St. Albans Gets Passport Agency

[Henry]

The St. Albans Messenger Reported In Thursday, February 4, 2010 Edition

St. Albans gets Passport Agency
By MICHELLE MONROE
Messenger Staff Writer

ST. ALBANS — St. Albans will be the home of a new passport agency, U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy's office confirmed Wednesday. It will
be the only such center outside of a metropolitan population center.
Calling the new U.S. State Department center a "fitting and constructive use of surplus federal office space," Leahy said, "The new Passport Agency in St. Albans will mean more convenience for Vermonters, and in the meantime it means more local jobs to help
boost our struggling economy."
The new 6,500 square-foot agency will be located in the federal building (former post office) on South Main Street. The senator's office this morning said it will have the capacity for 18 federal and contract workers.

Leahy, who chairs the Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on the State Department and Foreign Operations, secured funding for five new passport centers as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

One of those centers was to be located in Vermont, with the final nod going to St. Albans. Fifteen million dollars were allocated for the construction of all five centers.

The General Services Agency, which manages the government's buildings, has put out a request for proposals for renovations to the first floor of the building. The description of the project on the GSA Web site lists the potential costs of the renovation as between $1 million and $3 million.

With St. Albans there will be 20 passport agencies in the country. The closest to St. Albans is in Boston. As part of the new ARRA funds, centers also were added in: Buffalo, N.Y.; El Paso, Texas; Atlanta. Ga.;  and San Diego, Calif.

"The city is delighted with the news of the passport center opening," St. Albans City Manager Dominic Cloud said yesterday. "The increased pedestrian traffic from the passport center, combined with the public improvements envisioned in the Master Plan will work well together."

People needing a passport on short notice, within two weeks for travel or four weeks to obtain a foreign visa, may apply for a pass-
port through the agency, according to the U.S. State Department's Web site.

Routine applications for a passport are submitted through local county courts and post offices.

The building project description also states the contractor will be required to preserve existing historical murals that were painted under the New Deal programs of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and mailboxes.

[fletchtb]

While it will certainly be more convenient for Vermonters to get a passport on short notice, it seems really odd that St. Albans would get one of 20 processing centers in the entire country. Especially since the other 19 are in major metropolitan centers. It just doesn't make sense to me.

[Henry]

Leahy has a lot of pull and seniority.  He does and has done a lot for Vermont.

[fletchtb]

I understand that Leahy has a lot of pull and seniority, but is this really the best use of federal funds for the entire country? Does it makes sense that a small city in the second least populated state receive this kind of investment?

In my mind this is a perfect example of pork spending and why people like Patrick Leahy should be replaced by someone like Len Britton down in Washington.

[MR32]

Any thing that Leahy can do to bring more jobs, and commerce into any of our towns is a blessing! I don't know about you, but I sure could use a Fed. Job. Even if it is processing papers, Fed jobs pay well, and have great benefits. Leahy is just the kind of guy we need to keep Vermont a float! Just because we are small doesn't mean we have to struggle!

[Henry]

The following is an Editorial written by Emerson Lynn in yesterday's Messenger and he says pretty much what I think, only much better:

Passport center could be huge boost to city

The City of St. Albans will be home to the only non-metropolitan passport agency in America. There is a single reason why: Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

The passport center will be located on South Main Street, where the Post Office used to be. The 6,500 square foot center is being remodeled to the tune of between $1 million and $3 million. It's expected to employ just shy of 20 people and to be open no later than October of this year. Hopefully, much sooner.

The next closest passport agency is in Boston.

This is a big deal. As the senator said, the agency in St. Albans will not only add some employment to our rolls, it also adds a convenience to Vermonters. Instead of traveling to Boston to get the passport, people can travel here.

But that's not what makes this so noteworthy The importance of the passport center to St. Albans is traffic. And not the kind of traffic that makes you grip the steering wheel, but people. Lots of people.

There will be two passport centers in our region other than St. Albans, one is in Boston, the other will be in Buffalo, N.Y. That means our "circulation" reach is all of Vermont, northern New Hampshire, northern Maine, and a good share of upstate New York. Those in need of a quick passport will be able to determine whether it's faster to come to St. Albans, or Boston or Buffalo. Many will choose St. Albans, not solely because it's closer, but because it doesn't require negotiating one's way through a major city
People who need their passports renewed are interested in efficiency. They want to arrive, find the facility easily, have a place to park, and get 'er done.

But processing the passport takes a little time. And while they wait, they will find themselves downtown. Many will arrive the night before, so they will need a place to stay, and to eat. While they wait, they will still need to eat and to have places to loiter.

This is the sort of "traffic" essential to our downtown. Generally, those interested in a quick turnaround for their passports are well-heeled, precisely the sort to fill up our downtown restaurants, etc.

So what level traffic can we expect?

No one really knows. We would be the first passport agency ever located someplace other than a large city. There are only 20 of them nationally. But properly marketed, the potential is significant. If the center begins with a staff of 18, that's 18 people they think they will need to handle the anticipated traffic. They will work a normal • work week - Monday through Friday. If 18 people deal with 10 applicants a day - which doesn't seem excessive - that's 180 people a day, five days a week, all focused on downtown St. Albans.

That's a lot of potential foot traffic for downtown St. Albans. And it could be much more than that.

That's all upside.

Which brings us back to Mr. Leahy He ranks third in ,the U.S. Senate in terms of seniority He ranks second on the Appropriations Committee. He chairs the Judiciary Committee, and he is chairman of the Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on the State Department and Foreign Operations - the subcommittee that governs the passport agencies, etc.

He was able to secure funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for five new passport centers. He said he wanted one of them to be in Vermont, and he was able to find some "surplus" federal office space in St. Albans that would suit.

Yes, power is something that can be abused. And it is. We rail about it continually. But this is an example of taxpayer dollars invested that will produce a substantial return. It's using idle space. It's employing 18 people [that's just the beginning.] And it's driving consumers to St. Albans, consumers who will spend their money locally.

That's precisely what our economy needs. The senator's efforts are spot on and we should be thankful he is where he is, with the power he has.

by Emerson Lynn

[mirjo]

When I get really frustrated with the way DC operates and think that term limits are the way to go, I realize that with the way Washington currently operates (and will for a long time to come) we are lucky to have a 'Sr. Senator' in the ranks. Emerson touched on points that most people don't even think about, myself included.

[Chris Santee]

Here's another point of view:

The Key to Real Reform 
By Robert Maynard

With the Supreme Court decision to strike down McCain-Feingold as posing a threat to the constitutional right to free speech, one of the dominant themes in the upcoming election season is sure to be the corruption of money in government. The first shot in this salvo was fired by President Obama in his State of the Union address when he called out the Supreme Court in criticism of this decision. While this issue has always received a great deal of attention from perspective candidates, pundits and the media, most of the attention to this issue has been on symptoms of the problem. In trying to put a band aid on a symptom, political leaders often pass laws that violate the right to free speech, as was the case with the McCain-Feingold legislation. The real problem is that political power is increasingly being centralized in our nation’s capital. This centralization of political power is what is driving the influence buying that is at the heart of the much-publicized campaign finance and fundraising scandals. A good deal of the money flowing into the political process from both groups and individuals is an attempt to influence the government to grant favors or not to impose restrictions. The government’s ever increasing ability to hand out rewards and punishments has groups and individuals at each other’s throats as they fight over the favor of government. Civility and cooperation are replaced by greed and envy as we push each other out of the way in order ensure that we get our share of the government provided gravy train. Under such circumstances civic virtue and the compassionate community quickly become causalities in a struggle to get government to take from our neighbor and give to us. If we limited government’s ability to bribe us with our own, or our neighbor’s tax money, the influence buying would disappear overnight.

We are putting an unheard of amount of power in the hands of a small political class to affect just about every aspect of our lives. Is it any wonder that the end result is a political leadership that will do almost anything to stay in power? We have all heard of the arrogance of political officials who make laws for the rest of us but do not abide by those same laws. The political class has come to see itself as above the common citizen. They wield a degree of power that would have been the envy of ancient Roman Caesars. If we are really serious about reforming this mess, we need to take a serious look at our own role in enabling this behavior. In order to ensure that we have an ethical government, we must start with ensuring ethical citizens. On what criteria do we base our decision to support a candidate for political office? Is it character and a commitment to support the fundamental principles of government, or a promise to "bring home the bacon"? If it is the latter, then we are contributing to the problem and will never see real reform in government.

As pointed out by Citizens Against Government Waste’s "20069 Congressional Pig Book Summary":

"The outrage of millions of taxpayers following the $700 billion bank bailout and the $787 billion stimulus bill did not stop Congress from passing and President Obama from signing a bloated $410 billion Omnibus Appropriations Act in March.  With the subsequent approval of the President’s budget, the national debt will triple over the next 10 years.  That leaves plenty of opportunities for pork to remain pervasive in the nation’s capital. This behavior will continue until the political class is convinced that the outrage of the American Voters over such scandals outweighs their desire for their portion of the pork."
Vermonters in particular need to take a good look at our Congressional delegation. In CAGW’s Pork Per Capita by State calculations, it was discovered that Vermont‘s delegation delivered $123.85 of pork per person in 2009 against a national average of $29.60 Per Person. That put us in 8th place among all 50 states when it comes to "bringing home the bacon". Although that is an improvement over 2008’s 6th place, we still have a ways to go if we are to become a leader in the effort for reform, rather than part of the problem. In addition to our problem with pork, there is the matter of Vermont constantly receiving more in federal government benefits than it pays in income taxes. Our dependency on federal government handouts flies in the face of our image of independence. If Vermonters are to live up to its image of independence and become a leader in the effort for real reform, we need to change course and send representatives to Washington D.C who are more interested in returning political power back to the people than they are buying the people’s vote with their own, or their neighbor’s, tax dollars.
Decentralizing political power by returning it to the people is a necessary foundation of any effort aimed at REAL government reform. There are other steps that should be made in parallel such as eliminating many of the perks and privileges that set the political class apart from the average citizen. Do we have candidates who are willing to run a campaign ready to pursue a course of real government reform if Vermont’s voters are ready to support such reform? Do we have enough voters who are more interested in ethnical government than in making sure that we get our share of the pork? Enquiring minds want to know.

Robert Maynard is the Editor of the True North website

[mirjo]

I don't disagree; however, I don't foresee any real 'change' happening in DC until there is an end to the Democrat/Republican gridlock that makes it such an ineffective entity and pits citizen against citizen b/c of differing political views. It would be better balanced with a third party having more of a presence (and I don't mean the 'Tea Party')

Americans have forgotten that they have control (or are supposed to anyway), but instead have let the government/lobbyists get out of control. I think the lobbying indusry would dry up if the people took back control of the government and just got rid of people routinely that didn't do what was expected. campaigns shouldn't be about who has the most money to win anyway. All that does is drive home the point of the priviledged rich, because the poor guy will not ever have enough to beat him.

Our president may have had humble beginnings, but he isn't there now and he wouldn't have become a senator if he didn't have the scratch to get him in that seat. Neither would he have become a presidential candidate. The playing field needs to be leveled some how and it can only be done if people realize that  congress is totally ineffective and we the people have the power to effect some changes--of course throwing a bunch of newbies in there all at once could make matters worse...