vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

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

10.17.2007

Negative energy

The buzz at the Renewable Energy Vermont conference Wednesday at the Sheraton in South Burlington was over the fact that Gov. Jim Douglas wasn't there. Why not, given the number of growing Vermont companies that had booths there? Why wasn't he there embracing that piece of economic development?

One reason was that he wasn't invited. REV Executive Director Andy Perchlik indicated he didn't think the governor would feel comfortable. "I think he's worried about this crowd," he said. If Douglas had asked to be included in the agenda, he would have been, Perchlik said.

Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie was at the conference, just as he attended many of the global warming discussions in the Legislature last winter. Dubie and the energy crowd get along pretty well.

Douglas considered attending the conference, spokesman Jason Gibbs said. "We discussed it but came to the conclusion that organizers didn't want the governor there," he said.

Douglas attended the conference last year, at which he debated Democratic opponent Scudder Parker. Parker, now an energy consultant, was at this year's conference. Indeed, the crowd at one session I attended was heavy on the applause for the Democratic-controlled Legislature and not so enthusiastic about the governor.

You do have to wonder if this apartheid between the governor and renewable energy people is good for Vermont. For once, it might be nice to see Douglas touting the growth of one of these businesses at a news conference, as he has done with other high-tech firms. For once, it might be nice to see renewable energy advocates not hissing at the very mention of the governor's name. Just a thought.

- Terri Hallenbeck

posted by vt.Buzz | 7:03 PM |

Comments:

Umm ... is this is a surprise? The renewable energy crowd is a highly politicized and fiercely partisan group. Perchlik's wife Marianne Donahue wrote a Scudder Parker tribute song for his campaign. David and Jan Blittersdorf are vocal administration critics and big Democratic donors who never pass up an opportunity to slam Douglas publicly.

What would Douglas have to gain by going where he's obviously not welcome and where he's probably going to be criticized roundly to any reporter in attendence?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:33 PM, October 17, 2007

Dubie went. He said that this conference is very important.

He said that renewable energy is essential for Vermont and for America.

But Douglas has no proposals for promoting renewable energy in Vermont.

Shame.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:36 AM, October 18, 2007

Jim Douglas wants to be emperor of VT -- however, the emperor is being unveiled slowly but surely!

This emperor has no clothes - and it ain't pretty!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:06 AM, October 18, 2007

"What would Douglas have to gain by going where he's obviously not welcome and where he's probably going to be criticized roundly to any reporter in attendence?"

Yeah. Lord forbid Douglas would actually have to try and debate his no approach strategy with people who are tired of sitting around watching Douglas and crew do NOTHING!!!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:23 AM, October 18, 2007

Isn't it awkward that Douglas is over in China highlighting Vermont's renewable energy companies, yet won't work with them?

If this is so important to VT and could potentially provide significant development in Vermont's economy, wouldn't Douglas try to promote growth in this sector?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:25 AM, October 18, 2007

Of course Douglas would meet with reasonable advocates of renewable energy. However, how can anyone discuss ANYTHING with these left-wing morons that only want to scam as much tax money as they can with questionable solutions such as driving Entergy out of Vermont? If you want to start solving some energy problems in Vermont start electing conservative business people to the legislature that know how to be energy efficient. And send the usual suspects, the leftist scam artists and out of state grifters back to where they came from.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:43 AM, October 18, 2007

"Of course Douglas would meet with reasonable advocates of renewable energy"

Well apparently not.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:50 AM, October 18, 2007

Takes Bubba's mind a while to catch up with his loose lips.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:20 PM, October 18, 2007

The "renewable" crowd might do better if they stopped trying to cram everything down our throats
(Large-scale wind, for example). When groups sincerely want to come to agreements and establish public policies that will benefit our citizens (including our renewable energy companies and their employees)an open-minded, thoughtful dialogue that gives full respect and consideration to opposing points of view usually moves the process forward. We have not seen this, and, in fact, we have seen the polar opposite of this. Setting up a political tug-of-war, and sticking to it no matter what, is what is causing the standstill. Good leadership on this issue is sorely lacking..on both sides.
A crying shame.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:30 PM, October 18, 2007

Isn't it the fossil fuel industry that's been craming everything down our throats?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:35 PM, October 18, 2007

That is because nothing close to a genuine policy debate can take place in Vermont anymore. Politics has devolved into name-calling and closed-minded partisanship that do not allow for the open airing and discussion of actual ideas and solutions.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:42 PM, October 18, 2007

"Isn't it the fossil fuel industry that's been craming everything down our throats?"

Yes, for a long time now. Does this mean the renewable companies should be behaving like them? Same tactics, different day. The wave of the future used to be "plastics", now we ar supposed to believe it is "wind".

Sigh...

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:49 PM, October 18, 2007

Oh. So you support renewable energy, you just don't want anyone promoting it.

That's a very smart position.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:36 PM, October 18, 2007

Where's Jimmy? Where could he be?
Hiding in a closet to avoid renewable energy.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:10 PM, October 18, 2007

Renewable energy - aren't those windmills in Sheffield, Sutton, and East Haven that are fought tooth and nail by the leftist "environmentalists" part of the renewable mix? Face it, like Al Gore living in a house that burns 20 times as much energy as normal, and justifies it because he pays a carbon tax somewhere in Africa, these phonies only want "renewable" energy when it's stuck in Texas or Louisiana. No sacrifices for the limousine liberals!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:23 PM, October 18, 2007

The Leg. did not start with a tax on Entergy. They started with a tax on heating fuels. This is exactly the right tax because it's those who use those fuels that will benefit directly from the energy efficiency investments.

hat is just what the voters of Burlington approved almost 20 years ago. They agreed to raise their rates in order to pay for investments in efficiency. Not surprisingly, it worked very well.

But the Gov. said he wouldn't support the tax on heating fuels. This made no sense because the savings from energy efficiency would have vastly exceeded the tax. Indeed, the Governor's own Dept. of Public Service commissioned a study that found the program would save businesses $200 million.

We can argue about the proposed tax on Entergy (which has a sweetheart deal on property taxes, unlike you and me), but it's the Gov. who is standing in the way of much needed investments in efficiency.

As as for the need to elect "conservative business people to the legislature that know how to be energy efficient", you don't know what you're talking about.

The only reason the "efficiency utility" was created was because CVPS & GMP were NOT making sufficient investments in efficiency. Many (not all) in the business community took years to figure out the simple math and resisted efficiency for years.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:26 PM, October 18, 2007

In most states where businesses (and their workers) are thriving, they also have received "sweetheart" deals on taxes; however, in these states, a corrupt legislature has not changed the rules in the middle of the game. Apparently Hoffer believes there is no other answer than a communist form of government inasmuch as businesses are so irresponsible. Maybe the libs could research Stalin's famous 5-year plans (that were so successful) to see how well that form of government works.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:56 PM, October 18, 2007

Why is it your statements are never supported with data? How do you define thriving? Which states are thriving? What deals? To whom? How much? Etc.

And of course, you didn't respond to the facts presented re. the history of the bill and the funding options.

And I never said businesses were "irresponsible". You just hear what you want and ignore the rest.

You referred earlier to "reasonable advocates of renewable energy". We don't know what you mean by that but it's pretty clear that you are not a reasonable person. No one who actually tries to work with other people would ever tolerate your offensive rambling. How do you expect people to take you or your ideas seriously if you use that kind of language?

It's so much easier to just rant on this blog than actually engage in adult conversation or participate directly. Have you ever run for office in VT? Served on a local board? Testified in a committee in Montpelier? Or any of the other things available to people who want influence public policy.

All you do is complain - from another state and without identifying yourself to boot. It obviously makes you feel good but it's pretty tiresome and terribly counterproductive.

At the end of the day (or a life), one should ask whether he or she has contributed - made the workplace or community a better place. How do you answer the question? Insulting people doesn't usually get very far.

You will of course respond with more vitriol and baseless attacks, but I just had to say this. And I have no doubt that many others feel the same way.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:24 PM, October 18, 2007

You're all wrong. Douglas didn't go to the conference because he wasn't invited.

Oh, sure, now we're gonna here that, well, they were right not to invite him. But that's not the point. You were all smugly bashing him for choosing not to go. You were wrong.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:22 PM, October 18, 2007

Did they invite Dubie? Because Dubie was there.

Why would they invite Dubie but not Douglas?

Doesn't Douglas ever go places that he isn't invited? He'd never think to reach out to a group that was doing something important? He has to wait to be invited?

That's not leadership. That's lame.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:37 PM, October 18, 2007

Blah, blah, blah.

Yes, Dubie was invited. Douglas wasn't.

First you blame him for not going when you didn't know the facts. Then when you were called on it, you cover up by blaming him for not crashing the party.

Jeezuz. That's lame.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:30 AM, October 19, 2007

As the first poster to this thread noted, the issue of renewable energy, especially wind, has been highly politicized. And the organizers of this event are among the most partisan.

As Terri noted in her original post, it's a shame that this is the case but it explains why Andy Perchlik wouldn't invite Douglas. And why Douglas wouldn't go, probably even if he were invited.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:27 AM, October 19, 2007

The fact that they invited Dubie proves that this group is willing to cross party lines and work with people of all stripes to create better solutions for Vermont.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:35 AM, October 19, 2007

"All you do is complain - from another state and without identifying yourself to boot."

Frankly, I'm glad he lives in another state.

If raising taxes meant less people like Bubba in Vermont, then by all means lets raise taxes.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:37 AM, October 19, 2007

Its downright pathetic that Douglas goes to China to promote Vermont's green businesses, yet can't work with the local companies or on legislation that might help these local companies.

Douglas is way off here.

I guess Dubie gets to sit in on the legislative sessions, so he knows that the legislature is not the enemy and that good work does come forth and that there is room for compromise.

All Douglas does is shut the door on compromise and use conflict for self preservations.

What a pathetic excuse for a Governor.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:45 AM, October 19, 2007

You have one eye open and one eye closed.

If you think the Legislature doesn't play partisan politics, you're naive, to put it politely.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:24 AM, October 20, 2007

"All you do is complain - from another state and without identifying yourself to boot."

Frankly, I'm glad he lives in another state."

Bubba may be a little rough around the edges but he puts forward a consistent and historically true point, free market economies succeed....big government and socialism generally fails.

Renewable energy is good in concept but hasn't become commercially viable. If the renewable energy crowd really wants to win against the evil fossil fuel crowd invest your time and efforts into making your product commercially viable.

The best "mouse trap" always wins. Clearly yours is not the best "mouse trap" yet or you would have much more momentum than you do today.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:15 AM, October 20, 2007

"Renewable energy is good in concept but hasn't become commercially viable."

You are mistaken. Not only is wind a huge part of the generation mix in Europe, but states like Texas and California are building wind farms all over the place.

The rising price of fossil fuels (including natural gas for power plants in New England) has made wind very competitive.

"free market economies succeed"

I guess you have a different definition of success than I do. There are almost 50 million people without health insurance; millions more losing their pensions; wages barely keeping up with inflation; millions of shareholders (and workers) screwed by corporate fraud; and so on.

The market does some things well but to say it is a "success" in the face of all the problems we face is an exaggeration.

And that's the point. Bubba and others view government as an impediment but it has a critical role to play in providing infrastructure (how does business move goods without taxpayer funded roads?); by checking the greed that results in fraud, stock manipulation, tax avoidance, workplace safety violations, environmental damage from illegal dumping, etc.; and in helping those left behind by the market.

In truth, we don't really have a "free" market since taxpayers subsidize certain businesses with tax breaks (how do you square that with the idea of no gov't. intervention?). The giveaways to the oil & gas industry over the last 50 years are immense and have made it difficult for alternatives to compete.

And closer to home, gov't. offers the mortgage interest deduction as a way of promoting home ownership. That's interferring in the market (and costs over $60 billion per year in lost revenue).

And on and on. The idea that the "market" is "free" and that gov't. is the enemy are easy soundbites but simply not true. The successes of the last 50 years owe a lot to gov't. policy AND there's plenty of blame to be shared for the failures.

These simplistic labels don't help us solve problems. And the naive belief that the "market" is always the best way to allocate resources is demonstrably false if you care about human beings and the health of the planet. Clearly, we need the market but it's just as clear that we need to manage it.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:50 AM, October 20, 2007

"I guess you have a different definition of success than I do. There are almost 50 million people without health insurance; millions more losing their pensions; wages barely keeping up with inflation; millions of shareholders (and workers) screwed by corporate fraud; and so on. "

Doug,

You are truly naive. You need to get out more and stop believing your research reports a little less. We compete in a global economy. If you haven't noticed the world has changed a bit over the last 40 years since the "Great Society". What you see is the real life impact of competing against other world economies that don't think Auto workers should make $50/hr for fairly common tasks or that work doesn't stop at 5PM. Engineers in Europe work 1,600 hrs/yr. In the US its 1,900 hrs. In China its 2,800 hrs for a fraction of the pay. As a country we are becoming more uncompetitive in the global arena. We can pretend we can legislate, tax, and spend it away but it only aggravates the situation. Market forces always return to the point of equilibrium. Time after time socialism fails becasue of it.

It's actually interesting to watch our colleagues in some of the most socialist countries in Europe (like France) acknowledging the error of their way and starting to move back toward a free market economy.

You should actually talk to people outside the US and hear their perspective. You may find it interesting.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:45 PM, October 20, 2007

Scudder Parker should just run again

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:13 PM, October 20, 2007

So it's naive to think American workers should expect decent pay for hard work? I suppose your sad embrace of the global economy means you think it's OK that we can no longer look ahead to living with dignity. Or that we should expect our kids will do better than we did (as was the case for our parents).

Do you have any idea of the facts? It has nothing to do with the Great Society.

In the post-war era, there was a fair distribution between shareholders and workers and all income groups grew together. Today the balance has shifted and workers are getting the shaft as the new wealth is going almost entirely to the top 5%. It is NOT only cheap labor overseas. It a fundamental shift that you ignore at your peril.

Yes times have changed. But you sound like you're happy that American workers are forced to compete with those making $20 per day with no benefits of any kind.

But back to my point. You referred to the "success" of free market economies. I described the stress of living in America (a "free market" economy) for tens of millions of people and suggested that on many important measures we are clearly not succeeding.

In response, you talked about France.

Again, please tell me how you can describe the current state of affairs as a "success" in light of what's happening to working families?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:43 PM, October 20, 2007

Doug...Doug...Doug,

Why do you put words in my mouth? Why would any rational person find any joy in a declining standard of living or the suffering of others. It makes you sound so bitter. I don't think that, and didn't infer that.

I find the impending decline in our standard of living a central issue facing our country today. I share your desire to hold tight to the ideals we all grew up on. I want to see the world become a better place but I am a realist and accept the real world facts that our standard of living is far beyond that of most of the world.

Again I will say we compete in a global economy where the rules of the game are not the ones we grew up with. Your points while idealistically fine don't align with the rules of the road today. We can not legislate prosperity, we need to earn it against our competitors.

Its a basic fact of evolution... it's not the strong that survive nor is it the smart that survive...it's those who can change with their environment.

I would really rather hear your executable plan on how we grow and prosper in a new global economy than a continual reciting of the same old tired talking points of the left.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:28 PM, October 20, 2007

"I am a realist and accept the real world facts that our standard of living is far beyond that of most of the world."

He is right. A worker who puts a bolt in a hole and is making $50/hour -- you think that person has a right to expect that next year he should get $55 for doing the same job?

The rest of the world views us as pigs, and rightly so.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:39 PM, October 20, 2007

You keep talking about the "new rules" of the game as if they are sent from God. We created these new rules. And they benefit multi-national corporations, not American workers.

U.S. trade policy has been a disaster for American workers. That doesn't mean we shouldn't trade, only that it should be on a level playing field. Why is it fair for China to benefit from a system that ignores basic human rights? And why should we reward companies that move to places with virtually no environmental protections? Are these rules in the best interests of anyone other than large companies? Seriously, answer the question.

And the idea that economies of scale will always result in the greatest good for the greatest number is no longer true. And please don't tell me that cheap goods at Wal-Mart will make up for all those who lost $40,000 jobs and now earn $25,000.

And those who think that increased wages for Chinese & Indian workers is a good thing are right. But China & India could be growing just as fast if they were producing goods for domestic markets (after all, they have 2.5 billion people between them).

BTW - The hostility toward auto workers is really sad. And you should know by now that the Unions have worked very closely with the automakers to retool - they don't "put bolts in holes"; they run computer assisted machines that have allowed the auto companies to lay off tens of thousands of workers. It's called increased productivity.

Productivity gains used to mean higher wages. Not anymore. Is this one of the "new rules" you referred to? You still don't get it. The new wealth - created in part by workers' higher productivity - is going primarily to shareholders. That has nothing to do with globalization.

I'm afraid you did not answer my question: please tell me how you can describe the current state of affairs in this country as a "success" in light of what's happening to working families? Recall that you said "free market economies succeed".

I find it interesting that you belittle the "same old tired talking points of the left" but don't acknowledge that your rhetoric is the same old tired talking points of the right. You can't have it both ways. Besides, my "talking points" are supported by the facts, however tiresome they may seem to you.

As for an "executable plan on how we grow and prosper in a new global economy", that is a much longer conversation that is not suitable for this blog. For now, I will say this: America has enormous unmet needs in housing and infrastructure (including telecom). Both require substantial new investments and both have large multipliers from job creation right here at home.

[Note that the private sector has failed miserably on telecom. Other leading industrialized countries are way way ahead of us because their governments understand that it cannot be left only to the private sector. Check the facts on speed and access overseas.]

Unfortunately, we're wasting all of our money on a war we shouldn't have fought and can't win. And of course the Right wants to keep cutting taxes so gov't. (in the famous words of Grover Norquist) can be shrunk to the size where it can be drowned in the bathtub. So where will we get the money for all these needed investments?

In addition, we should vastly increase support for higher education and workforce training. Investing in people is a lot more likely to help than cutting the capital gains rate or eliminating the estate tax. If we all agree that education is the key going forward, why aren't we doing more to increase the affordability of a college education?

And of course we should solve two critical problems: health care and energy, both of which are killing us but are hostage to corporate interests.

As I've said, the market does some things well. But government has a huge role to play.

Working people deserve better. It's not enough to say things are changing so "change with the environment". In this case, much of the new environment is of our own design. So yes, let's change. But let's not walk away from our responsibility to set rules that are fair and designed to reward everyone, not just the few.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:28 PM, October 20, 2007

Doug...Doug...Doug,

It all sounds very nice. It is all very naive. The free market has taken to where we are today and will lead us into tomorrow.

Infrastructure is where it is today because that is what is commerically viable and demanded. If we wanted better telcom et.al., the market would demand it, pay for it and get it. Remember the corporate greed you talk of? Remember Econ 101...supply and demand? Once you achieve equilibrium, people will line up to meet the need.

We can engage in the academic and theoretical feel good rhetoric from either side or we can understand the real issue is how do we rationalize and sustain our standard of living in a flattened global economy.

What's most interesting is the real world fact that despite all these perceived social injustices that are being perpetuated against us by "big business and this misguided conservative government", more people immigrate to the US than anyplace else. Perhaps its not really so bad as all your research suggests.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:17 AM, October 21, 2007

"BTW - The hostility toward auto workers is really sad. And you should know by now that the Unions have worked very closely with the automakers to retool - they don't "put bolts in holes" they run computer assisted machines..."

Doug, this guy is right. In the US, this guy probably has a high school dipolma, gets $50/hr to watch a computer-driven tool run and probably works 1800 hrs a year. In Asia this same person can easily have a higher degree of education, works 2500 hrs and makes $30/month. Its hard to argue either is right but that is what we have to compete against.

Unions are dinosaurs. They should be working for their membership by helping make their companies better. They don't... they make them weaker in the world marketplace.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:36 AM, October 21, 2007

I assume significantly higher labor costs are why US autos are more expensive than foreign autos of similar or higher quality.

Is your solution that I shouldn't be able to buy a south korean car, Douggie? After all, that's just not fair to the US worker, right? Why don't we just exclude all cheaper, foreign-made products from the US market, ok?

By the way, Doug, I know Progs hate cars, but they do own them. Do you? Where is it from?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:49 AM, October 21, 2007

Higher labor costs are not always the case. The reason Japanese automakers are flocking to the South is to get away from the UAW. Southern automakers in Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky are where Asian cars are being built, more each year. Lower taxes, no union thugs to harass workers, and a lower cost of living. Sort of like Vermont used to be before the Sanders, Hoffers, Deans, Kunins, Symingtons, and the "progressives" moved here from New York city, Mass, New Jersey, Connecticut and showed Vermonters how to destroy a state in 6 easy lessons.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:05 PM, October 21, 2007

"...the Unions have worked very closely with the automakers"

Let's all endorse the UAW. Now that’s are an organization with a squeaky clean history and track record for doing the right thing. Any thoughts on the Teamsters?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:16 PM, October 21, 2007

I'm afraid there is a lot of misinformation out there.

The reason telecom providers have not served rural VT is not because there's no demand. It's because they can make more money in the cities (more customers per mile). Thus, you supply & demand mantra is useless in the face of greed.

Their calculus is clear: why make a 10% profit when you make 20% somewhere else? It may be logical but it's not in the public interest. And remember that when gov't. agreed to charter corporations in the 19th century it was with the understanding that they would serve a public interest in addition to their shareholders. That part of the "social contract" is out the window.

And this is EXACTLY what happened with the electric companies in the early part of the last century. They ran wires in the valleys and said the hell with those who aren't convenient. That's why states were forced to adopt regulations that said utilities must serve everyone in their service territories, and it's why co-ops were formed to serve those ignored by the investor owned utilities. History is repeating itself.

Rural America is dying for broadband but the "market" just walks away. Lots of people are willing to pay the freight but the companies go where they can maximize return on investment. If I understand you, that means folks in rural areas should just accept their lot and not complain. But what about all those rural small businesses and self-employed folks who need high speed access?

Clearly the market has not met their needs. So why shouldn't gov't. step in and do what's necessary (as we've done in Burlington)? The answer in the 30s was "Rural Electrification", the TVA, and all those large publicly owned utilities that utilized cheap hydro in the West. Gov't. recognized that the market had failed to serve large numbers of citizens and businesses and decided to do something about it. By all accounts, it was - and is - a huge success.

So why can't you admit that the market has limitations and that the gov't. has an important role to
play? Your ideology is blinding you to the facts. It really doesn't have to be so black and white. I don't hate the market and I don't deny some gov't. shortcomings. But I see a role for both. Why can't you?

"We can engage in the academic and theoretical feel good rhetoric from either side or we can understand the real issue is how do we rationalize and sustain our standard of living in a flattened global economy."

It still sounds like you are suggesting that Americans should accept a lower standard of living. If that's all you've got, it's pretty sad.

"What's most interesting is the real world fact that despite all these perceived social injustices that are being perpetuated against us by "big business and this misguided conservative government", more people immigrate to the US than anyplace else. Perhaps its not really so bad as all your research suggests."

It's certainly better than in Mexico. But if your goal is to lower American living standards so that Mexicans will no longer see the U.S. as a place to get ahead, that too is really really sad.

And for those who think that auto workers have not cooperated with mgmt. to increase productivity, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. I realize many Vermonters have been taught to hate Unions, but you should do some reading and learn the facts.

And you have once again decided not to answer any of my questions.

As for my vehicle, it is made in the USA by Union labor. How about you?

And as for Bubba: "Higher labor costs are not always the case. The reason Japanese automakers are flocking to the South is to get away from the UAW. Southern automakers in Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky are where Asian cars are being built, more each year."

Once again he assumes things but knows little about the facts. Asian auto makers started building plants in the U.S. years ago. The reason was because the gov't. developed "content" rules that forced foreign automakers to either manufacture or assemble the cars here of face limitations on the number they could sell (and it vastly reduces their shipping costs too).

But wait, that means the gov't. interferred in the market. Outrageous! It also means that lots of Americans have jobs that would otherwise have gone to Koreans. You got a problem with that?

Not surprisingly, they located in the South where Unions were not strong. Once again, it's "logical" but not good for workers. And note that many of them took enormous local & state tax breaks in the process. And the available data suggests that there is no way in hell that there is a net benefit to those states.

BTW - You all enjoy using my name in your messages, but you don't offer the same courtesy to me.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:33 PM, October 21, 2007

Douggie, your constant whining about anonymous posters is getting really, really old.

By the way, I see that you are again called an "independent policy analyst" in the Free Press today, instead of the "Progressive policy analyst" or "left-wing policy analyst" that you should be called.

You say your car is made in the U.S. But I asked you where it is from. Is it Japanese, or not?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:10 PM, October 21, 2007

"It still sounds like you are suggesting that Americans should accept a lower standard of living. If that's all you've got, it's pretty sad."

Your reading skills can use some improvement. If you want to quote me get it right. I did not say we should accept a lower standard of living! I said preserving it in a global economy is the central issue.

"But if your goal is to lower American living standards so that Mexicans will no longer see the U.S. as a place to get ahead, that too is really really sad." Where did I say that was my goal and why would you make such an assertion with no facts to make it on? More importantly why would you take such a "swipe" at the Mexicans? I thought you were driven by fact.

Please be fair in your postings. After all you are an independent analyst. You wouldn't want people to think you have a bias. It can damage your "brand value" in the free market.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:57 AM, October 22, 2007

You have a lot of nerve. No b___s, but a lot of nerve.

My car is a Ford. And that is the last question I will answer from those who refuse to respond to any of mine.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:11 AM, October 22, 2007

Oh, you mean you're gonna stop clogging this blog with your multiple lengthy press releases from the Peace and Justice Center and the Bernie for President of the Planet campaign? How sad!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:11 AM, October 22, 2007

Whenever I present facts from anything other than slanted left-wing "studies" Hoffer simply claims that the rest of the world is simply wrong,i.e., Chambers of Commerce, Small Business groups, State and Federal government stats, etc. It is almost a joke to watch Hoffer attempt to make silk purses out of sow's ears, and if he succeeds then what a gullible bunch we are! Example: Mississippi gave large tax breaks to a Japanese car maker to build a huge plant in Tupelo, average wage over $40,000 not counting benefits; would you rather have money going to good, permanent jobs or would you rather do what Vermont does, spend tax payers dollars TO KEEP INDUSTRY OUT OF VERMONT? (Can't let Vermont get to be like New Jersey, you know)

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:04 AM, October 22, 2007

"Whenever I present facts "

That's just it. You don't ever present facts.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:38 PM, October 23, 2007

"Who gives a rat's ass about Mississippi?"

Funny, there are people in
Tupelo right now saying "Who gives a rat's ass about Vermont." It seems they have the good paying jobs (with Company paid insurance benefits).

Bubba is right on target. Sorry Progs

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:48 PM, October 23, 2007

$40k is not a good paying job.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:32 PM, October 23, 2007

You may laugh at Mississippi but they seem to care more about the average working guy than Vermont. Vermont should be so lucky to have Haley Barbour for governor, not to mention a legislature, that, while still democrat, actually looks out for the overall benefits of their citizens, not just for an elite group of environmental know-it-alls.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:38 PM, October 23, 2007

In 2000 Nissan announced an investment of around $1 billion in a plant in Mississippi that would employ some 4,000 workers. The state showed its appreciation with a subsidy package worth more than $295 million.

The state payed the salary for all 4000 workers for almost the entire first two years of operation.

The plant will be long gone before the state breaks even with its tax incentives.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:46 PM, October 23, 2007

"The plant will be long gone before the state breaks even with its tax incentives."

Based on fact or just your wild uninformed speculation?

Congrats to Mississippi for doing the right thing for its citizens...making an investment in the future.

I am sure you know exactly how much NISSAN is spending in the local economy.

My vote is for the VT way. VEDA needs to invest in more into B&B's, and energy programs like the one they did last year for a project to convert cow manure into electricity. Now there's a winner.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:05 PM, October 23, 2007

The expectation is that in the long term, salaries will decline and the manufacturers will move again as they continually seek a cheaper market. This will likely be globally. If not, the future existence of the plant in any US location will require the continuous outpouring of incentive money from state coffers. The end result is that these states chase their tails and the amount of benefit to the state doesn't match tax incentives.

BTW, the location of some of these plants has nothing to do with taxes or incentives. For example, the Toyota truck plant was located in Texas to be close to the huge Texas market for pickup trucks.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:49 PM, October 23, 2007

BMW has been in Greer, SC since 1992 and just announced a $400 million, 400 job expansion. Sounds like they're pretty happy here in the U.S.!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:00 PM, October 23, 2007

Black Belt South colonial conditions:

* Low level of unionization and right to work and other anti-worker laws;
* Largest concentration of African-Americans and highest poverty rate in the US;
* Weak environmental protections;
* Rural underdevelopment, including increasing outside, absentee ownership of land, water, forests, jobs and capital;

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:43 PM, October 23, 2007

Manufacturing employment in Mississippi has declined almost 13% since 2001 (25,000 fewer jobs).

The avg. annual manufacturing wage in Mississippi was $35,768 in 2006 ($47,706 in VT)

The unemployment rate is 6.8% (4.2% in VT).

The percent of 8th graders in Mississippi that are proficient in mathematics = 14% (VT = 41%).

For reading the percentage is 17% (VT = 42%).

Go ahead, tell me again how great Mississippi is.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:59 PM, October 23, 2007

Aw Doug - now you are going to make bubba frustrated!

You are confusing him with honest to goodness FACTS!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:32 PM, October 23, 2007

yup...we may not have any real business here but we sure are smarter then them thar folks in Mississippi.

BTW...I thought that high average income was from all the flatlander trust funders that are making our state unaffordable?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:48 PM, October 23, 2007

You misread the post. It was not "average income", only avg. wage for manufacturing. It has nothing to do with trust funders or unearned income (i.e., capital gains, dividends, or interest). Try to pay attention.

Not sure what you mean by "real business" or how VT is unaffordable. Can you provide specifics or do you just speak in slogans?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:55 PM, October 23, 2007

Boy, has this thread come a long way from a discussion about the politics of renewable energy in Vermont.

I just saw today's editorial and have to say the Freeps got it right. Conservation and demand side management are a great idea, but they can't be so expensive and onerous that they put the state's economy in the tank.

H520 was really much more of a political exercise than a real attempt to make good energy policy. The Democrats, particularly Peter Shumlin, wanted to get the governor to veto a bill that had the words "climate change" in it. Then the headlines in the newspapers would dutifully report "Douglas Vetoes Climate Change Bill" and those could be reprinted for use in attack ads in 2008.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:34 PM, October 23, 2007

"Boy, has this thread come a long way from a discussion about the politics of renewable energy in Vermont."

Yeah, sanctimonious Douggie always brings down the mood with his "i'm-smarter-than-you" preaching.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:32 PM, October 23, 2007

Facts remain valid regardless of who states them.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:12 AM, October 24, 2007

Indeed, facts are facts....new jobs in Missippi 4,000... new jobs in S. Carolina 400...new jobs in VT--zero. Who won this game?

Does anything else need to be said? I'll bet there are 4,400 people in VT that would like to work for Nissan or BMW.

Unrelated, are we bragging that VT's reading and math proficiency is under 45%? Congrats to our teacher's union...

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:54 AM, October 24, 2007

Its plain stupid to compare Mississippi or any southern state to VT.

If you want to compare like versus like, compare Mississipi to Alabama to South Carolina and any other bible belt state.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:10 PM, October 24, 2007

The only comparison is the effort by the once-poorest states in the country to improve the lot of their working people with the lack of effort by the once-most educated area of the country to ignore them. I also notice that "Mr. Facts" Hoffer never mentions the huge cost of living differences (taxes, energy, etc.) between these states. Even the union thugs are apparently getting nervous, judging by the recent Vermont trip by the boss of the national NEA to make sure the legislatures and school boards know who's paying their way.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:24 PM, October 24, 2007

"Once poorest"

Try perpetually poorest. There's a rsason why the automotive industries from EMEA liken the US south a third world country.

Ten poorest states are.

1) Mississippi
2) Arkansas
3) Utah
4) New Mexico
5) West Virginia
6) Lousiana
7) South Carolina
8) Oklahoma
9) Kentucky
10) Alabama

It's well kmown in the south that Georgia is with the times, Alabama 20 years behind Georgia, and Mississippi 20 years behind Alabama.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:37 PM, October 24, 2007

Cost of living

A family of four earning $40,000 would pay about $600 more for income taxes in Mississippi than in VT.

The sales tax in Mississippi is $0.07 and $0.06 in VT. And Mississippi taxes food and clothing, while VT does not.

Energy: According to the Census Consumer Expenditure Survey, a family earning $44,000 spends 2.7% of gross income on electricity. So even though VT's electric rates are higher, the added cost would be a modest extra expense - especially since the VT family has already saved over $600 on state income taxes.

So I guess that $12,000 difference in avg. manufacturing wage looks pretty good after all. Sorry Bubba.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:49 PM, October 24, 2007

Cripes Mississipi is a third world country..

In state rankings, it is:

#1 in obesity
#1 in hypertension
#2 in diabetes
#1 in infant mortality
#1 in low birth babies
#1 in pre-term births

has 50% more uninsured people than Vermont and more than twice the number of uninsured children

Is the state with the greatest poverty and the state with the lowest median family income.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:11 PM, October 24, 2007

That's 16.8% of the population of Mississippi who are uninsured compared to 11% in VT. And 12.9% of children compared to 5.7% in VT.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:14 PM, October 24, 2007

Personally, I don't want to pick on Mississippi. Nor do I want to suggest that VT is economic heaven. I'm just tired of people saying that VT sucks and things are so much better elsewhere.

The bottom line is that working people are getting stiffed all over America. We can do a lot better.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:37 PM, October 24, 2007

There's more to life than money.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:46 PM, October 24, 2007

To some extent Doug is right.
It's not about bashing Mississippi.

It's about state government aggressively pursuing Companies to move to their state...companies that are consistent with the strategic desires of the state and companies that can afford to pay for things we need here...like employer provided health insurance. There are plenty of industries that met this profile, are "gentle on the environment" and, contrary to popular belief, aren't entirely evil. Other states are more aggressive than we are and, from my perspective, our state government is doing its residents a disservice. Rural is fine, agriculture and tourism is fine but it's not the economic engine that will develop a growing state revenue stream to fund the programs everyone seems to think we need.

Why is this such a difficult concept to understand?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:25 PM, October 24, 2007

Hear, hear.

All the bashing is against the Gov.

I'd like to see the Legislature give a strong sign that they are open to the idea of attracting business to Vermont.

I've never heard of Gaye Symington going on business recruitment tours. Ever.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:38 PM, October 24, 2007

I understand the desire to see the answer outside VT (pursuing companies; attracting companies). But the truth is that very few large (or even medium size businesses) move state to state anymore. We may hear of the occasional relocation or new branch, but it just doesn't amount to much in the scheme of things.

Note: The private data I've seen showed that interstate movement accounts for no more than 2% - 3% of all the jobs created and destroyed in a year. That doesn't mean we shouldn't care, only that it's not going to make much of a difference. So all the Gaye-bashing is really off the mark.

The key is to support existing businesses and help new businesses. That's where the action is. And that requires the three things businesses have said they need for decades: a quality workforce, infrastructure, and quality of life. But these have not been the focus of state policy from the Governor (or his predecessor). They prefer tax breaks (a waste of money) and whining about electric rates (a tiny expense for most businesses).

We need to shift gears.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:01 PM, October 24, 2007

Doug....finally something that starts makes sense. I am not sure I agree entirely with the perspective at the end but so be it.

but who's Gaye bashing?...

I haven't seen it in the entire thread.

On to another topic...

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:27 PM, October 24, 2007

Mr. Hoffer:

I recall this quote from another post you made on another thread a few days back defending your qualifications and methods:

"My work is always transparent with sources and citations for every bit of data."

Could you please reconcile that with your previous post, where you cite "The private data I've seen showed that interstate movement accounts for no more than 2% - 3% of all the jobs created and destroyed in a year."

If you can provide the data, your statement has some credibility. Otherwise it amounts to nothing more than advocacy based on "evidence" of the same quality as "I read it somewhere on the Net." :-)

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:52 PM, October 24, 2007

One can only picture Hoffer sifting through every tax in every state until he arrives at the magical spot at which he has finally found an income which can definitely "prove" that Vermont is indeed the lowest tax state in the country! (His "magic" number seems to be around a family earning $44,000) Now, unlike Hoffer, I have no financial interest in cooking books; I have lived and paid taxes in 10 different states; and I can tell you from FACT that middle income workers get stiffed in Vermont not only on taxes but in the tremendous cost of living! But don't believe me, just talk to friends, relatives, etc. that have moved south recently for the big picture. Or even to N.H. Until Vermonters can rid themselves of the left-wing socialist flat-landers there is no hope on the horizen.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:36 PM, October 24, 2007

I have no problem answering your query, although I'm disappointed that you think I would report something I "read...somewhere on the net". I don't do that.

The report is available here

http://www.vtlivablewage.org/Phase%209%20Addendum.pdf

See also two reports by the Public Policy Institute of California, which used the CA data set from the same source. Their findings are very similar to mine.

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_BusinessRelocationJTF.pdf
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cep/EP_1005DNEP.pdf

This was the first time I ever paid for data (I hated it but had no choice). Unfortunately, the gov't. does not track the interstate movement of businesses (how lame is that?) so there's no option.

Frankly, the findings (both for VT and CA) are not surprising if you think about it. It's very expensive to move a substantial business. For the most part, it only makes sense if you can save a bunch of money. That's why most of the action in manufacturing has been overseas, where you can save lots of money on labor costs, which is usually the largest expense. It has little or nothing to do with taxes or the "business climate".

Although the table at the end of my report shows the federal data on Trade Adjustment Assistance, you can see the most recent data at

http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/WorkerMapTable.cfm
(this is only for 2002 - 2007)

The volume of job loss to overseas competition dwarfs the interstate figures. This illustrates how labor costs are driving this phenomenon, not the so-called "business climate".

Just because people repeat something frquently doesn't necessarily make it true. This issue is too important to be based on anecdotes and unexamined assumptions.

As I've mentioned before, do a LexisNexis search for "business climate" and you will find that some people complain about it all over America. Are most states "anti-business"? I hardly think so.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:03 PM, October 24, 2007

Bubba

Your ability to deny the facts is astonishing. I didn't sift "through every tax in every state until [I] arrive[d] at the magical spot at which [I] finally found an income which can definitely "prove" that Vermont is indeed the lowest tax state in the country".

First, I looked at Mississippi, which YOU suggested was cheaper. Second, I picked only one income because it's close to the median household income in VT (but you didn't know that did you?).

Face it, you don't know what the hell you're talking about and it drives you nuts that the data proves you wrong almost every time.

VT has one of the most progressive tax structutes in the country. Period. That means working people do NOT get stiffed. That's the point. If you would shut off your hate meter for just a minute you might see it. You've been fed a line of BS for so long you are unable to even consider another reality. Don't you ever get tired of the incessant negativity?

And BTW - Do you really think you're the only person who has lived in a number of other states?

Finally, what the hell gives the idea that I have a "financial interest in cooking books"? Do you really think I get paid for this? And you have YET to offer ANY evidence that I have EVER provided anything but honest information. So please stop impugning my integrity. Of all people, you have no right since you appear to just make things up. And when challenged with facts that disprove your baseless assertions, you just raise the volume and insult me and others even more. It's offensive and, more importantly, it's unpersuasive to anyone with an open mind.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:20 PM, October 24, 2007

Mr. Hoffer:

Sorry, but I'm still not seeing your statement backed up by data.

Forgive me, but all I see is a link to a study you produced, paid for by the Peace & Justice Center, that states "If we look more closely at the sources of overall job change, we find that the effects from business change are dwarfed by other factors. From 2004 to 2004, business relocation accounted for only 1.5 percent of new jobs, and 2.6 percent of jobs eliminated."

But I don't see the figures that back that up, only a pie chart you created. Pardon me, but I don't think that referring to your own analyses of data sets that aren't available to review counts as "sources and citations for every bit of data."

If you could please enlighten me, I'd appreciate it. Please show me the numbers that prove your assertion "that interstate movement accounts for no more than 2% - 3% of all the jobs created and destroyed in a year." For which state are you analyzing data, over what time period, and what are the sources?

Can you please point to the numbers, tell us how where you got them, and walk us through the statistical analysis?

Thank you.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:39 AM, October 25, 2007

The source for instate job creation & destruction is the VT Dept. of Labor. Go to this site and scroll down to "Job Creation & Destruction". Download the files and do the math.
http://www.vtlmi.info/detftp.htm

The fact that I did the analysis doesn't make the data invalid, especially since people I don't know (with excellent credentials & reputations) came to the same conclusions. I gave you links to their reports. Did you look at it?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:00 AM, October 25, 2007

I agree with Bubba on setting aside the academic analysis and get right to the pragmatic.

I have live in 4 different states. The cost of living for the basics, taxes (state, local, sales et.al.), utilities, housing and food are 30 to 40% higher here than anywhere else. VT is a beautiful state but my standard of living is lower here than anywhere else. This is the only place I have lived where people spend a significant portion of their time collecting firewood in the summer to help offset fuel costs in the winter.

I don't need so-called independent analysts(which they never are)conducting biased studies to support their beliefs. All I need to do is look at my checkbook.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:07 AM, October 25, 2007

But you are confusing different issues. As you noted. the cost of living is a mix of things. The complaints on this blog are almost always about state government. The facts are clear that VT income taxes are lower for the majority of filers then they would be elsewhere. And the property tax is based on income so that too is lower for most households.

Other aspects of the cost of living are higher here then some other places (although certainly not all - try to find an affordable place to live in NYC, Boston, etc.). But some of that has nothing to do with state government - it's the "market", which many think is flawless.

And are you really suggesting that the state of VT is responsible for the weather or the cost of heating oil or natural gas?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:11 AM, October 25, 2007

"The facts are clear that VT income taxes are lower for the majority of filers then they would be elsewhere. And the property tax is based on income so that too is lower for most households."

I don't see it. All in, state, local, property and sales tax, I pay significantly more here than anyplace else I have ever lived.

"find an affordable place to live in NYC, Boston, etc.)."

You can't be suggesting the market dynamics in Boston and NYC are the same as rural VT? There is no logic in the analogy you are trying to draw. Maybe I would buy a comparison to Kansas or Arkansas.

"are you really suggesting that the state of VT is responsible for the weather or the cost of heating oil or natural gas?"

Of course not but, the heating season here is significantly shorter than the air conditioning season in southern states and the heating season in VT is similiar to NY State. Oil and natural gas costs are basically the same except for taxes levied on it state by state. Real world, out of my pocket, VT is the highest energy bills of everywhere I have lived.

You can find whatever study you want but I suspect there are 2 others equally credible to offset it. The only thing that counts is what's left over from my paycheck after I pay the bills. It's less here...significantly.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:07 AM, October 25, 2007

It is useless to try to convince Hoffer of anything because he starts with a conclusion and works back to justify it with distorted or outright false data. Even with rebates, property taxes are out of sight in Vermont. My property taxes in Georgia are 1/3 of what friends in Vermont pay for similar homes, WITH rebates taken into account! (The Republican legislature is looking into removing property taxes IN ENTIRETY for ed funding)In addition, our income tax is far less than what I would pay at my income in Vermont, mainly because it starts with $15,000 deduction for retirement income! By the way, ALL of our roads are paved and tuition to colleges in Georgia ARE FREE if you maintain a "B" average.So while this means nothing as to the overall merits of living in Vermont or Georgia because of family, other likes or dislikes, etc., it sure means that Vermonters are getting ROYALLY STIFFED by the liberals that have run the state for 20 years!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:15 AM, October 25, 2007

Re. energy prices

Some places produce electricity with cheap (but dirty) coal. Most of the states with cheap power produce the majority of their electricity with coal (like West Virginia, Kentucky, Tenn., North Dakota, Missouri, Wyoming, Indiana, Kansas, etc.; heck, even Georgia uses coal for 64% of it's power). Would you like to switch to coal here in VT? That would really enhance our quality of life.

BTW: All data on prices and sources can be found here - US Dept. of Energy, Energy Information Administration
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sprdshts.html

Some places have the benefit of federally subsidized hydro power (like Washington, Idaho, and Oregon) where 70 - 80%% of electricity is generated with large hydro. We don't have those resources, although some wanted to buy the Conn. River dams and the Gov. said no.

And if you don't like natural gas or heating oil prices, complain to the suppliers, not state government.

FYI: Avg. residential electric rates in NY were 15.72 cents per kWh in 2005. VT was 12.96.

The VT bashing is really out of control.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:10 AM, October 25, 2007

Electrical rates (Residential) for North Georgia EMC - 8.3 cents.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:18 AM, October 25, 2007

"The private data I've seen showed that interstate movement accounts for no more than 2% - 3% of all the jobs created "

You don't need data to know this. State vs State competition does not exist. If a company moves, it will be out of the US to leverage third or fourth tier economies. Using massive tax and other incentives to gain such a small number of jobs is a waste of money.

In the south, incentives for relocation of manufacturing are approaching half a billion dollars. This amounts to state subsidized work programs, since the incentives come with contracts mandating certain numbers of employees, etc. After the contract is up, the companies are free to decrease wages and layoff people. Once they are established, the companies can also choose not to take the incentives and not honor the agreements. It will be interesting how it plays out as the threat of unionization is the reason the wage levels for these non-unionized plants. Even with that, manufacturing is known to be unstable and the expectation is that the south will eventually lose the new plants.

Providing incentives for a new manufacuring plant is a waste of money. Its not an investment. This money would be much better spent in investing in technology incubation to help the creation of new businesses and help established businesses grow.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:19 AM, October 25, 2007

"My property taxes in Georgia are 1/3 of what friends in Vermont pay"

For some reason, I have a hard time believing you have friends.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:21 AM, October 25, 2007

I hear gas in Venezuela is 14 cents per gallon.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:24 AM, October 25, 2007

"Electrical rates (Residential) for North Georgia EMC - 8.3 cents."

Yes. And 64% of Georgia's power is generated with coal. Is that what you think we should do in VT?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:38 AM, October 25, 2007

Don't discount coal. Technology will improve scrubbers even more. Remember when the Chicken Littles warned about nuclear energy, that all of our cows would be born with 3 eyes, etc? Or the hysterical leftists fighting Hydro Quebec water because even though the Indians up there were getting rich and quite happy, the liberals knew better? We all seem to be living longer, don't we?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:11 AM, October 25, 2007

Your logic is impeccable. People are living longer so nuclear power is safe.

As for coal, I'll pass, as will virtually all Vermonters. And BTW, scrubbers will not solve the problem and you have ignored the pesky problem of all those miners who seem to die on a regular basis. And that doesn't even get to the awful environmental impacts of the various types of coal mining. It's a blight and should be phased out as soon as possible.

And your knowledge of the Cree & Inuit tribes in northern Quebec is weak. "Rich and quite happy"? The gov't. may have paid them off but they are certainly not happy.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:24 AM, October 25, 2007

Doug...what aren't you an expert on?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:32 AM, October 25, 2007

I'll pass on coal too.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:47 AM, October 25, 2007

Let's get away from coal. I want wind power!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:47 PM, October 25, 2007

Now Hoffer talks to the Cree and Inuit!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:03 PM, October 25, 2007

"Let's get away from coal. I want wind power!"

....Doug can provide that :)

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:26 PM, October 25, 2007

Bubba - You're just so pathetic. Get on the web and do some reading. The Cree are very opposed to the proposed Great Whale hydro project, as they have been for decades.

FYI: The money you referred to was to settle problems with the federal and Quebec governments having nothing to do with Hydro Quebec.

And BTW, the Chief of the Cree & Inuit came to Burlington during the debate about Hydro Quebec. He was a very eloquent speaker and a fine representative of his people. And yes, I did meet him because I worked at City Hall at the time.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:45 PM, October 25, 2007

Yup, Hoffer IS an expert on the Cree and Inuit!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:42 PM, October 25, 2007

http://www.gcc.ca/newsarticle.php?id=101

This took me about 2 minutes to find. It's from the Grand Council of the Crees. I guess in your world, that makes me an "expert".

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:54 PM, October 25, 2007

It's a good thing Al Gore invented the Internet for us. Otherwise where would we be research-wise.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:30 PM, October 25, 2007

Gee, it sounds like the Grand Poobah of the Cree-Inuits that came to Burlington is sort of like Al Sharpton or his shake-down buddy Jesse Jackson representing the welfare of blacks! A politically-correct, paid-off huckster representing no one but his bank account! Can you imagine the Burlington fools inviting some poor Indian that didn't have the answers they wanted? (Sort of like a Hoffer "research")

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:13 PM, October 25, 2007

Your offensiveness knows no bounds.

You know nothing about the issue. Nothing about the Crees. Nothing about the Chief or why he came. And nothing about what he said.

Yet you feel comfortable slandering a man who was selected as Chief by his own people and was extremely well respected.

Grand Poobah
shake-down buddy
paid-off huckster
poor Indian

You should be ashamed.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:34 PM, October 25, 2007

Solar and wind.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:34 PM, October 25, 2007

Did the "Chief" get any money from any anti-Hydro organizations for coming to Burlington? Why did his people want Hydro-Quebec developed? Did the Canadian government force this project on an unwilling people? How about some facts?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:11 AM, October 26, 2007

As I suspected, you really don't know anything about it but were compelled to insult him anyway.

The Cree & Inuit did NOT support the project. That's the point. And yes, Hydro Quebec and the gov't. DID attempt to force it on them.

The Chief came to Burlington (and went many other places as well) on behalf of his people to explain their opposition to the project. State law required the City to ask the voters to approve BED's participation in the proposed HQ contract. That "campaign" led to a broad public debate about the issues so the Chief came to present his/their case. Simple as that.
The City of Burlington certainly didn't pay him anything. What an absurd suggestion.

If you're looking for the money trail, you should look at the other side.

As for more facts, why not do your own research? Or not. You seem perfectly comfortable making statements without them.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:12 AM, October 26, 2007

You didn't answer my question. DID ANY ANTI-HYDRO GROUPS PAY THE CHIEF TO COME TO BURLINGTON?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:44 AM, October 26, 2007

Doug,

Don't bother with Bubba. He's just a disgruntled little man. Many of his past efforts on the board have dwindled down to anti-gay hate. I suspect he's a closet homeosexual trying to negate his "sinful" actions and make himself feel better by pestering people on this board. That's the Troll M.O..

Furthermore, why bother to read anything he writes. By his own admission, he claims residence in Georgia and, therefore, does not vote in Vermont elections. As such, who cares what he thinks. His opinions don't matter. He is not a Vermont voter.

Frankly, I'm glad he is in Georgia. It's a good place for him. I also hope all his O'Reilly watching neighbors keep prestering him over his relation to Vermont.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:51 PM, October 26, 2007

Poor baby! Are you the same woman that had to defend Bill Lippert from that mean ol' Fox reporter?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:39 PM, October 26, 2007

Wind power now.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:14 AM, October 27, 2007

"I have no f___ing idea you moron. Why don't you do your own research? It doesn't matter anyway. You assume everyone (except the people you respect) is on the take. God forbid people act out of conscience. Besides, it was his JOB. His people were threatened by the project and he tried to educate Americans about their plight. Moreover, "anti-hydro" groups were not bad guys. They had every right to speak up; just like those who hate VT taxes and form organizations to get their views out. Your cynicism is so destructive it makes me sick."

Wow. This posting is way over the top.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:46 PM, October 27, 2007

Way over the top?!

Have you been paying attention?

This guy slanders anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with him and you call this over the top?!

He referred to a respected leader of the Cree & Inuit as a "Grand Poobah", a "shake-down buddy", a "paid-off huckster", and a "poor Indian" and you call my comments over the top?!

How come you didn't call him on his comments, which were uninformed and racist?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:04 PM, October 27, 2007

1. I don't know if there is a difference between this person you are speaking of and, say, the woman who claims to be the chief of the Abenaki in Vermont, Ms. Rushlow of Swanton. If Rushlow went to Quebec (our biggest trading partner) to tell them that they should not buy products from Vermont because we build homes in Swanton, should the Quebecers take her seriously?

2. Yes, Bubba's comments may be unfortunate -- and it's obvious you are sensitive because you are fond of this Cree Chief -- but we hear the very same kinds of disrespectful comments about Gov. Douglas on this blog repeatedly, and I haven't see you respond to those posters as "f_____ morons."

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:13 AM, October 28, 2007

By the way, I think it is a matter of debate whether questioning the legitimacy of a native American chief is "racist."

Don't call me a racist because I don't nevessarily believe Homer St. Francis was the Chief of anything. Skeptic, yes. Racist, no.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:16 AM, October 28, 2007

What would you expect from liberals? Did anyone hear any outcry when Vermont racist Jeff Danziger depicted Condy Rice as Prissy? Or the smearing of Clarence Thomas because he doesn't hold the acceptable liberal plantation views? And on and on. Liberals are very open-minded as long as you don't disagree with them!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:41 AM, October 28, 2007

I don't think your analogy holds. The proposed Great Whale project would have flooded an area the size of Texas and destroyed the homeland of a people who had been living there undisturbed for over 5,000 years (and would have produced serious environmental harm). Key point: the land was (and largely still is) virgin and allows them to live a traditional lifestyle.

The problems complained of by the Abenaki are the result of an incremental process that's been going on for 100 - 200 years. No less aggregious to them but not new.

Furthermore, the Abenaki (still) don't have formal recognition while the Cree & Inuit have long been recognized by the Canadian government.

And he didn't only question the legitimacy of the Chief (and why would he do that anyway without checking), he referred to him as a "paid-off huckster".

Personal insults aimed at Jim Douglas, Bernie, and others are unfortunate but at least they are based on the individual's personal knowledge or experience. In this case, Bubba just lashed out and slandered this guy without any knowledge of him or the issue.

And I did not call Bubba a "f___ing moron". Reread the post. In response to his request (an insistent command almost), I said "I have no f___ing idea you moron."

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:30 AM, October 28, 2007

Some fair points, but this comment:

"Personal insults aimed at Jim Douglas, Bernie, and others are unfortunate but at least they are based on the individual's personal knowledge or experience."

is a distinction without a difference.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:09 AM, October 28, 2007

"Personal insults aimed at Jim Douglas, Bernie, and others are unfortunate but at least they are based on the individual's personal knowledge or experience."

And is also not necessarily a true statement.

Decrying personal attacks on your friends or allies, while excusing personal attacks on your adversaries, is not principled.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:49 AM, October 28, 2007

I think you misunderstood.

Bubba insulted a public figure about whom he knew nothing. Voters in VT at least know something about Jim Douglas & Bernie. There is a significant difference. The former was an uninformed knee jerk response. The latter - which I assume come primarily if not exclusively from Vermonters, are based on information (however misleading) and personal experience. They live here and have received a ton of information about both of those men. Indeed, they have probably voted for one or both of them.

Second, I made no distinction between friends and allies. That's exactly why I mentioned Douglas & Bernie, who are as different as they come.

And finally, I did not "excuse" such personal attacks. Again, reread the post. I said all such attacks are "unfortunate".

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:23 PM, October 28, 2007