAN Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER - A majority of Vermonters disapprove of the civil unions bill signed into law last week, but with the gubernatorial and legislative elections still six months away, it does not appear that the granting of legal benefits to same- gender couples is a defining campaign issue for most voters.

In a poll conducted last week by the Rutland Herald, Barre- Montpelier Times Argus and WCAX Channel 3 News, 52 percent said they disapproved of the civil unions bill, and 43 percent said they approved. Within those two categories, 16 expressed strong disapproval and 9 percent said they strongly approved.

The people surveyed, who identified themselves as registered voters, were asked how important the passage of the civil unions bill would be in determining their vote for governor

http://www.rutlandherald.com/legislature/leg2000/limitedfallout.html

Dean waited, held back, made certain there were no photo-ops showing him signing the bill.

Yes, how Dean behaved during the crisis, is FAR more important than those posts that are being printed about Deans bravery, after the fact and safely out of the Vermont governors office.

Articles that state the opinion of those who were effected by Deans action or INACTION, at the time of the events are far more indicative than what Dean says in articles well after the events.

Ones behavior in a time of crisis, and when one has something to gain or lose, is far more ndicative of courage than tales after the fact.

..the part about them supporting him just to "retain access to the "man in charge"". How incredibly insulting.

Keep winning their hearts and minds, Nick...

to the Mountain Pride journal. That was ONE gay who Did not support Dean, and the only articles supprting him were after he finally realized it was not going to hurt him in the elections:

Dean support off base...

Governor Dean signed the bill because he knew that he had no choice – he was locked in because he said on day one that he did not support gay marriage but did support domestic partnerships. If Dean could have avoided this issue, he would have. Let us not kid ourselves.

If the people running Vermonters for Civil Unions want to pander to Governor Dean so they can retain access to the “man in charge,” so be it. But I will not support this travesty – I will work to smash the patriarchy and the privilege that goes with it. Then, and only then, will all people live in honor and dignity.

Governor Dean has proven that he’ll only support us when he’s trapped or it’s convenient. For example, his recent interview with OITM where he virtually begged the queer community to support him over Anthony Pollina is simple, pathetic fear-mongering. He feels trapped and he comes to us for help. It’s truly depressing to see the privileged elites of the GLBT community and the privileged elites of the Democratic Party falling all over themselves in an effort to suck up to one another. The Governor should be ashamed of himself for attempting to scare queer folk and progressives into voting for him.

The LGBT community, and the sub-set known as “Vermonters for Civil Unions,” should take a hard look at our goals – do we really want to become simply another cog in an oppressive social and economic system or do we want to work for a world where those who have been ignored, patronized, beaten, killed, shut out and starved out will finally have a voice? I know my answer: I am voting for hope, not fear. I will be supporting Anthony Pollina for governor.

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jul2000/letters.htm

or how about:


Representative Dean Corren of Burlington, lead sponsor of a bill that would include gays and lesbians in marriage statutes, was angered by the decision of the judiciary committee.

“They can’t call this a civil rights bill,” said Corren. “This is a denial of civil rights.”

Others were equally unimpressed, but in another direction. Immediately following the committee’s decision, twelve representatives introduced a resolution calling for the impeachment of the Supreme Court for its decision in Baker v Vermont. The resolution was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee, where it is expected to stay without action. (See page 6 for the text and sponsor list of this resolution.)...


Progressive Steve Hingtgen of Burlington reprimanded the committee in his remarks. Calling anything other than marriage was inadequate, he said domestic partnership would validate hate.

“It institutionalizes the bigotry and affirmatively creates an apartheid system of family recognition in Vermont,” said Hingtgen.

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/mar2000/news_cdu.htm

That was the opinion at of many gays and their supporters at the time Dean signed his apartheid bill...

Not my opinion, I wasnt there. But I wholeheartedly agree with their opinion of Dean and his lack of real leadership.

First, as has been posted on about a dozen occasions his support for civil unions was ANNOUNCED THE DAY OF THE SUPRMEME COURT DECISION and he signed that bill 4 months later. You are being medacious when you claim he didn't utter statements of support until after he signed the bill. December of 99 came before Apr of 2000. Facts are stubborn things.

Second, you found two gay ingrates and a partisan Progressive good for you. Convieniently left out of the account is how that gay legislator got his job HE WAS APPOINTED BY HOWARD DEAN. Yep that hater of gays APPOINTED THE ONE AND ONLY OPENLY GAY HOUSE MEMBER IN THE HISTORY OF VERMONT. As to the gay letter writer. He needs to find a dictionary and look up gratitude. It should be noted that all of the people who sued to get marriage accepted this as a solution (note this ingrate couldn't be bothered to help). It should also be noted that he wasn't even accurate. All of the Vermont rights afforded married couples were given to Civil Union couples. And Dean couldn't grant federal rights. As to the Progressive this 'Progressive' party lied about both Gore and Clinton and couldn't get Sanders endorsement. Sorry but not for me.

December of 1999 and April of 2000.

I understand Deans methods well, as well as those of his supporters.

Those gays who wish to be equal, and not separate but equal are ungrateful, and anything they say is a lie...

But provide any quotes from Dean either supporting or opposing the case while it was in court(his statement about not wanting tosay anything about it while it was in court was SHEER CRAVEN cowardice. evn Bush has more courage in discussing court cases).

UI could as well say that you found quotes from brownosing heads of organizations trying to ,ake points with Dean. That is more likely to be true.

However, when the HEADS of organizations like NORML criticize Dean for his stance on medical marijuana, then these people are also wrong. So get your stories strsight. Is the the rank and file membership of the public whse opinions matter more, or the opinions
of the heads of advocacy groups.


Heres another mendacious opinion of Deans choice:

Mass Economist Says Vermont's "Civil Union" Law Retains a Separate-but-Equal Approach for Gay Couples

AMHERST, Mass. - University of Massachusetts labor economist M.V. Lee Badgett says Vermont's first-in-the-nation "civil unions" legislation is a major step forward for same-sex couples seeking the benefits of marriage, but notes the legal framework it creates isn't the same as marriage.

Vermont lawmakers approved the bill this week and have sent it to Gov. Howard Dean, who says he will sign it into law.

"Vermont's creation of 'civil unions' addresses many of the economic disadvantages faced by same-sex couples," Badgett says. "Those couples and their children will now have equal access to the state-provided legal and economic framework supporting Vermont's families."

But while same-sex couples in civil unions will be closer to parity with married couples than they are in any other state, this separate-but-equal approach leaves the status of same-sex couples murky with respect to recognition by employers, insurance companies, and other states, Badgett says. "Furthermore, federal law excludes same-sex couples from access to the immigration, taxation, and social security benefits given to married couples," she says.

http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/archive/2000/042600civilunion.html





Key Vermont Lawmakers Call for Full Gay Marriage
Thursday, 6 January 2000

MONTPELIER, Vt. -- The chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee in Vermont issued a call on Wednesday for serious debate and public consideration of same-sex inclusion in the state's marriage statutes.



Democratic Sen. Jeb Spaulding, a ranking official in the Vermont state Senate, is the most prominent legislative leader yet to advocate amending marriage statutes to allow gays and lesbians could marry.

"I realize that this is a highly charged and politically volatile issue, but I can't in good conscience just go with the flow and keep quiet on such a basic human fairness issue," Spaulding said in a letter to fellow state Senators.

Spaulding on Wednesday said he is intent on challenging the notion that a consensus has developed in Vermont against gay marriage. He said there is no firm basis for asserting that most lawmakers in the state favor the creation of a "separate but equal" domestic partnership arrangement that gives gay and lesbian couples the benefits of marriage without actually calling it that.


http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=5022


The news today is a forum like this has never happened" before, said Birch, noting the candidates' struggles with the "hot-button issue" of gay marriage.

According to HRC, more than 1,000 federal benefits and privileges, such as joint filing of tax returns and Social Security survivor's benefits, apply only to married couples, not those in civil unions, a situation Birch compared to separate-but-equal schools during segregation.

Until the public understands the distinction between the religious marriage ritual and the secular marriage contract with the state, she said, and doesn't "automatically think that the candidate is coming after their sacred, holy union, I think you're going to find candidates shying away from that word 'marriage.'"

http://www.sunspot.net/news/nationworld/bal-te.gayrights16jul16,0,6981660.story?coll=bal-news-nation

This last article and what it says is a quote from the HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN, the largest gay advocacy group in the nation. And they compared Deans choice to separate but equal schooling during segragation.

But I guess gays must be grateful to Dean for his decision to quanratine them socially.


AS a matter of fact, other articles I have posted about Civil Unions from Vermont gay literature indicate that Dean only LATELY began to support the issue of civil unions (just around the time the cousrt gave him no choice"

O.K. so prove it wrong. Find ANY support for civil unions from Dena prior to December 1999.

An unlikely gay rights advocate, Dean seemed politically infallible. The Yale graduate assumed the Governor’s position in 1991 and over 9 years developed every politician’s ideal resume. Dean made Vermont the forerunner in welfare and health care reform and made it first, nationally, in childhood immunizations. Dean also eliminated his state’s sixty-four million dollar deficit and still managed to cut taxes. No one was surprised that Dean won reelections easily with seventy percent of the vote (State of Vermont). With his performance and popularity as governor, he could have run for President. Why did Howard Dean risk his political future with the signing of one bill?

<snip>

Vermonters will proudly tell you that they have always had a "live-and-let-live" state of mind but the prospect of letting homosexuals enter into civil unions sparked intense political controversy. At the time of the bill’s signing, the majority of Vermont voters were against it (Vermont Governor Signs . . .). A backlash campaign called "Take Back Vermont" publicized its slogan on barns, billboards, cars and t-shirts. They vowed that come Election Day, Dean and legislators who had supported the bill, would be voted out of office (Goldberg). Officials received hate mail and had their cars vandalized (Ferdinand) while political graffiti littered Vermont roadsides (Goldberg).

<snip>

In his campaign for reelection to a fifth gubernatorial term, an ambitious Dean would have focused on health care, taxes, or any of a number of "safe" political platforms. However, disturbed by Vermont’s reaction toward gay civil unions, Dean made the "extension of the rights and benefits of the constitution to all Vermonters, regardless of their sexual orientation" (Dean) the heart of his campaign for acceptance and understanding. Over the next six months, Dean fought harder for open-mindedness than for votes. He spoke against the "Take Back Vermont" movement, his most serious Election Day threat, stating that he never wanted to take Vermont back to "a time when it was okay to discriminate against people" (Goldberg). Dean effectively avoided the homophobic trends in political campaigning, but burdened himself with the political plague in popularity polls.

<snip>

On Election Day 2000, Vermonters voted their verdict on Dean’s integrity: he was reelected. Despite dissension, voters valued Dean for his commitment to principle. The ultimate success of Vermont’s civil unions bill and Dean’s reelection could serve as a persuasive impetus to grant gays similar freedoms in other states. The effect of Dean’s courage, however, reaches beyond the law. For a generation of young Americans, Dean proved that justice is possible and that rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," are still worth defending.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/pica_essay_winner_2001_dziczek.html

You have repeatedly and dishonestly said that Dean didn't support Civil Unions until he signed them. You know that, I know that, and the people of DU know that. Now you want to claim you said something else. Well I am not playing that game. You were dishonest and you got caught being so. Game over.

Oh and on the Birch quote. Could you possibly be more medacious? You are literally unbelievable.

The event showed that all the Democratic contenders want to provide equal rights, benefits and protections to gay couples and their families, said Elizabeth Birch, HRC's executive director, though Connecticut Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman would review existing federal programs before deciding which ones to extend to same-sex couples.

"The news today is a forum like this has never happened" before, said Birch, noting the candidates' struggles with the "hot-button issue" of gay marriage.

According to HRC, more than 1,000 federal benefits and privileges, such as joint filing of tax returns and Social Security survivor's benefits, apply only to married couples, not those in civil unions, a situation Birch compared to separate-but-equal schools during segregation.


You take a comment that she applied to all the candidates and pretend she only it uttered toward Dean. And then you also pretend that it was given in regards to what Vermont did when it wasn't. It is clear from the context I supplied that Ms. Birch was talking about FEDERAL POLICY. Policy overwhich Dean has no control. As she damn well knows none of those federal benefits would have flowed from Vermont same sex marriages. It should also be noted Kerry opposes them too. Unlike you though, Kerry is honest.

effect federal benefits. If Vermont ruled that gays could be married, the same as stright people, then they could be eligible for all of the federal benefits that married people are eligible. so lets dont spin this the way you want it to be spun.

And how it makes it less possible for it to be accomplished at the federal level.

As does the article by the Massachsetts economist, who said the same thing, and who I noticved you avoided referring to.

Dena had his chance to do the optimal thing. To make gays equal to non-gays.

HE flubbed it.

Stil I request. that you find any reference to Dean support for civil unions between 1992 and December 31 1999.

Dean only began his support for it after it was signed.

Read DOMA it banned any federal benefits to same sex married couple. You are either ignorant or lying.

But civil unions creates a SEPARATE state for gays, so that even with the REPEAL of DOMA. IT would take a new law and repeal of DOMA rather than simply make gays co-equal with non gays regarding federal funding. THe exact same thing that happened during segraegation in the 50's Dean solution will be remembered in the future negatively, rather than positively. It wil be remembered in the same way that the bigotted segregationists are remembered.

I would assuume that the take of a professional economist abut the issue is far more insightful than your own.
Provide documentation tat Deans decision was positive in this regard and you will be avle to make a point. Your own opinions abouit the law are not proof, just opinion. It is amazing how LITTLE referenced sources Dean supporters can come up with as counterpoint to their opinions.


READ IT AGAIN:

Mass Economist Says Vermont's "Civil Union" Law Retains a Separate-but-Equal Approach for Gay Couples

AMHERST, Mass. - University of Massachusetts labor economist M.V. Lee Badgett says Vermont's first-in-the-nation "civil unions" legislation is a major step forward for same-sex couples seeking the benefits of marriage, but notes the legal framework it creates isn't the same as marriage.

Vermont lawmakers approved the bill this week and have sent it to Gov. Howard Dean, who says he will sign it into law.

"Vermont's creation of 'civil unions' addresses many of the economic disadvantages faced by same-sex couples," Badgett says. "Those couples and their children will now have equal access to the state-provided legal and economic framework supporting Vermont's families."

But while same-sex couples in civil unions will be closer to parity with married couples than they are in any other state, this separate-but-equal approach leaves the status of same-sex couples murky with respect to recognition by employers, insurance companies, and other states, Badgett says. "Furthermore, federal law excludes same-sex couples from access to the immigration, taxation, and social security benefits given to married couples," she says.

http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/archive/2000/042600civilunion.html

And provide counterpoint from an authoratative source, another economist to counter it. Your opinion is not authoratative. Unless yo8u haqve a degree in economics and teach it at a major university.

Like Dean, all tyou can do when caught with your pants down is spout off. refernce it or accept it. The situation Dean chose was the apartheid situation it is described to be. If he had gone the other route, tyhere would be a legal contest to DOMA.As a matter of fact, if Dean had made the other choice, DOMA could have been contested from both a states rights and civil rights standpoint.

Dean is a jerk

Kerry is against same sex marriage. You and I both know that is true. I never said what Dean did would grand federal rights. It point of fact your own economist said it couldn't. Also you need a legal expert not an economist. By law Vermont was able to make employers recognize the civil unions. It didn't make other states recognize them but in point of fact DOMA lets states refrain from doing that too. Many states including California have their own DOMAs. Bottom line you candidate has the same position .

Kerry has said he beleives marriage is to be between men and women, but if support in congress could be found to vote on gay marriage, he hinted support it:

But like other leading contenders, Kerry shied away from the idea of same-sex marriage, drawing hisses from the audience when he said that "marriage is viewed as a union between men and women."

Kerry seemed to hint that he might favor gay marriage, if the idea were more popular politically and could win support in Congress. But "at this particular moment in time, I don't believe that exists," he said.

http://www.sunspot.net/news/nationworld/bal-te.gayrights16jul16,0,6981660.story?coll=bal-news-nation

Which is really more than can be said for Dean. The courts gave Dean an either OR option. Dean stated that he simply was against the idea, immediately after the court decision, and has repeatedly rejected the idea. He has used the marriage being a religious institution argument, which is really skirting the issue, as in the U.S. only civil marriages are legal. A minister, priest or rabbi can only marry a person with civil sanction, and a marriage performed by a religious representative has no legal standing.

Kerry is ultimately a pragmatist, and if the choice was set before him, would weighh the legal ramifications, and as indicated might favor it.

I will not repeat Deans commends about being uncomfortable with gay marriage.

Kerry has cited his own beleifs, but indicateed a willingness to do what the public wants if the issue becomes one that faces him as president. Dean keeps having to defend the chouice he made, when it was in front of him.

But for the rest of the day, I will leave Dean supporters in peace, as it is my birtday.

My gift to you. I wish both you and MercutionATC an excellent day. Enjoy the respite.

effect federal benefits. If Vermont ruled that gays could be married, the same as stright people, then they would be eligible for all of the federal benefits that married people are eligible. so lets dont spin this the way you want it to be spun.

If the states declare that there is NO difference between gays and straigh peopple regarding married, then they would be eleiglible for Socuial Security benfits. It is not the federal government that decides whetther a couple is married or not, but the sstates, and THAT is Birch's argument.

I fisrt gave the opinions of Vermont gays. you stated they were ungrateful or too progressive.

So ten I found others from outside who stated that the idea that Dean selected, Civil unions was segregationist from the viewpoint of economists and gays in national orgainzation.

Dean made the safe, but cowardly decision when he had a better alternative given to him

Deans idea of civil union is much like the idea of shipping freed black slaves to Africa to rather than letting giving them the same rights as white Americans right in America. A truly dismal solution from a truly mediocre politician.

I keep finding what you demand, and when it shows Dean in a bad light, you keepchanging the subject.
And refuse to anwer my question...

Show me Deans supoprt for civil unions before the Vermont Supreme Court made its decision.

many gays in te articles I have posted say that Dean only acted when he had not choice. SO does Tom Paine. so do others. But you still have not given me any evidence of Deans support for this court decision prior to its being made.

But articles do indicate that Dean REFUSED to say anything about it before hand

The latest act of courage and leadership in pursuit of tolerance started last December, when the Vermont Supreme Court ordered equal marriage rights and benefits for gay Vermonters. Both houses of the Vermont Legislature responded quickly and by mid-April the governor signed the civil unions bill -- in private, of course. Reporters and cameras were not allowed in. But the secrecy of the signing didn't keep the controversy down.

For incumbent Governor Howard Brush Dean III, it was a fight he never asked for. The four-term governor (two-year terms in Vermont), had refused for years to publicly state his position on gay marriage. Dean is a Yale graduate (1971) and a medical doctor. Fiscal conservatism and universal health care are his issues. Dr. Dean describes his seat on the mandala of politics as that of a "passionate centrist." Again and again he told the public he would not comment on the same-sex marriage issue because it was a matter before the court.

Then, within one hour of the Vermont Supreme Court decision that declared gay marriage constitutional, Dean clumsily told reporters that when it comes to homosexual marriage, he was "uncomfortable about it, just like anybody else."

At least he was honest. Gay marriage simply was not his issue. It dropped into his lap like piping hot tomato soup. He was clearly relieved the Supreme Court had offered an out -- creation of a parallel system that would grant the rights and benefits without the "marriage" title. "Civil union" was born.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/3867

O.K. I ve posted this a dozen times, but you find and provide counterpoint to the argument. Dean simply got stuck dealing with something he didnt want to deal with and handled it in a manner that is unsatisfactory to those it was designed for.

...they're always cut-and-pastes. My point was that I'll bet there are quite a few people who were directly affected by the legislation who would be upset that they were being characterised this way.

He cuts and pastes so much I don't think he remembers what he said from one post to the next.

I should just laugh at people who claim to be progressive and spend all of their time tearing down candidates when they openly admit that they will take action to oust Bush only if certain candidates are nominated.

One was from 1992 and a couple more were from 98.

And Dean is the one who says that idealogues mess up government. He is just a balanced budget ideologue.

His anti-war rhetoric resonated with a lot of angry citizens, not just liberal dems. But the position is going to be a hard one to shake - that of a peace-nik. It doesn't matter how often or how loud he, his campaign staff or his supporters insist that he is not anti-war, that is the sense that people will have of him.

He is the one who took advantage of a lot of passion associated with "The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party", knowing full well it's implications to appeal to activists and passionate liberals.

Now he's got to figure out how to establish himself some national security creds.

First, this statement is out and out false as both of us have posted in the past.

In 1999, the state Supreme Court unanimously decreed that gay couples were due the same legal rights of marriage as heterosexuals. Dean left it to lawmakers to respond, saying only that he would not sign a bill permitting gay marriage.

Why is this false? Because at the very press conference in which he said he was uncomfortable with gay marriage he also came out in favor of civil unions. Source Out in the Mountains It is very hard to believe this paper didn't cover that press conference. Thus one is left to say that the paper allowed what it knew to be false (this is beyond spin) into print. Why should I trust anything else in this article?

Here is another part of the article.

But Dean, who left office in January after 111/2 years as governor, has backed away from certain positions that could prove politically troublesome. In 1995, advocating a balanced federal budget, he suggested cutting Social Security, defense spending, Medicare and veterans pensions. He no longer favors those steps.

"You do not have to actually make cuts in things like Medicare or in things like Medicaid or even in defense. What you have to do is restrain the increases in spending," Dean said last month on NBC's Meet the Press. As for a constitutional balanced-budget requirement, he said, "I go back and forth on that."

Here they play some semantic games. As discussed at www.dailyhowler.com and elsewhere the meaning of the word cut changed between 95 and now. It always used to be that in budget parlance cut meant a reduction in planned spending. Thus if one was in favor of cuts back in 95 on was in favor of exactly what Dean is saying he is in favor of now. It was only during the budget showdowns of 95 and 96 that the Republicans succeeded in redefining cut to mean a cut from one year to the next in actual spending. In other words Dean didn't change the press did and is pretending Dean did.

As to the balanced budget amendment. They cut and pasted his quote quite nicely. The quote that he is back and forth on it was explained as follows. He said he thinks that a balanced budget amendment is a bad idea but that since Republicans in Washington won't balance the budget it may be need to get onw. To cut the quote as they did is spin pure and simple.

Those are the only issues common to Vermont and the nation this article covers. He came out against the war. I hazzard a guess that wars aren't to common in Vermont. I can't understand why it is somehow inconsistent for him to have been against this war. Was he advocating that Vermont attack New Hampshire while he was governor? Did he try ala Canadian Bacon to declare war on Canada? Somehow I doubt this. It should be noted that opposition is looking pretty good and pretty mainstream as time goes on.

He also, gasp, is against the tax cuts. This is supposedly inconsistent due to his not agreeing to keep a temporary surcharge while he was governor. But in the very same article they take the word cut to mean that one actually cuts something in regards to spending. If it isn't a cut to restrain future spending how is it a cut to let a tax expire? It should also be noted that the circumstances are wildly different. Vermont was pretty flush and had comparitavely high taxes while the country is broke and has comparitavely low taxes. Doing different things in different circumstances is wise not inconsistent.

In short, this is an article Kit Steele would be proud of. She probably wishes she could take credit for this.

To use a 25 million dollar surplus fo more income tax cuts was directly accountable for the 27 million dollar deficit that the state ended up in with by July of 2002, and the 40 million it faced at the end of Deans term. Leading to massive cuts to balance the budget.

Sorry, bad planning, using surpluses to give tax cuts, and then having emergencies occur that lead to a large deficit sounds a little too much like what has happened since 2000 put Bush in office.
Thats Dean type administration.


Vermont's Democratic Gov. Howard Dean, for example, presented his State of the State address by revealing a "new way of looking at the future of our state." Dean, former chairman of the Democratic Governor's Association, said if the projected budget surplus for 1999 is sustainable, he will ask for a tax cut, a traditionally Republican mandate.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/04/states/

The state budget and the reapportionment of the House and Senate will influence every issue before the legislature. Lawmakers will struggle to deal with the state's declining revenues after several years of enjoying strong budget surpluses. Revenue estimates anticipate at least a $35 million deficit in FY 2002 and a $50 million deficit in FY 2003.

http://www.vahhs.org/lucie/Legrpts/2002/January112002.htm

Dean has said he wouldn’t take away health care coverage from anyone who is now eligible for a federally funded program. However, he plans to eliminate some of the services that are covered, and he said the administration might be forced to change eligibility rules for the state- funded programs. Dean said at this point he did not know how many people might be affected by the proposed cuts.

No income tax hike

Dean sees plenty of room to increase the cigarette tax. He pointed out that Vermont’s tax is about 44 cents a pack, while Washington state is charging $1.49.

“I think it’s shameful that our cigarette tax is only 44 cents,” he said.

He also said he won’t mind if the Legislature hiked the tax on beer to help fund substance abuse programs for Vermont teens. But the governor said he didn’t believe it was a good idea to increase the sales tax, and he said he was dead set against any increase in the income tax, which he said was already quite high.

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/40817.html

Deans comments about high income taxes was refuted in the same year. Vermonts high taxation is not a result of income taxation, but all of its consumption taxes.

Raising cigarette taxes does not guarantee income, as you cannot guarantee that people will consume as much when the prices exceed a certain point.


Dean acted very, vermy much like Bush, squandering surpluses, and then cutting services when bad times hit.

Does not seem like sound fiscal planning to me.

First you keep saying he cut taxes and never show where he actually did. Yet again you are being mendacious. You keep pretending he said he would cut income taxes in that address when the word income isn't in it. You can quote it until the cows come home and give birth to aliens but the word income isn't in that quote.

Second, Vermont's top income tax rate was around 10%. That is one of the highest in the country. I don't care how you slice it it is one of the highest. It is higher than not only NH which is 0% but both Massachusetts and New York which are hardly low tax havens.

Third, cigarette use has shown no decline due to the settlement costs or higher taxes unless those taxes have been higher than surrounding locales. The Candada thing you quoted before was about Ontario where they doubled the cost of cigarettes while no one else did. Gee, people started smuggling go figure. Vermont had a vastly lower tax on cigarettes than a lot of states. Ohio's is over a buck by comparision. Even after the tax increase he wanted that tax was still immensely lower than that in Canada and in many Eastern states. Other than New Hampshire, every other state that is by them still has higher cig taxes.

Finally, I don't trust republican figures on the budget of anywhere. Get me some real ones then we can talk.

Dean cut income taxes three times as governor, the last time was with that 1999 cut. All you guys run around talking about How Dean both balanced the budget and cut taxes. Tjhe only taxesa he cut were income taxes.


And here it is:

He says he kept spending below the state's economic growth rate. In 1999 he signed across-the-board income tax cuts into law. He had to. Vermont had one of the highest income tax burdens in the country and businesses and workers were fleeing to income-tax- free New Hampshire.

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=5213


Vermont had the tenth highest INCOME taxes in the nation under Dean, but the Consumption taxes that Dean raised or instituted drove it to have the third highest overall rate of tax burden in the nation.

Dean's poor fiscal planning resulted in the state finally facing massive deficits.

Vermont’s income tax is a cash cow: Of the $42 million added to the surplus in April and May, $34 million came from the personal income tax. And most of that is due to payments in capital gains taxes. Through May the personal income tax is running $48 million ahead of last year.

This year’s $90 million surplus follows back-to-back surpluses of roughly $75 million. That means that in the past three years state government has raised some $240 million more than it needed to finance state budgets.

Year after year the money has flowed in. Each year state analysts have said that year would be the end of the tax boom. But it wasn’t.

http://archive.nashuatelegraph.com/Daily_Sections/News/Archives/2000/june/stories/0619w-fiscalopposites.htm

Yet by 2002, the state of Vermont was facing deficits as large as Veront had when Dean came into office. What balanced the budget and got rid of the deficits in 1992, was the plan set into motion by Richard Snelling in 1991. A three tiered income tax system. Dean rolled that tax back on schedule and as sure as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west Dean had to resort to budget cuts and program cuts and service cuts in order to keep that budget balanced.

I dont want to hear garbage about the nashua article talking about how bad things were in New Hampshire because they ddidnt have an income tax. It makes my point. The income tax was what was keeping Vermonts economy sound. And Dean kept wanting to cut it. And each time he did, deficits reared their ugly head.

Dean thinks like a Republican, is fiscallyt like a Republican and he is right, Republicans,as well as fiscal conservatives do not know how to handle money.

Deans solutions to the deficits his absolutly stupid decisions caused were to starve givernment programs, like prescription drug coverage and medicaid.

Deans solutions were the same as Bush's.

Deans income tax ideology, and balance the budget through tax ideology created the problems he later had to solve.

HE created a fiscally responsible mobius loop.

I really hope you honestly just don't read what you post from because if you do then God help us all. Here is one paragraph from the Zogby hosted hit piece.

Mr. Dean is running as "a fiscal conservative" because he has balanced his state's budget, as he was required to do by law. Yet he seems surprised when I read to him a description of his governorship from the Almanac of American Politics that called him "one of the four or five most liberal governors in the nation."

As anyone who has followed Dean at all knows VERMONT ISN'T REQUIRED TO HAVE A BALANCED BUDGET. This reporter, for the Washington Times no less, is either a liar or a fool and thus is utterly unreliable. Even you had to have choked on the second part of this that Dean is one of the four or five most liberal governors. Sorry but this source is like Newsmax. Unworthy of thought.

The zogby piece stated that Dean signed the tax cut into law.

Sorry stop trying to change the subject when you get caught.

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/68442.html


"Vermont Administration Secretary Michael Smith said credit for the budget balancing should be shared by the Legislature, former Gov. Howard Dean and Gov. James Douglas."


"Klein agreed that lawmakers and both the Dean and Douglas administrations deserve the credit for the state’s strong fiscal health, but added, “I think Dean gets a large amount of credit.”"


Vermont under Dean's governance had a healthy budget. With the national recession, ALL states were hurt. The issue isn't whether Vermont was totally insulated from the state of the national economy (it wasn't, and couldn't have been) but how the policies of its leaders, past and present, have allowed Vermont to bounce back.

(I know I've posted this before, but only in response to an earlier post by YOU that looks suspiciously like the one I'm replying to)

In Vermont we have seen a significant increase in applications in all of our need based Grant programs. We received more Full-time applications by the middle of August then we had anticipated receiving by the end of December. This caused us to cutoff applications at the earliest point in over 10 years. This unexpected cutoff caught a number of our institutions that serve non-traditional students, such as our community college, off guard.

Despite the large increase in applications, the state of Vermont is facing some very difficult budget issues and VSAC is being asked to prepare for possible cuts in our funding requests for next year.


http://www.nassgap.org/conferences/Dept-of-ED-Fall2000/State%20Issues%20OCT%202002.htm

You keep failing to refer to Deans solution and the solutions that they are having to resort to due to Deans income tax cuts....

It is easy to balance a budget, if you starve government services to death.

I know you do not mind cutting prescription drugs to the elderly, poor and disabled, just like Dean tried to, in order to balance the budget, and now the REpublicans must do the same thing, becasue of Dean suqndering record surpluses in tax cuts.

Guess who Jim Douglas gives credit to for the transition from Dean to
himself:

ERMONT: James Douglas (R)

James Douglas owes his smooth transition into the governorship to his opponent, Lt. Gov. Douglas Racine, who conceded defeat despite a state law that throws statewide election results to the legislature when the leading vote-getter fails to win a majority of the popular vote. Douglas has led a long political career in the Green Mountain State, beginning as a state representative straight out of college and eventually becoming Treasurer in 1994. The state’s economy dominated much of the campaign with Douglas stressing fiscal responsibility, better paying jobs, and affordable health care for state residents.

http://www.stateline.org/story.do?storyId=269773

the person left with Dean mess though Republican, was the state treasurer before he became governor:

Climbing out of the hole

December 18, 2002

(from the Columns section)

Incoming Gov. Jim Douglas has taken a somber view of Vermont’s fiscal prospects for the coming year. Gov. Howard Dean claims he is leaving Douglas a balanced budget for 2003. Technically, he is correct. The Joint Fiscal Office projection of Dec. 10 shows an exactly balanced General Fund budget for this year, plus $50 million in the rainy day reserve fund.

But a closer look, which Douglas has taken, tells a different story.

This fiscal year will be the second in a row that the state’s General Fund has shown an operating deficit, $17.7 million (2 percent of appropriations.)

To get to a balanced budget, Dean had to make some interesting moves. First, he reduced the General Fund’s required contribution to the Education Fund by $9.3 million. This had the effect of increasing the local share property tax that supports the much-despised Act 60 sharing pool. Then he filched $9.2 million from the tobacco settlement fund, $6.4 million from the Transportation Fund and $2.1 million from other funds so that he could claim to end the year with a projected surplus of $80,000.

But even that isn’t the whole story. The biggest General Fund expenditure, after the transfer to the Education Fund, is Medicaid ($175 million in state tax dollars, plus another $300 million from Washington). But this $475 million falls well short of paying the state’s Medicaid bills. The shortfall is made up by simply forcing doctors, dentists, hospitals and nursing homes to take drastically reduced payments for Medicaid. This is an unlegislated tax that adds to the cost of health care for everyone not enjoying the benefits of Medicaid.

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/Archive/Articles/Article/57830

That is the way Dean did it. Dean is the only person in Vermont who states that he balanced the budget. The man you are using as a source, was Jim Douglas's Assistant State Treasurer. Appontend by Governor Douglas. So if you are going to give credeence to the Douglas's assistant about the situtation. you must also give credence to Jim Douglas's accessment of what Dean did to "BALANCE" that budget.

Dean raided the Rainy Day Fnd to balance that budget as well. He left 10 million in it, but by law, he sould have left 44 million in the fund leaving it with HALF of the amount state law required:

Dean, a Democrat, served as governor from 1991 to January; Douglas, a Republican, assumed office in January.

Adding the $10.4 million surplus to the rainy day fund will bring the balance in that fund, formally known as the budget stabilization reserve, to roughly $23 million.

By law that reserve is supposed to be 5 percent of overall revenues, or roughly $44 million.

Klein said he believed the fund would climb back to that total by the end of this fiscal year.

The state’s Emergency Board, made up of Douglas and the heads of the Legislature’s money committees, will meet next week to review revenue projections for the new fiscal year.

Smith said he remains concerned about the sluggishness of the economy.

“When you see a recovering economy, you see a broad-based recovery in all your revenue items. We are not seeing that,” he said. “One month you’ll be up and the next month you will be down. We are still struggling.”

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/68442.html


Without Dean tax cuts that he passed in 1999, Vermont would have had a 230 million dollar surplus on the day he left office. Now they must keep cutting programs to try to keep the deficits away.

Bush could balance the budget exactly the same way Dean did, nad has used some of Deans techinques. He used the social security surpluses to give tax cuts. And now ourthe state of our economy is just fine, isnt it. Vermont is in the same shape but it has a republican in office who applies Deans balancing methods. Cutting programs.

I like this one especially:

MONTPELIER — There may be a new governor from a different political party in charge, but one thing hasn’t changed: He’s still at odds with the Legislature when it comes to spending priorities.

In a scene reminiscent of former Gov. Howard Dean’s annual battles with lawmakers over spending, Gov. James Douglas is making it clear he doesn’t want to raise any new taxes for his proposed $3.4 billion budget.

But the GOP-controlled House has already undone some of Douglas’ work, and Senate budget writers likewise have different ideas.

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Story/64267.html

Sorry, Dean's ideas about balancing budgets are totally out of synch with the democratic party, an they are an exact fit with Republican ideas.


Free Press Staff Writer

MONTPELIER -- When the state's economy drooped this fall, Gov. Howard Dean huddled with his cabinet members to deliver a sober message: Prepare to diet.

In weight watchers' language, all state agencies were instructed to plan to lose up to 10 percent of their body weight. The good times were over.

When legislators return to Montpelier on Tuesday for the opening of the session, they will find the state's finances in worse condition than when they left in June. Money from tax collections flattened this fall just as costs for schools, road projects and government health-care programs were climbing.

Lawmakers will make difficult decisions on spending and taxation, some for the first time in their careers. Dean will ask them to go along with his austerity program. But crowds of Vermonters and special interest lobbyists also will warn about the consequences of budget cuts.

http://www.geocities.com/dmmead/2002/sc0110.html

An austerity program necessitated by the tax cuts he asked for and got in 1999.

Dean screwed up.

Now answer this one simple question...

Without Deans tax cuts in 1999. Would Vermont have had MORE or less money in reserve in order to deal with the problems that required him to demand "AUSTERITY" in 2002.

Mine is from 7/11/03.

Has it ocured to you that the latest data might be of more use than old data?

(granted, these are OPINIONS more than data...but they're opinions that are based on current conditions, not the conditions that existed a year or more ago)

My point is that NOW Vermont is on sound financial ground, and there are at least a few informed people who credit the decisions made by Gov. Dean for that state.

IS that they give Dean and the current governor for the state being not in as bad shape as it could have been.

This does not account for Deans tax cuts, making the budget cuts necessary in the first place.

Your article is opinion.

The article about Douglas discussing the state Dean left the state in and how he did it comes from the Governor who had beed state Treasurer while Dean was Governor.


My documents come from the time Dean left office claiming he left the budget balanced, and the people who he left the budget with claiming he did so poorly.

So if Vermont is in good shape it is Douglas who fixed the mess Dean left. All they are saying is that Dean cut enough government programs to keep the state from sinking. That he did not leave it in too bad a mess. That he gave tax cuts ust like republicans like to do, and he fixed budgets by cutting programs just like republicans like to do. These Republicans are praising Dean for acting just like a good REpublican should act.

I can give plenty of articles, from TODAY, that state that Vermont is facing a budget crisis and requires more cuts, but Of course then you would state that since Dean is NO LONGER governor, it is not Deans fault. So articles from today, are less valid than articles from the time Dean left office.

It's part fact and part opinion.

Vermont DOES have a budget surplus that was not forseen earlier. That's fact.

I believe that Vermont is one of the 10 states in 2003 without a budget deficit. That's fact.

Several public figures credit Dean's policies (at least in part) for this surplus. That's opinion.

How is this new information any less more accurate than your old references?

:hi:

Keep up the good work, but don't expect this anti-Dean crusader to ever admit he's wrong about Dean. Just won't happen. Dean ran over his grandma, I think.

Not to change the subject, but check this out, should give our friend something new to post about...today's Dean blog references these 2 new sites:

http://republicansfordean.blogspot.com/
http://deanindependents.org/

(ducking, waiting for N_J to tell us why this proves Dean is the devil and that his support is actually RECEDING.)

to show any new posters who don't know him that his posts continue to be refuted. To say that you wouldn't vote for somebody even if they're the Dem nominee implies some serious resentment.

Great links, but he's already said that you can't trust anything off a Dean site. Apparently only links to Dean-bashing sites are credible...

It only took me about 5 minutes to figure out that he wasn't all objective about Dean.

If people can stomach reading his whole posts, they will sometimes find him slipping into revealing his true feelings about Dean, that he's "a small arrogant little tyrant" "a petty mediocrity" "dictatorial" "a bastard", "in a way far worse than Bush"...Enough said.

But check out those sites, they are cool.

the budget.

Information about the budget in Vermont today, would hjave nothing to do with decisions that Dean is making about the Vermont budget. He is no longer governor. Or dont you know that.

A budget spreaqdsheet for the fiscal year 2000 would be far more accurate in reporting the budget for the yewar 2000 than a budget spreadsheet for the year 2003.

So information about Dean decisions ABOUT THE VERMONT BUDGET IN 1999, 2000, 2002 are more accurate than budget information from 2003, because Dean has noithing to do with that budget. Theres is no more relevant data available. It was all available in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002.

All you have to offer is opinions. Those who had to figure out what to do with what Dean left are best prepared to figure out what Dean did.
Your argument is much like stating that somone who is writing in 2004 about the what it was like to be a soldier in the Union Army during the civil war, is better prepared to know what it was like than a soldier who actually fough in the civil war.

Of course data from the time is far more valid than afterthought.

more about it than you or me are crediting the surplus, in part, to Dean's decisions.

Look, you first post that there was a deficit. Then you post that Dean balanced the budget, but only through "Republican" methods. Then, you admit that there's now a $10M surplus that is being credited in part to Dean's policies and you're saying that he really wasn't responsible.

I really have to sleep now, but I'll be happy to continue this ridiculous exchange tommorrow or on Monday.

The yeart before Dean left office there was a 17 million dollar operational deficit, and there was a 17 million dollar operational deficit the year he left. He took money from areas to which the money had all ready been COMITTED and encumbered , and stuck them back into the rainy day fund. Much like taking money that you needed to pay for your utilities bills out of your checking account and sticking them into savings in order to make it look like you had saved more.

All Dean did was juggle the books. taking money that was already comitted to pay for things, and not pay for them, accorging to the state treasurer. Like sticking the person who is going to move into the apartment you just left with the last months electric bill.
Thats how Dean "BALANCED THE BUDGET". By sticking the next guy with the bill.

Dean just took money that was NEEDED to run the operarations of various department and stuck them into the reserves, in order to try to give himself a clean record. That treasurer figured it out.

As of July 11, 2003, there's a $10M surplus that a lot of people are crediting in part to Dean. How do you resolve the fact that the new Governor, a Repub, hasn't spoken out against Dean's "trickery"?

Climbing out of the hole

December 18, 2002

(from the Columns section)

Incoming Gov. Jim Douglas has taken a somber view of Vermont’s fiscal prospects for the coming year. Gov. Howard Dean claims he is leaving Douglas a balanced budget for 2003. Technically, he is correct. The Joint Fiscal Office projection of Dec. 10 shows an exactly balanced General Fund budget for this year, plus $50 million in the rainy day reserve fund.

But a closer look, which Douglas has taken, tells a different story.

This fiscal year will be the second in a row that the state’s General Fund has shown an operating deficit, $17.7 million (2 percent of appropriations.)

To get to a balanced budget, Dean had to make some interesting moves. First, he reduced the General Fund’s required contribution to the Education Fund by $9.3 million. This had the effect of increasing the local share property tax that supports the much-despised Act 60 sharing pool. Then he filched $9.2 million from the tobacco settlement fund, $6.4 million from the Transportation Fund and $2.1 million from other funds so that he could claim to end the year with a projected surplus of $80,000.

But even that isn’t the whole story. The biggest General Fund expenditure, after the transfer to the Education Fund, is Medicaid ($175 million in state tax dollars, plus another $300 million from Washington). But this $475 million falls well short of paying the state’s Medicaid bills. The shortfall is made up by simply forcing doctors, dentists, hospitals and nursing homes to take drastically reduced payments for Medicaid. This is an unlegislated tax that adds to the cost of health care for everyone not enjoying the benefits of Medicaid.

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/Archive/Articles/Article/57830

That is the way Dean did it. Dean is the only person in Vermont who states that he balanced the budget. The man you are using as a source, was Jim Douglas's Assistant State Treasurer. Appontend by Governor Douglas. So if you are going to give credeence to the Douglas's assistant about the situtation. you must also give credence to Jim Douglas's accessment of what Dean did to "BALANCE" that budget.

Dean raided the Rainy Day Fnd to balance that budget as well. He left 10 million in it, but by law, he sould have left 44 million in the fund leaving it with HALF of the amount state law required:

Dean, a Democrat, served as governor from 1991 to January; Douglas, a Republican, assumed office in January.

Adding the $10.4 million surplus to the rainy day fund will bring the balance in that fund, formally known as the budget stabilization reserve, to roughly $23 million.

By law that reserve is supposed to be 5 percent of overall revenues, or roughly $44 million.

Klein said he believed the fund would climb back to that total by the end of this fiscal year.

The state’s Emergency Board, made up of Douglas and the heads of the Legislature’s money committees, will meet next week to review revenue projections for the new fiscal year.

Smith said he remains concerned about the sluggishness of the economy.

“When you see a recovering economy, you see a broad-based recovery in all your revenue items. We are not seeing that,” he said. “One month you’ll be up and the next month you will be down. We are still struggling.”

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/68442.html

That was the new Governor stating that thre was a surplus on paper...

Douglas may have ha to deal with what Dean did to leave a paoer surplus and ended up with one. But at the time there was NO surplus.
Just Dean moving money from place to place.

Dean, a Democrat, served as governor from 1991 to January; Douglas, a Republican, assumed office in January.

Adding the $10.4 million surplus to the rainy day fund will bring the balance in that fund, formally known as the budget stabilization reserve, to roughly $23 million.

By law that reserve is supposed to be 5 percent of overall revenues, or roughly $44 million.

Klein said he believed the fund would climb back to that total by the end of this fiscal year.

The state’s Emergency Board, made up of Douglas and the heads of the Legislature’s money committees, will meet next week to review revenue projections for the new fiscal year.

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/68442.html

They are still digging themselves out from the hole Dean created, the rainy day find is half of what it is required to be, and ever since Dean took office, he was continually raiding it to balance the budget and to give tax cuts. Always robbing your savings account to pay for your living expenses is a sign that you are living beyond your means.

All they are saying is that Dean didnt bankrupt the state.

He credits the surplus in part to Dean, but he reports haow Dena did it in 2002, and was not please by it. Vermonts Rainy Day find "WHICH IS REQUIRED BY LAW" is at half the levels that law requiires it to be.

The fact that you must refer to a Republican credting Dean is an indication that Deans methods are FAR more pleasing the Republican mindset, thant to the democrat mindset. Lets see what progressive politicians have to say about Deans fiscal planning.

I’ve become convinced that we have a philosophical difference between the governor, the Republican House and this Senate,” said Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, D-Windham.

“The governor and the Republican House want to balance this budget on the backs of our most vulnerable Vermonters. The Senate wants to balance this budget on the backs of the pharmaceutical companies who are charging too much for drugs.”

There was similar disagreement on education funding. Bartlett proposed a modification of the Act 60 education funding formula that would guarantee cities and towns that they could raise $2 more per student for every penny on their local education property tax.

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/46513.html


Progressives call for higher taxes for rich
January 25, 2002

By JACK HOFFMAN

Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER — Vermont Progressives renewed their call Thursday for higher taxes on the wealthy in order to avoid some of the budget cuts that Gov. Howard Dean outlined earlier this week.

Taxable income is the amount left after personal exemptions and deductions have been subtracted from wages, business earnings and other types of income.

The Progressives said their proposal was designed to mirror the surcharges adopted during that last budget crisis, but they have not proposed an expiration date for the new surcharges.

Dean reiterated his opposition to raising the income tax shortly after the Progressives unveiled their tax plan. Dean contends Vermont’s marginal income tax rate — that is, the top rate paid by those in the highest income brackets — already is too high.



http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/41293.html



Medicaid cuts will affect thousands of Vermonters

January 23, 2002

By DAVID MACE

Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER — Tens of thousands of Vermonters would see their state health care benefits rolled back or cut off completely under Gov. Howard Dean’s proposed budget, which seeks to wring $16.5 million in savings from Medicaid.

In an effort to curb costs in a rapidly expanding part of the social services budget, Dean is proposing to require many people who got coverage under his expansions of Medicaid programs to pay for a greater share of their health care...

All Medicaid patients would see some benefits curtailed because the state would no longer pay for dentures, chiropractic, or podiatry services, and would limit prescription drug choices more severely.

Dean’s plan would also lower the amount the state pays to hospitals for treating Medicaid patients, rolling back an effort by the Legislature last year to beef up the reimbursement level and reduce “cost-shifting.”...

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/41169.html

One of the areas of state spending that has grown most dramatically in recent years has been health care. Under former Gov. Howard Dean, thousands of people who previously didn’t qualify for government-assisted health care were enrolled in Medicaid.

But the funding for those expansions has not kept pace and Vermont, like nearly every other state in the country, is contemplating spending reductions or requiring beneficiaries to pay a greater share of their care themselves.

A coalition of groups representing people who benefit from the Vermont Health Access Plan, the program put together by the Dean administration over nearly the past decade, is trying to shape the debate early.

They’re highlighting a report by Families USA that says states’ spending on Medicaid has a positive economic spinoff that could be jeopardized by spending cuts.

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Search/Categories/Article/59389


Money talk will dominate this legislative session. First, lawmakers will have to balance the Statehouse checkbook. That won't be pretty. Imagine sitting around the kitchen table with 180 family members, each making his own pitch for shopping necessities.

The three major treasury accounts that fund schools, roads and general operations are all in trouble. Each will go into the red unless legislators take action. School districts are increasing their spending 6 percent a year or more but tax collections haven't kept up. Large road projects like the Circumferential Highway in Chittenden County are driving up transportation costs. Expenses for free or discounted health services provided by the state are projected to run far ahead of revenues.

There will be talk of tax increases. A cigarette tax increase is almost inevitable. Informal proposals to raise the statewide property tax, the gasoline tax and other levies are already under discussion. There almost certainly will be increases in motor vehicle fees.

Many Republicans see the session as an opportunity to prune state programs after what they consider years of liberal spending policies. With Vermont families hurting in a recession, this is no time to make cuts in needed state services, many Democrats counter.

"There are some people who feel the best way to control government is to strangle it," said Rep. John Tracy, D-Burlington, Democratic House leader.

Some liberal lawmakers want the state to use some of its "rainy day" surplus to plug budget holes. The state's main spending account, the General Fund, has $44 million in reserves. Dean, considering a run for the presidency as a fiscal conservative, says he'll block any use of the money.

Members of the Progressive Party want to increase income taxes on wealthier residents, a strategy approved by the Democratic Legislature and former Republican Gov. Richard Snelling during the recession of the early 1990s. The three-tier income tax system eventually was phased out. Progressives say reviving it would produce $130 million in revenue.

http://www.geocities.com/dmmead/2002/sc0110.html

Sorry, if you must use REPUBLICANS to find praise of Deans fiscal policy and cannot find democrats or progressives who praise his abilities, you are barking up the wrong tree.


The state was in a fiscal crisis at the time, working its way out of the biggest budget deficit in its history. Then-Gov. Richard Snelling had pushed a series of temporary tax increases and budget cuts through the Legislature and Dean took up that austerity plan as his own.

To the anger of more liberal members of his own party, he insisted that the tax increases be rolled back on schedule and then went on to work for additional tax cuts later in his tenure.

By the same token, though, he also supported raising taxes — as long as it wasn’t the income tax — when school funding crises and other issues arose that required it.

Throughout, he held a tight rein on state spending, repeatedly clashing with the Democrats who controlled the Legislature for most of his years as governor.

http://www4.fosters.com/News2003/May2003/May_19/News/reg_vt0519a.asp

The Repulican praise of Dean is exactly like Zell Millers praise of Bush.

Find Democrats who rave about Deans actions as governor.
AND from the time, not as an afterthought.

November 21, 2002--Howard Dean received a "Public Official of the Year" award from Governing magazine, which termed him a "frugal crusader."

n the years since, Dean has made fiscal prudence one of the bedrock values of his tenure. “Every time there’s been a deficit or what would seem like some other compelling reason to raise taxes,” says Chris Barbieri, president of the Vermont Chamber of Commerce, “he’s resisted the temptation. In fact, he’s pretty consistently brought in budgets that were either at the cost-of-living increase rate or a little more, and at times with shortfalls or tight budgets he has erred on the side of cutting the budget.” This has opened Dean up to no small amount of sniping from his state’s more traditional Democrats, but Dean — who has never been one to shy from saying what he thinks — has little patience for their arguments. “Some of the best social legislation has been signed into law because the frugality of the early 1990s required us to focus on prevention and forward-thinking policy,” he insisted last year...

What is striking about the state’s network of health programs is that they were not part of some grand rewrite of health policy in Vermont but essentially a fallback after Dean realized in 1994 that his plans for a sweeping health initiative were unlikely to pass the legislature. In fact, Dean has tended to evade the legislative fray. He does not take the delight in politics that both Snelling and Kunin did. “If they had a priority, they had their people swarming the statehouse; Governor Dean does not,” says Chris Barbieri. Oddly enough, that has often worked in his favor. After the state Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that gay couples were entitled to the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples, Dean helped put the compromise notion of “civil unions” on the table, but then stepped back and let the legislature find its own way on the matter. He signed the bill without public fanfare, a move that helped cool a divisive public debate.

”I haven’t had great relationships with the legislature over the years,” he once said. “I think being a doctor has made that more difficult, because doctors do have a tendency toward deciding what they think ought to be done and insisting that that’s the right thing to do. We’re not very process-oriented people.”

http://governing.com/poy/2002/dean.htm

Again...do we want a republican posing as a democrat in office, or a democrat. Ther is little to be proud of or honorable in balancing a budget, if you balance it by adding burdens to the poorest, the elderly, the disabled..the weakest and most powerless members of society.