 | Anarchist, Socialist, & Anti-Fascist Writings of David Van Deusen 1995-2018 — Chapter 10 : On ElectionsBy David Van Deusen (2018) |
|
| Anarchist, Socialist, & Anti-Fascist Writings of David Van Deusen 1995-2018 — Chapter 10 : On ElectionsBy David Van Deusen (2018) |
|
../ggcms/src/templates/revoltlib/view/display_grandchildof_anarchism.php
Untitled 
Anarchism Anarchist, Socialist, & Anti-Fascist Writings of David Van Deusen 1995-2018 
Chapter 10
 | 0 |
 | 0 |
Dave was elected President of the Vermont AFL-CIO on September 15th, 2019. He is a union rep for Vermont AFSCME members, previously a VSEA Union Rep, and still a Writer, and Harley Rider. (From: AFLCIO.org.)
                  |
Chapter 10
Montpelier, VT, November 2006- The 2006 elections will be remembered as the “Year of the Democrat.”[132] Nationally the Democratic Party gained control of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representative; the first time they have held such power since 1994. Polls indicate that voters’ rebuke of the Republican Party had much to do with the meat grinder that is the war in Iraq. With nearly 3000 U.S. soldiers dead, tens-of-thousands wounded, and victory (whatever that looks like) about as likely as a thunder storm in February, the vast majority of Americans now want the troops to be brought home. In Vermont, where Bush’s approval rating is below 25%, a disproportionate number of folks voted for the Democratic Party. Overall turnout was over 60%.
Displaying their discontent with recent Republicans policy, Vermonters will send two Democrats and one Independent (Sanders - who will caucuses with the Democrats) to Washington, D. C. as their sole representative. Regardless, Vermonters should not expect much to change in D.C. In two years’ time, it is unlikely that our troops will be out of Iraq, or that the nation will establish universal healthcare. In fact, we will be lucky if Washington does so much as to raise the Federal minimum wage to $7 an hour (a number still below Vermont’s legal minimum.)
In the Green Mountains, self-described, democratic socialist Bernie Sanders won a staggering 64.5% of the vote, easily crushing Republican millionaire, Richard Tarrant who came in a distant second with 32.3%.[133] Sanders, perhaps the most popular politician in the State, strongly opposes the war in Iraq, and is seen as a solid ally by small farmers & organized labor alike. Also in the race were five other candidates, (all left of the Democrats), including political maverick Peter Diamondstone of the Liberty Union Party, winning 801 votes, and Craig Hill of the Vermont Green Party, winning 1536 votes. As an interesting side note, Diamondstone, the one-time friend of Sanders turned arch-enemy, was arrested at one candidate debate after he refused to leave the stage following a verbal altercation with Sanders supporters in the audience. Diamondstone, who has unsuccessfully run against Bernie in the past, contends that Bernie has forsaken his leftist roots while on his long assent to political power. Diamondstone, along with the other four alternative candidates combined for 2% of the vote.
Sanders's victory marks the first time in the nation’s history that a socialist will serve in the U.S. Senate. Also making history was the out-of-touch, right-wing looser Richard Tarrant, who spent over seven million dollars (much from his own swollen bank accounts) in the most expensive defeat in Vermont political history. Tarrant also set the dubious record of spending more money per-vote-received than in any Senatorial election in U.S. history. This lopsided contest was a surprise to few. In the weeks before the election, numerous Tarrant lawn signs were altered in the Burlington area so as to read “Tyrant.” Other indicators that Rich was headed for electoral humiliation came during the Vermont AFL-CIO’s September conference in Killington. Tarrant, who was not invited, made a brief appearance where he was immediately heckled and yelled out of the union gathering. Sanders, on the other hand, delivered the key note address at the labor conference. In the end, voters were turned off by Tarrant’s negative campaign tactics. Embracing instead, Bernie’s promise to fight on behalf of working families. Luckily for looser Tarrant, he owns two multimillion-dollar homes in Florida, where until recently he was a legal resident that he can retreat to, among other like-minded members of the ruling class, far from his Green Mountain detractors.[134]
In the race to replace Sanders in the U.S. Congress, Democrat Peter Welsh defeated moderate Republican Martha Rainville. Welsh received 53.2% as compared to Rainville’s 44.5%. Plain speaking populist Dennis Morrisseau, a founding member of the Liberty Union Party and running on the ‘Impeach Bush Now’ line, finished 3rd with 1,390 votes. Morrisseau was endorsed by Vermont media juggernaut The Comic News. Six other candidates, including Jane Newton of the Liberty Union, winning 721 votes, and Bruce Marshall of the Greens, winning 994 votes, appeared on the ballot. All represented differing leftist perspectives and combined for 1.3%.
The race for Governor ended with no surprises. Incumbent Republican Jim Douglas won by carrying 56.3% (less than in 2004), as opposed to the Democratic Scudder Parker’s 41.1%. Coming in third was independent Cris Ericson, previously of the now defunct [or perhaps past figment of her past imagination] Marijuana Party (2477 votes), Fourth was the Green Party’s Jim Hogue, with 1936 votes. Hogue ran as a staunch separatist, seeking to establish Vermont as an independent republic. Hogue’s candidacy had the potential to garner much higher vote totals than panned out, as a recent UVM poll indicated that 8% of Vermonters support independence, but was limited by a weak over-all campaign that received little media attention. In addition, Hogue’s allegations that the Federal government was covertly responsible for the September 11th, 2001 attacks may have sounded crazy to many Vermonters. Also on the ballot was Bob Skold of the Liberty Union (638 votes) and Ben Clark of the Vermont Localist Party (1216 votes), both on the left.
For Lieutenant Governor, Republican Brian Dubie won a third term, defeating top challenger Democrat Matt Dunne. Dubie won a slim majority of 51.1% as opposed to Dunne’s 45.4%. Progressive Party challenger, Dr. Marvin Malek, who campaigned heavily on establishing a universal single payer healthcare system, finished with a disappointing 2.1%. Liberty Union Party member Mal Herbert received 1.1%.
Winning reelection as State Treasurer was Democrat Jeb Spaulding with 94%. His only challenger was Murray Ngoima of the Liberty Union, who won on 14,018 of the ballots (5.7%). While losing by over 94% may seem like nothing to celebrate, the far left socialist Liberty Union did win a victory of sort. By breaking the 5% mark in a statewide race, the party retained its place as a recognized “major party” in Vermont, and will therefore automatically be granted a full candidate slate in the 2008 elections. As such they will again be able to discuss social, environmental and economic issues that are important to working people in the 2008 debates. So for now, the Liberty Union continues on as Vermont’s fourth major party.
In a very close race for Auditor of Accounts, Republican incumbent, Randy Brock was narrowly defeated by Democrat Tom Salmon. Neither of the top vote getters won a clear majority, both finishing with 44.4%. In a strong third was Martha Abbot of the Progressive Party who received 9.3%. In fourth was the Liberty Union’s Jerry Levy with 1.6%. (Levy’s totals were far below the 2004 elections, when he finished with over 5% of the vote in the same race, guaranteeing major party status for his party - in 2004 a Progressive did not run for the position.) Unlike the election of Governor or Lieutenant Governor, the Vermont constitution allows for a person to be declared winner in the race for Auditor even if they do not receive a clear majority. (If no majority is reached in the contest for Governor or Lieutenant Governor, the victor is decided by a vote in the General Assembly.) The Auditor’s race was ultimately decided by a special recount. This was the first time a statewide election has gone through such a process since 1980, when Democrat Patrick Leahy beat Republican Stewart Ledbetter for U.S. Senate.
The closeness of the contest can be attributed to two facts: 1.) Many Vermonter’s voted the Democratic line this year in reaction to the failures of the national Republican Party, and 2.) Salmon is the son of a former Governor and therefore had a strong and positive name recognition. Democratic Governor Thomas Salmon was the first to officially recognize the Abenaki [a recognition which was rescinded by the new Governor Richard Snelling-Republican]. Without such name recognition it is likely that the Progressive, who ran a solid campaign, would have ended with closer to 20% of the vote, with incumbent Brock winning. In the end, Brock’s narrow defeat should be seen as a serious blow to the state Republican Party. In a word, the Republican’s tenure in the statewide office may be numbered. In addition, the fact that Abbot not only broke the 5% mark, but ended with close to 10%, not only secured the Prog’s place as a “major party”, but demonstrated that they are not a fringe force in the field of electoral politics. Abbot pulled 2% higher than the best Prog vote getter in 2004, (Steve Hintgten, who ran for Lieutenant Governor finished with 7%.)
And finally, the tightness of this contest may put additional pressure on the General Assembly to pass Instant Run Off Voting legislation. Lest Vermonters forget that the Brock-Salmon totals were so close (the contest being decided by no more than a few score of votes) that the Liberty Union’s 4229, let alone the Progressive’s 23,545 (both pre-recount vote totals) could have swung the election either way. And again the minority victory of Salmon demonstrates the electoral folly of the Progressives and the Liberty Union (as well as other left parties) running candidates against each other in various races. While there are serious differences between Vermont’s further left parties, these differences are mitigated by practical similarities. For example, all left parties support a single payer healthcare system, the right and duty of workers to unionize, the development of clean, alternative energy sources, and all support bringing Vermont National Guard troops home from Iraq. It would have been an electoral tragedy, if the tables were turned and it was the Progs who lost to the Republicans or Democrats by a few dozen votes, with the Liberty Union playing part of capitalist kingmaker.
As this race demonstrated, a mere 1% of the vote is sometimes all it takes to throw an election to either camp. While this time the potential victors were both of the status quo parties (Republican and Democrat) it is not hard to foresee a time when the outcome will be between socialist or capitalist. With this in mind, it would do service to all left parties, if they could agree not to fight against each other in elections to come. But considering the recent track record of all involved, this cannibalistic tendency is likely to continue.
In other statewide races, incumbent Democrat Deb Markowitz (72.6%) defeated Republican Cheryl Moomey (25.3%), and Liberty Union candidate Boots Wardinski (1.9%) for Secretary of State. Incumbent Democrat William Sorrell will return to serve another term as Attorney General. Sorrell won 69.3% of the vote, as compared to Republican Dennis Carver’s 27% and Liberty Union candidate Rosemarie Jackoski’s 3.5%.
The struggle to control Vermont’ General Assembly ended with Democrats building upon their majorities in the Vermont Senate and House. The combined center-left (Democrats, Progressives, and Independents) now have a slim veto proof majority in both bodies of the state legislature. Dems surprised many by picking up Senate and House seats in Rutland County, typically considered a Republican stronghold. The Senate is now 23 Democrats vs. 7 Republicans. The House is 93 Democrat, 6 Progressive, 1 Independent and 50 Republican.[135]
While Democrat victories bode poorly for the Republicans, the growing strength of the Progs was ostensibly bucked by a Progressive incumbent losing in the Northeast Kingdom to moderate Republican (and well-known publisher of the Northland Journal) Scott Wheeler, and by a number of close defeats in the Burlington area. The Progs, however, retained their 2004 seat total by Sarah Hatch Davis’ upset victory in Washington County. Davis, who was strongly supported by organized labor, defeated her Republican rival. The Progs, who are the most successful “third party” in the nation, now claim Vermont House seats in the Burlington area, Windom, Windsor, and Orange Counties, as well as the Northeast Kingdom. In addition, they claim the mayorship of the city of Vergennes. The Liberty Union’s lone candidate for the Vermont Senate (Windom County) lost to the Democrats. On the far right, the Libertarian Party (who opposes the minimum wage and supports the causes of capitalism over working people) lost in all of its bids for the General Assembly (In the 2006 election the Libertarians decided to focus their energies on winning representation in the General Assembly as opposed to running candidates for statewide office.)
All told, the election results point to the decreasing power of the Republicans, the non-existent power of the further-right Libertarians, and what may turn out to be a long tenure of power for the Vermont Democratic Party. However, just as many Vermonters voted Democratic as a reaction against the national Republican Party, it is likely that many of these same voters will veer toward the Progressives (with a small number going to other leftists parties) as the shortcomings of the Democrats become unavoidably apparent. And again, the small percentages received by the Liberty Union, the Vermont Green Party and other left groups, as compared to previous election, can, in part, be attributed to the “out with the Republicans, end the war in Iraq” sentiment; a sentiment that translated into mass votes for the Democrats.
While the majority of Vermonters support a single payer universal healthcare system as well as livable wages, and while close to 80% oppose the war in Iraq, the Vermont Democratic Party is unlikely to exercise the political will to address these issues in any comprehensive manner in the near future. As voters become disenfranchized with the status quo, it is unlikely that they will turn towards the more conservative Republicans, or radical capitalist Libertarians. Rather it will be the Progs, the social-democratic principles they support, and to a much lesser extent the other small left parties who stand to electorally gain from the imminent failures of the soft-left Democrats. Despite Progressive disappointments in the 2006 election (they were expected to win at least 10 total seats in the General Assembly), they were smart to focus on local races in this cycle. Even by losing, they continued to build a strong party apparatus in many working class districts, including the Old North End of Burlington. This door-to-door, person-to-person party building is what they will need to break through as a force capable of challenging Democratic homogeny in the coming years. However, for them to do this, they will need to field a very strong candidate in at least one statewide race in 2008; a candidate that has the honest ability to win, not just reach a third place, double digit finish.
The short list for such a candidate is limited. Burlington Mayor, Bob Kiss has burned his changes of ever winning a statewide race by recently talking about limited gun control (Vermont is essentially void of such gun laws and changing the status quo on this issue is very unpopular on both the right and the left.) P-State Rep., David Zuckerman could be a very credible challenge, but his position as Chair of the House, Agriculture Committee makes him a risky bet.[136] If he were to lose in a statewide race, even if it were close, the Progs would presumably also face losing control of this important committee. One possibility would be recruiting a challenger from within the ranks of organized labor. Vermont State Employes’ Association President Ed Stanak would be a strong choice.[137]
As leader of the 8,000 strong state workers union he would start out-of-the-gate with a serious constituency. Also, his demonstrated public speaking skills and knowledge of many issues that effect working people would make him hard to beat in most races. The question is not whether or not Stanak would make a strong candidate, but rather, if the Progs could convince him to run. Also in the wings is farm organizer, WDEV radio host, and current Prog chair, Anthony Pollina.[138] Pollina could make a contest out of any race, and since successfully opening a farmer owned milk processing plant in Hardwick (a project he has been working on for a number of years,) it would seem that he will again have time to set his eyes on state office. If not Stanak, then Pollina. The party needs them and the sort of interest that they would generate, especially if they hope to build on their current 6 house seats.
The Republicans, for their part, will not recover from their recent losses. But, they will retain office of Governor until Douglas decides to step aside. Let folks remember that it’s been over 40 years since Vermonters have voted a sitting Governor out of office. However, once Douglas does step aside, they are unlikely to field a candidate who could outpace the growing center-left majority.[139]
Dubie’s job security is a different story. Dubie barely received a majority this year (51%) and should be seen as vulnerable in 2008, especially in a three way race where no one wins a clear majority. Her it becomes more likely that the center-left General Assembly would vote in someone other than the Republican.
The future of other “third parties” is also in the balance in the coming years. The old socialist Liberty Union Party (the party that at one time counted Bernie Sanders as Party Chairman) hardly made an effort in this election, if in the last ten years they ever have. Many of their candidates didn’t even bother to make it to their respective Vermont Public Radio debates, and few bothered to hold or attend other campaign events. Furthermore, throughout the years the party has made little effort to build its electoral or activist base. While individual party members such as Jane Newton have been active in various social movements (Newton has long been involved in the efforts to shut down the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant) the party has not been an organizing or driving force in these movements. In addition, the party has never won representation in the State House. And while the Liberty union may hold values that are shared by many Vermonters (free higher education, opposition to foreign wars, universal health care, workplace democracy, etc.,) it is hard for folks to take them serious enough to trust their vote to them. Even their perennial candidates (when they do show up to debates) often seem unpracticed in public speaking, and sometimes defer to other candidates as the likely winners when the votes are cast. And again when running head to head with other small left parties in 2006 they continually finished behind them. For example, the Liberty Union finished well behind the Progressives in the races for Auditor and Lieutenant Governor, and even came in behind the Vermont Green Party (who is considered a “minor party”) in the contests for U.S. Senate, U.S. House, and Governor. If not for being the only opposition party for State Treasurer (as well as a respectable finish for Attorney General) the Liberty Union would be considered dead in the water. Could it be that the Vermont Greens are slated to become Vermont’s next fourth major party? All this said, in 2008 it will probably be the case that the Liberty Union again finds itself running as the only opposition in a less visible statewide race, and will therefore again win the required 5% to remain a major party.[140]
As alluded to above, the Vermont Green Party currently has what the Liberty Union does not; a pulse. While their positions are not as radical or comprehensive as the Liberty Union, they are left of the Democrats and seem to have the optimism and energy that the Liberty Union has been lacking since the 1980’s. If in 2008, this party were to run in a low profile statewide race, one that did not include a Progressive candidate, it is likely that they will rise to major party status. Even so, in an already divided left (Progs, Liberty Union) it is hard to see the Green s growing into a serious electoral force, especially, if they continue to trumpet 9-11 conspiracy theories (as candidates did in the last election) that can’t do anything but make them look a bit crazy to the general public (even if they turn out to be partially right).[141]
On the far right, the Libertarians are all but done. For years they failed to win more than a couple percentage points in any statewide race (relegating themselves to perennial minor party status) and in 2006 their plan to focus on Vermont House races (where they often ran on a joint Libertarian/Republican ticket) resulted in no victories. While party leader, Hardy Manchia will keep the ghost of the party marginally active, it is extremely unlikely that they will gain any foothold in any aspect of Vermont politics. And from the point of view of small farmers and working people, this is a good thing. Where working Vermonters are struggling to turn back the tide of capitalist inequalities, the Libertarians seek to set the market “free” as it was prior to the Great Depression.
Finally, while it is only speculative, Vermonters should look for the next two to five years to give birth to a new party. As the Second Vermont Republic organization stagnates, it will become tempting for its supporters to form their own electoral party. If they do so, and, if this party takes basic socialist positions beyond independence, such a party could quickly become a major force in the state. CT News will be sure to keep you informed about any developments.[142]
So, as the sun goes down over the 2006 election cycle, and as a new legislator (one composed of the center-left) takes it’s seats in the State House, we here at Catamount Tavern News remind Vermonters that while the General Assembly and other state offices may have real effects upon working people’s lives, electoral politics should always be understood as inherently flawed. Remember, it was through a direct form of Town Meeting democracy that the old Republic of Vermont was founded, and it will only be through the emergence, again, of an empowered Town Meeting along with democratic worker and farmer councils that true freedom, democracy, and equality will be established in our Green Mountains. Freedom and Unity.
Montpelier VT, November 2007 - Anthony Pollina: a name which is known in every house and in every rural town across the Green Mountains, but for the moment, a name known to few outside of left-leaning Vermont.[143] Pollina is a farm organizer, Vermont Progressive Party Chair, populist radio host of Equal Time, WDEV 550AM, firebrand speaker at labor rallies and picket lines and possible, if not likely heavy weight contender for Vermont Governor in 2008. Pollina, like a character in a Steinbeck novel, harkens back to the days of the socialist populist rabble rousers who traveled the countryside by train during the Great Depression. But Pollina is no mere retrofitted radical. He and his social democratic Vermont Progressive Party, (founded by socialist U.S. Senator, Bernie Sanders-VT) are a real force in the Green Mountains (population 600,000). They control six seats in the General Assembly (including the Chair of the important House Agriculture Committee[144]), the Mayorship of the largest city[145] (Burlington, population 39,000), and have run strong in statewide elections against Democrats and Republicans alike. They also have countless Party members across the state elected to local offices from Selectpersons to Town Constables. In organized labor their members include officers in the Vermont AFL-CIO Executive Board, as well as a number of influential persons in the National Educators Association (Vermont) and the Vermont State Employes’ Association. Many more rank & file union members belong to the Party. In addition, the Progressives find support among Vermont’s small farmers, whose struggles they have been at the forefront of supporting. The Party’s statement of principles and general platform, in addition to upholding such basic rights as real livable wages, affordable housing, free college tuition, and universal single payer healthcare, includes the socialist assertion that “human labor is the key to creation of wealth. We challenge the assumed right to derive vast wealth from ownership or position.” The Party, who is clearly on the left, does not support gun control.
The Progressives first bid for statewide office was in 2000, in which Pollina, running against incumbent Democrat Howard Dean (who is viewed as a centrist to Vermonters), won 10% of the vote. Two years later, with the endorsement of the Vermont AFL-CIO, he won 25% of the vote in the race for Lieutenant Governor. As a result of his high profile farm organizing campaigns, his tenacious support of organized labor, and his frequent speeches around the state, many believe his popularity, as well as that of the Party, to be on the rise. While Progressives, who are hands down the most successful third party in the union, and Pollina in particular, are often accused of playing the role of “spoiler” (benefiting Republicans) by the powerful Vermont Democratic Party, there are small signs, or at least possibilities, that the Democrats, who control both chambers of the General Assembly, may step aside and let him have it out with the moderate three term Republican Governor, Jim Douglas in the 2008 election.[146] Pollina himself says that he has been approached by a number of Democrats urging him to run. Senate President Pro-Tem Peter Shumlin-D[147] has publicly mused that Pollina could be a candidate that could bring people together. The pressure on the Vermont Democratic Party to support or at least tolerate Pollina as the candidate increased this September when the Vermont AFL-CIO Executive Board, who historically endorses the Democratic nomination, was rumored to have passed a resolution, calling for the Democrats to refrain from running against Pollina, if he so chooses to be the 2008 Progressive Party candidate for Governor. If he does, and, if he were to win, his victory would make history and solidify Vermont’s claim as a territory in opposition to the rightwing draft witnessed in much of the rest of the nation. Even, if he were to make it close, say within a 5% margin of victory, the Progressives would no doubt walk away invigorated as a party, and in a strong position for the 2010 Vermont General Election.
On a late fall evening, I sat with Anthony in the Dairy Farmers of Vermont office on Elm Street in Montpelier (State capital: population 7,800). I arrived for the interview at 6:00 PM, and the door was unlocked. Pollina sat alone at his desk running numbers for the Vermont Milk Company (a farmer controlled processing plant in the Northeast Kingdom that he helped to form). The modest office was lit by a single lamp. We talked Vermont politics candidly for an hour.
David Van Deusen: You’ve been organizing the dairy farmers. Before that you were organizing with Rural Vermont, before that with the Northeast Organic Farmers’ Association (NOFA).
Anthony Pollina: In between with VPIRG… I worked with NOFA back in the late 70s-early 80’s and then I founded Rural Vermont in 1985. I went to work for [then socialist Congressman - now Senator] Bernie Sanders back in 1990… and then I went to VPIRG in 1995 as the interim Executive Director… After that I was the VPIRG Policy Director until 2000. I also ran [as a Progressive for Governor] against Howard Dean. Since then, I have started the Vermont Milk Company.
Van Deusen: You’ve been organizing around farmer’s issues since the late ’70s. What is it that draws you to that?
Anthony Pollina: Well there really is two things, and I don’t know which comes first. One is the people, quite frankly. Farmers and people who are farming, [those who are] working the land, are just about the most genuine people you could work with. So, I find myself drawn to that type of work because of the people I’ve come to know through it. Other than that, the issues around agriculture and food bring together a lot of the issues that we all care about - you know, economic justice, social justice, environmental justice. They seem to come together in many ways around agriculture - or at least they have for me. I’ve worked on other issues too, obviously, but I find myself drawn back to work on agriculture and food issues. If you’re talking about economic development, you’re talking about agriculture. Environmental policy? Agriculture. Worker exploitation? Agriculture. On the other hand, when you talk about the positive things that bring people together, you’re also talking about agriculture. It’s ‘culture’ that’s why its ‘agriculture’ because it is a lot about who we are as people. Whether it’s free trade or local economic development there seems to be a piece in it that comes back around to working on those issues.
Van Deusen: The Vermont Milk Company? How is that coming along?
Anthony Pollina: One of the most important things about the milk company is that it’s a business enterprise that is the direct result of a grassroots organizing effort that [local family] farmers undertook close to three years ago. Those farmers were looking for a way to regain control over their milk and their [rapidly falling] income. They were looking for a way to take some milk out of the commodity market, add value to it, and put that money in their pockets. They were also looking for a way for consumers to directly support them…
We had a committee, which was primarily farmers, and traveled around the state and had a lot of meetings and talked to a lot of [other] farmers. We then held meetings with the major milk handlers and talked about ways in which they could work directly with the farmers to help them through this and got nowhere! As we went through this process more and more, the farmers said the only way to do this is to have our own brand - our own processing facility. So it’s important to me that it came from that.
We started the business about a year ago; ‘we’ meaning a group of farmers, myself and a few other non-farmers, and it is different than any other dairy business that I’m aware of. It has a fair trade mission… It is Vermont owned and farmer controlled in the sense that the board of directors is dominated by farmers, and we’re committed to paying the farmers a stable minimum price. Right now the price that is the minimum is $15 a hundred weight. Of course, the price of milk is [currently] well over that so we make that higher price. But when the price goes down, we have that floor that we won’t go below.
Last year at this time the price of milk generally was eleven dollars, twelve perhaps; we were paying $15… In the last couple weeks the price of milk was $23. What we do in that case is we match the market price. We basically use [the] St. Albans [Co-op] as our benchmark… But we also don’t charge the farmers’ for the trucking of the milk from the farm to the plant [in Hardwick], which other handlers of milk companies do.
Van Deusen: Can you tell me how much does the average farmer pay for ‘stop fees’ and ‘hauling fees?’
Anthony Pollina: Not really, because they [the farmer] doesn’t even really know. It’s a very complicated formula. It varies a little from farm to farm… I’ve heard it to be as low as thirty cents a hundred weight, and as much as seventy cents a hundred weight… But let’s say its fifty cents a hundred weight on average. [On top of the fifty cents the farmer] pays a ‘stop charge’, which is $7 to $9 every time the truck stops at their farm… That’s every day or every other day, as it depends on the farm. [In addition] right now, they’re paying fuel surcharges, which, of course, [the farmer] can’t pass on to anybody. They [are compelled] to pay promotion fees that go into the federal and state promotion programs. [Even more, while] it depends on the handler, I know that this year a number of them were paying extra assessments to help their companies overcome bad debt… So when you look in the newspaper and read that the price of milk is whatever, say $12, farmers are not getting $12. Some of them are getting close to $10 [-amounts which translate into mass foreclosures of family farms]. The media doesn’t report the net. They’re reporting what the federal government or market order says the price is.
So just to finish this thought: [The Vermont Milk Company] pays the farmers a fair price, we pay for the transportation, we keep the money here in Vermont, and we’re adding value to it. So, it’s a fair trade product. [And often with fair trade products] we talk about fair trade coffee, fair trade chocolate, fair trade crafts [all imported goods]. What we want people to talk about more is domestic fair trade - Vermont fair trade. So that is what is so important about the [Vermont Milk] Company.
We make cheese, we make ice cream, we make yogurt, and like any start up there are a lot of challenges and we’ve just come to the end of our first year. We’re looking at the places where we made money and the places where we didn’t and we’re figuring out how to go forward. It has been extremely exciting and extremely challenging and extremely rewarding. And it has kept us very busy because there are a lot of moving parts.
I frankly think that there are some folks out there in the industry that would rather we not succeed. I really do. We’re trying to create a model [that is] pretty similar, but a little different, than a worker owned [co-op]... And, if we can make it work, and we will, I think it will be a model for [farmers] around Vermont, as well as other places.
Van Deusen: In twenty years from now, do you see farmer controlled milk companies like this operating in several counties?
Anthony Pollina: I would say most likely… This has already come up. People have said “can we do one in southern Vermont? Can we do one in Chittenden County?” The short answer is “sure” - but it is quite complicated. Let’s make sure this one [in Hardwick] becomes established, so we really understand what it takes. We’ve really learned a lot in this process. Sometimes there’s talk about expanding the Hardwick location. Sometimes there’s talk of doing it somewhere else. Right now we’re not ready to do either of those things, but both of them get thought about a lot. People come and visit the plant all the time, and talk about that. I think there is potential…
Van Deusen: In general terms, what is the state of the farmer’s movement today in Vermont?
Anthony Pollina: In some ways, it tends to follow milk prices up and down. Like any group of people, when times are tough they tend to motivate, and right now, for what it’s worth, the price of [raw] milk has been pretty good… On the other hand, farmers lost so much money over the last year or two that even though the price of milk doubled they are really struggling to catch up… They’re trying to deal now with the higher prices of corn and feed.
There has also been something else which has been going on, which we have been somewhat involved in, but not as directly, which is a group of farmers [Dairy Farmers Working Together] that started in Vermont.., which has been traveling around the country to try to see if they can get Congress to develop a supply management system… And those folks… went to California, they went to Wisconsin, they went to Washington… [This] is good and something that we all have worked on a long time. So, a lot of what’s been going on, and I don’t mean this negatively, has been that… a lot of attention has been turned towards Washington… But, I think we can do better by focusing on state and local policy because, I guess, I have a little more faith in [Vermonters] ability to change than I do with the federal [government]...
The other thing that is happening, which is interesting, is this movement toward the development of a Vermont fair trade designation. There is growing evidence that people in the region… will pay a fair price for dairy products that are designated to be fair trade products. So, we are trying to figure out what that means and how to put it to people. It’s really like the early days of the organic movement when people were trying to figure out what the standards would be. So that’s what has been going on…
The other people who have been really good for farmers in Vermont lately have been the public school’ cafeteria workers. [They] have now become the frontline in supporting local agriculture.
Van Deusen: Have they been buying local products?
Anthony Pollina: Yes, they’ve been going out of their way to buy local.
Van Deusen: Is that having a big impact on small local farms?
Anthony Pollina: It is, [but] it’s not big enough to solve the problem, but it’s big enough to set the example that, if public schools can do this… maybe the big institutions in the state, the IBM’s and the National Life’s can start figuring it out. I mean that, if the cafeteria lady at the Holland Elementary School can find a way to buy local, you would think that the cooks at National Life would be able to do the same?
Van Deusen: Does Vermont need its own state based subsidies program for family farms? Do we need a base price for farm commodities?
Anthony Pollina: The wording is complicate. When you say a “subsidy” I would say no, [but], if there was a way in setting a base price that farmers got through the market - in other words, if St. Albans, and Agrimark, and Dairy Farmers of America [the organizations that control most of the milk in Vermont] simply said that we are going to pay farmers no less than $16 a hundred weight and were going to pass that on to the consumers, wherever they may be, that would be great. We’d be getting the marketplace to pay that price. That is what the organic companies do. They set a minimum price and that’s it… [But] these entities, the St. Albans and the Agrimark say they can’t do that. They say they don’t really control where the milk goes. It’s a legitimate discussion, [however] I don’t really believe that. They could play a strong role [advocating for the farmers]... i think it would be a good idea to do what we [The Vermont Milk Company] are doing. We’re saying were not going to pay less than $15 a hundred weight.
Van Deusen: But can you rely on the free market to figure this out on its own?
Anthony Pollina: No.
Van Deusen: Does the state have to be involved?
Anthony Pollina: What we need to do is find ways [for the state] to invest in local processing, because, if there is more local processing for dairy and other products… those processors will be able to put those products out in the marketplace with the minimum price attached to them. I think that would make a big difference.
Van Deusen: So let me see if I’m following you. You contend that instead of the state taking a direct role in such a process [i.e. ownership] you advocate the state acting to economically support endeavors from groups like Dairy Farmers of Vermont?
Anthony Pollina: Right, right. Basically, there are things that the state could do immediately… The State of Vermont could actually commit to buying local products. You know Jim Douglas goes on the radio and runs these ads that say ‘buy local - it’s just that simple.’ Well, if it’s just that simple, Jim, why aren’t you doing it? [And here] when we say ‘the state’ I mean UVM, the state colleges, the prisons, the public schools. But that could also extend to things like Fletcher Allen [hospital in Burlington] which receives public money. If they all bought dairy from the Vermont Milk Company it would be glorious. If they all decided that they were going to buy Vermont hamburger… well, what they would say is that ‘Vermont hamburger is not there.’ Well if you tell us you’re gonna buy it, we [the Vermont farmers] will bring you the hamburger. We were talking about all this at a meeting I was at last night on a farm in Franklin County.
So how do you build the infrastructure necessary to meet the demand of the state and other consumers? It means you need a place where you can keep frozen hamburger over the winter… So what the state can do is it could provide the capital to support those kinds of endeavors. The Governor says that ‘the state doesn’t do that’ but two years ago the [Vermont] legislature was close to appropriating half a million dollars to support in-state dairy processing… The Governor killed that bill. Literally the same week or so the [Democratic] legislature and [Republican] Governor have half a million dollars to the Ski Areas’ Association to promote skiing in Vermont because they had a ‘tough’ winter. Well dairy farmers have had a tough life! The ski industry has had a tough last season.
Van Deusen: Most ski areas are owned by out-of-staters.
Anthony Pollina: Well of course! They are owned by the big corporations whether in-state or out-of-state and they have resources. So they [the government] literally said ‘no’ to the agriculture infrastructure, and it was a half a million dollar appropriation…
Van Deusen: Less than a dollar a person for every Vermonter.
Anthony Pollina: Yeah, and [instead] they gave it to the ski areas to advertise. The ski areas admitted a couple months later that they only spent half of it because the season ended, and they put the other half in the bank!
So are there ways to raise capital and to make that capital available to entrepreneurs or groups of farmers or other Vermonters who want to build processing plants or have a place to freeze vegetables or have more meat processing? There are always ways to do that.
Van Deusen: So where has Governor Douglas been in the big picture?
Anthony Pollina: Absolutely nowhere, that’s the thing! Missing in action! He talks about it a little bit, but as far as I can tell there has been very little effort made to create an investment in infrastructure. [Even so,] there have been a couple of small things that are underway [through the current government]. Although, I haven’t seen it yet, somebody has set aside [resources] for a mobile slaughter house that could go around and slaughter larger animals on the farm. [This] would make it easier for people to do that kind of stuff.
Van Deusen: Who would own or control the operation?
Anthony Pollina: That right now is unclear to me… We have to find a way to invest at [a higher] level in Vermont. So there has been this talk about the mobile slaughter house, [the government] has given some grants to schools to buy local, but we’re really missing the boat. We should be talking about a plan, an agricultural development plan that would require some investment in this industry. The problem is when Jim Douglas hears the word investment he says ‘you want to raise my taxes.’ And that is not necessarily what I’m talking about. What I’m talking about is coming up with capital through a variety of ways. There is plenty of money in Vermont. The question is what are we doing with it?
Van Deusen: Well you hear Douglas say “higher taxes, higher taxes” what you don’t hear politicians talk about is whether you are talking about taxing the average working person or are you talking about taxing the [wealthy] Richard Tarrants of the state? For somebody who is engaged in politics, is there something to be lost for a person to say ‘hell yeah, we’re going to tax the Richard Tarrants and we are going to create a mobile slaughter house?’
Anthony Pollina: First of all, you don’t want to increase taxes on working Vermonters because they are the ones who are struggling. What they are struggling with though is not their taxes. What they are struggling with is their healthcare, energy costs, transportation and housing. The Governor will tell you that taxes are the biggest problem working families have. He’s wrong. The biggest problems, in terms of chunks of their family incomes, is housing, healthcare, and energy. And food comes after that. Those are much more of a burden on families than taxes are. On the one hand, you don’t want to raise their taxes, but on the other hand, you want to reduce some of those other costs as well.
There was a study that came out recently that said, compared to the twelve other states that they looked at Vermont had the fairest tax system of all. [This] means that we as Vermonters have done a very good job of being fair to working families when it comes to taxes. That is something Jim Douglas doesn’t tell people about.
Having said that, I do believe there are ways to bring Vermonters together to talk about whether to make changes to our tax system [and to do so in a way that does] not burden working families. We can make changes in the way we tax capital gains in Vermont that would bring in money. But, I actually have a different idea, to tell you the truth! When I think about capital, I look at institutions in Vermont who have a lot of wealth. The obvious ones… are UVM, Fletcher Allen, and the state colleges. They have portfolios, they make investments. They have endowments and that kind of stuff. [Vermont] has told them over the years, “don’t invest in tobacco. Don’t invest in Darfur.” We have never told them to invest in Vermont. I think we could work with them or require them, depending on how it shakes out, to put a percentage of their endowment into an equity fund that would then be used to support rural entrepreneurs and others who would be able to then set up processing plants… distribution networks, whatever it takes. I think we could make that happen… They are [already] using our money! UVM is supported by us! Fletcher Allen uses medicade/medicare. They use public dollars. Why don’t they give a little back to the local public? We used to call it 2% for Vermont. [Why not tell them] to put 2% of their portfolio into this fund?... Then [after they did that] you ask other large businesses, private entities, to do it. If National Life of Vermont put 2% of their investment portfolio into a Vermont… rural development fund, we would have all the resources we would need to invest… So again, I think there are ways in which we can change the discussion about what we mean by investment in Vermont, and that is part of what I would like to do.
How about we have a Vermont credit card? Vermonters use their credit cards to buy their boots and to go out to dinner. Visa and L.L. Bean even has their own credit card. Let’s face it. U.S. Airways has a credit card. Everybody gets a cut and there is a lot of interest that is obviously gained from credit cards. Where is it going? Why don’t we sit down at the table and think about whether or not we could direct Vermont’s spending into Vermont more. I think Vermonters would like to have that conversation.
Van Deusen: You have recently been going around the state talking to people about many of these ideas. What are your goals in this endeavor?
Anthony Pollina: It’s about allowing Vermonters to have a vision and to move forward with it. I do think that in particular [living] under Jim Douglas has made it more difficult for us [common people] to talk about the challenges we face and the big issues and [for us] to try to find solutions. Jim Douglas has basically put creativity on hold when it comes to state government. He explains to us often what we cannot do; he tells us why we couldn’t buy those dams on the Connecticut River, why we couldn’t invest in the energy efficiency program, why we don’t have real healthcare reform, why we couldn’t invest in the agricultural infrastructure. He talks a lot about why we can’t do things. The first thing we have to do is get Vermonters to stop talking about what we cannot do and actually start to talk about what we can do…
Just recently there were some people getting together to talk about affordable housing. You know, sort of what you would call affordable housing advocates and activists sitting down with government agencies and they [asked] “why isn’t the Governor here as part of this conversation?” and the Governor’s people said “it’s not appropriate for him to sit down with special interest [groups].” I’m sure he sits down with the Chamber of Commerce and other people! It’s ridiculous! My point is he is not engaged with talking to Vermonters about how we’re going to deal with the things we need to deal with.
Part of it is getting people to change their frame of mind, getting them to feel optimistic about themselves again. Jim Douglas [on the other hand] tells us that “we are the most taxed state in the country,” which is not true if you’re a working Vermonter. He tells us business doesn’t want to be here. He tells us that young people don’t want to be here. He tells us we can’t afford to live here. You listen to Jim Douglas long enough and you want to leave! This is not the guy you want leading the way to creative solutions to solving problems… So, I think part of it is getting people together to start having the conversations…
On the [energy] efficiency issue that’s just a question of making it clear to Vermonters what that was about. [Douglas] at one point said expanding [the state’s] energy efficiency program beyond electricity was about taxes! He literally at one point was quoted saying “this is all about taxes.” Somebody should tell the man he’s wrong! Somebody should stand there and say “this is not true.” This is about saving businesses money, that’s what this is about. It’s about creating jobs. It’s about reducing energy costs. It’s about expanding a program that has already been identified as one of the best things Vermont has ever done! But he gets away with saying it’s just about taxes. So let’s talk about that.
When you talk about healthcare reform, what he talks about is [how] “we can’t raise taxes” but we can spend a lot of public dollars on Catamount Health. For some reason, that’s okay. We can spend tobacco money or little bits from pots of money from here and there, but we can’t sit down and really talk about the fact that if [Vermont] publicly funded healthcare, you would actually eliminate premiums! So, in that case you may actually be talking about a tax, you’re talking about public financing of healthcare, and where he would immediately run away from that I would say ‘well wait a minute.’ If I were going to use public financing and you were going to pay no healthcare premium, and your [real] costs were going to go down, would you like to at least talk about that? I think most Vermonters would at least say ‘let’s at least talk about that.’
With energy, I think we’re missing the boat. Vermont Yankee [nuclear power plant in Vermont][148] is going to meltdown before we figure out how to replace that power. So we’re wasting time. It’s unfortunate, because we are running out of time when it comes to energy. With energy and healthcare you need to really change that whole conversation and talk to Vermonters about the reality check as related to taxes. [The Governor] tells us we’re the most taxed state in the nation. That’s just not true if you’re a working Vermonter.
Van Deusen: Vermont currently receives one third of its energy needs from Vermont Yankee, another third from Hydro Quebec, and the rest from small local sources such as dams, wood burning plants, and some methane and wind. Can Vermont be energy self-sufficient without the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant?
Anthony Pollina: Can we be more energy independent? The answer is yes. [Unfortunately] we missed the boat in some degree [when the state] did not buy the dams on the Connecticut River and we’re going to live to regret that. [Even so] we could find Vermont scale wind power that people could relate to and support. [But] the best way to become energy independence is by using less energy. And that is what that energy efficiency program has done and could do more of. So are we ever going to be as energy independent as much as a lot of us would like to be? Probably not in our lifetimes unless we find [the means] to make it happen. But can we become more energy independent? The answer is yes… Then the [other] big issue is cars. We have done nothing in Vermont for public transportation.
Van Deusen: I was recently in the Northeast Kingdom and I observed that they were tearing up miles of old railroad tracks. It seems like a further move away from that?
Anthony Pollina: Well what the Governor wants to do, if he has way, he would invest hundreds of millions of dollars in the Circ Highway to move people in a circle around Burlington. [This is] very indicative of the way Jim Douglas thinks about policy… The studies have shown that the Circ Highway is not going to reduce commuting time. It’s not going to create jobs [in] a healthy local economy, and it’s not really going to reduce accidents. I’m not even sure what the whole purpose of the Circ Highway is at this point, but Douglas still supports it. He thinks it’s something we really have to do. That’s a couple hundred million dollars that we could be investing in something else.
Van Deusen: Given the current make-up of the Vermont General Assembly, [overwhelmingly Democrat, with six Progressives], with the right person as Governor, can Vermont be the first U.S. state to achieve universal single payer healthcare? Could we move towards real livable wages? Can this be done in the next five years? Are these things possible?
Anthony Pollina: Yes! Yes, they are possible. I don’t really know what the time frame is because I’m not sure [how strong] the resistance will be. Both the things that you mention are things that Vermonters support. When you ask Vermonters, if they support universal healthcare [and], if they’re willing to finance it… the answer is yes. The majority want to move in that direction. What it’s going to take is a person who is willing to have that conversation with Vermonters, and then is willing to stand up with them.
Van Deusen: Are you going to be that person?
Anthony Pollina: I don’t know. I think, if I were Governor, I would be that person. Whether I’m going to be Governor right now or not is unknown because I have a lot of things that need to be figured out before we can really make that decision.
Van Deusen: I understand that you have had conversations with Matt Dunne [*2006 Democratic candidate for Lieutenant Governor and rumored 2008 candidate for Governor.]
Anthony Pollina: Well, yes. I’ve talked with a number of those [Democratic] folks, including Matt Dunne [as well as] the Chair of the Vermont Democratic Party. You know, you sit and you drink coffee and you talk about what may or may not happen… From my point of view, what those conversations are mostly about [comes down to] ‘is there a way that Vermonters can come together, and, for lack of a better word, unite around a candidate and build a grassroots movement strong enough to defeat Jim Douglas. Could Democrats, Progressives, disaffected Republicans, independents, and people who are getting fed up with the way Jim Douglas treats Vermonters come together to defeat him. Everybody says they want to do that. Everybody says that’s what we need to do. And then we move into a discussion about who might be suited to do that. I certainly have given reasons as to why I think I can do that [but] I’m not 100% certain I’m ready to give up the other things I’m doing. We’ve [also] talked about [if] there are Democrats who could be able to play that role as well. [However] I, quite honestly, think the list is relatively short for most of the Progressives I talk to, but we’re not closing the door to those options.
Van Deusen: But how much confidence do you have in the Democratic Party in Vermont?
Anthony Pollina: What I think would be best would be to take [and incorporate] some of the good work that the grassroots Democrats have done and want to do. You know the Democratic Party is pretty broad in Vermont and obviously it is capable of electing people. [Most of] our Congressional delegation [and] most of our state office holders are Democrats. And I think most [rank and file] Democrats believe in universal healthcare and livable wages. Those are things Vermonters do believe in. For some reason, that Democratic base has been unable to capture and shape the debate in a way that really moves beyond the politics of Jim Douglas. So I think there is a lot of good folks there, but what is lacking…. is a leader at the statewide level who can better articulate it in a way that would motivate Vermonters to dump Jim Douglas and [instead] take on a Governor who supports those things.
So when you’re talking about the Democrats… a lot of them are neighbors and friends… The question is “given their majority [in the General Assembly] why are they not able to better control the debate? I don’t know why they can’t do that. I just know that they can’t.
Van Deusen: Some people would say the Democrats have a long history of half measures, symbolic actions.
Anthony Pollina: Sure! First of all because they are a broad party in a sense there are a lot of [internal] factions. There are a lot of legislators who are Democrats who are not inspired by things like universal healthcare. [But] I think, Democrats as Vermonters are, but that doesn’t mean that their elected officials are all committed to the same agenda. So that is one thing. I think that sometimes some of the people in the Democratic Party fall for Jim Douglas’ political line. They maybe start to believe that Vermonters don’t want to talk about these things. Some of them have come to rely over the years on the same sources of political power and money [as the Republicans] and they don’t want to alienate those people…
A reporter said to me recently that “I don’t get the feeling that you’re talking to the Democratic powers that be.” And I assume she meant these mythical people who live in Burlington who have a lot of money who tell Democrats what to do! Ha! I don’t even know who those people are!
Van Deusen: State Senator Hinda Miller could probably tell you.
Anthony Pollina: And you know what? I haven’t asked! But that’s what the reporter said to me. So I told her “you’re absolutely right. Why would I be talking to those people, while I’m talking to people who live in communities where there are working people, who are farmers, those who are the base of the Vermont political movement, who are going to defeat Jim Douglas. Those wealthier people, who like to pull the strings, are not necessarily committed to defeating Jim Douglas. It’s people in the countryside who are committed to defeating Jim Douglas. I’m talking to those people! I’m not going to start a campaign from the top down. You start a campaign from the ground up because it is those people, the farmers and the working people and [organized] labor. It’s those people who are going to do the grunt work of making the campaign.
Van Deusen: Rumor has it the Vermont AFL-CIO President Lindol Atkins is ready to back you for Governor. Have you been talking to the AFL?
Anthony Pollina: I was at their convention [in September] and I spoke with people there and I felt like there was a lot of support there. I did encourage them to play an active role in deciding who the candidates should be. What happens all the time is that the Democrats pick a candidate and then organized labor is expected to endorse that candidate. And I just suggested that they play a more active role, not just this time, but all the time.
Van Deusen: The war in Iraq?
Anthony Pollina: What would you do with six hundred billion dollars? I mean everything we’re talking about would not even be an issue, if we weren’t throwing all that money at a war, which is immoral, unjust, unnecessary, and ironically enough, opposed by 70% of the American public. You talk about democracy, and then you talk about how 70% of Americans don’t want something, yet we have it; in this case, a war. It tells you something about the Democratic Party on the national level.
Van Deusen: Can a Governor of Vermont find a way to bring the Vermont National Guard troops home?
Anthony Pollina: I think a Vermont Governor could look for a way… I don’t say this definitively, but I believe that there are some rules about how the National Guard can be used or not used and at the discretion of the Governor. So I think that could be looked at… There are certainly ways in which the Governor could mobilize Vermonters to put pressure at the national level to put an end to a war that the great majority of Vermonters don’t want to be in.
You know we have all these distinctions in Vermont. They tell us “this is the best place to live,” “Burlington is the best place to raise kids.” Recently, we’ve been designated the “smartest state” based on how kids test - but we also have the rather dubious distinction of being the highest number of deaths per capita in Iraq and we don’t really need that. That doesn’t rank with those others.
[At this point of the interview, Anthony’s wife Deborah, appeared in the doorway.]
Deborah Pollina: Hi. I was just a little worried because you said you were going to call me when you were done.
Anthony Pollina: Well, I guess I’m not done. I was going to call you.
Van Deusen: It’s my fault.
Anthony Pollina: I can be done any second, but I haven’t finished doing what I was supposed to do. Are you in a hurry?
Deborah Pollina: I guess I was ready to go home, yeah.
Anthony Pollina: Okay.
Van Deusen: We can wrap this up. Any final words?
Anthony Pollina: No.
[We both laughed.]
Van Deusen: Thanks Anthony.
Town Meeting Day, March 2009
Ten Point Platform
1. STRENGTHENING LOCAL DEMOCRACY & MAJORITY RULE — As Selectperson I will support maximum democratic participation in town government (hearings, special town meetings, testimony, etc), and make Select Board business transparent and accessible to all residents.[149] In the spirit of local democracy, I support making the town Planning Commissioners elected positions, and hold that shorter terms for elected town officers makes them more accountable to the people. And finally, I also pledge to support the majority opinion of town residence on issues, even if that opinion is counter to my personal feelings.
2. LEADERSHIP —I will demonstrate leadership on issues through community dialogue, open debate, and consensus building.
3. BUILDING THE CAPITAL SAVINGS FUND, PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE —I will strive to maximize town money in a Capital Savings Fund (a fund made up of money generated by the landfill, and NOT accessible for short term town expenditures), with an eye to make that money, in the long run, sustainably generate more resources for town based public programs for local youth, elderly, poor and working people. I favor putting half of the annual landfill money into this fund ($200,000).
4. TAX RELIEF FOR WORKING PEOPLE —In the short term, I will seek to use one quarter of the annual landfill funds ($100,000) to lower property tax and provide a renters rebate for individuals making under $50,000 a year, and families making under $100,000 a year. This tax & rent relief would last at least as long as the duration of this current economic crisis, and would come in the form of an annual check, from the town, to qualifying households.
The remaining money annually generated from the landfill ($100,000) should be placed in a Capital Development Fund, and should be used as needed by the town subject to the approval of the voters.
5. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & GOOD JOBS — concerning the proposed quarry on Route 100B, I would support the current majority opinion NOT to allow the quarry. This majority opinion has been demonstrated through public votes, such as empowering the Select Board to enact temporary zoning on 100B (in response to the proposed quarry), and the vote to adopt new permanent zoning regulations (which would not allow future quarry development on 100B).
However, I do favor responsible development. We need good jobs for Moretown’s residents. Therefore, regarding major development proposals I would look closely at the type of jobs that would be created. Would they pay livable, family supporting wages? Would they provide healthcare? Would they provide a good pension and other benefits? Would they be union jobs? Would the operation be employee owned or at least Vermonter owned? Would an effort be made to hire local residents? If a major development project met most or all of these criteria, and assuming it could pass a basic environmental muster, I would support it. If, on the other hand, such a project only created a small number of low paying jobs with no benefits, and was not projected to boost the town’s tax base or meet recognized community needs, I would be unlikely to support it. We need responsible development and an economy that works for all our residents, not more avenues for the few to get rich and those who work 40 hours a week to remain poor.
6. LIVABLE WAGES — I would support a policy whereby all individuals employed or individually contracted by the town be paid (at minimum) a livable wage of $12.71 an hour as defined by the Vermont Job Gap Study. I would also uphold a policy whereby all businesses contracted by the town guarantee that their employes are also paid (at minimum) a livable wage. Finally, I would seek to hire local town residents and town business first.
7. SUPPORT FOR LOCAL AGRICULTURE — I would support a policy whereby the elementary school, when possible, purchase locally produced healthy food from area farmers.
8. LOCAL WOOD HEAT FOR PUBLIC BUILDINGS — I would explore installing a woodchip furnace in the elementary school and woodstoves/furnaces in the other town buildings. If this happened, such wood should be acquired from local Moretown loggers, and sustainably harvested from town land when possible.
9. ACCOUNTABLE LAW ENFORCEMENT — On law enforcement, I would support the town relying more on active constables. These are the elected officers of the community, and are in the best position to deal with any law issues that come up in our town.
10. ADVOCATE FOR MORETOWN — On behalf of the residents of Moretown, I would use my position as Selectperson to pressure our legislators in Montpelier to adequately fund health and human services. Every year on Town Meeting Day we (and many other towns) vote a sum of about $10,000 to support various community & health programs across our region. While, for the most part, these are great organizations that currently need our support, the truth is if the state did their part they would not need our money and we could use our limited resources in other ways. For example, we could better fund our town library, and/or we could increase after school programs.
SUPPORT LOCAL TOWN MEETING DEMOCRACY
& THE VERMONT WAY OF LIFE!
ON TOWN MEETING DAY VOTE
DAVE VAN DEUSEN FOR MORETOWN SELECT BOARD.
Moretown Vermont, February 2010
Valley Reporter: Why are you running for town office?
Moretown Selectman Dave Van Deusen: I am running for a seat on the Select Board because I want to continue being a voice for the working families of Moretown.[150] In 2009 I worked very hard to make sure that you were informed about what was going on in our town. I did my best to further bring you into this process so that the many, and not the few, had a say as to what was happening in our local government. If reelected I will continue to explore ways to give the public more oversight regarding town affairs, and I will do my best to exercise common sense when making day to day decisions in my role as Selectman.
Valley Reporter: Any experience?
Van Deusen: In 2006 I was appointed Moretown Representative to the Regional Planning Commission by the Select Board. In 2007 I was elected to First Constable. And then in 2009 I won a seat on Select Board [endorsed by the Vermont Progressive Party, Vermont Liberty Union Party, and Vermont AFL-CIO], where I have been serving since. Outside of town government, I am a currently an officer in the Washington County Central Labor Council. In 2007 and 2009 I was elected District Vise President of the Vermont AFL-CIO.
So yes, I have experience in local government and a record of organizing on a statewide basis on behalf of working families. In Moretown I successfully advocated for “livable wages” for town employes, oversaw the Town Hall renovation project and worked on broadening local public participation in town affairs. On a statewide basis with the AFL-CIO I have worked towards universal healthcare reform, on revitalizing the labor movement, and broadening rank and file participation in union affairs.
Valley Reporter: What, in your opinion, are the most pressing issues facing Moretown residents?
Van Deusen: Due to the continuing economic downturn, taxes are especially an issue this year for both blue and white collar workers. The fact is that many people have been laid-off, many have had their hours reduced, and many more have seen a pay freeze or reduction (all the while Wall Street continues to make a killing). Truth be told, folks are going to have a hard time meeting their basic needs and paying their property taxes this year. Therefore we need to look at ways to reduce the tax burden without reducing necessary services.
One way to do this would be to make the way we off-set property taxes with landfill revenue more equitable per household. The way it is currently done is that we simply reduce the overall tax rate. In 2009 this regressive system translated into a person with a home in Moretown valued at one million dollars receiving $1200 in tax subsidies. The person with the one hundred thousand dollar home saw only $120 in tax savings. The renter, of course, saw nothing. This system of subsidies is not equitable or fair to the regular people who are struggling to get by. Instead we should find better ways use a portion of our landfill revenue; ways that level the playing field and benefit all of us equally. If we did this, taxes for average households would go drastically down, and we would not be in the false predicament of having to reduce jobs or services at the municipal level.
Even so, understand that any use of our landfill money (which is forecasted at $400,000 a year for maybe 15 more years), and specifically any change in the way we use this money, would have to be debated and voted on by you at a duly warned Town Meeting. This should not be for the Select Board to decide on their own.
Valley Reporter: Should the environmental court rule in Rivers’ favor, do you think the town should continue with the quarry appeal process?
Van Deusen: If the court rules in the towns favor, I have little doubt that Mr. Rivers will appeal. In this case I understand that the cost for fighting such an appeal could be as low as $1000. In this scenario I would support using funds from within the 2010 budget for defending the decision of our local Development Review Board by continuing proceedings.
On the other hand, if Mr. Rivers wins this stage of litigation, it could cost upwards of $30,000 for the town to file their own appeal. In this scenario I support the use of minimal town funds to begin legal proceedings ($12,000 is already set aside for anticipated lawyers’ fees in our 2010 budget). That said, I would go a step further and advocate for a town wide vote to see if we should spend more then what we have in our legal budget on further litigation.
Valley Reporter: Do you think the town should continue to fund the library?
Van Deusen: Absolutely. Libraries are cornerstones of communities, and the price we pay to maintain ours, per working class household, is small. For instance, at an annual operating cost of $18,000, a family who owns a $100,000 house pays $10 in taxes towards the library. A family with a $200,000 house pays $20. And a renter pays nothing.
When you reflect that the average price of a single new book is $18, or that a family membership fee to the Montpelier library is $44, I think you can see that we are doing quite well for our money here in Moretown.
I would also like to remind folks that although our library is small, they are able to get you just about any book through the inter-library loan system. So please do take advantage of this community resource.
Valley Reporter: Are you in support of the town’s potential contract renewal with the Washington County Sheriff’s Department?
Van Deusen: No. We have contracted with the Sheriff’s Department for 5 years or so now. In that time I have not noticed crime going down, or up for that matter. In recent years we have spent a lot of money on the sheriffs for very little coverage. Also, when we do contract with them the town has essentially no oversight regarding how, when, where they patrol. In my mind this is a bad use of tax payer money.
What we should be doing is electing constables that are willing to get the necessary certifications in order that they can better patrol our roads. Unlike sheriff’s deputies, constables are elected directly by us, are accountable directly to us, and are in a better position to serve the needs of the community. And finally, we need to change the term that constables serve from one year to two (as it takes nearly a year to get all the training), and properly fund this important town department.
*David Van Deusen has been endorsed by the Vermont Liberty Union Party, the Vermont Progressive Party, the Socialist Party USA, and the Green Mountain Labor Council AFL-CIO.
November 17th, 2010
Now that Democrat Shumlin has been elected Governor, the approaching question is who will step in to provide new leadership within the State AFL-CIO.[151] And here, assuming Lindol Atkins (AFSCME) does not run for reelection, I have made no secret that I have an interest in this outcome… Currently I am considering a run for Vermont AFL-CIO President. My question to you is this: is there a path through which I can count on you for support?
In my estimation the state federation currently lacks cohesive or compelling vision. I say this from observing from the inside (two terms on the Executive Board as a District Vise President) and from the outside (as a longtime rank and file UAW 1981 member & former Teamsters). The fact that we had to mobilize (against VT AFL-CIO Vise President Jill Charbonneau and some IBEW officers) to make sure Republican Brian Dubie did not become our new Governor speaks volumes to our current problems.
Here are the facts: The VT AFL has a shirking membership of less than 9,000 members. While Vermonters generally are becoming more supportive of a progressive public agenda, the VT AFL commits its limited resources to reactive politics geared towards holding the line with what we have, as opposed to spearheading the fight for what we want and what should be. And as any football fan can tell you, the best defense is a good offense.
On the other hand, I contend that we have a historic opportunity to reverse this trend, build new members, increase inter-union solidarity, and win far reaching victories for working people across Vermont. But we both know that this will be unlikely without a meaningful change in our union leadership.
In brief, I am starting to formulate a platform through which to build a campaign for this contest (the below is a work in progress). I also foresee the need for me to engage in a smart internal grassroots effort if we are to win. I recognize that Jill will have the full backing of the IBEW in her bid against us. This is a large, but surmountable obstacle.
Below you will find some initial thoughts pertaining to a platform aimed at growing our power as the Vermont AFL-CIO. By all means, I welcome any criticisms, disagreements, or suggestions as to where else we need to be looking.
We must build our organizing capacity by aggressively lobbying the national AFL for resources to increase outreach and hire organizers.
We must make the most out of what we already have by starting an internship program aimed at college students, like that which is already done by the Vermont Workers’ Center and the Vermont State Employes’ Association. These interns would serve as grassroots organizers, to be placed at the disposal of our strategic organizing campaigns.
The State AFL should devote 55% of its time and manpower to aiding existing organizing drives conducted by our union locals.
Our legislative work should seek to either place the AFL at the forefront of progressive issues that claim support from large portions of working families (ie single payer healthcare), or to ease the road for major organizing campaigns (ie early childhood educators), or to build livable wage jobs (ie public commitment to Project Labor Agreements and an end to nonunion private contractors performing public services). In a word, our legislative efforts must seek to further build power, and not just react to those who seek the disempowerment of organized labor.
All of our efforts must be accompanied by a comprehensive media and public outreach strategy.
The internal process of the State AFL-CIO must become transparent, democratic, and encourage a constructive debate on the issues facing organized labor and working families in general. Towards this end we must BEGIN to engage our rank & file members through regular communication through mailings and web outreach.
We must build a new generation of union leaders by placing a priority in engaging our young rank & file members. Towards this end we should create special delegate positions for young workers and apprentices in order that they are encouraged to attend and take an active part in our conventions.
Of course I am very interested to hear your thoughts on all of this. I would also welcome a chance to sit down with you over a beer to see what you think is possible. What do you think?
Solidarity,
Dave Van Deusen
Vermont AFL-CIO Leaders,
It has been my honor to work alongside all of you for two full terms now as a District Vise President from Washington, Lamoille, and Orange Counties, to have served at the VT AFL-CIO’s Liaison to the Healthcare is a Human Right campaign in 2009, and on the Single Payer Healthcare Organizing Committee since 2010.[152] Together we have played a historic role in charting the course for a Vermont based single payer healthcare system. We have also done a fine job in standing up for working families across Vermont on numerous issues. However, our historic task of building power for working people is far from done, and there is much still to do.
Therefore, at the September VT AFL-CIO convention I intend to run for the Member-At-Large position on the Executive Board. I have decided to do so in light of Ralph Montefusco’s decision to not seek reelection to this post.
If elected to this position, with your support, I would seek to prioritize the below five issues/principles:
A continuing and proactive engagement on the VT Single Payer Healthcare effort. Vermont stands to make history by becoming the first state in the nation to provide its people public healthcare as a basic right. By achieving this, we will also be taking healthcare largely out of contract negotiations. Doing this will allow us to focus on gains in wages, and other issues. While great progress has already been made on this issue, there is still a long way to go. We owe it to working Vermonters to play an active role in forming this debate, and making sure that the final outcome best suits the needs of union members and working people in general.
Concerted support from the State Labor Council for all new organizing drives, especially the AFT’s early childhood educator efforts which is looking to add 10,000 new members to the VT AFL-CIO. While the VT AFL-CIO has close to 10,000 members, we need to grow that base in order to build more power. If the AFT is successful in organizing early childhood educators (ie day care providers) we will be doubling our current membership. This would be a historic step in the right direction. That said, the State AFL-CIO must be prepared to lend solidarity in every way (requested) and possible to this campaign and any other efforts initiated by organized labor to increase our overall union density in the Green Mountains.
Making sure that Green Jobs are union jobs and Vermont jobs. With five major wind farm projects being planned (or already underway) for Vermont, we need to make sure that the construction jobs that these projects offer are good, local, livable wage jobs with benefits, and that workers on these projects are protected and served by union representation. I would seek to work with and at the direction of the Vermont Building and Construction Trades on this important issue. These green construction projects will be the bread and butter of our Building Trades for years to come, and we need to grantee that they uplift the standard of living for Vermont workers and their families.
Openness, transparency, and rank and file participation in VT AFL-CIO affairs. The best union leaders in the state are only as powerful as the rank and file that stand actively behind them. Therefore we must seek ways mobilize our members. Every time a union leader stands in front of a speakers’ podium, we must seek to have rank and file union members ready and willing to do what it takes to win on an issue. In part, the way to achieve this is for our statewide leadership to keep our members better informed, and engaged in the political process. To achieve this, we must guarantee transparency and democratic participation in our internal process. Our members must know that they have a stake and a voice in union policy.
Maximizing the power of the VT AFL-CIO by building strong cooperative relations with non-AFL unions and other social and community organizations that represent regular Vermonters. Where ever possible, the VT AFL-CIO and other non-AFL unions should speak with one voice concerning issues that affect Vermont workers. After all, we have 10,000 members, but when one includes the VSEA, NEA, UE, Teamsters, Vermont Workers’ Center, etc. we have well over 30,000 members. And again, where ever possible we should seek to form positive working relations with organizations outside of labor. We should work with environmentalists on Green Jobs issues, and with citizens groups like VPIRG on healthcare and other issues. By working together with our natural allies, we will be amplifying our voice, and giving strength to the broader movement in Vermont which seeks to put the interests of the people above and beyond the interests of capital, entrenched power, and the status quo.
In conclusion, I want to again ask for the support and vote of yourself and your union for the position of Member-At-Large at our September convention. Together I have no doubt that we will continue to build a powerful movement of Working Vermonters that is capable of achieving historic victories and working class power.
In Solidarity,
Dave Van Deusen,
NWU/UAW Local 1981
PS I welcome any thoughts or comments on how we can best achieve our common goals during the course of the next two years.
Progressives Make Gains
Respectable Showing For Liberty Union Socialists
Radical-Capitalist Libertarians Fall Flat
Montpelier VT, November 6 2014- Thus far, one of the more interesting aspects of the 2014 Vermont election was the relative strength of the Progressive Party & and the respectable showings of the Vermont Liberty Union Party.[153] The Democratic Party, in a year that saw record low turnout (43.7%) [in a Presidential year it is not unheard of for voter turnout in Vermont to break 70%], had a net loss of eleven in the VT House, and two in the VT Senate (and a surprisingly close contest for Governor-which their candidate Peter Shumlin won). Even so, and even with voting patterns seemingly favoring the right, the Democrats retained a commanding lead in both the VT House and VT Senate. And while the Republicans made some gains (small in the big political scheme of things) the further left also did better than traditional election logic would seem to allow for.
The Progressive Party (who are essentially social-democrats and who firmly support single payer healthcare) saw a net gain in the Legislature (from eight to ten -seven in the House, three in the Senate). This marks the Party’s highest numbers in the General Assembly since its inception. The Progs [founded by Bernie Sanders], the most successful third party in the nation, also had respectable showings in a number of statewide races (LT Gov: Corren 36.05%, Treasurer: Schramm 17.30%, Secretary of State: Eastwood 14.5%). The Progressive backed candidate for Auditor (Doug Hoffer who, like Dean Corren, also had the Democratic nomination) saw returns that rival those witnessed in Banana Republics; 99.06% (Doug also ran unopposed).
The Liberty Union Party (which is aligned with the Socialist Party USA, and who represent a far left, squarely anti-capitalist political perspective) also did surprisingly well in their defeat. In fact this may be their best election (not including the few instances where they won an isolated municipal race) for the Party in their 40+ year history. The Liberty Union, although not winning any contest, received 8.3% for Treasurer (Murray Ngoima), 10.32% for Secretary of State (Mary Alice Herbert), and 3.94% for Attorney General (Rosemary Jackowski). In the Secretary of State contest, it is not surprising that they were uncompetitive with the Democratic nominee (and landslide winner) Jim Condos (74.75%), but it is almost shocking that they reached double digits and were competitive with the second place Progressive Party candidate (Ben Eastwood). Beyond the statewide contests, the Liberty Union also captured 13.91% of the vote for Grand Island State Senate (Ben Bosley). Their two candidates for Windham County State Senate, Jerry Levy & Aaron Diamondstone received a respectable 5% & 4.64%. Not as impressive (but still better than past lows) was their 0.87% or 1,673 votes for Governor (Peter Diamondstone), their 1.74% or 3,347 votes for Lt Gov (Brown), & their 1.08% or 2,071 votes for US Representative (Andrews). What was impressive was that some LU candidates, such as Andrews, more actively campaigned on their ideas [something that the LU has not done much of in many years]. Perhaps the Liberty Union’s relatively meaningful performance will inspire the Progressive Party to suggest an accommodation with the Party? The fact that the Liberty Union did not run a candidate for Auditor (against Hoffer) may have been an act of good faith offered from one aspect of the electoral left to another. Or perhaps they simply could not recruit a candidate. Regardless, in a tight race, a few percentage points can be the difference between winning and losing. Splitting the third party left vote seems something less than desirable if a goal is to win. But then again, the Liberty Union cannot be accused of ever making a fetish of winning.
On the opposite side of the ‘third party’ equation, the Vermont Libertarian Party, despite relatively good media attention, articulate performances by Feliciano in the Governor’s debates, and a political buzz, failed to win major party status (which, among other things requires that one or more candidate receive 5% or better in a statewide race). The Party’s standard bearer (and only statewide candidate), Feliciano, gave voice to a free market capitalist alternative for Vermont, and ended up with 4.36% of the vote. While 4.36% marks the best statewide showing for a Libertarian candidate to date, it failed to be a breakthrough year. In the fourteen other races it took part in, like the Liberty Union Party, it failed to win any, and it finished last in each. Given the low turnout, given that the participating electorate in this given year should have leaned more Republican and more conservative (i.e. older voters who tend to participate in off years, those motivated by distrust of pending government healthcare, etc.), it does not appear likely that the Libertarians will emerge as a meaningful political force in Vermont for the foreseeable future. Clearly Vermont is not ready to catapult from the most progressive state in the nation, to the most free market based in the nation.
Low turnout elections statistically favor the right. This was a very low turnout year (the lowest ever). The right (specifically the Republican Party) made some small gains. The further right (the Libertarians) failed to capitalize. On the left, the Democrats, perception aside, largely held the line. The Progressives made gains. The Liberty Union did better than expected. If this is the low water mark for voter participation, despite the discussions to the contrary, this would seem to signal looming trouble for Vermont Republicans (and Libertarians) in 2016. Come 2016 voter turnout will likely be 60-70% due to a Presidential contest. If this is the best that the right wing can muster in Vermont, it is a storm easily weathered. The trick for the left is not to let a few noises in the woods spook them away from the path of real reform. Kill single payer, and kill new attempts at expanding workers’ rights, and come the next midterm election, perhaps more than half the people will once again choose to stay home. And if the Democrats do not want to see their numbers erode further, perhaps they should implement such reforms now, instead of passing bills that achieve them at some point in the future (90% Renewable Energy: 2050, $10.50 Minimum Wage: 2018, Single Payer: 2017). In brief, people need to see improvements now. If not, maybe those who do vote in the next midterm election will continue to move in new directions.
March 1, 2015
Moretown Folks,
It has been my great honor and privilege to serve as your elected First Constable for three terms.[154] However, this year I have decided to step aside, and not put my name forth for reelection. I have made this decision in order to create more time to spend the next year focusing on my family (which now includes two young children), and my professional work as Senior Union Representative with the Vermont State Employes’ Association (specifically representing the 1200 Agency of Transportation workers throughout Vermont).
I was first elected Constable in 2007, then served two terms on the Select Board (2009-2011-Endorsed by the Progressive and Liberty Union Parties), and then again as Constable (endorsed by the Progressive Party). Prior to this (2006) I served our community one year as your delegate to the Regional Planning Commission. During all these times it was my absolute pleasure to work on behalf of this community which I love. It is therefore with some reluctance that I contemplate a Town Meeting Day for the first time in nine years where I will not be putting my name forward in the hopes of serving the People of Moretown. Even so, with a growing family, and given my responsibilities in serving Vermont’s hard working road crews (through the VSEA), it is the right decision at this time.
During my years as Constable I recall the most challenging time (not surprisingly) as during the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Irene. In the days following this disaster myself, Mike Demingware (the Second Constable), Raymond Munn (Fayston Constable), along with a number of volunteers from the Moretown Fire Department organized 24 hour patrols of the village, and manned roadblocks on the few remaining access ways leading into town. We also made a concerted effort to distribute boxes of National Guard issued food rations to isolated homesteads. Our goal on the patrols (especially concerning the ones at night) were to ensure the security of temporarily abandoned village homes and people’s personal belongings (much of which were drying out on people’s mud caked front yards). The point of the roadblocks were to exclude non-essential traffic into the Village (in order not to kick up more dust and/or create traffic related safety concerns for local volunteers). On these fronts I venture to say we were successful despite next to no sleep (for days on end). Eventually, through my (and the Select Board’s) direct discussions with the Governor Peter Shumlin [and US Senator Bernie Sanders], we were able to secure State Police night patrols which allowed myself and others to get some much needed sleep. And I, like the hundreds of folks that worked sun up to sun down getting the Village and peoples’ homes back in some kind of order, never charged the community even a penny for all the hours put in. But of course Irene was the exception…
More typically, perhaps in 2007, I remember getting a call from a neighbor on Jones Brook Road about a domesticated duck that had taken up residence under his house. On this occasion myself and a friend (Xavier Massot) spent an afternoon running around this house trying to capture the fugitive duck. In time, it was Xavier who had the genius idea of tossing his old army coat over the duck, at which point we apprehended the escapee. The next hour was spent trying to deduce who the duck belonged to (and it turned out it came down from another neighbor’s house on Herring Brook Road). Soon the case was closed, and I was able to have a beer and reflect on a day well spent!
In short, it has truly been an honor and a pleasure to serve on behalf of Moretown. Understand that even as I decline to run for local office on this particular Town Meeting Day, I remain dedicated to public service, and advancing the interests of Moretown’s (and Vermont’s) working families. In the coming days, weeks, and months I will be dedicating my political activities to turning back Governor Shumlin’s intentions to place what amounts to a special targeted tax on State workers (i.e. his desire to roll back modest agreed upon wage increases in an effort to fill a budget gap that his Administration created) and his intent to gut the public services that low income Vermonters are compelled to rely on (in order to maintain a modicum of dignity in their living standards). So while I more fully turn my attention to these difficult tasks, I offer support and well wishes to whoever wins the seat of Moretown’s First Constable.
In conclusion, I look forward to seeing each and every one of you, my friends and neighbors, this Tuesday, at Town Meeting Day. Solidarity!
Dave Van Deusen, March 1st, 2015
Moretown First Constable (until Tuesday)
Moretown, Vermont
From : TheAnarchistLibrary.org
Dave was elected President of the Vermont AFL-CIO on September 15th, 2019. He is a union rep for Vermont AFSCME members, previously a VSEA Union Rep, and still a Writer, and Harley Rider. (From: AFLCIO.org.)
No comments so far. You can be the first!
<< Last Entry in Anarchist, Socialist, & Anti-Fascist Writings of David Van Deusen 1995-2018 | Current Entry in Anarchist, Socialist, & Anti-Fascist Writings of David Van Deusen 1995-2018 Chapter 10 | Next Entry in Anarchist, Socialist, & Anti-Fascist Writings of David Van Deusen 1995-2018 >> |
All Nearby Items in Anarchist, Socialist, & Anti-Fascist Writings of David Van Deusen 1995-2018 | ||
