State librarian now hopes to receive Vermont's full share of federal support for libraries
Vermont libraries got some good news at the end of April when the state Department of Libraries learned it would receive a partial Grants to States Award from the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) in the amount of $622,179, according to State Librarian Catherine Delneo.
"This is a positive outcome as the Grants to States award from IMLS comprises 1/3 of the Department's total budget and is essential to the services the Department provides statewide," Delneo said in an email to the Burlington Free Press.
The Free Press reported on March 27 that federal funding for the state's libraries was threatened by the Trump Administration's slashing of budgets for federal agencies, including IMLS.
About two weeks later, Hannah Kirkpatrick, a recent University of Vermont graduate with a master's degree in history, lost her IMLS-funded job helping Vermont's numerous local historical societies get ready for the 250th anniversary of the founding of the country by establishing their priorities for their collections and energizing their communities to help ensure the continuing preservation of local history.
Please enable Javascript to view this content.
Delneo said she received another update from IMLS staff on Wednesday, May 5, saying that while their final appointment has not yet been issued by the Office of Management and Budget, "we do plan to issue the remainder of the FY 2025 awards to the states, which will bring them to levels similar to last year's allotments."
"The Department is hopeful that it will ultimately receive the full expected Grants to States allotment from IMLS in the amount of $1.24M, which was Vermont's 2024 Grants to States allotment," Delneo said.
Contact Dan D'Ambrosio at 660-1841 or ddambrosio@gannett.com. Follow him on Twitter @DanDambrosioVT.
This article originally appeared on Burlington Free Press: Vermont's federal funding for libraries looks like it will come through
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
an hour ago
- Vox
The big reason why Republicans should worry about an angry Elon Musk
In the November 2026 midterm elections, Elon Musk could have much more impact for much less money. Allison Robbert/AFP via Getty Images How the Musk-Trump blowup ends, nobody knows. Most commentary gives President Donald Trump the advantage. But Elon Musk's willingness to spend his fortune on elections gives him one distinct advantage — the ability to drive a brittle party system into chaos and loosen Trump's hold on it. Thus far, Musk has raised two electoral threats. First, his opposition to Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill has raised the specter of his funding primary challenges against Republicans who vote to support the legislation. Second, he has raised the possibility of starting a new political party. There are limits to how much Musk can actually reshape the political landscape — but the underlying conditions of our politics make it uniquely vulnerable to disruption. The threat of Musk-funded primaries might ring a little hollow. Trump will almost certainly still be beloved by core Republican voters in 2026. Musk can fund primary challengers, but in a low-information, low-turnout environment of mostly Trump-loving loyal partisans, he is unlikely to succeed. However, in the November 2026 midterm elections, Musk could have much more impact for much less money. All he needs to do is fund a few spoiler third-party candidates in a few key swing states and districts. In so doing, he would exploit the vulnerability that has been hiding in plain sight for a while — the wafer-thin closeness of national elections. The Logoff The email you need to stay informed about Trump — without letting the news take over your life, from senior editor Patrick Reis. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. In a straight-up battle for the soul of the Republican Party, Trump wins hands down. Not even close. Trump has been the party's leader and cult of personality for a decade. But in a battle for the balance of power, Musk might hold the cards. Currently, the US political system is 'calcified.' That's how the political scientists John Sides, Chris Tausanovitch, and Lynn Vavreck described it in their 2022 book, The Bitter End: The 2020 Presidential Campaign and the Challenge to American Democracy. Partisans keep voting for their side, seeing only the reality that makes them the heroes; events may change, but minds don't. In a 48-48 country, that means little opportunity for either party to make big gains. It also means a small disruption could have massive implications. Elon Musk doesn't have a winning coalition — but he may not need one to hurt Trump Let's imagine, for a moment, that Musk is serious about starting a new political party and running candidates. He will quickly find that despite his X poll, a party that 'actually represents the 80 percent in the middle' is a fantasy. That mythical center? Being generous here, that's maybe 15 percent of politically checked-out Americans. Realistically, the coalition for Musk's politics — techno-libertarian-futurist, anti-system, very online, Axe-level bro-vibes — would be small. But even so, a Musk-powered independent party — call it the 'Colonize Mars' Party — would almost certainly attract exactly the voters completely disenchanted with both parties, mostly the disillusioned young men who went to Trump in the 2024 election. Imagine Musk funds his Colonize Mars Party in every competitive race, recruiting energetic candidates. He gives disenchanted voters a chance to flip off the system: Vote for us, and you can throw the entire Washington establishment into a panic! Practically, not many seats in the midterms will be up for grabs. Realistically, about 40 or so House seats will be genuine swing seats. In the Senate, there are realistically only about seven competitive races. But that means a small party of disruption could multiply the targeted impact of a precision blast with a well-chosen 5 percent of the electorate in less than 10 percent of the seats. Quite a payoff. The short-term effect would be to help Democrats. Musk used to be a Democrat, so this is not so strange. If Musk and his tech allies care about immigration, trade, and investment in domestic science, supporting Democrats may make more sense. And if Musk mostly cares about disruption and sending Trump spiraling, this is how he would do it. Musk is an engineer at heart. His successes have emerged from him examining existing systems, finding their weak points, and asking, What if we do something totally different? From an engineer's perspective, the American political system has a unique vulnerability. Every election hangs on a narrow margin. The balance of power is tenuous. Since 1992, we've been in an extended period in which partisan control of the White House, Senate, and the House has continually oscillated between parties. National electoral margins remain wickedly tight (we haven't had a landslide national election since 1984). And as elections come to depend on fewer and fewer swing states and districts, a targeted strike on these pivotal elections could completely upend the system. A perfectly balanced and completely unstable system It's a system ripe for disruption. So why has nobody disrupted it? First, it takes money — and Musk has a lot of it. Money has its limits — Musk's claim that his money helped Trump win the election is dubious. Our elections are already saturated with money. In an era of high partisan loyalty, the vast majority of voters have made up their minds before the candidate is even announced. Most money is wasted. It hits decreasing marginal returns fast. The very thing that makes our politics feel so stuck is exactly what makes it so susceptible to Musk's threat. But where money can make a difference is in reaching angry voters disenchanted with both parties with a protest option. Money buys awareness more than anything else. For $300 million (roughly what Musk spent in 2024), a billionaire could have leverage in some close elections. For $3 billion (about 1 percent of Musk's fortune) the chance of success goes up considerably. Second, disruption is possible when there are enough voters who are indifferent to the final outcome. The reason Ross Perot did so well in 1992? Enough voters saw no difference between the parties that they felt fine casting a protest vote. Election after election, we've gone through the same pattern. Throw out the old bums, bring in the new bums — even if 90-plus percent of the electorate votes for the same bums, year in and year out. But in a 48-48 country, with only a few competitive states and districts, a rounding-error shift of 10,000 votes across a few states (far fewer than a typical Taylor Swift concert) can bestow full control of the government. Think of elections as anti-incumbent roulette. The system is indeed 'calcified,' as Sides, Tausanovitch, and Vavreck convincingly argue. Calcified can mean immovable. But it can also mean brittle. Indeed, the very thing that makes our politics feel so stuck is exactly what makes it so susceptible to Musk's threat.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Here's How Much the Government Spends on Stroking Trump's Ego
Grandiose efforts to boost Donald Trump's ego are costing America a fortune. Trump's second term is still shy of the six-month mark, but already, millions have been spent to flatter him. Just three stunts to fluff the president have already totaled upward of a billion dollars, reported Rolling Stone Friday. They include a Bastille Day–inspired military parade to celebrate Trump's birthday, the repurposing of an ultraluxury jumbo jet from Qatar for Air Force One (which Trump is setting up so no one else can use it after he leaves the White House), and a TV ad campaign featuring Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem zealously thanking the president (in the background, the Trump campaign's top vendor is quietly cashing in on the DHS-funded ad spot). And on Friday, Trump announced that the White House would be undergoing a massive renovation by way of adding a ballroom to the symbol of American democracy. (Trump has previously promised to pay for the $100 million expansion himself, but only time will tell if the convicted fraudster will actually follow through or take the funds from public coffers.) But the glitz and glam is about more than simply placating the president, according to political scientists. Instead, the whole spectacle is attached to Trump's authoritarian leanings. 'They have to do with a president who needs to be not only at the center of a media circus, but who needs to be told ritualistically over and over how great he is,' Anthony DiMaggio, author of Rising Fascism in America: It Can Happen Here, told Rolling Stone. 'What's interesting to me about this, as a political scientist, is that it's not just a personality-based thing or a defect. It's a broader pattern that has to do with behaviors that are overlapping with authoritarian politics and ideology.' But the itch doesn't stop at gift receiving. Trump's second-term quest to nix Washington's so-called 'deep state' and replace it with an army of MAGA yes-men has so far been successful. At Cabinet meetings and press briefings, officials from across the political landscape are quick to puff up the president. The problem became particularly evident in April, when Trump wheeled out his 'Liberation Day' tariff plan using figures that nobody in his vicinity had dared to notify him were founded on bad math. The result is a Trumpian loyalty more akin to a religion than a political ideology: Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has pleaded with Congress to trust the president's economic will. Cabinet meetings begin with a round-robin of gushing for Trump's performance. The White House has spent money producing propaganda that does little more than thank Trump for his agenda. Even congressional Republicans, who are supposed to be detached from Trump's influence, have repeatedly kowtowed to the president's will. The sycophantic displays between Trump and his advisers give off 'Dear Leader' vibes, similar to 'what you would see with Kim Jong Un or [Vladimir] Putin,' Democracy Defenders Fund's Virginia Canter told Rolling Stone, noting that the president treats his Cabinet members as his 'personal staff.' 'They're there to stroke his ego,' Canter said.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
NCLA Asks Sixth Circuit to Revive Suit Over Dept. of Education's Illegal Student Loan Payment Pause
Mackinac Center for Public Policy v. U.S. Department of Education; Sec'y of Education Linda McMahon, in her official capacity; and James Bergeron, Chief Operating Officer of Federal Student Aid, in his official capacity Washington, DC, June 06, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The New Civil Liberties Alliance filed an opening brief today asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to reverse a district court's dismissal, for lack of standing, of our Mackinac Center for Public Policy v. Dept. of Education lawsuit against the Department's unlawfully forgiving 35 months of interest on student loans. Without any statutory authority, the Department extended Congress's original six-month interest forgiveness and payment suspension for nearly three more years, cancelling debt in violation of the Constitution's Appropriations Clause at a cost of at least $175 billion to taxpayers, harming the Mackinac Center in the process. This scheme injures public-service employers like Mackinac by reducing the financial incentives for (potential) employees to participate in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program. The Sixth Circuit should decide Mackinac does have standing and require the district court to hear the case on the merits against the Department's unlawful policy. Established by Congress, the PSLF program allows employees to have their student-loan debt forgiven after ten years of work with one or more public-service employers. When the Department excused debtors from paying interest on their loans, it decreased—dollar for dollar—the wage subsidy the program promised to public-service employers like the Mackinac Center, making it more expensive for them to keep compensating their PSLF employees at the same level. The economic harm caused by the Department's unlawfully excusing student-loan debtors from honoring their obligations is enough, on its own, to require the government to answer for its actions in court. But in addition to that, the Department's lawless decisions also skewed the labor market in a way that frustrates the congressionally-designed PSLF program, increases the cost for the Mackinac Center to compete for college-educated employees, and costs taxpayers billions. The Department caused these injuries, and now the Court of Appeals should make sure it must answer for them. NCLA released the following statements: 'Governmental agencies cannot blithely ignore the law without expecting to answer for the harm their unlawful actions cause organizations like the Mackinac Center. We trust the Court of Appeals will make that clear to the Department of Education.'— Daniel Kelly, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA 'The Department of Education under Secretary McMahon should settle this case. What possible reason does it have to keep defending the lawless regime instituted by former Secretary Miguel Cardona and Richard Cordray to forgive student-loan debt—or in this case interest on that debt—without authority from Congress?'— Mark Chenoweth, President, NCLA For more information visit the case page here. ABOUT NCLA NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA's public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans' fundamental rights. ### CONTACT: Joe Martyak New Civil Liberties Alliance 703-403-1111 in to access your portfolio
