|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Published attack piece from my opponent, then re-wrote my response and published it without my consent
By Joe Gervais
The gross bias in the national media is apparent for all to see, but it is important to know that it is just as bad in our local news outlets here in Vermont.
The Manchester Journal recently published an attack piece by one of my opponents in the Bennington Senate race, Democrat Seth Bongartz, which was filled with a number of misdirections from the truth and outright falsehoods about the “Unaffordable” Heat Act. I submitted my own op-ed in rebuttal. Without my knowledge or consent the editors at the paper substantially re-wrote my piece and published it under my name, which is, I believe, highly unethical. It is certainly dishonest.
Here is what I wrote in full, with text in bold indicating places where the editor at the paper removed or re-wrote the language I submitted, in a piece headlined: “Gervais: Bongartz is misleading voters about Clean Heat Standard Cost/Status.”
In his recent attack on myself and Spike Whitmire, Seth Bongartz makes multiple, verifiably false claims about the Clean Heat Standard in an attempt to unjustly smear myself and Spike, while deceiving you about his own voting record. I’d like to remind Rep. Bongartz and the voting public of Article 9 of the Vermont Constitution: “and previous to any law being made to raise a tax, the purpose for which it is to be raised ought to appear evident to the Legislature to be of more service to community than the money would be if not collected.” This November who you elect is a referendum on continuing or halting the progressive supermajority’s money grab. Regarding the Bongartz commentary, here are the receipts:
Bongartz asserts that a “carbon surcharge” will not be added on home heating fuels to meet legislated mandates under a Clean Heat Standard program. Untrue. Of course there will be. There has to be a surcharge/fee/tax/ on heating fuel because that’s where revenue to fund the program comes from. Without it, there is no program.
Bongartz says that the Clean Heat Standard will help Vermonters “…by doing things like weatherizing or installing heat pumps.” Okay. Where does the government get the money to pay for weatherizing homes and subsidizing heat pumps? The Carbon Fee on your oil, kerosene, propane, and gas bill. In fact, § 8125 (a) of Act 18 specifically describes the “obligated entities who pay the per credit fee to the default delivery agent…” The cost of that fee, a de facto excise tax on carbon, will be reflected in your heating bill. How much?
Here Bongartz is correct when he states the $3.00 per gallon estimate we referenced in our flyer is irrelevant as a newer more detailed analysis done by the firm NV5 through the Department of Public Service has since been published. The new, relevant estimates indicate a total $10 billion cost for the Clean Heat Standard over 25 years. Table 28 of the NV5 final report obfuscates the estimated price of the carbon credit per fuel type in dollars per million BTUs, rather than dollars per gallon. These figures translates into a $1.79-$4.03 per gallon program cost (fee) on oil and kerosene, and a $0.95-$2.12 per gallon fee on propane, which you the customer will ultimately pay.
Bongartz wants you to think the Clean Heat Standard law he voted to pass was just a study, pleading, “Act 18 of 2023 kicked off a two-year process to explore a ‘clean heat standard’…” This is grossly misleading. Act 18 says, “§ 8122. (a) The Clean Heat Standard is established. Under this program, obligated parties shall reduce greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the Vermont thermal sector by retiring required amounts of clean heat credits to meet the thermal sector portion of the greenhouse gas emission reduction obligations of the Global Warming Solutions Act.” “§ 8122. (d) The Commission shall adopt rules and may issue orders to implement and enforce the Clean Heat Standard program.”
So, in voting for Act 18, Bongartz and his colleagues made it against the law for Vermont to NOT have a Clean Heat Standard. They committed themselves and us to establishing this program, and beyond that, they mandated that it must be on the scale necessary – with whatever price tag comes with that – to meet the thermal sector greenhouse gas reduction mandates of the Global Warming Solutions Act. Now that the word is getting out that the price tag is $10 billion, Bongartz and the Supermajority are scrambling for cover.
The only aspect of the Clean Heat Standard that has not been implemented directly under Act 18 is the rules that will govern the clean heat credit market, which, as Bongartz correctly points out, are currently being developed by the Public Utilities Commission. Those rules have to be approved by the newly elected legislature after it convenes in January for the program to go into effect.
[What follows was completely deleted].
If no rules pass, the Clean Heat Standard and its carbon fee/tax/surcharge will be mothballed until such time as rules do pass. Let’s hope that’s never! But that depends on who you elect this November (or now by early mail in ballot).
You the voters have to decide who you trust to make the decision about whether or not to hit the brakes on a $10 billion program funded by a (using the language in the law) “per credit fee” on heating fuel that could potentially lead to $7-8 per gallon oil. Bongartz, who voted for the Clean Heat Standard and voted to override Governor Scott’s veto. Cynthia Browning, who voted for the Global Warming Solutions Act (the root cause of the CHS) and voted to override Governor Scott’s veto. Steve Berry, who was an outspoken advocate for a carbon tax on fossil fuels when in the House. Or Joe Gervais and Spike Whitmire who have both pledged to vote NO on any bill that will lead to any increased costs on Vermonters trying to stay warm in winter.
Vermonters can’t afford this. Certainly not on top of the property tax increase the supermajority just handed us, the 20% higher DMV fees, higher health insurance premiums, higher electric rates, and the new payroll tax coming out of all of our salaries. We need to get spending and taxing under control. And that’s why I’m asking for your vote.
- Joe Gervais
Here’s the letter I sent to the editor after seeing the Op-Ed I didn’t write appear under my name.
Cherise,
It was incredibly unprofessional of the Manchester Journal editors to rewrite my article and print words and convey ideas that are not mine and do not represent my positions as a candidate under my name without first getting approval from me for those very substantial changes.
Given the thoroughness in “fact checking” my piece, I’m curious if the Bongartz piece was fact checked and if so, how did so many verifiable false statements get missed. Every claim Bongartz disputed in his piece was either true or a matter of interpretation.
In the commentary I wrote, the word “will” be passed along to the customer was changed to “may,” despite the FACT that fuel dealers testified on multiple occasions that 100% of these costs will be and must be passed along to the customer, as they are not able to absorb them. Even drafters of the law such as Sen. Chris Bray admit when pressed that, yes, it is a fact that these costs will be passed along.
Fact – there is no “proposed” clean heat standard as you modified my second paragraph. It is established as you correctly published in the fifth paragraph. The only thing that remains proposed are the rules that will govern the established program.
In the fifth paragraph you published, it was disingenuous to delete the reference to the NV5 study program costs and just state Bongartz was correct, when I was pointing out it could be MORE than the $3 Bongartz refuted, which is a FACT cited directly from the NV5 report.
I’d like to know what is factually incorrect about the last two and a half paragraphs of my original submission and why it was cut. Space does not appear to be a concern as you cut a good 200 words compared the Bongartz attack piece.
Author’s post-script to readers: I’ll let you know when and if I hear back from them and what they do, if anything.
Joe Gervais of Arlington is a GOP nominee for the Bennington County two-seat state senate district.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
sop in Vermont, it’s a real problem.
How come neither party talks about this?
They both benefit from censorship and lies.
We can to much better in Vermont, much better.
Guy thank you again for allowing open comments on your publication. Kudos!
and Just think VPR and VTDigger will be hosting all the debates, we won’t see any discussion what soever on behalf of Vermonters, it will be completely rigged for the uniparty……..they don’t want change in Montpelier.
I suppose there is no legal recourse. I do hope you both pursue one despite the unlikely outcome. Remember in the old days, they used to drive around in station wagons with a speaker on top saying, “Vote for John Doe” and other campaign slogans. Might’ve been a flatlander thing.
He can force them to publish a retraction, that is his only recourse I believe. I would do it if I were him just to make sure that it’s been corrected.
I think not publishing the retractions is where legal can get involved. Look into how O’Keefe did that for his wall of shame or whatever he called it.
Bongartz is an out-and-out Communist, blocks emails & phone numbers from his constituents once he discerns they dare to oppose his radical policies, (which is not merely contemptible but UNCONSTITUTIONAL in VT), and is very effectively in the process of absolutely destroying Manchester and southern VT specifically with his obsessive drive to “diversify” it, build endless amounts of low income housing, and force “restorative” justice & the emptying of prisons.
The degenerates, illegals, and drug criminals now roving that once safe & pretty little town is a crying shame. Locals who are paying attention are fleeing, whilst second homeowners are unknowingly & unwittingly still plunking down hard-earned money to purchase them & their family what they believe might be a nice escape from the rat race. It won’t be.
Vote for GERVAIS if you want a representative who will work as hard as he can to salvage VT, work for the rights of all Vermonters, and demonstrate respect to those who pay the bills around there: The People!
My friend refers to the Manchester Journal as the Manchester Urinal. The term is well deserved.
GOOD LUCK, Joe!
It is absolutely shameful and ‘cheap’ how (some) biased VT papers feel they have to lie and delete facts to get support for THEIR favorite candidates!!! They all seem afraid to hear the truth and know that if the voters hear said truth, Prog candidates will lose their seats and the newspapers will be shunned, as well they should be!
These amateur ‘jugglers’ of factual data ought to be reeducated as to what makes a good and fair newspaper.
Joe this is the managing editor and calmly ask him to print a retraction on what is factually wrong.
Cherise Forbes, (802) 447-7567, ext. 104, cforbes@manchesterjournal.com
If he is incorrectly quoting and you have proof and it damages your reputation or misrepresents your views (especially before an election) then I believe (I’m no lawyer and too honest to be one) it would be defamation. Of course proving that or having the money to prove that is an entirely different thing.
Thank you, Brian. I have already reached out to Ms. Forbes 72 hours ago, and have had no response.
Depending on how you feel about it you could spend 50 bucks and have a lawyer send the request, might carry more weight. I would at least up the ante a bit by explaining that it’s defamation, and potentially election interference especially if they are incorrectly explaining your views on an article you submitted to them.
Was there any fine print on the submission? Seems so trashy to do that honestly.
Maybe they are reading this comment…
I’ve been an editor and writer for nearly 40 years, for various outlets including newspapers. You NEVER change the content of an op-ed without permission. I’m stating the obvious, since an “opinion editorial” is exclusively the views of the author, or why bother to print it at all? Generally, and particularly in this situation, you edit for grammar and diction, not content, and flag these changes along with any unclear or questionable information (fact checking) as queries that are then sent back to the author. Say that a young lady works as a secretary for a large corporation. She types up an important letter for the CEO and makes changes without his permission, forges his signature, and sends it off to his customers or to the IRS with a bunch of wrong facts and figures. Whether it was done out of malice, mental illness, or the desire to please a competitor: she would be fired, or worse. How much more egregious is this action for a person in a position of responsibility? On the bright side, if the paper acts ethically and prints a retraction, there will be an opportunity for Mr. Gervais to present his information in a context that will attract much more attention.
The best remedy and recourse is to publically expose them for the bias propaganda rags they truly are – like, share and subcribe works both ways. 2024 is the year of exposure and depantsing the liars and deceivers in the town square. The more they are outed, the more panic, the more desperate, the more doubling down, the more people wake up to their “agenda.” They are stupid – they are being lured into the light. The globalists are losing the narrative. With that, they become like cornered animals…we are in that time, the darnkess is darkest before the light.
Melissa,
Who has the biggest megaphones to broad cast ideas, complaints about what is going on in Vermont?
Are ANY of the leaders speaking out about this type of behavior?
Censorship
Cancel Culture
Freedom of Speech
Media manipulation
VTDigger has a pretty big megaphone
7 Days has a big megaphone
VPR has a big megaphone
Gov Scott has a big megaphone
Front Porch Forum has a big megaphone
VTDems have a really big megaphone
Lt. Gov Zuckerman has a big megaphone
VTGOP has a megaphone, can’t seem to find the on switch
Large business leaders have a megaphone
Independant journalist have a megaphone
What are they DOING. Shows their heart. Exposed whom they work for.
Kudo’s to Vermont Daily Chronicle. Well done sir, well done.
Who is holding all the debates?
That is who controls the narrative.
Who assembles all the candidate information?
Is Vermont Digger a news org or political operative?
Vermont Daily Chronicle should be hosting debates in the future.
The simple answer is “follow the money.” The revenue generated by collusion, blackmail, and conspiracy to commit fraud – the fraud part has a limited shelf life, the rest of the time, energy, and resources is spent covering it all up with lies and omissions.
The globalists would never get a foothold if it wasn’t for the compensated propagandists and politicians. They are merely pawns, useful idiots, co-conspirators, and criminals.
Time to send you a contribution Joe! I hope others who despise a corrupted press will do the same.
Thank you, Cory. Info here: https://gervaisforvermont.com/donate/
On Friday, Oct 3, the Manchester Journal issued a correction without explicitly taking responsibility for rewriting and publishing a modified version of my commentary without my permission. “Editor’s Note: An edited version of this letter was published earlier this week, and is being republished today with author-made revisions.”
Full commentary is at: https://www.manchesterjournal.com/opinion/columnists/commentary-joe-gervais-rebuttal-regarding-the-clean-heat-standard/article_e9e74be0-7cdf-11ef-818b-9bd0ecf93da4.html