vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen

9.28.2007

The call of Vermont

The state's job networking Web site is up and running. The site - http://www.pursuevt.org/ - is supposed to lure out-of-staters to Vermont so that when we baby boomers retire there is someone to do the work.

The site was unveiled at an event in Boston this week, where the goal was to bring in those who attended Vermont colleges and sell them on the idea of moving back. State officials say 75 people showed up to connect with 20 Vermont employers.

"Focusing on this supply of talent that is already attracted to
Vermont represents a more compelling strategy than trying to hold on
to those who have chosen to leave," says an April report the state commissioned to study the matter. "Trying to keep Vermont’s young people from leaving
is ... an exercise in futility."

Never mind that keeping Vermonters in Vermont was one of the goals of the governor's Promise scholarship plan (you'd get the money if you agreed to work here for three years). We are on to other things.

The new networking Web site offers links to various places that might be helpful to someone plotting a move to Vermont. Media, companies, trade groups, transportation options.

It also asks viewers to sign up for a monthly newsletter, which I tried to do. It doesn't, however, allow for really long e-mail addresses, such as mine. My company e-mail address is the bane of my existence, as it is both long and illogical, but hey this newsletter only allows for the first 29 characters to fit and I've got 36. That's OK for me, I already lured myself back to Vermont, but what about those poor, deprived, long-addressed ex-patriots out there?

*****Update*****
They've fixed the e-mail thing. Now it is equal opportunity access no matter how long your e-mail address. Cudos to Rep. Steve Adams, who is not the independent running for president, for helping to make that happen.

- Terri Hallenbeck

posted by vt.Buzz | 10:51 AM |

Comments:

This program might be all well and good for attracting 30-something graduates of Vermont colleges back to the state - especially if they've decided, for whatever reason, that the Boston, NYC, or DC "fast track" is not for them.

However, this Web site does nothing to change VT's anti-business climate - why would an entrepreneur want to start a business in this state, considering Vermont's high taxes, high land and housing costs, and intense regulatory oversight.

Businesses that want to expand will go to states like New Mexico that have innovative economic development programs. Take a look at the New Mexico Economic Development Web site at

http://www.edd.state.nm.us/

You'll find there a press release from Gov. Bill Richardson noting that NM's unemployment rate of 3.2% is one of the lowest in the country. Richardson said that "By keeping our taxes low, by providing incentives to attract high-wage jobs, and by building a better skilled workforce New Mexico’s economy continues to grow and our unemployment rate continues to drop.” Symington, Shumlin, and other Democrats take note: It's OK for a Democrat to be pro-business and pro-jobs.

Meanwhile, VT's unemployment rate is at 4.0% (granted, that is below the national average), but the VT Labor and Industry Dept says on their Website

http://www.vtlmi.info/

that "We continue to be concerned about recent downward trends in labor force and employment. Vermont's seasonally adjusted labor force has been on a downward trend since January and the number of employed Vermonters has been declining throughout the Spring and Summer."

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:57 AM, September 28, 2007

It is absolutely OK for Democrats to be pro business!!!!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:29 PM, September 28, 2007

I would never take a Promise scholarship with a stipulation that I must work in VT for 3 years.

I searched other state's Promise Scholarship programs and find no other state trying to blackmail its students. Other programs promise funds based upon good grades.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:42 PM, September 28, 2007

To clarify, the stipulation that one had to stay for three years to receive a scholarship was the original proposal. The scholarship program that was eventually approved and started this year does not have that stipulation.
- TH

# Posted by:

vt.Buzz | 5:42 PM, September 28, 2007

"It is absolutely OK for Democrats to be pro business!!!!"

Hear, hear.

Gov. Dean knew that.

If only Shumlington knew it.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:37 PM, September 28, 2007

Terri, try again. It works.

So does reaching out to young people with a connection to Vermont. That's a good idea.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:30 PM, September 28, 2007

Why not include a link to sign up for Catamount and VHAP? Every other flatlander that moved up here has done that.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:07 PM, September 29, 2007

And a section 8 voucher and food stamps.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:32 PM, September 29, 2007

Don't forget to post your land and sign up for current use tax abuse when you arrive so the rest of us suckers can pay your share.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:15 PM, September 30, 2007

The assertion that Vermont's taxes are comparatively high and are a burden to businesses and families is often heard but is not accurate.

The Joint Fiscal Office will shortly release Vol. 2 of the Tax Study that will put this myth to bed. The Gov. and others hang their hats on "tax per capita" data but this ignores the distribution of the so-called "burden" (do you know anyone named "per capita"?).

Second, it also fails to recognize that state taxes are a tiny part of business costs and have almost no impact on expansion and location decisions (source - among others: an executive with Fantus / Deloitte & Touche - very large business location consultants - quoted in an article published by the Boston Federal Reserve Bank; see Phase 9 of the Job Gap Study).

Furthermore, the idea that lots of businesses are moving around is not supported by the evidence because - get this - there is no public data set on the interstate movement of businesses! And having looked at a private data set, I can tell you that that the jobs impact of such moves is tiny (2% - 3%).

The old assumptions about economic development are no longer valid. There is so much misinformation out there that we are wasting a great deal of money, time, and energy.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:36 PM, September 30, 2007

Don't confuse me with facts...my mind's already made up! (Doug Hoffer, the last "Vermonter" that still doesn't think we are an anti-business, high-tax state)

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:20 AM, October 01, 2007

It's easy to simply repeat what you hear, especially if it fits your world view or biases.

But if you do a Lexis-Nexus search of all the major newspapers in the U.S., you will find that in virtually every city in America there are people saying exactly the same thing ("our city/state is anti-business"). It is not a coincidence and, frankly, it's just not true.

Some business lobbyists (not all) have been very successful in intimidating elected officials and getting all kinds of tax breaks for businesses (among other things). The bottom line is that this strategy has not helped workers, whose wages are barely keeping up with inflation. And it doesn't do much for small businesses either since the big guys get most of the breaks (and small businesses in VT pay almost nothing in state corp. income tax).

Facts do matter. Unfortunately, they are often overwhelmed by slogans and anecdotes. This is not the way we should make public policy.

And BTW - Why do most bloggers use pseudonyms instead of their real names?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:33 AM, October 01, 2007

Governor Douglas should study Mass. Gov Delval Patrick (who has been in office for less than a year).

All we ever hear from Douglas is how bad it is in this state - taxes, education, jobs etc. Yet what does he do to change that image?

Nothing - in fact, he yells it to the world. Gov Patrick is on the radio and tv telling people that Mass is open for business and uses different business leaders to help - similar to the ads that FairPoint is using.

The real issue here is that it's no wonder that Vermont has a negative perception - heck, the Governor of Vermont declares it.

Gov Douglas should be "selling" Vermont while quietly working WITH the legislature to change things.

Instead he uses "his way or the highway" partisan approach which does nothing but polarize both sides.

From my standpoint, Gov Jim Douglas is the most political person in Montpelier!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:11 AM, October 01, 2007

Yeah, Governor Douglas is only in this for re-election purposes - EVERYTHINGdecision or action he takes is with re-election or partisan politics in mind!!!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:14 AM, October 01, 2007

Doug is right on the money.

You really don't even have to dig through the data to see it either. Look around and see who is doing well and you'll see local businesses doing fine. You'll see corporate business getting tax breaks which have little impact to their bottom line, but do shift burden onto wage earners.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:54 PM, October 01, 2007

Douglas is clearly the single biggest problem to moving Vermont forward on any front.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:59 PM, October 01, 2007

Why does every study made by any kind of impartial group show Vermont to be the highest taxed per-capita state in the country? Why does every study show the top young talent in Vermont moving to greener pastures, only to be replaced by "progressive" trust-funders looking for more entitlements than any other state? Are all of you bloggers progressives?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:37 PM, October 01, 2007

We may have a new website aimed at getting folks to come and work here, but we are not putting our money where our mouth is. A techie friend of mine, who lived and worked in the Silicon Valley for many years and who had extensive experience at places like MCI and Worldcom, recently moved east and has been looking for work in VT. He told me that the VT state personnel office told him there were no IT jobs here. He recently bought a house in NH instead. And has anyone ever tried to apply for a job with state government? If you can figure out the application process you might have a shot at a job. It seems to me they are trying to discourage people from applying...

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:38 PM, October 01, 2007

The Douglas Administration and especially Mike Smith ARE trying to reduce state government workers.

If they had their way, Vermonters would have reduced service and longer wait times.

One area where they have been very aggressive is ADDING PR/Communications people to tout Gov Douglas, and increasing salaries for Commissioners & Secretaries of Agencies and departments.

And for his own salary which has climbed from Gov Dean's last year of $95K to Gov Douglas cussrent salary of $150K in just 5 years.

In fact, Gov Douglas' salary is now in the top 10 in the US and tied for the Top in New England with Conn.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:56 PM, October 01, 2007

To Bubba

As I said, "per capita" tax "burden" tells us nothing about how much you pay or your neighbor pays. It is simply the total paid divided by the number of people. Therefore, it is terribly misleading.

For example, we have a very progressive income tax structure so most Vermonters pay a rather modest amount while the wealthy pay quite a bit more. We also have income sensitivity for education property taxes. Again, wait for Vol. 2 of the JFO Tax Study and you will see that Vermont's "tax burden" is very competitive.

Finally, don't think for a minute that those who tout the (useless) per capita arguments are impartial. They are seriously biased in favor of lower taxs for the rich.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:05 PM, October 01, 2007

"rich"

Well, I would like to know just what exactly that is.

By Vermont standards, you are rich if you and your wife have professional jobs. Evidently Vermont has two classes: "income sensitive" and "rich".

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:51 PM, October 01, 2007

"And has anyone ever tried to apply for a job with state government?"

Yes, but the job was a long shot and really not my cup of tea.

There is very little state turnover. Pay will always be better in the commercial sector.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:08 PM, October 01, 2007

Actually, according to the state Dept. of Labor, the avg. wage in the public sector is higher than the private sector ($38,400 vs, $34,946).

However, the figures vary significantly depending on which level of government: that is, the avg. wage for federal jobs in VT = $58,191 (5,991 jobs); state gov't. = $43,643 (16,282 jobs including the state colleges); and local gov't. = $31,856 (29,340 jobs including public school teachers).

Note that the "private sector" includes non-profits, which pay comparatively low wages.

It's noteworthy that only 60% of the jobs in VT are in the for-profit sector. The rest are about evenly split between government, non-profits, and the self-employed.

Finally, regular public sector employees generally have much better benefits than those in private sector (one of the reasons there is so little turnover). Says a great deal about the value of unions.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:48 PM, October 01, 2007

Yeah, my definition of commercial is different. I was srictly talking about IT in commercial enterprise and was not including non-profits.

I was also speaking from direct experience and word of mouth, not statistics.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:12 PM, October 01, 2007

I'll go with statistics over word-of-mouth every time.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:56 PM, October 01, 2007

"Gov Patrick is on the radio and tv telling people that Mass is open for business and uses different business leaders to help - similar to the ads that FairPoint is using."

There's a big difference: the Mass. legislature is not doing everything it can to make the state inhospitable to business.

And by the way, having only 60% of our jobs in the for-profit sector seems like a recipe for economic mediocrity to me.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:35 PM, October 01, 2007

Note self employed is in the 40%. I am self employed and I am "for profit". Also, in the 40% are UVM, Middlebury, Fletcher Allen, etc... which are high quality jobs in orgnizations that bring huge amounts of cash into the state in tuition, grants, out of state patients, etc...

The difference between Douglas and Patrick is that he is actually enthusiastic about what his state can achieve. Douglas is not interested in what is possible. I never hear him talk about what we can do, only where we fall short.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:59 PM, October 01, 2007

While there are many good jobs at FAHC (and other hospitals), there are also a large number of low wage jobs including 3,000 orderlies and other low skill jobs. Similarly, UVM has many low wage workers (custodial staff, food service, etc.) so it's a mixed bag.

Also, non-profits employ most of those outside gov't. in "social assistance" (a very large & growing sector) with an avg. wage of $17,000.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:23 AM, October 02, 2007

So, we need more private sector, higher-paying jobs.

Let's get it done.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:10 AM, October 02, 2007

You can't unless voters will elect a moderate.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:02 AM, October 02, 2007

The leftists that run Vermont basically are losers in life that take out their frustrations on hard working businesses, and as an end product, workers in the state. They are people that have never met a payroll but want to micro-manage everything. No one knows anything except them; they form idiotic groups like Conservation Law Foundation, VPIRG, ACLU, and all of the inane groups that have "social justice" or "responsible" in their titles. They picket, protest, and pontificate, everything except do a day's productive work that might actually produce a useful product or service; and most of them are flatlanders with sizable trust funds or naive college graduates that have yet to earn a dollar on their own. THIS is Vermont's problem and until the demographics of Vermont changes, or the remaining Vermonters start voting as they did up until the 80's the state will continue to sink into nothing more than a welfare state where only rich flatlanders can enjoy it's benefits.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:38 AM, October 02, 2007

The "trustfunders" are a minority group that the right uses to stereotype and characterize the left.

The "trustfunders" represent all that is bad to the right. They are "not from around here" flatlanders and at the same time they are people who inherited money and don't have to work. This is the anti-thesis of far right republican Vermonters. It's unthinkable that these freeloading flatlanders are changing Vermont politics.

The truth is that the "trustfunders" the right like to use to drive a point are somewhat of a myth. They don't exist in large enough numbers to control politics.

What Vermont does have is a number of people who moved here from a region that has a different standard of living. These people do seem better off than the typical Vermonter and they should since they can sell their million dollar home and buy the similar one for $300,000 in VT. These people find jobs and pay taxes. Some even become business owners and provide jobs. These people can and do influence politics. So what.

Also, implying that all true Vermonters are republicans is plain stupid. Even during VT's red state past there were plenty of democrats. Old time Vermonter's have influenced the current political landscape just as much as any other group.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:19 AM, October 02, 2007

Bubba - I'll bet that you are a big supporter of Gov. Jim Douglas because he is a conservative.

Well, guess what - HE IS A FLATLANDER!

He came to Vermont from the Springfield Ma area to attend college - Middlebury - a bastion of leftist ideas.

The point is that you and other conservatives continually generalize and paint people in order to suit your needs.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:03 AM, October 02, 2007

GW Bush and Jim Douglas -- both trustfunders.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:16 PM, October 02, 2007

Bubba is a joke.

Doug comes up with some facts that takes the wind out of Bubba's sails and what's Bubba's response????

It's a hollow name calling hate filled rant.

Cripes, what a three year old.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:56 PM, October 02, 2007

Facts??? From Hoffer? Like, unions must be good because private industry in Vermont is so bad that even the state pays more? Or, maybe everyone else says Vermont is the highest taxed state, but not me! I think he is straight out of the Paul Krugman school of delusion. They are paid to come up with "facts" to justify failed economic policy!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:57 PM, October 02, 2007

There is no evidence that Vermont is the highest taxed state.

Every report saying this disregarded at least one tax source or refund mechanism. This includes income sensitivity, excise taxes, and local town income and sales taxes.

The "Vermont highest tax" hogwash is hand-in-hand with the use of "trustfunders" and works well with vaporware "Revolt and Repeal".

The cause of the problem does not exist. How ironic that neither does the problem itself exist nor the solution to the problem exist.

There must be all of ten people buying into the this tea party. Twelve if you use far right math. Two handfulls at any rate.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:17 PM, October 02, 2007

This has been a very interesting thread. Thanks to Mr. Hoffer for his statistics.

As I gather here, Vermont is in a situation where only 60% of the jobs in the state are in the “for profit” sector, which means a smaller total percentage of the population is contributing to the tax base than normal. Through income sensitivity, our tax system (throwing for the moment per-capita definitions aside as Mr. Hoffer suggests) lets more people off the hook for supporting the tax base, and puts the total tax burden on the backs of a smaller percentage of the population than normal.

We have a situation where those absorbing tax resources are paid more in average wages ($38,400 plus better, more expensive benefits vs, $34,946) than those providing tax resources.

How is this a) fair and, b) sustainable.

Somebody suggested Gov. Douglas do a better job of “selling” Vermont. But you have to have something to sell. Gov Richardson declared New Mexico “open for business,” but to show he meant it he cut the top income tax rate from 8.2% down to 4.9% over a five years, cut the capitol gains tax from 8.2 to 4.1% over the same period. As for Gov. Patrick, he can sell, I believe, a 5.3% flat tax in Mass.

If I gather correctly (and please correct me if I’m wrong) Mr. Hoffer and the Democrats in the legislature are advocating doing the opposite of this, and taxing higher income people (who are already shouldering a disproportionately high percentage of Vermont’s total tax burden) even more.

This seems to me suicidal. And particularly foolish when you look at the success that Richardson’s tax cutting has achieved for low unemployment, high income growth, more government revenue, etc. All things Vermont needs.

What, besides a total absence of common sense in the majority, is stopping Vermont from doing what New Mexico has done?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:43 PM, October 02, 2007

New Mexico has more common-sense people, apparently. As well as 48 other states. You can give examples of what other states have done until you are blue in the face, but a Progressive or leftist democrat in Vermont (the new "Know-Nothings") will freeze in hell before they would cut a tax. And too few natives bother to vote, anyway.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:14 PM, October 02, 2007

Huh? You are not making sense. Non-profits are tax exempt. People who work for non-profits still pay income, property, and sales tax.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:30 PM, October 02, 2007

Judging from your statements I can conclude you haven't been to NM. You want to see real poverty, go there.

Richardson is a good example. He was for raising the minimum wage, expanding the state health care system, increasing and exporting power from renewable sources and imposing co2 standards for new cars and trucks.

So good question. Why doesn't Douglas look to Richardson for solutions?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:41 PM, October 02, 2007

Because Jim Douglas hasn't an original idea in his head.

He is following the mantra of Grover Nuquist without signing his pledge.

Gov Dick Snelling, a businessman, was a man with integrity, vision and leadership.

Jim Douglas can only dream about being like Dick!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:11 PM, October 02, 2007

Richardson can afford to do these things because he has economic growth and the tax revenues to pay for them. Vermont can't afford anything beyond bus idling laws at this point.

Stretching my memory on these stats, but I believe that Richardson was increasing govt. spending at 8% a year, and still socked away over a half a billion surplus. Would that Vermont had the problem of arguing whether or not to spend money we had, rather than arguing about spending money we don't have which is what we're doing now.

New Mexico may have poverty, but they're doing what it takes to elimiate poverty. If you saw the front page of the Times Argus this weekend, Vermont apparently has poverty, too. And its getting worse. Let's cut taxes and make it better.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:14 PM, October 02, 2007

what programs and services do you want to cut??

Be specific.

Public libraries?
Teachers in schools?
Cops on the street?
Bridge repair?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:31 PM, October 02, 2007

(1) Freeze teacher salaries (outside of steps) for 3 years.
(2) Force our 3 buffoons in D.C. to use highway dollars for highways - not bike paths, walking trails, other social programs for the well-to-do.
(3) Ban all public employees from striking.
(4) Eliminate all outside agitators like VPIRG, ACLU, "Social Justice" and "Responsible Growth" groups from having ANY influence in the state - if you are not the landowner or neighbor, just shut up!
(5) Eliminate ACTS 60,68 and return school control to the towns.
(6) Eliminate all state government jobs save public safety, highways (as a matter of fact they deserve raises)and maybe keep a bare-boned staff in Montpelier for essentials to be determined if they are necessary to keep federal funds coming to the state, etc.
(7) All ACLU lawyers immediately deported to Guantanamo to baby sit the poor terrorists.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:14 PM, October 02, 2007

You don't seem to understand the reality in New Mexico. Richardson cut the income tax rate, cut the capital gains tax rate (among other things) and INCREASED the revenue to the treasury significantly. I believe he enjoyed (and perhaps still enjoys) the fastest state revenue growth in the country.

Vermont, on the other hand, if you believe Senator Bartlett, has seen its revenue go "poof!"

So, when economic growth doesn't keep up with Vermont's rate of spending growth, what are YOU going to cut. Be specific.

And if it is your intention to try to raise taxes on the few people in the state bearing the burden (See Mr. Hoffer's stats) you better pray none of them leave or change their residency to Florida as a result. Then you'll just be componding your problem and socking it to the middle class. Look at what just happened in Essex.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:56 PM, October 02, 2007

"The truth is that the "trustfunders" the right like to use to drive a point are somewhat of a myth. They don't exist in large enough numbers to control politics."

Oh, no? How about trustfunder Gaye Symington, who is Speaker of the House? If that's not controlling politics, I don't know what is.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:13 AM, October 03, 2007

"Non-profits are tax exempt. The people who work for non-profitsstil pay income, property and sales tax."

True, but how much of their income comes from taxpayer funded grants and/or tax deductable donations? (If Mr. Hoffer is still paying attention, maybe he knows a figure) If non-profit employees are taking more out of the tax base than they are putting back in in terms of the taxes named above, they're still economic losers as far as state revenues are cocerned.

Non-profits are not a sound foundation for an economy, but that seems to be what we're moving towards in Vermont.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:31 AM, October 03, 2007

If you don't change the landscape
i.e. Symington, Shumlin, Markowitz
and Campbell you will never get the state moving in the right direction.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:28 AM, October 03, 2007

Don't forget their minister of propaganda, Doug Hoffer.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:31 AM, October 03, 2007

"True, but how much of their income comes from taxpayer funded grants and/or tax deductable donations? (If Mr. Hoffer is still paying attention, maybe he knows a figure) If non-profit employees are taking more out of the tax base than they are putting back in in terms of the taxes named above, they're still economic losers as far as state revenues are cocerned."

By your logic, I should try to hire somebody that makes enough to be in the top tax bracket to weed my garden versus somebody in the lowest bracket.

Your logic is flawed and its really just picking nits. 25% of $100 is the same regardless of whether the donor pays the $25 or the non-profit employee pays the $25.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:03 AM, October 03, 2007

"Oh, no? How about trustfunder Gaye Symington, who is Speaker of the House? If that's not controlling politics, I don't know what is."

And she elected herself to office? The so-called trustfunders don't have the votes by themselves to control politics.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:07 AM, October 03, 2007

With states ranked from lowest to highest in poverty New Mexico is ranked 45th. Vermont is in top ten.
Same with unemployment. Vermont has the third best record in the country,
New Mexico or 34th or 35th.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:12 AM, October 03, 2007

More: New Mexico childhood poverty 47th; elderly poverty 40th.
Source: National statistics on hunger and Poverty. Google it and see.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:15 AM, October 03, 2007

I don't think it's picking at nits.

If a non-profit worker recieves a taxpayer funded state grant -- money out the state treasury -- to cover his/her salary of $100, then pays $25 back to the treasury in taxes, the Vermont Treasury is still out $75 at the end of the day. That's not sustainable.

You don't have to hire someone in the top tax bracket to weed your garden, but you better create jobs for people in the top tax bracket, and private sector jobs at that, if you want to raise enough state revenue to keep Vermont going.

Hiring more government workers and subsidising more non-profits with taxes while shrinking the private sector tax base will sink us. Yet, that's what we're doing.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:20 AM, October 03, 2007

I think your numbers are outdated, at least on unemployment. VT's unemployment has risen to 4.0%, New Mexico's has dropped to 3.2%. See below...

"Governor Bill Richardson today announced that New Mexico has hit an all time record low unemployment rate. In June the unemployment rate fell to 3.2 percent. The previous record of 3.5 percent was set in February 2007.

“Another drop in our unemployment rate means our policies are helping put more New Mexicans to work,” said Governor Bill Richardson. “By keeping our taxes low, by providing incentives to attract high-wage jobs, and by building a better skilled workforce New Mexico’s economy continues to grow and our unemployment rate continues to drop.”

The national unemployment rate is 4.5 percent."

It doesn't matter where you are in terms of poverty, unemployment, rankings, etc. It matters the direction you're moving and what policies are moving the ball forward, and what are moving backward. In VT, we have a very "progressive" tax system, and yong people are leaving, poverty is on the rise, unemployment is on the rise, the gap between rich and poor is increasing faster than every other place in America but CT.

Look at what's working, and go from there.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:29 AM, October 03, 2007

Monthly unemployment is a sketchy number or quote.

Why are non-profits and for-proftis mutually exclusive?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:49 AM, October 03, 2007

It matters to the people forced to live in poverty situations. Evidently you are not among them.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:45 PM, October 03, 2007

Young people are leaving because that is what young people do--face facts.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:57 PM, October 03, 2007

It would also help if Vermonters applying for positions were given at least an equal weight to those from out of state who also apply. That might encourage some of those you see as alienated from leaving. Just a thought.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:15 PM, October 03, 2007

Its not cut and dry. People leave for different reasons.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:21 PM, October 03, 2007

You will leave if you want to raise a family and the schools suck!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:12 AM, October 05, 2007

The schools in southern Vermont do suck.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:23 PM, October 06, 2007

Boy, do they!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!