vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

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

10.12.2007

Ropered in?

When Rob Roper was elected chairman of the Vermont Republican Party in January, he was filling the remaining months of former Chairman Jim Barnett's term. That term is up in November, and the party's state committee will be voting later this month on the chairmanship.

Roper, of Stowe, is the only declared candidate. He said he wants to keep the job and has heard no rumblings of other candidates.

Roper, who is still listed as the state director of the anti-tax group FreedomWorks, beat out former state Sen. Alan Parent of St. Albans, for the job in January. There was talk at the time that Roper might be too conservative to represent the party's interests and Parent was considered the more moderate choice.

Republican National Committeeman George Schiavone of Shelburne said at first people thought Roper might not be experienced enough for the chairmanship, but now he thinks party members are happy with Roper's work. "He sized things up pretty well," Schiavone said. "He responds to opportunities in the world every bit as effectively as Jim Barnett."

Candidates for the job can be nominated from the floor at the Oct. 27 meeting - 9 a.m. at the Montpelier Elks Club.

Are Republicans out there happy with Roper's work?

By the way, speaking of Republicans, word has it that Gov. Jim Douglas and his wife, Dorothy, boarded a tour bus with 50 other people, including his state police escort, and are bound for Boston to watch the Red Sox open their playoff series against Cleveland. You can't make this stuff up.

- Terri Hallenbeck

posted by vt.Buzz | 10:03 AM |

Comments:

I wonder if the Governor is putting this down as vacation time and if he actually paid the cost of teh trip!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:56 PM, October 12, 2007

I hear Douglas is taking his cadre of communicators with him, just in case someone has the audacity to ask him a question. Good point in prior post though. Who is paying for the police escort and the rest of Jim's expenses?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:07 PM, October 12, 2007

Did you ask the same questions when Dean started leaving Vermont in 2002 and 2003 on numerous out-of-state speaking engagements (i.e., pre-presidential campaign trips?)

The fact is, sitting Governors take a lot of out-of-state trips (business development, national governors association, speaking engagements, etc., etc.). No one asks if those should all be chalked up to vacation time and whether the Gov. should pay for the police escort.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:50 PM, October 12, 2007

Howard Dean wasn't one of the top ten highest paid governors in the country either though. Jimbo has been getting some pretty hefty raises the past few years. Hope the legislature will start to take notice in Appropriations!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:58 PM, October 12, 2007

Rob Roper is not listed on the Freedom Works site. But the connection is interesting.
http://www.freedomworks.org/know/staff.php

Freedom Works is headed by Dick Armey and Steve Forbes, two guys who are certainly looking out for regular working folks. Not.

Freedom Works supports unfettered drilling for oil & gas -- anywhere, and is dismissive of efforts to move toward renewables. They are also against any effort to cap or regulate CO2.

Freedom Works thinks the market is the solution to our health crisis.

Freedom Works wants to do away with the current income tax system and replace it with a flat tax. Gosh, who will that benefit? Note: They claim to want to eliminate all deductions (not likely) but that means an end to the mortgage interest deduction, which would be a huge hit on middle income homeowners.

Freedom Works wants to eliminate the estate tax (which they call the "death tax"). In 2005, there were only 33 estates in VT that owed any estate taxes. If it were repealed, it would cost the U.S. nearly $1 trillion in lost revenue over the next 10 years. How would we make up for the loss?

So thanks Rob for all your forward thinking work.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:03 PM, October 12, 2007

Actually, you need to go to www.fredomworks.org/vermont to see the VT version

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:03 PM, October 12, 2007

Doug, I think we all know that Freedom Works is an ultra conservative organization. Thanks for clearing that up.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:07 PM, October 12, 2007

Don't be so sure you can speak for everyone who reads this blog. In any case, next time I'll clear my comments with you first. Oh wait, I don't know who you are so I can't.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:21 PM, October 12, 2007

The Governor was on the radio the other day saying he was taking the afternoon off to take his wife, son and daughter in-law to the game. He said he purchased the tickets as part of one of those tour bus packages.

Some of you are really nasty, uninformed and predictable. It's sort of sad.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:53 PM, October 12, 2007

Sadness on both sides for the same reason. Neither side has the high ground here.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:05 AM, October 13, 2007

Roper is more vicious, though.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:06 AM, October 13, 2007

Let me get this straight. Some of you apparently think that when someone (anyone) becomes Governor they are no longer entitled to an afternoon off? Go Sox!!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:42 AM, October 13, 2007

Jimbo can afford Sox tickets. After all, he is pulling down $144K a year, more than double the salary of Maine Governor John Baldacci.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:22 PM, October 13, 2007

Mr. Hoffer:

Since you seem to be so obsessed with full disclosure, why is it that you're always identified in news stories as an "independent policy analyst" or just "policy analyst?" In fact, I didn't see a correction run when Gaye Symington identified you in a recent op-ed as an "economist," which you're not.

Isn't it true that your background and degree is in political science? And that virtually every organization you "contract" with is political in nature, e.g. the Livable Wage Campaign, High Road Vermont, Public Assets, and generally of a left-leaning or progressive bent?

Why don't you ask reporters to identify you as a "left-leaning policy analyst" or "progressive (small-P or large-P)" policy analyst? Or as a "policy analyst who is active in or frequently advocates for progressive causes"?

Just curious.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:18 PM, October 13, 2007

sounds like your beef is with the media and not with Doug.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:15 PM, October 13, 2007

Apparently, when the facts annoy you, you attack the messenger. Classic.

If you think about it for just a moment, you will realize that "independent" means not affiliated with a particular organization; that is, self-employed.

It is quite revealing that you think the label matters rather than the work. My work is always transparent with sources and citations for every bit of data.

And if you're so keen on attaching labels, do you also insist that Art Woolf be identified as a right-leaning economist? Or ask that reporters identify his private clients? When the Tax Foundation is cited in news reports, it is identified as a "non-partisan educational educational organization". Does that really describe them fairly? Are there two standards here?

And of course it's ironic that you have the nerve to challenge my credentials when you don't even use your own name on this blog. Will you identify yourself or continue to hide behind the anonymity of this blog?

If you must know, I am proud to have an undergraduate degree from Williams College (where I entered at age 29 and was fortunate to receive a scholarship because I could never have afforded it otherwise) and a law degree fron SUNY Buffalo, where I graduated magna cun laude.

And I am proud to work for organizations that represent the interests of organized Labor and low-income Vermonters, among others. Will you be so forthcoming about what you do and who you work for?

And what exactly is an "economist"? Short of teaching economics at the university level (which usually requires a PhD), economic analysis can be done by anyone with the requisite skills. For example, neither the Governor's "economist" or the Legislature's "economist" have PhD's in economics. Does that make them unqualified? Hardly. Have you challenged them or their work?

I've been doing this work for almost 20 years. There is only one person who has ever raised this issue. He is the Governor's press secretary. Might you be him?

And BTW - What are your credentials?

If you have an issue with the data or my conclusions, I'm happy to engage.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:30 PM, October 13, 2007

Howabout Bernie's pseudo-economist/policy analyst/cheerleader?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:30 PM, October 13, 2007

Mr. Hoffer, it's hypocritical for you to get so lathered up when someone points out that you always work for left-leaning organizations, and yet, when somebody refers to a study or report you don't like, you say it was sponsored by a conservative or right wing organization.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:33 PM, October 13, 2007

Name-calling instead intelligent discussion doesn't really accomplish much. It certainly isn't persuasive.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:35 PM, October 13, 2007

So, when Hoffer bashes a tax study as invalid because it was commissioned by "business interests," or a "conservative" group, or what-have-you, is that name-calling? When Bernie refers to people who don't see things his way as "right wing reactionaries," is that name-calling?

Just curious.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:50 PM, October 13, 2007

Pseudo-economist....cheerleader is name-calling.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:56 PM, October 13, 2007

Sorry, but some would say that referring to the people you don't like as right wing reactionaries is name-calling.

And, sorry, but in my view Mr. Hoffer is a cheerleader for Bernie.

Have a good day.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:27 PM, October 13, 2007

If I "bash" a tax study (or any other), it's because the methodology is unsound. The funders are not insignificant, but the work itself must withstand scrutiny.

It's too bad that so many of the contributors to this blog are unwilling to debate the merits. Your anger and frustration is apparent. But there is very little substantive dialogue.

Your feelings and personal experiences are real and deserve respect. But that's the beginning of the discussion, not the end.

A debate should be based on an analysis of the facts. But many in this blog are inclined to deny the facts simply because they come from me. Do you really believe that the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics are in cahoots with "Leftists" to hoodwink you?

It is irrelevant whether you like or trust me. But if you don't trust gov't. data, then offer an alternative. If not, you can't expect people to be persuaded.

These are not moral issues like slavery or abortion. We've been discussing issues that are subject to objective analysis based on the best available data.

Sadly, some of the participants in this blog do not appear to be interested in either. No doubt I will be excoriated for this comment, but it doesn't seem to matter what I say because I've been "branded".

This blog (and others) offers an opportunity to vent. That's important. But what happens after that?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:01 PM, October 13, 2007

What happens?

What happens is that maybe Gaye and Peter will get the message that Vermonters are pissed off with their fooling around with Vermont Yankee-bashing tax schemes while high-paying jobs leave Vermont and no new ones come in. Maybe they'll get the message that 3,000 school districts are ridiculous for 90,000 students and that consequently my property tax burden is unsustainable. Maybe they'll get the message that no high-tech employer will move here because there are no employees. Maybe they'll get the message that our kids can't come back from college and work here unless they want to accept employment helping tourists get on the chairlift at Stowe.

Maybe. But doubtful.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:23 PM, October 13, 2007

What happens is that the maybe the Governor will get the message that Vermonters have real concerns about Vermont Yankee and our energy future.

Maybe. But doubtful.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:41 PM, October 13, 2007

How do you propose to replace the 1/3 of the 1,000 megawatts that Vermonters consume every year that is supplied by Vermont Yankee?

Exactly and specifically how?

Those 1,000 megawatts are consumed by you and me and all of our friends and neighbors in Vermont, and are being consumed by you right now as you use your computer to type your posting.

If I tried to put a wind turbine on my property, one of my neighbors (you?) would sue me, as has been done all over Vermont by people who don't want to have their precious "view" marred by a wind turbine.

But even if you didn't sue me, my turbine wouldn't supply our needs when the wind isn't blowing.

If you can't give me an ironclad solution as to where our electricity will come from in 2012, please stop bashing VY.

Even liberal icon Tom Salmon agrees that we're not gonna suddenly "conserve" our way out of the loss of that 300+ megawatts. And of course that's plainly true.

Oh, by the way, please please please please tell me exactly what Gaye and Peter have done to replace the 1/3 of our electricity that would be lost if VY were shut down today? Please tell me what their plan is? I have heard nothing but deafening silence from the Legislature as to how they would replace that power. I certainly haven't heard them say that Jericho or Putney would be an exellent place for a new gas, oil, coal, or wood-fired power plant.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:59 PM, October 13, 2007

Gaye and Peter don't want to make the tough choices - it is sad.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:19 PM, October 13, 2007

I don't think anyone here has suggested shutting VY down imediately.

But to there are legitimate questions of public safety that must be answered.

Douglas has ignored these questions at every turn.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:23 PM, October 13, 2007

Gosh. I guess you guys have forgotten the Conn. River dams (over 300MW). The Gov. said it wasn't in our best interests to buy it. But a private company thought it was a sound investment. Huge lost opportunity because that power is being sold to southern New England. Go figure.

I don't recall anyone "bashing" Vt Yankee. It was suggested that their property tax deal was unfair because your taxes went up while their's didn't.

Personally, I think it was the wrong tax for the proposed all fuels program, but the Gov. refused to support the more appropriate tax.

And BTW - As I've said before, the administration's own consultant found that the all fuels program would have saved VT businesses about $200 million (net). So how was his opposition "business friendly"?

Finally, Brattleboro (right next to Putney) is considering a biomass facility just like the McNeil Plant that would supply thermal energy in addition to electricity.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:29 PM, October 13, 2007

www.vermonttiger.com

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:27 PM, October 13, 2007

Mr. Hoffer:

"Attack the messenger"? How did I attack you? I merely questioned whether you adhered to the same standards of disclosure as you frequently advocate for on this blog.

It's interesting that you immediately presume anyone who would question your consistency on this issue or qualifications must be a member of the Administration. For the record, I'm not Jason Gibbs. Anyone who has read your material online or in the Vermont media and has rudimentary knowledge of how to use search engines can find your resume. I did.

I don't question that you're an intelligent person who is well-versed in economic/political policy. I was merely taking issue with your criticism of others for failing to fully disclose their identities/qualifications at the same time that you were allowing a public perception of you as a disinterested economic expert that was inconsistent with the facts to be perpetuated.

I am pleased that you acknowledge that you "work for organizations that represent the interests of organized Labor and low-income Vermonters, among others." Now readers of this blog can accurately identify you as a political advocate paid to present evidence supporting a particular position, not a disinterested economist presenting an objective analysis. :-)

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:05 PM, October 13, 2007

Too much.

"I merely questioned whether you adhered to the same standards of disclosure as you frequently advocate for on this blog."

It should be clear that I do since I have used my own name all along. How about you? What are your standards? We're still waiting.

"Now readers of this blog can accurately identify you as a political advocate paid to present evidence supporting a particular position, not a disinterested economist presenting an objective analysis."

I am paid to do research and report my findings. If you know otherwise, please enlighten us.

And please give me an example of what you consider a "disinterested economist" so we can all know what is the gold standard.

"It's interesting that you immediately presume anyone who would question your consistency on this issue or qualifications must be a member of the Administration."

I presumed no such thing. Read the post. I noted that only one person had ever asked the question. I then asked if you were the same person.

Since you have told us that you are not, perhaps you will now tell us who you are. How do we know that you're not a paid political advocate? It's a simple question.

Just curious.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:29 PM, October 13, 2007

www.pimpmystupidwebsite.com

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:26 PM, October 13, 2007

Mr. Hoffer, you are truly a saint. Thank you for just being you.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:47 AM, October 14, 2007

He is NOT an "independent policy analyst." "Independent" of what? He's certainly not independent of the politically correct left wing advocacy organizations that thrive in Vermont.

He's not an "independent policy analyst." He's a political advocate. Google him. He is a "progressive economist," an authority on everything, clearly affiliated with Bernie, a Peace and Justice Center worker (I guess the rest of us are *against* peace and justice), and a very nasty attacker of Douglas.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:33 AM, October 14, 2007

I guess it's easier to attack Hoffer than it is to attack the positions that he takes.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:06 AM, October 14, 2007

Hypocrite -- Hoffer called Douglas "a train wreck."

He also attacks the validity of studies based on who sponsors them.

Fair's fair.

He's not an "independent policy analyst." His sponsors, such as the Peace and Justice Center, hire him because they know what they want to hear, and he predictably delivers what they want.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:29 PM, October 14, 2007

You can't discredit the studies, so you attempt to discredit the man.

That's lame.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:48 PM, October 14, 2007

Mr. Hoffer regularly discredits studies by discrediting their sponsors.

He also hurls personal attacks at the Governor.

That's lame.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:49 PM, October 14, 2007

Actually Jim Douglas is taking Vermont in the direction of a train wreck.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:47 AM, October 15, 2007

Yeah. Let's see if Douglas can bring himself to admit that his Chicken Little crowing about Vermont's "out of control" tax structure was a bunch of baloney, as evidenced by the study reported on by Louis Porter in last week's Times Argus. Seems legislators are working to achieve parity, in spite of our governor's constant do-nothing attitude and empty harping. Wake up Vermont! There's a reason they call him Gov. Doesless.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:24 AM, October 15, 2007

"Let's see if Douglas can bring himself to admit that his Chicken Little crowing about Vermont's "out of control" tax structure "

It will never happen. That's his political tool for his next election. He'll keep crowing. He knows that there is nothing that either he or the legislature can do that would provide anything but the most measily change to actual real dollars in the pocket.

But he'll keep crowing, and when/if any legislation passes it will be small and he'll say "well, I had hoped that the legislature would have done better, but I signed it because it is a reduction".

If he doesn't sign it, he'll say "I have concerns over the rest of the bill" or "Its not enough. I want a bill with more reductions".

No matter how you slice it, Douglas will come out clean.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:07 AM, October 15, 2007

That's exactly what the 14 or so Communications people at a cost of approx. $800,000 of taxpayers money is all about - making Gov Douglas look good and coming out with no fingerprints on any negatives.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:10 PM, October 15, 2007

Hoffer does for the leftists in Vermont what Josef Goebbels did for Hitler - produce propaganda.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:54 PM, October 16, 2007

I agree with Doug that personal attacks are not helpful and prefer to discuss the merits.

My name is Curtis Hier. I don't get paid to do studies. I'm a public school teacher. I can't remember my password, so when I post (which is not often) I post anonymously. I'm one of the few teachers who speaks out in favor of cost containment. I am not a member of VTNEA.

I pointed out in another thread that I thought Doug (whom I respect as a thoughtful and knowledgeable person) had downplayed the property tax issue with the JFO study.

I continue to think that is a big flaw with the study. Mark Johnson likened it to counting calories without figuring in dessert.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:50 PM, October 16, 2007

The JFO addressed property tax in the only way in which a study can.

If you look at all the other studies and the JFO study, you will find that the other studies compare absolute worst case tax scenarios. This does not make sense. It makes no sense to base a study on the comparison of upper tax bracket rates and rate a state upon that comparison when the majority of people do not pay those rates.

The JFO study was actually part 2 of a bigger study. It was a second chapter that presented case studies of various income scenarios across different states. It did address property tax, but could not use comparisons of property tax across states. No study can do this in a way that is accurate because the number of possible combinations where one residence is compared to a like residence in another state is too large. For example, the tax on a $200k home in VT will be different in almost every town. The same is true for most other states. So, which two towns do we compare? It isn't correct to base a comparison on a single scenario, nor is is accurate to base a comparison on an average since people are concentrated in each state in different ways for different reasons. There simply is just no way to do it without a serious investment and in the end there would be no single result declaring one state better than the other.

The main thesis of the other studies is comparison of what one might pay given a worst case scenario. The irony is that the worst case scenario happens to be the top tier earner bracket, who actually avoid paying these rates too by using various loopholes in tax law. The main thesis of the JFO study is comparison based upon what the majority of people are paying today.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:34 PM, October 16, 2007

Curtis

Thank you for your candor and for your kind words. The name calling has really reached a new low (Goebbels?!).

As for the Tax Study, there are at least two key considerations. First, since VT has a statewide tax system for education, JFO would have to include local property taxes in the analysis. That's a pretty daunting task over 12 states (how do you do that when education taxes vary so much between communities in other states?). But even if they could, I'm convinced that VT's income sensitivity would make us look even better, not worse.

In the end, the Study was not intended to answer the question as to whether the taxes raised are too much, too little, or just right. The intent was to measure the distribution of the burden as compared to other states.

Although property taxes are not included, at least we've answered the question for all the other taxes. Not a bad start.

The related issue of cost containment is important and should also be subjected to careful analysis. I hope they do.

Do I regret that property taxes are not included? Sure. But I understand why JFO didn't do it, and - unlike some of our fellow bloggers - I'm certain it wasn't part of an intentional deception.

BTW - My brother is a teacher in another state and I know how hard he works. I wish the debate about education spending didn't include all the teacher bashing we hear. We should celebrate teachers not demonize them.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:45 PM, October 16, 2007

Doug who's "fee clock" is running while you spending the majority of your time( or so it seems)bloggisphere ????

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:18 PM, October 19, 2007

What is it will these nameless bloggers who throw darts at those who choose to name themselves?

It's ok to blog anonymously if and only if, you can do it in a way that does not insult other bloggers.

People have a right to know their accuser.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:02 PM, October 19, 2007

Thank you.

Once again, none have come from behind their "annonymous" labels to stand up. From the tone and substance of their remarks, you would think they would be proud to be named.

These blogs represent a new kind of bullying. What progress!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:37 PM, October 21, 2007

Oh shut up.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:11 PM, October 21, 2007

Another thoughtful response from the blogosphere. Don't like being called out do you?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:16 AM, October 22, 2007

Whiny baby.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:32 AM, October 23, 2007