The fight is on, and it promises to be a humdinger.

Attack and counter-attack. Quick response. Thrust and parry. Jab and hook. Give no ground or quarter. The best defense is…well, you get the picture.

All of which is lots of fun, but threatens to obscure the meaningful substantive differences between Republican Brian Dubie and either Peter Shumlin or Doug Racine.

In fact, “obscure,” may understate the case. “Pervert” could be more appropriate. The barbs each side is throwing at the other seem designed to convince voters that the opposition is extremist: that the Democrat would raise everybody’s taxes; that Dubie would permit the poor to starve on the sidewalks.

Not hardly.

As mentioned here the other day, the winner will be governor, not emperor. Even if Shumlin/Racine wanted to raise everybody’s taxes, the Legislature would not. Nor would it allow the poor to starve on the sidewalks.

Besides, the Democrats, who are prudent, do not want to raise everybody’s (or anybody’s) taxes, and Dubie, who is decent, does not want the poor to suffer at all, much less starve on the sidewalks.

“People who depend on vital state services are not going to be abandoned by state government,” said Dubie campaign spokesperson Kate Duffy.

Even the semi-defensible attacks are a bit over the top. There is some justification for Shumlin to argue that Dubie’s economic policies would lead to “deficits, unending deficits, tax cuts for the wealthiest Vermonters and budgets that don’t balance.”  Dubie’s determination to cut taxes and his vagueness about what programs he would cut do complicate the budget-balancing task.

But in addition to redundancy (deficits are “budgets that don’t balance”), the attack ignores Dubie’s pledge that tax cuts “won’t happen in one big step or one year,” but would be “incremental.”

Similarly, Dubie may not be dead wrong when he claims the Democrats have “only two solutions for the challenges we face: more government spending and higher taxes.” Both Shumlin and Racine are on record in the past favoring new programs and higher spending. But while they still favor  some new state initiatives, they are not for higher taxes.

Besides, there’s another candidate who proposes new government spending: Brian Dubie. The jobs plan in his “Pure Vermont” document calls for the state to “increase support for (Vermont Economic Development Authority’s) highly successful interest rate subsidy program,” “ increase public investment in the new Technology Lending Program,” “add support for (Small Business Development Center) counseling,” and create an investment tax credit.

All that costs money. Yet the heart of Dubie’s campaign is to hold the state budget to spending increases of  two percent a year. Because revenue is projected to rise at a higher rate, a Dubie Administration could then cut income taxes by a total of $240 million over four years.

This means, said  Duffy, that Dubie’s plan “is not making any cuts.” State spending, she said, would continue to rise, just more slowly than it has been rising, and more slowly than revenue would rise.

Dubie’s arithmetic is correct, except that he first pledges to close the projected $112 million deficit for the coming Fiscal Year (2012). That would require a spending cut of more than 9 percent, creating a new base. Increasing spending by two percent a year for the next four years on top of that new base would mean that spending would fall by an annual rate of about three-quarters of a percent over a five-year period. Extend the same policy out another five years, and spending does go up, but only at an average annual rate of slightly more than one percent.

That might be the smallest growth rate of state spending in decades, if not a century, raising questions about how realistic the plan is. Dubie claimed that in the early 1990s, Gov. Howard Dean actually level-funded (no increase) spending over a three-year period, a harsher reduction than Dubie’s proposed two percent growth.

Not really. Check the esoteric document available from the Joint Fiscal Office web site’s “Appropriations” page,called “Budget History FY 83-present.” It shows that while the General Fund budget actually went down for one year under Dean, it then started up again, and over a five-year period it rose by an annual rate of 3.4 percent a year.

That document provides other interesting information, both casting doubt on the assertion that Dean really “level-funded” spending and confirming that budgeting is a creative art. In those same recession years that Dean was spending less out of the General Fund, some new expenditures are recorded in the Transportation Fund.

Could it be that the state was using Transportation Fund money (financed from gasoline taxes, auto registration, etc) for non-transportation purposes? The document suggests, but does not prove, that the answer to that question is in the affirmative.

If so, it would not be unusual, in Vermont or elsewhere. One reason for that $112 million projected shortfall for the next Fiscal Year, for instance, is that the Legislature and Gov. Jim Douglas have been effectively filching from the Education Fund by not transferring into it as much General Fund money as the law required. (Legislatures and governors, who make laws, can change them as an alternative to obeying them). Reached at home where he did not have access to his records, Joel Cook, the executive director of the Vermont National Education Association, estimated that the shortfall was at least $50 million.

If the Legislature doesn’t repay that (as it said it would) or come up with enough money again this year, the Education Fund could be short tens of millions of dollars. That would require either deep cuts in school spending or substantial increases in local property taxes.

This poses a potential political problem for Dubie. He wants to cut everybody’s income tax rate by about a third, reducing the top rate from nine to six percent and the lower rates comparably. That’s good politics; everybody likes lower taxes.

But the Democrats will try to convince voters that the result would be higher property taxes, which are the taxes Vermonters really dislike. Democrats are already making that argument as well as claiming that, in Racine’s words, Dubie’s “numbers just don’t add up.”

“He wants to add money for various business promotion efforts…but he wants to cut taxes,” Racine said in a telephone interview. “This sounds like the federal budget discussion. Make promises of higher spending for business and lower taxes for everybody. That’s Washington. We don’t do that here in Vermont.”

That’s harsh, but standard political rhetoric. What came out of the Dubie campaign late yesterday may have crossed the line from standard to…well, to  false. In a statement released yesterday afternoon, Dubie said Racine had wanted to use money from the state’s “Rainy Day Fund” to “expand government-run services,” and that he opposed the “Challenges for Change” plan to make government more efficient.

The first of those accusations is simply incorrect. Racine has suggested dipping into the reserve funds, but only to support existing social service programs, not to “expand” government service. The second charge is minimally defensible, but a stretch. Racine supported “Challenges for Change” during this year’s legislative session, voting for it at least twice,  though he voted against the final Fiscal Year 2011 budget which incorporated “Challenges.”

“Fundamentally, Brian is a decent man,” Racine said. “If he wants to disagree with me, that’s fine. But don’t be deceitful.”

It could be a long two months.

School starts this week (where it didn’t already start), as does – despite this year’s weird delay – Vermont’s general election campaign.

The two are related.

Whether they should be is a matter of legitimate disagreement. Some argue that education should not be “politicized.” Perhaps not. But it always has been and always will be, if only (and not only) because education accounts for more state and local tax dollars than any other function of government.

And this year, there’s little doubt that Republican Brian Dubie and either Democrat, Peter Shumlin or Doug Racine, will have very different ideas about schools and how to pay for them.

So the News Guy today begins a series of several connected (though not consecutive) posts about Vermont schools – what’s wrong with them and what’s right; how much they cost and how they’re financed; what the candidates are saying about them.

Consider this post a general introduction, but one that will pose some impolite if not downright insolent questions, starting with this one: is the whole “school reform” movement embraced by both liberals and conservatives – the one calling for more transparency, accountability, and innovation – a lot of hooey?

Especially, perhaps, in Vermont, where according to the standards by which American schools are judged, the schools are quite good.

Some qualification: That question is a question, not an allegation or even a suggestion. Nor should it imply opposition to transparency, accountability or innovation, just some doubts about how those values are applied to American public schools.

And those italicized words two paragraphs above are emphasized because there is a plausible case to be made that schools in all 50 states aren’t very good, that American public education has become so preoccupied by process that it does not adequately transmit knowledge. (To be examined in a future post).

Though it received little attention, the State Board of Education on August 17 voted to adopt “Common Core State Standards” in math and English, actually a national standard promoted by the U.S. Department of Education, precisely the kind of step urged by “school reform” advocates.

At first glance, at least, this policy might be a step toward transmitting more knowledge. But as the Board acknowledged this transition “will certainly come with cost,” as schools and the State Education Department junk their old curriculum programs and the New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) testing they have been using for years.

How much cost? The board didn’t say. But with the state likely to cut back on its share of school funding, any cost increase seems likely to fall on property taxes.

That’s one reason to be wary of school reform, and not the only one in Vermont. Earlier this summer, to qualify for $1.2 million in federal aid, the Burlington school district fired Joyce Irvine as principal of the Integrated Arts Academy. By almost all accounts Irvine was an excellent principal, but the school was “failing,” as measured by test scores, and the federal rules required a rough response – such as firing the principal – as a condition of more aid.

But the school did not “fail” because Irvine was a bad principal. It “failed” because it is chock full of children from poor families and immigrant children who do not speak English. Of course those kids do poorly in standardized tests.

There is only one word to describe Irvine’s dismissal: stupid. Not that the Burlington school officials were stupid; they did what they had to do to get the money they thought they needed. The whole structure is stupid, raising an interesting question: is school reform going to teach children that stupidity is the path to success?

None of this means that schools could not and should not be better, nor that, in Vermont, they might be cheaper. But it does raise questions about the wisdom (lack of stupidity?) of some of the “school reform” movement’s specific proposals.

One pet idea of some school reformers can be ignored– vouchers, or “school choice” as its promoters prefer, under which all parents would get vouchers to send their children to any public, private, or parochial school. This will not happen. It has fervent and well-financed devotees. But it is dead.

Who says? The American people. Voucher plans were put to public referenda in ten locations, including such large states as California and Michigan, in the 1990s. The results were clear. Even though in every case the early polls predicted easy approval, voters rejected all ten by large margins.

No, the pro-voucher side was not outspent. Instead the voters learned something during the campaigns. What they learned was that in the final analysis the “choice” (Americans love choice, which explains those early poll results) lies not with the parents or children, but with the private schools that taxpayer-funded vouchers would support. If it is not discriminating on the basis of race, religion, sex (or, in some states, sexual orientation), a private school may accept or reject any applicant for any reason or for none at all.

With few exceptions, the voucher advocates know they’ve lost. That’s why they’ve retreated to their drop-back position, charter schools. These are public schools operated by private (including for-profit) entities which are exempt from the some of the restrictions and requirements applied to conventional public schools.

Charter schools have not been rejected by the public. Furthermore, some of them seem to be quite good.

But others are quite bad, and on balance standardized tests reveal no convincing evidence that charter schools are any better than regular public schools. A report last year by Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO)found that “a decent fraction of charter schools, 17 percent, provide superior education opportunities for their students. Nearly half…have results that are no different from the local public school options and over a third, 37 percent, deliver learning results that are significantly worse than their students would have realized had they remained in traditional public schools.”

In general, studies have found that students who benefit most from charter schools are poor, minority, children whose alternative is an inner-city school, often in a troubled neighborhood. There are, for all practical purposes, no such schools in Vermont. Still, education reformers recommend establishing charter schools around the state.

A good idea? Or an effort to fix something that ain’t broken?

One more observation before ending this introductory post, an observation for which no special expertise about education is needed. If improving schools is the object, making war on the teachers makes no sense.

This does not mean that teachers or their union should be coddled or granted every wish. The National Education Association is a union like any other. It always asks for more than it can or should (or knows it will) get. In this whiney society, teachers tend to be whinier than most, their closest competitors being building contractors, hunters, and farmers, the last of whom have somewhat more justification for their complaints.

Still teachers are  the employees of the entire community, and dissing your employees is not the way to get the most out of them. Like firing a good principal, it’s just plain stupid.

Yet some folks seem to get their jollies by bashing the teaching profession. One wonders where (or if) they went to school.

He'll debate

No, Brian Dubie is not trying to wiggle his way out of debates with his Democratic opponent by arguing that the five independent candidates for governor deserve to join them.

Oh, he thinks they do deserve to join them. But he understands that it isn’t up to him to set the debate rules.

“In theory,” said Dubie campaign spokeswoman Kate Duffy, “Brian does think it’s fair for every candidate whose name is on the ballot to have a chance to…participate in the debate process. But we have not made that a condition to our participation in any debate. We are coming to the debates we have been invited to.”

So there will be two-man debates between Dubie and whoever ends up with the Democratic nomination.

(Concealed Editor: ‘You mean two-person debates, don’t you, because Deb Markowitz could still win that final count of last Tuesday’s primary?’ Response: ‘OK, OK, but it’s more likely to be Peter Shumlin or Doug Racine).

(And for your datebooks, the sponsors and dates of the debates to which Dubie has been invited, Duffy said, are: Vermont Public Radio September 15; AARP at the Doubletree Hotel in South Burlington September 26; Vermont Press Association at St. Michael’s College October 3; Vermont Public Television October 7; WPTZ-TV at Echo Center  October 19; WCAX-TV October 23).

This little flapette emerged because Dubie has a history of being, shall we say, less than enthusiastic about debating his opponents (as Shay Totten of Seven Days documented last year),  and because during a press conference the other day, Dubie indicated he looked favorably on the idea of inviting at least one of the independent candidates to a debate.

But even if Dubie doesn’t want to debate (and there is no evidence that this is the case), he wouldn’t dare try to use the five fringe candidates as his excuse. If he said he would only debate if one or more of the other five got to participate, no one would believe him. Voters would just assume that he was afraid to debate his Democratic opponent one-on-one. It would be politically foolish, and there is no reason to think Dubie a political fool.

In short, the narrow question – will there be debates between the major-party candidates for governor? – is a non-story. There will be. What remains is the broader question – should the five independent candidates who qualified for a spot on the ballot be invited to debates?

Dubie apparently thinks so. His view, Duffy said, is that “debates are a very important part of the campaign process, and he would like everyone to have a chance to have voices heard.”

Who can argue with that? Is this America, or what? No one has the right to silence anyone else or to prevent dissident voices from being heard. The people have the right to be exposed to all points of view.

On the other hand, this being America, anyone may argue with anything. This being America, no voice may be silenced by the state. But (this still being America) no one may be forced to provide a platform for a voice he or she judges unworthy of being heard.

Let’s understand at the outset that no voice is being silenced. The five independent candidates have web sites which any voter who has an Internet connection or a nearby public library (and that’s everyone) can click into and read to his/her heart’s content. Furthermore, all five may go into any town in this state, pass out leaflets, make a speech on the village square, visit the local radio station and weekly newspaper office, or shake hands in the coffee shop.

In other words, they may campaign. They have that right.

But there is no right to be invited by private entities that want to sponsor debates. They have rights, too, including the right to choose which candidates to invite. While there would be nothing wrong if one such entity wanted to sponsor a debate and invite all seven candidates, there are good reasons for inviting only Dubie and the Democrat.

Only one of those two will become governor. These debates are public services, and the public wants to see and hear those two so they can choose between them. Bringing another one, two, or five candidates who can’t possibly win only takes time away from the two viable contenders.

Which might be worthwhile if one of the fringe candidates had anything interesting to say. Campaigns are primarily political; their purpose is to choose the office-holder. But they are partly intellectual. If a candidate who can’t win can nevertheless inform or enlighten – such as, say, the eminent biologist Barry Commoner did when he ran for president in 1980 – that candidate ought to get a little more platform time than one merely mouthing ideological clichés or gratifying his/her ego.

Alas, this year’s five independent candidates for governor fall far short of the Commoner standard. This judgment has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with their policies. Indeed, the News Guy finds a few of their proposals rather appealing, But they are all – based on their web sites and other statements – intellectually  unimpressive.

They are:

–Cris Ericson, a one-issue candidate whose issue is legalizing marijuana and whose “official campaign slogan is ‘Please! People Lovingly Educating and Saving Everyone.”

–Emily Peyton, whose platform combines some reasonable proposals (a state bank) with others such as a “Vermont Unit of exchange (VU) to protect our state from Federal Insolvency” which might politely be described as dreamy.

–Ben Mitchell also has no web site but has some connection to the Liberty Union Party, which does (and who is technically running as the candidate of the Socialist Party). In an interview with Seven Days, Mitchell conceded that he was “not running to win (but just) sitting around for office.” Mitchell calls himself a socialist, but goes into no detail.

–Dan Feliciano who wants to “cut waste…while improving productivity,” as does everyone.

–Dennis Steele, who wants Vermont to secede from the United States. Vermont is not going to do any such thing. On his web site, Steele proclaims that, “the biggest challenge facing Vermont is neither jobs, health care, energy, nor education but rather the American Empire.  The American Empire is the largest, most powerful, most materialistic, most environmentally destructive, most racist, most militaristic, most violent empire of all-time.  Not only is it owned, operated, and controlled by Wall Street, Corporate America, and the Israeli Lobby, but it is unsustainable, ungovernable, and, therefore, unfixable.”

And he expects to be taken seriously?

They all have a right to campaign. The rest of us have the right to refuse to pay them any mind.

But before we leave, a political-grammatical note on the race that’s shaping up as perhaps the state’s meanest, the one between incumbent Republican (though elected as a Democrat) Auditor Tom Salmon and Democrat Doug Hoffer.

On Salmon’s campaign web site, he said that during the Democratic primary campaign against Ed Flanagan, Hoffer “came across as self-righteous and nasty with his dramatic criticisms of Ed and I.”

Elected officials should set a better example for the young (and for that matter the not-so-young). That should have been “Ed and me,” Mr. Auditor.

As for Hoffer, perhaps he could use a proofreader. His web site talked about something happening “throughout sstate government.”

Note: The News Guy will NOT be on Vermont Public Television’s ‘Vermont This Week’ this evening after all. What with all the political turmoil, the station decided that instead of the usual mid-afternoon taping, it would air the show live at 7:30, which presented a scheduling conflict.