First, some housekeeping:

Look up to your right, above where it says, “Pages” and below the blue bar.

There’s the link to the VT Digger web sit.

The News Guy and VT Digger are going to be doing a little more cooperating. The News Guy will write some stories for VT Digger and occasionally run stories from the VT Digger site on this one.

Today’s (Wednesday’s) post originally appeared at VT Digger last Friday. Here it is, slightly tweaked, for News Guy readers.

What’s that? From the more perspicacious among you, one hears the question: Isn’t this cheating? After all, if we could have read this on another site some days ago, aren’t we missing out on one original post?

The defendant pleads semi-guilty with extenuating circumstances. First, this will not happen very often. Second, the News guy is now engaged in some complex, time–consuming research on a few potentially significant posts.

Oh, and OK, with the candor on which this site prides itself, yeah, this is also the time of year when a fella wants to spend a little time outside. Readers should understand. Are you Vermonters, or what?

OK, enough housekeeping. On to politics:

Some questions about the Democratic primary for governor:

–How did there get to be five (count ‘em—5) bona fide contenders?

–Didn’t anyone in the Democratic Party see that this could be a prescription for defeat and try to talk one or more of the five into running for lieutenant governor or…or whatever?

–If not, why not?

It isn’t that multi-candidate fields are unprecedented. Middlebury College political science professor Eric Davis said he could remember two occasions when several candidates vied for a major nomination in Vermont.

Six Republicans ran for the U.S. Senate nomination in 1980 when Sen. Pat Leahy was seeking his second term, and four Democrats ran for the open U.S. House seat in 1988, the one Rep. Jim Jeffords vacated to run for the Senate, Davis said.

But those were federal races. Besides, as Davis pointed out, “in both instances, the winner of the large-field primary lost the general election.”

Even if not unprecedented, five candidates for one nomination is unusual, especially because none of the five is a fringe candidate with no hope of victory. Right now in Maine, for instance, there are seven Republicans running for governor, but polls show that four of them are stuck with less than four percent of the vote with just a week to go (though with 47 percent undecided, anyone could win).

The Vermont contest starts off with no apparent front-runner. And unlike many multi-candidate fields, which feature two or three “serious” contenders and a wacko candidate or two (almost every state has its version of Vermont perennial candidate Peter Diamondstone) all five are mainstream Democrats with impressive credentials—three senior state senators, the incumbent Secretary of State, a former legislator who ran statewide once before.

Still, all that explains only what is happening, not why. To get to the ‘whys,’ return to those questions at the beginning, which can be combined into one question with a simple answer.

There are five Democrats in the race because all five wanted to run and there was no way to stop them.

“The problem with Vermont Democrats is that there’s been such a build-up of ambition after eight years of Jim Douglas that the minute he announced he wasn’t going to run, those horses were out of the barn,” said long-time Democratic strategist Steve Terry.

Despite the crowded field, from each candidate’s perspective, running now made perfect sense.

“If history any guide, whoever wins this year will end up serving at least six years,” said Davis, meaning that a politician with ambitions to be governor “really didn’t have much choice.”

Especially, Davis said, because all three Vermont seats in Washington are filled by strong incumbents who are likely to stay in office for several years. That makes the governorship the only realistic option.

So each candidate acted on his or her own, asking no one’s permission.

There’s nothing peculiar to Vermont about this phenomenon. All over the country, politics are becoming more candidate-driven, with party organizations diminishing in importance. Outside of a few outposts—Chicago, Newark, some counties in rural Texas and Kentucky—the days when a few movers and shakers made political decisions in a smoke-filled room are long gone, and not because hardly anybody smokes any more.

If Vermont ever had the kind of strong party structure where a few political leaders and major contributors could select a candidate—or scare one out of a primary race – it was long ago, Davis and Terry agreed.

“The parties never amounted a damn,” Terry said. “It’s all been individual. “

In Montpelier eateries (and drinkeries) one hears snatches of conversation wondering why party leaders didn’t “crack some heads,” as someone put it, to get one or two of the candidates out of the race. But the question seems to express a longing for a world that no longer exists, if it ever did in Vermont.

There is one report of an attempt by a few leading Democrats to urge former Sen. Matt Dunne, at 40 the youngest of the candidates, to run for lieutenant governor instead.  But Dunne said that while a few Democrats told him he’d be “a shoo-in” for lieutenant governor, “no one approached with anything remotely like strong pressure.”

Strong pressure doesn’t seem to work any more. It doesn’t even work when it does work. It is generally accepted in Democratic circles that Gov. Howard Dean pressured Sen. Peter Shumlin to run for lieutenant governor in 2002, leaving the top spot for then-Lt. Gov. Doug Racine. That avoided a primary, but both men lost anyway. Now they are two of the five contenders, along with Dunne, Secretary of State Deborah Markowitz ,and Sen. Susan Bartlett.

Both Davis and Terry said that only two Democrats –Leahy and  Dean—could possibly persuade a candidate to drop out or to seek another office.

But Leahy is running for his seventh term this year. If he had tried to push a candidate out of the race he would have risked offending that candidate and his/her supporters. No incumbent likes to upset part of his own political base.

Besides, Leahy has always kept his distance from the inner workings and internal divisions of the state’s Democratic Party. And so has Dean since he left the governorship in early 2003.

In some states there are alternative power centers that might pressure a candidate out of a race. If a Democrat in California, for instance, found that the Hispanic community was united against him, he might realizes his chances of victory were slim, and withdraw. The same would be true for a contender who offended African-Americans in Illinois, the Jewish community in New York, the United Auto Workers in Michigan, or the Roman Catholic Church in Rhode Island. In all those cases, a few carefully chosen words from a local power broker could convince someone not to run.

But Vermont has no comparable racial, ethnic, or labor constituencies. It doesn’t even have a potent big city Democratic organization because Democrats don’t control the closest thing Vermont has to a big city. And because there is no dominant industry in Vermont, there is no dominant fund-raising community.

Thanks to campaign finance laws, candidates have had to develop broad donor bases both in and out of the state. This diminishes the clout of any one contributor. Mr. Moneybags may give the candidate only $1,000. Even if he can convince a few of his friends to cough up a similar amount, he doesn’t have enough power to push anyone around.

The identifiable constituencies with some influence on Vermont Democrats – public employee and teachers unions, environmental organizations—are not political hard-ball players. The teachers union (the Vermont National Education Association) is likely to endorse one of the contenders, perhaps this week, spokesman Darren Allen said, but it made no effort to urge any candidate to drop out.

(Montpelier scuttlebutt, for what it is worth, holds that Racine or Dunne is the most likely endorsee).

Along with worrying about what Terry called a “bloodletting” that could tarnish the image of the eventual primary winner, it is the financial implications of the five-person field that Democrats worry about most.

“The winner will be financially exhausted August 24 (Primary Day),” Terry said, while Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie, the unopposed Republican,  “will have more than a million in the bank.” Like other Democrats, Terry wondered whether his party’s nominee would still be able to raise money from a possibly exhausted Democratic donor base.

But Davis said he thought the Democratic winner wouldn’t have to spend much on the campaign because it made little sense to buy broadcast television time during a summer campaign that will likely end with a low-turnout primary.

“I think it might not be a good investment,” he said. “I would be surprised if a candidate spent more than $50,000 (buying television time).”

Stressing direct mail, phone banks and personal campaigning, Davis said,  a Democrat might win the primary after spending only about $350,000, perhaps keeping competitive with Dubie for the fall campaign, which should cost each candidate somewhat more than another million dollars.

Another possible bright (or at least less dark) spot for the Democrats is that five-person races don’t often remain real five-person races. Within the next few weeks, two or three of the candidates, based on poll results and fund-raising reports, are likely to pull away from the others. The also-rans will then find it harder to raise money or be taken seriously (though perhaps also to resist the temptation to go on the attack.)

“By early July, we’ll know,” Davis said.

Leaving one more question: Just what will we know?

Now that the Legislative session is semi-officially over, the 2010 campaign for governor has semi-officially begun.

Of course, it semi- semi-officially began in January of 2009 (no, that was not a typo; that was 2009) when Sen. Doug Racine of Richmond said he would run.

But like two of his opponents – Sens. Peter Shumlin of Putney and Susan Bartlett of Hyde Park – Racine was otherwise occupied until May 13, when the Legislature adjourned, but with the proviso that it “reconvene on the ninth day of June, 2010, at ten o’clock in the forenoon if the Governor should fail to approve and sign any bill and should he return it to the house of origin.”

So technically the Legislature remains in session, which created a minor political flap when the campaign of Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie’s, the unchallenged Republican, solicited contributions from lobbyists for an event scheduled before the official adjournment. Realizing its error, the campaign promptly unsolicited.

But technically shmecknically. For all practical purposes, “The Ledge” (a term coined by the late Molly Ivins to describe the version down in Texas, but too good not to be given wider currency) is over, and the attention of the state’s politicians – and its journalists – can shift to the campaign. It has.

It will be a long campaign, and because brevity is a virtue, today’s exercise will focus on just two features, the second of which is an early assessment of how the campaign is going.

It is not going well.

But first, a warning of sorts. Each of the various players in this comedy-drama has his or her own role. The role here is to ride herd. This web site hereby appoints itself a (one of many, it is to be hoped) campaign truth squad. Every word said or written by every candidate or released in his or her name will be examined, be it in a speech, an interview, an advertisement, a web site communication. Misstatement, miscalculation, deception will be exposed.

Mercilessly.

And gleefully. The News Guy is indifferent as to who wins the August 24 Democratic primary or the general election in November. He is hostile – very hostile — to factual error, unsupported assertions, misuse of data, conclusions based on conjecture rather than verifiable truth, cheap shots, meaningless cant, and will take great joy in calling them out.

But not with a petty, “gotcha” attitude. Nits will be left un-picked. Minor errors, inconsistencies, and slips of the tongue during interviews or debates are…well, minor errors, inconsistencies, and slips of the tongue. The point of this exercise is not to catch candidates in the kind of trivial flubs everybody makes in spontaneous speech. It is to stop them from substantively misleading the electorate.

Now, as to this business about the campaign not going well.

OK, it’s early. There’s plenty of time left for improvement. The early signs, though, are not encouraging. Judging from the campaign web sites (which is where most of the activity takes place for now), the candidates seem to be heading toward a campaign which will be: (a) dominated by pabulum; and (b) about nothing.

Or, to say the same thing in different terms, about itself.

In fairness to Vermont politicians, this politics of the self-referential (post-modern politics?) is a nationwide phenomenon. All over the country, races are being won or lost not according to any candidate’s vision of the future or position on substantive issues, but on who ran the less honorable campaign (“He did.” No, he did.”) and whose commercials were more misleading.

The scary, early, signs that Vermont may be headed in that direction came in the flapette between the campaigns of Democrats Matt Dunne and Secretary of State Deb Markowitz following Dunne’s call for all the contenders to reveal their personal financial assets.

Racine agreed. Shumlin called the idea “Montpelier parlor games.” Bartlett said voters are “concerned about their future and the future of Vermont, not the details of my finances.” But the Markowitz campaign launched a counter-attack against Dunne.

“If this was anything more than political posturing Sen. Dunne would have used his 11 years in the legislature to make this Vermont law,” campaign manager Paul Tencher said. “He also would have advised his opponents of his request before holding a press conference.” (all this according to a May 14 story in the Times-Argus).

He did both, shot back Dunne’s campaign manager, Kevin O’Holleran.

Apparently he did. In 1994, Dunne was a major backer (though not the sponsor) of H-830, which would have required the kind of disclosure he now supports. It failed.

On the issue, Dunne would appear to have a strong case. In both politics and government (except for the Legislature) Vermont’s disclosure and transparency requirements are weak. In many states candidates now have to reveal their financial assets. In theory, there is always the possibility that a candidate could hold huge blocks of stock in say, Entergy, or Corrections Corporation of America. If so, voters ought to know that.

But Bartlett is right, too. Voters care about what the candidates plan to do in office, not their portfolios. In her case, she and her husband reported income last year of less than $100,000. Assuming they don’t have the most incompetent financial advisor in captivity, they don’t own enough stock in anything to rise to the conflict-of-interest level. Neither, in all likelihood, do the other contenders.

Yet this is so far what the campaign is about. Whoever thinks it’s about anything else is invited to check the web sites and look for specific proposals or substantive ideas.

Good hunting.

Well, Bartlett may have one, worthy of future consideration. Check it out here. But for the most part, the sites are full of tedious jargon and tired slogans designed only to offend no one. As a result, they also interest no one.

Two items deserve special mention. Dunne’s web site notes that “at age 22,  Matt’s neighbors elected him to the Vermont Legislature,” which is probably not true. Because what it says is that all of Dunne’s neighbors were 22 when they elected him to the legislature, which seems unlikely.

Then there is the latest advertisement on Dubie’s web site. It’s called “Pure Vermont” and manages, in three minutes and 26 seconds, to say almost nothing. But at the end, walking along a lakeshore, Dubie and his wife tell each other they love one another.

It could be along five months.

But first, some correction and amplification:

Until about 1:15 PM Friday, readers of Friday’s post may have understood that the State Senate was toying with the idea of diverting $6.89, otherwise known as six dollars and eighty-nine cents, from one fund to another.

Presumably most readers of this web site are alert, more alert in this case than is, at least sometimes, the writer of this web site, and understood that what the meant was $6.89 million.

But what’s few zeros among friends? And thanks to the readers who noted the omission.

Also, Sen. Ann Cummings is chair of the Senate Finance committee, not, as Friday’s post said (again, until corrected), the Appropriations Committee. Susan Bartlett is Appropes chair.

Something else was absent from Friday’s post because it was not clear on Thursday, at least not to the News Guy, and apparently not to many legislators. That $10 million to be raised by considering some capital assets – expensive houses, stocks and bonds, etc. – when applying the “income sensitivity” provision on the statewide school property tax is not slated to go into the Education Fund.

Instead, for the first time, money from the school property tax would go into the General Fund.

Like any policy change, this one might be defensible, or even wise. But it does stretch if not violate the understanding that the school property tax would be used to support the schools, not the rest of state government. It’s only $10 million, but when it comes to taxes, experience shows that the first exception is rarely the last.

Now, to today’s main order of business, also inspired by readers who have communicated by email, old-fashioned phone calls, and even older-fashioned personal conversations (you may remember them; the kind where the conversers are actually in the same place at the same time).

The question: why, right after the entire United State Government adopts a comprehensive change in the health care financing system, is the Vermont Legislature passing a bill to study comprehensive change in the state’s health care system?

Good question, because it can be answered with one word: politics.

That’s a description, not a condemnation. Politics, the method by which free people govern themselves, is not a pejorative. It’s a reality.

The political reality against which lawmakers have based their political decision to pass S.88 http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2010/bills/Senate/S-088.pdf (in separate House and Senate versions that have yet to be resolved) is that Vermont is home to a politically significant  minority of voters who are convinced of the superiority of a ‘single-payer’ health care financing system—basically Medicare for everyone.

No, that was an understatement. These folks are not merely convinced of the superiority of a single payer system; they are committed to such a system with a fervor approaching that of a religious zealot’s  devotion to his faith, with comparable intolerance toward dissent.

This too is description not (except for the intolerance part) condemnation. Clearly, there is a case to be made for a single-payer system. It is how most civilized (prosperous, democratic) countries finance health care. In those countries, everyone is covered, they live longer, healthier lives than Americans, and it’s all done for a lot less money per person.

The focus here today. Though, is not on the policy, but on the politics, the first requirement of which is, in the words of  Richard J. Daley to “know how to count,” raising the question of how big is this constituency of single-payer enthusiasts.

Not very. Nobody has polled on the matter, but we are almost surely talking about less than 10 percent of the adult Vermont population, though probably more than five percent. For purposes of discussion, then, let’s say seven percent, or about 20,000 voters.

Ah, but it’s a strategically positioned seven percent. Just about every one of them identifies with either the Democratic or the Progressive Parties. Furthermore, just about every man (and woman)-jack of them will vote. Unless the Progressive Party puts up its own candidate for governor, most of them will vote in the Democratic primary in August. In what is likely to be a low-turnout election, this faction will make far more than seven percent. It could come close to a majority.

Obviously, then, two outcomes Democrats – and especially Democratic candidates for governor — want to avoid are: (1) Displeasing these primary voters and (2) Annoying the Progressives so much that they decide to find a gubernatorial candidate of their own, who would siphon off more votes from the Democratic contender than from Republican, Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie. Months ago the Progs declared that Democratic support for a single-payer health care system was among their sina qua nons for staying out of the race.

So it should be no surprise that Sen. Doug Racine, one of the five Democrats running for governor, introduced the bill to engage a consultant to study health care reform, with specific directions to look into the single-payer option. No surprise either that few Democrats opposed it.

There is no suggestion here of insincerity or cynicism on the part of Racine or the other Democrats. Racine has long been a single-payer proponent. He no doubt thinks it would benefit Vermont, and he could be right.

(Or not. If there is a strong case for the entire nation to adopt a single-payer system, there is an equally strong case for a single state to avoid it, for reasons to be discussed in another post soon).

Nor is the earnestness of other Democrats and Progressives in the Legislature open to doubt. Judging from a couple of overheard conversations outside the second floor cafeteria in the Statehouse the other day, some of them are so solemn and intense about the subject that they may have lost touch with reality.

But sincerity and political self-interest are not mutually exclusive, and there seems little doubt that whatever else they may be doing, the Democrats are pandering to one of their core constituencies. Absent that intense minority of single-payer enthusiasts, this bill might never have come before the Legislature.

Again, this is observation, not condemnation. All political factions pander to constituencies. Gov. Jim Douglas, for instance,, has of late been pandering to the home builders and the all-terrain vehicle riders. Politicians not only have to pander, but up to a point they should. It’s part of democracy.

The point at which they should not pander, of course, is reached when the interest of the pandered-to constituency is actually contrary to the public interest. But that does not seem to be the case here. The worst that can be said about this consultant study is that it will spend $250,000 that may not have to be spent. As unnecessary expenditure, this is small potatoes, and for a function likely to be more productive than the comparable expenditure on the pointless pornography-detecting software the Douglas Administration is in the process of installing on state computer systems.

Besides, the process might do some good. The consulting firm is likely to look at the possibility of replacing the fee-for-service method of paying doctors. Many health care economists consider fee-for-service second only to the high price of prescription drugs as an explanation for why health care is so much more expensive in the U.S. than elsewhere.

But the consultant report will not pave the way for Vermont to adopt a single-payer health care system. That’s because Vermont, on its own, is not going to adopt such a system, not now, and possibly not ever. Federal law forbids it until at least 2017, and while Congress could theoretically grant the state a waiver from the prohibition, the prudent Vermonter would be advised neither to hold his/her breath nor to bet next month’s mortgage payment on that outcome.

The real – if not, it should be stressed, the intended — purpose of this legislation is not to change Vermont’s health care system. It is to send a signal to a small but potent constituency. It seems to have worked.