Vermont Tiger

Behr's Den

2009-11-08T09:31:15-05:00

Less Heat; More Light
by
P.G. Behr

After the last session of the Legislature, I decried the passage of H.446, which decreed purchase of high-priced energy from “renewable” sources, to be paid for by Vermont’s utility customers, already burdened with the cost of “Efficiency Vermont.” Our Democrats and Liberals do not hesitate to legislate gifts for their favorite supporters.

H.446 limited the amount of electricity which utilities will be forced to purchase from the micro-producers to 50 megawatts, but the applicants for the largesse created by the bill totaled 200 megawatts. Of course, that tells you something – that the deal was a “can’t lose” one, designed to pay off the people who promoted the bill - VPIRG et al. So the lucky winners (the state had to hold a lottery to determine who would get to generate and sell the electricity to the grid) will get a guaranteed profit on top of paying for their power facilities. And the rate payers will notice a line item on their bill adding to the cost of their electricity. A rip-off to be sure, but since it’s all in the name of the environment, it’s not only tolerated, but encouraged in Vermont.
President Obama visited Florida last week, and among other things, saw a mammoth solar energy project. Florida, California, Arizona, New Mexico and other sunshine destinations can generate solar power at costs almost competitive with other means, but this is not the case in the Northeast. Vermont’s solar power advocates apparently believe that the “feel good” factor is worth the high cost, but it makes no sense. Our Legislature celebrates its negative accomplishment. They can’t turn on the sun and make it economically viable, but they can sock it to our citizens, who meekly submit.

Willem Post, a retired engineer and Woodstock resident, is a world-class expert on energy-efficient building design, and energy matters in general. He did an analysis of the H.446’s fallout – a giveaway to the new micro-power producers - and sent it to members of the Legislature. At this writing, the silence of their response is deafening. Maybe they didn’t understand Willem’s analysis, just as few of them probably understood the implication of the legislation they passed. But hey, their leadership told them to vote for it, so they did.

We were disappointed that Governor Douglas didn’t veto this pork-laden bill, but maybe he was too bloodied by the two overrides he had already suffered. What I would really like to see would be some real critical reporting by The Valley News, or other Vermont newspapers. I don’t read them all, but know the VN is good at reporting on school boards and select boards, but when it comes to criticizing the Democratic Legislature they roll over and play dead.

* * *

On the national stage, University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt and writer Stephen Dubner have written a new book, entitled “Super Freakonomics” – the sequel to their earlier best seller ”Freakonomics.” These people are not wackos, but careful researchers who question things they find questionable. Thus they look at the global warming fanatics (they cannot be described otherwise), and find many of their dire predictions unconvincing. They point out (and this is nothing new) that belching, flatulent cows are adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than all SUVs combined. This is not a popular fact, particularly in Vermont. Imagine Peter Welch proposing that Vermont go out of the dairy business because our cows are major polluters!

Messrs. Levitt and Dubner should be commended for their careful questioning of many of the dire predictions of the global warming high priests, led by Al Gore. Before we go head-long into tremendously costly moves ($ trillions) which will contribute virtually nothing to scientific advances and the economy, there are lots of options to consider. And there is no urgency.

(This essay first appeared in the Vermont Standard.)

Smart Roads Funding

2009-11-07T10:03:00-05:00

by Chris Campion

The state's Joint Fiscal Office released a report in October of this year, detailing the projected shortfalls in the state's transportation fund. As the report details, the revenues for the fund have not materialized (for a host of reasons), which puts federal matching funds at risk, further exacerbating the problem of maintaining VT's roads. Some painful highlights of the report are:

* The percentage of state highway system pavement rated in “very poor condition”
has already climbed from 23% early in the decade to 36% in 2009 and is headed
higher.

* 48% of the total bridge deck area in the state is between 31 and 50 years old.

* The average useful life of a bridge deck is 40 years. To the extent these
decks are not replaced before they start to crack and leak, repair costs will rise
geometrically.

* Road Maintenance: The Joint Fiscal Office estimates that just to maintain the existing
infrastructure in serviceable condition would require spending $415 million
a year for the next 30 years.

Our current level of spending infrastructure preservation: $211 million

Spending gap: $203 million

Consequences: (1) deteriorating conditions and (2) higher repair costs in
the future.

In other words, one of the most critical parts of VT's infrastructure is already failing in many places in the state, mostly due to revenue shortfalls and a failure to create on ongoing maintenance funding plan to keep the critical failures at bay. Not that Vermonters haven't heard a lot about failing bridges already, but brace yourselves - there's more to come. As the report mentions, it's also likely that federal assistance in this area is drying up.

Businesses tend to find failing infrastructure, unstable or unpredictable utility costs, and a shrinking employable population as disincentives to site or grow their business. They're crazy like that. I suppose that's of minimal concern to the legislature, that happily takes dollars from the Transportation Fund to shore up other programs when it's convenient. Not only does this raise the bills to be paid at a later date (since we're not investing preventative maintenance or new construction now with these funds), it does not evidence robust economic planning at the state level. It looks more like convenient patchwork, which usually means somebody else has to fix the real problem down the road.

The solution isn't increased taxes. Increasing taxes (on gas or anything else) dampens or retards economic growth, which further reduces tax revenues. The solution is permanently decreasing taxes, reforming the permitting process, and creating a business climate that actually encourages economic growth. Considering the legislative track record, I will not bet the rent money on these changes occurring anytime soon.

Primarily Politics

2009-11-07T07:47:29-05:00

Emerson Lynn on Politics

Delay has a way of claiming its victims.

Last legislative session the Senate made the long-discussed move to change the date of the Vermont primary – always held the second Tuesday in September. But the House could not be bothered. It wasn’t a priority given the issues being considered.

That was then. When Gov. Jim Douglas announced he would not seek another term, the political world turned upside down, and with the flick of a political switch the issue has assumed stature beyond its importance.

The issues that prevailed last session are back. In spades. A huge budget deficit looms. The unemployment trust fund will be defunct. The state’s pension funds are drastically underfunded. And the state struggles to manage its affairs – at all levels.

But all of a sudden, legislative leaders see the need to spend some time debating the need to change the date set for the primary.

The reason, obviously, is that the Democrats have five candidates who want to be governor and they worry that the time spread from Sept. 14th to Nov. 2 isn’t long enough to recover from a fractious primary. They are considering August 24th, instead.

To provide political cover, they are citing a new federal law that requires absentee ballots to be sent to oversea voters at least 45 days before the November election. Secretary of State Deb Markowitz advocates the change in the primary date to ensure that our troops get their ballots in time. “People can argue about the politics. But the bottom line is that our military is overseas fighting for our country. We have to make sure they have the opportunity to vote.”

Score one for Ms. Markowitz, who is an announced candidate for governor. It was a smart political move and in a field of five, every vote counts. But let’s not be confused. The impetus to move the date of the primary is about political advantage. Nothing else. The 45-day time line leaves a full week between Vermont’s Sept. 14th primary and the general election. If necessary, the state could also seek a federal waiver.

If the Legislature truly intends to change the date of the primary, it should do so openly and with no apologies. And it should not need to hide behind the fig leaf of a new federal law that’s easily dealt with.

To escape the stain of perceived political advantage, the change should only be considered if it’s employed in the 2012 election year, not this year. This would invite a more bipartisan approach to the issue since both parties would benefit equally. If legislative leaders insist on an immediate change, their motives are fully revealed, and if that is their intent, so be it. Just say so.

The irony, of course, is that had they done this last session, it wouldn’t be an issue today.

It’s also an issue not to be lightly considered. Vermonters have been conditioned to a September primary date. Changing it to August – when families are still on vacation and not paying attention to politics – is almost guaranteed to attract fewer voters. It’s hard to defend a change in the primary date if the chances are considerable that fewer people will vote.

And that likelihood isn’t something to be considered for this upcoming election alone. Given the fact that the Democrats have a crowded primary there may be an increased interest in the outcome and voting totals may rise. And what about the following election? Are we to have a floating date set according to a party’s political advantage?

It’s entirely defensible to consider such a change. We’ve argued for years that we go without a voice in the presidential primaries because ours is so late. The advantages of twining with New Hampshire – or close to it – might be considerable.

But this is a big picture issue. If the Legislature intends to change the date of the primary, then let the debate include all options, and let’s step beyond the obvious political advantage being considered and consider the move for 2012, not 2010.

(Emerson Lynn is editor & publisher of the St. Albans Messenger where this essay first appeared.)

It's Innocent Until Proven Guilty, Not The Other Way Around

2009-11-07T07:39:38-05:00

by Art Woolf

Senator Bernard Sanders refers to Wall Street's sins in an op-ed in the Freeps about green energy policy:

...as a result of the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street,

Greed didn't just start with the housing bubble, as Milton Friedman pointed out more than 20 years ago. And Friedman might have asked Senator Sanders if the Senator himself wasn't greedy.

Recklessness? I'll not disagree with what, in hindsight, was reckless behavior (although I'd say there was equally reckless behavior on the part of government officials and institutions such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that were cheerleaders during the housing bubble and promoted many of the activities that today look so heinous).

It's the "illegal behavior" part of his quote that concerns me. As far as I can tell, no one on Wall Street has been convicted of a crime (save maybe Bernie Madoff) in regards to the financial meltdown of last year. The current trial of two Bear Stearns executives, including Vermonter Ralph Cioffi, is the first, and is about to go to the jury.

But as the NY Times Dealbook column points out, the case is far from a slam dunk for the prosecution:

when the jury begins deliberating next week, it will be left with two stories to choose from:
Narrative A: After successfully operating their funds for over three years, the defendants decided to go criminal when the going got rough. They lied to investors, telling them only what they wanted to hear to keep them in the funds.
Narrative B: The defendants were professional risk-takers with solid track records. As such, they analyzed every angle before coming to the conclusion — justifiable at the time — that they could continue making money regardless of whether the subprime mortgage market turned to “toast.” In the end, their prediction was wrong. But making a bad bet isn’t a crime.

As a public official, Senator Sanders should be much more concerned than he apparently is about labeling behavior illegal when there is no proof or legal judgment about the commission of a crime.

Out of Work; Out of Ideas

2009-11-06T12:30:41-05:00

The unemployment rate, nationally, is now at 10.2% and will, according to some experts, go higher. (Vermont's number is not yet known and will probably be somewhat lower and distorted, on the high side, by the deployment of our 1,500 Guardsmen to Afghanistan. Whatever the Vermont number, it will be too high.)

The experts have been wrong before so maybe we'll get lucky. But, then, the most conspicuous of the experts' (recent) wrong calls was that if Congress would just pass the stimulus bill, then unemployment could be held under 8%. They even had a chart to prove it.

Well, the stimulus was passed and unemployment is at 10.2% and rising. Defenders of the stimulus are saying many things to include:

* It's working. Everything is aces:

The $787 billion economic stimulus package is working better than expected, Joe Biden said yesterday in a conference call with state governors. “In my wildest dreams, I never thought it would work this well,” Biden said. “Thank you, thank you.”

* Give it time. The government is slow at everything, including spending money.

The simple truth is that even the voracious U.S. government cannot spend $787 billion quickly. Spending from the stimulus legislation is running pretty much in line with what the Congressional Budget Office projected when the bill was passed -- which was 24 percent in fiscal 2009 (which ends Sept. 30) and an additional 50 percent in fiscal 2010, or 74 percent in about 18 months.

* It is creating and saving jobs so fast that we can't keep track of the numbers ... so we just phonied some up

More than $4.7 million in federal stimulus aid so far has been funneled to schools in North Chicago and state and federal officials say that money has saved the jobs of 473 teachers.

Problem is, the district employs only 290 teachers.

* Good enough for government work. The stimulus has done what it was supposed to do. Don't expect it to do much more.

Christina Romer, the chair of President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, said Thursday that the $194 billion already spent gave a jolt to the economy that contributed to growth in the second and third quarters of the year. She told a congressional panel that by the middle of next year, the impact of the stimulus will level off. Romer said spending so far has saved or created 600,000 to 1.5 million jobs but warned that unemployment will remain high, above 9.5 percent, through the end of 2010.

* The stimulus was always a good idea but weak in execution. We need another.

The administration's biggest economic mistake so far was to badly underestimate last January how bad the employment situation would become by fall. As a result, it low-balled the stimulus -- settling for a plan that, while avoiding even worse job losses, didn't go nearly far enough.

Obama has to return to Congress, seeking a larger stimulus.

That one seems like a good bet. In Washington, when they are out of ideas, what they do is spend money. That is their job and they are very good at it.

Seems like the wrong people are unemployed.

What's Going On

2009-11-06T06:55:33-05:00

In the tech sector of Vermont and New Hampshire.

(thanks to Cairn Cross for the tip)

Play Responsibly

2009-11-06T06:50:59-05:00

Are you kidding? We do it our way.

(of course, you got the real goods on this lottery by reading it here, first)

A Soldier’s Nightmare: Dying for Nothing!

2009-11-06T06:27:36-05:00

by Mike Smith

Recently, many have been pressing President Obama to make a decision about Afghanistan. All of this is particularly important to Vermonters since approximately 1,500 Vermont National Guard members will soon be deploying to fight in the region.

The focus of the President, according to news reports, is to devise a strategy with the right accompaniment of military personnel and equipment to meet the objective he establishes. The key here is the objective the President establishes and his commitment to stick to that objective through both the good and the inevitably bad times. Without an obtainable objective and an unwavering commitment to that objective, probably the best course of action is to bring our troops home from Afghanistan. Now. Clearly, the troops in the field are fuzzy about their current mission in Afghanistan and the commanders are deeply suspicious that any newly constructed strategy will soon be subject to change depending on the political winds.

History teaches us some valuable lessons. Starting in the late sixties, the boots on the ground in Vietnam knew the war was a hopeless cause. The objectives were constantly shifting and illusive, and the political will to achieve any of the objectives was short-lived. Soldiers and sailors began asking the legitimate question: what are we dying for? With the fall of Saigon in the spring of 1975 they had their answer: for nothing!

Armies are deployed usually for the purpose of defeating an enemy. Vietnam taught us an important lesson that if we get into a conflict that we had better do it with a clear and obtainable objective, then commit an overwhelming military force to achieve that objective and then make sure that the political leadership and the public are fully engaged and supportive, even in the dark days of a conflict. Currently, in Afghanistan, all those conditions are lacking as they were in Vietnam: And yet, there is little discussion about whether we should be in Afghanistan absent these conditions.

If our involvement in Iraq generated protests, why doesn’t Afghanistan generate the same level of concern and passion? Unfortunately, it seems nowadays that party politics is the prime motivator of protests rather than the welfare of our troops or the virtues of our policy. If it’s a Republican war it’s bad; if it’s a Democrat one, it’s good, and vice versa. In the sixties and early seventies, the vast majority of the protesters against the war in Vietnam had a beef with the policy, no matter if the president was Johnson, a Democrat, or Nixon, a Republican. In fact, they crippled Democrat Hubert Humphrey’s presidential bid with their anti-war protests at the 1968 convention. To them, the morality of their cause superseded politics. The same can’t be said of today’s fickle protesters where morality is absent and politics is all consuming.

The ultimate fear of any soldier is to have died in vain—that their death was without purpose. The reality of war is that the equation is always stacked against those that fight for us. The death of our fighting men and women is the ultimate outcome of a politician committing troops to battle.

As we near Veteran’s Day and remember our fallen soldiers and sailors from wars and conflicts now and of long ago, it’s critical that that the mistakes of the past, particularly in Vietnam, are not repeated in Afghanistan and no service member has to answer the question: why are we dying, with the conclusion—for nothing!

Hip To Be Here?

2009-11-05T12:12:46-05:00

by Greg Decker
For the past decade a large coterie of pundits, prognosticators and their media camp followers have insisted that growth in America would be concentrated in places hip and cool, largely in the bluish regions of the country ... It is not just the young who will flock to the blue meccas, but money and business as well, according to the narrative. Forbes

Unsurprisingly, those presently occupying the Vermont state government are avid followers of this narrative as it paints a pretty picture of the future for the state. The 2007 Vermont Next Gen Workforce Report first discovered Vermont's inevitably prosperous future when it uncovered a gold mine of "creative" allure.

Based on the report's findings, the only reason Vermont wasn't economically booming was because not enough people knew about the state's unimaginable hipness and coolness. It goes without saying that the most prudent course of action was to spend a lot of other peoples' money to make sure everybody outside of Vermont knew how awesome things are here.

Yet, after spending untold amounts on "branding" and do-good government programs like Pursue Vermont, the state has not seen a return on the investment. So, where have all these people and businesses been moving to? If not the green hills of Vermont, surely they moved to one of the other hip and cool progressive regions of the country? Not exactly.

"...according to analysis by the Praxis Strategy Group, [migration] has continued to be strongest to the predominately red states of the South and Intermountain West.

Still, the people moving to the South cannot possibly be the highly educated and productive "Creative Class."
Everybody knows that they are moving to places that are hip and cool. Right?

Well ...

Between 2006 and 2008, the metropolitan areas that enjoyed the fastest percentage shift toward educated and professional workers and industries included nominally "unhip" places like Indianapolis, Charlotte, N.C., Memphis, Tenn., Salt Lake City, Jacksonville, Fla., Tampa, Fla., and Kansas City, Mo.The overall migration numbers are even more revealing. As was the case for much of the past decade, the biggest gainers continue to include cities such as San Antonio, Dallas and Houston. Rather than being oases for migrants, some oft-cited magnets such as New York, Boston, Los Angeles and Chicago have all suffered considerable loss of population to other regions over the past year."

Trust Us

2009-11-05T10:05:17-05:00

... with your health care. We're the experts here.