vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

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

10.31.2007

The gubernatorial top begins to turn

Thanks goodness for the WCAX poll. It lets everyone start spinning the gubernatorial race even though the election is a year away.

Republican Gov. Jim Douglas is the only confirmed candidate and the poll asked two sets of questions that provide some insight into his status with the public. One question weighed his job performance at this midpoint in his third term. He got high marks from 16 percent of the 400 who responded to the survey and good marks from 38 percent, according to Kristin Carlson's report. She quotes Douglas as saying in total, 81 percent thought he was "a decent job." The complete breakdown for the responses wasn't available.

Another question asked these likely voters whether they would vote to re-elect Douglas in 2008. Here his score was 42 percent yes, 33 percent would like to replace him and 25 percent weren't sure yet.

So is that good news or bad news for Douglas -- that 58 percent aren't committed to his re-election?

And what about the result of the question testing the waters for some other names circulated as potential Douglas challengers? Matt Dunne, a Democrat, bests Progressive Anthony Pollina by 10 percentage points, 22 to 12. Any significance to that spread?

I'm not sure the rest of the results for challengers means much since they've all said they aren't in for 2008. Interesting, however, that Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, who ran for lieutenant governor in 2002 and lost (and Democrats say Pollina was a spoiler in that race), scored higher at 8 percent than the three other Democratic statewide officers. The poll showed Secretary of State Deb Markowitz at 7 percent, Attorney General Bill Sorrell at 5 percent and Treasurer Jeb Spaulding at 4 percent. In the middle, House Speaker Gaye Symington at 5 percent. She's never run as a statewide candidate.

As WCAX's Kate Duffy notes in her report on the re-election question, there are now a couple of other Democrats whose names have been offered up as potential challengers: Senate Democratic Leader John Campbell and Peter Galbraith, a former diplomat. My guess is both would have polled toward the bottom as neither has much statewide name recognition.

You can read the stories and squint at a couple of charts showing the poll results by clicking here. I couldn't find the actual poll at the WCAX site -- you know with the questions, respondents' tally or demagraphics. It would be interesting to see that stuff, wouldn't it?

Happy spinning. I can hardly wait to read the chat.

-- Nancy Remsen

posted by vt.Buzz | 10:37 AM |

Comments:

Did you see that Welch is now quoting Snarky Boy? Weird. You can read Welch's letter to Colby here.

I'm a little stunned that Welch has had his staff scour the words of the Snarky dolt.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:02 AM, October 31, 2007

Looks to me that numbers just reflect shoot from the hip replies with some obvious party line influence.

Its a year away which is eternity and with no definitive opposition to Douglas, people can only respond based upon just general gut feeling.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:28 AM, October 31, 2007

I think progressive and Democrat party leadership do have a good point.

Douglas' popularity has declined and its evident from election results.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:34 AM, October 31, 2007

The really stunning result is how bad Shumlin and Symington showed up. For people who don't have the recognition problems that some of the other potential candidates have, that's just a pathetic showing.

I think that says a lot about the Democratic leadership.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:04 PM, October 31, 2007

Douglas's approval is better than the Legislature's. Which tells me that Vermonters care more about the tax burden than about what our small state can do about global warming or impeaching the president.

Re-election questions are meaningless absent a named challenger. While Douglas has negatives, any possible opponent will have them too.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:04 PM, October 31, 2007

People should also be asked how they rate their own Reps and Senators. They don't vote for the legislature as a whole.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:11 PM, October 31, 2007

Why would Shumlin or Symington have a showing? Shumlin has said he is not running and Symington alluded to the same. If I knew JD wasn't running, I wouldn't choose him over an alternate who would potentially be running.

Where is there any sort of approval rating? I wouldn't translate potential election results for a specific office as "approval", If in fact "Re-election questions are meaningless absent a named challenger.", then how do you conclude that Douglas has a greater level of approval?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:18 PM, October 31, 2007

"People should also be asked how they rate their own Reps and Senators. They don't vote for the legislature as a whole."

The problem is that our own reps don't vote the way their leaders tell them to vote. In the House, Symington tells her leaders how the troops should vote. In turn, Shumlin tells Symington how to vote.

Have the time, the reps don't even know what they are voting on. They just vote the way their party leaders tell them to vote.

So, its pretty fair to say that when you vote for your local legislator, you're voting for Shumlin or Symington.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:31 PM, October 31, 2007

"the reps don't even know what they are voting on. They just vote the way their party leaders tell them to vote"

Well said. There is a clear lack of qualification among most of our representatives. It actually looks like a group of people who have sought office as second job and a second source of income...retirees, small shop owners, diary farmers.

There is no personal attack intended. The state faces real issues that need the attention of real professionals. Our legislature is not it. You get what you pay for.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:40 PM, October 31, 2007

"Where is there any sort of approval rating?"

There was a separate poll that had approval ratings of the Governor and the Legislature.

"People should also be asked how they rate their own Reps and Senators. They don't vote for the legislature as a whole."

True, but this tells us to a degree that the Governor's agenda is more popular than the Legislature's.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:20 PM, October 31, 2007

"True, but this tells us to a degree that the Governor's agenda"

The Governor has an agenda? Funny, he hasn't proposed any legislation that would reduce our taxes.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:46 PM, October 31, 2007

"The Governor has an agenda? Funny, he hasn't proposed any legislation that would reduce our taxes."

I guess you missed his spending cap proposal for schools. VTNEA whines that Act 82 was done at the 11th hour with no debate. That was because of the time wasted by the Legislature on other stupid things.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:59 PM, October 31, 2007

Where's the surprise?

The Governor has been bashing the legislature from his bully pulpit week in - week out the day after teh last election.

And what has the Governor done during this time?
Nothing! but bash the legislature.

Hasn't anyone figured out that Jim Douglas is following the same playbook that GWB does - heck even his terminolgies are the same.

Our Vt media is either very lame or very afraid of saying anything negative about Jim Douglas - they might get their hands slapped by Jason Gibbs.

We need new leadership in Vermont! Jim Douglas is so negative that anyone even thinking about moving here would have second thoughts.

And then that new leadership should try and sit down WITH the legislature to try and come up with a plan to "right the ship".

Dick Snelling was a Republican Governor with a Dem House and Senate - he truly worked with the legislature to accomplish good things.

Jim Douglas, like his pal GWB, continues to say things like "The legislature should work with me to solve VT's probblems" --- what he really means is that the legislature should rubberstamp his ideas.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:07 PM, October 31, 2007

Maybe Welch's staff will learn something from reading the words of Snarky. He could probably teach them a lot about staying true to your beliefs and sticking by your promises, even when they're not popular!

(BTW, who cares about the gov race right now? What a waste of time. John Campbell has too many skeletons to be elected and Peter Galbraith is too smart to go near it. CAX should use the money they're spending on polling to go out and do real journalism.)

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:14 PM, October 31, 2007

We'll know that the Dems' internal polling shows that Douglas is beatable when Jeb Spaulding or Bill Sorrell starts talking seriously about running for governor.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:49 PM, October 31, 2007

I hear the WCAX questions were:

1) Do you like Jim Douglas as much as WCAX?
2) Dou you think the sun shines out Jim Douglas's behind like WCAX does?
3) Do you think WCAX and its reporters (use word lightly) are in bed with Jim Douglas and his hired press cadre?

Point is, WCAX is in NO WAY a bellweather for the real feelings of Vermonters. This station is nicknamed WGOP for good reason. Don't forget it.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:35 PM, October 31, 2007

Bill Sorrell would be the Republican's dream. What a dope! Look at how much money he cost us with his pathetic Supreme Court exercise. And then there was his eloquent and oh-so-effective appearance on the Bill O'Reilly show. His image of himself and his talents is so far beyond the reality that it's scary.

And Jeb Spaulding is a relatively young, contented, rich guy who has no need, ego or otherwise, to run for Governor unless it's a sure thing.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:37 PM, October 31, 2007

Bill Sorrell has never been in a competitive election in his life. The only reason he's AG is because Howard Dean appointed him to the job. Dean owed the Sorrells (Bill and his mother Esther) a favor because the Sorrells were some of Dean's first patrons in Burlington politics in the 80s. When Fred Allen retired as Chief Justice, Dean decided to appoint AG Jeff Amestoy as Chief Justice so he could then appoint Bill Sorrell as AG. Dean (this is the old, pre-presidential candidate, pre-DNC Dean) could thus satisfy both the Republicans (appointing GOP AG Amestoy to the Supreme Court) and the Chittenden County Dems (appointing Sorrell as AG).

Sorrell would be a disaster as a statewide candidate - how much tax money has his office wasted on cases where the state has lost in an appeals court?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:48 PM, October 31, 2007

Burr Morse for Governor!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:58 PM, October 31, 2007

"Look at how much money he cost us ..."

Look at how much money Bill Sorrell got for us with the tobacco lawsuit ... the money he won in that case could pay for ten thousand Supreme Court cases.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:16 PM, October 31, 2007

Bill Sorrell didn't win a cent of the tobacco money - Vermont got its proportional share of a lawsuit brought by trial lawyers in Mississippi and other southern states. In fact, Vermont and the other state plaintiffs would have received millions of dollars more had the trial lawyers not taken such huge fees - hundreds of millions, even billions, of dollars, according to some estimates.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:31 PM, October 31, 2007

"Point is, WCAX is in NO WAY a bellweather for the real feelings of Vermonters."

There's only one bellweather that matters - an election.

And guess what? Douglas has one the last two by a landslide. I would say that is a pretty good bellweather for the real feelings of (real) Vermonters.

So if you don't like it, take your trust fund, pack up, and go back to NYC. Nice try, but you can't blame WCAX, WGOP, or G.W himself.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:35 PM, October 31, 2007

Jeb Spaulding and Deb Markowitz will only run when it is a sure thing. The trouble is only one of them can.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:14 PM, October 31, 2007

"Bill Sorrell didn't win a cent of the tobacco money"

Total myth. If it wasn't for Sorrell, VT would not have gotten that money.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:16 PM, October 31, 2007

Sorrell was pivitol in Vermont getting the tobacco money.

To say otherwise is just silly.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:17 PM, October 31, 2007

Rosemarie Jackowski for Attorney General!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:34 PM, October 31, 2007

Illuzi for AG!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:37 PM, October 31, 2007

"Point is, WCAX is in NO WAY a bellweather for the real feelings of Vermonters."

I trust you also hold this view on WCAX's poll on VT's sentiment about impeachment... or not?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:49 AM, November 01, 2007

Go ahead and try to beat Douglas with Sorrell - just the thought makes me chuckle (and I am a Democrat).

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:28 AM, November 01, 2007

I read Welch's response to Colby, which included pieces from Colby's blog attacking Welch. All I can say is wow. The attacks on Welch were vicious and juvenile. Colby is an as----e. If I were Welch, I would never, ever, agree to meet with Colby and I would expect the Burlington police to prosecute the guy for tresspassing to the full extent of the law.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:38 AM, November 01, 2007

"Sorrell was pivitol in Vermont getting the tobacco money.

To say otherwise is just silly."

No, it is not. The original poster is correct. What Bill Sorrell did was join a much larger suit brought by other AG from bigger states and the professional lawyers they hired.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:03 AM, November 01, 2007

And so since he joined with other AG's from other states, Sorrell was not responsible for obtaining money for VT?

I can tell you that if he did not join, VT would not have received any money and that joining the suit involved much more than a handshake.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:23 AM, November 01, 2007

Without Sorrell, Vermont wouldn't have gotten that money ... and it was a ton of money.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:50 AM, November 01, 2007

Go ahead - run him for Governor - I can't wait!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:15 AM, November 01, 2007

Gaye Symington is the one who really should run for Governor.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:19 AM, November 01, 2007

Deb Markowitz in 2010!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:23 AM, November 01, 2007

Douglas has the vision for success and how to truly build the state's economic base..

On an earlier blog, Bubba and I were beaten up for talking about the positive impact of car manufacturers on local economies. The clear thinkin', know everything Vermonter's disagreed. Look at what is on the CNN(a truly liberal news source)website today and what it has to say about it.

Bubba, you were exactly right. This is too good. You can't make this stuff up.

Let the debunking begin!

Some excerpts from the article:

"While growth has come in leaps for towns like Marysville(home of a Honda plant), some of the former northern mainstays of auto manufacturing have seen their fortunes tumble as domestic manufacturers cut back production."

"Take Flint, Michigan, for example. General Motors closed its sprawling, 2,900-employee Buick City plant there in 1999. Census Bureau population figures reflected the hit. Flint's population fell 11.6 percent between 1990 and 2000, and was projected to fall even further."

"Foreign auto manufacturers have been economic angels to other small towns, too. The Toyota plant in Georgetown, Kentucky, provided funds to help build a new high school; the Mercedes plant in Vance, Alabama, has brought nearly 42,000 jobs to the area; BMW has invested more than $2 billion in its Spartanburg, South Carolina, facility. These are just several of many towns that understand what Honda means to Marysville"

"To think that something like this could come out of just an open farmland was amazing for a lot of people," he said. "Almost everybody has benefited one way or the other from Honda. Everybody. And we continue to see growth ... even to this day.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:59 AM, November 01, 2007

"Bubba and I were beaten up for talking about the positive impact of car manufacturers on local economies."

Classic straw man argument.

Nobody here ever argued that manufacturing of any sort was bad for local economies. It's foolish to say otherwise.

You are misrepresenting other people's arguments -- a favorite tactic of Hannity, Limbaugh, Cheney and the rest of the right wing.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:15 AM, November 01, 2007

"Classic straw man argument."

I knew the debunking wouldn't take long.

FYI.. I am not the right wing but a very liberal independent. But then you knew that too.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:28 AM, November 01, 2007

Independents will vote for Symington.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:43 AM, November 01, 2007

"Independents will vote for Symington."

Thank you for telling me what I think. The telepathic power of you guys is amazing.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:23 PM, November 01, 2007

"You can't make this stuff up."

Yeah, but you certainly can tell just part of the story and make it sound like its all roses.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:07 PM, November 01, 2007

Sure sounds like car companies thrive when they don't have to deal with unions.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:22 PM, November 01, 2007

"Yeah, but you certainly can tell just part of the story and make it sound like its all roses."

The debunking continues...

Did you read the whole article or do you just want to diagree for the fun of it? I didn't make it sound like anything. I merely did a cut and paste. Those excerpts are reflective of the conclusion of the whole piece as written by very liberal CNN. (Hmmm...Do you think maybe Bubba has ins at CNN and they have colluded to slant the reporting against us again?)

I encourage you to read it for yourself and form your own opinion. I have no desire to tell you what to think. Just pointing out an interesting, non-VT point of view for all you free thinkers.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:23 PM, November 01, 2007

It has nothing to do with whether or not Snarky Boy's comments about Welch were over the line. It has everything to do with whether the congressman is willing to meet with constituents who have a strongly held view in opposition to his.

By trying to make this about Michael Colby, the Welch camp is completely ignoring the real issue. Colby wasn't asking to meet with Welch alone; he was asking on behalf of the full group of demonstrators and for other Vermonters who believe the war needs to end and would like to discuss that subject with their congressman.

p.s. and no, Sorrell did not bring the tobacco money home -- he was just sitting in the AG's chair when the pro forma briefs were filed and when the verdicts came in.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:08 PM, November 01, 2007

It may not be about Snarky Boy but it certainly is about civility, common courtesy and the respectful treatment of others.

There can not be one rational person who, if they read those comments and were subjected to the baseness of Colby's behavior, would make time available for him because it is so entirely clear a rational and open discussion of the facts can not be had. He leads the group. His actions are the proxy for the larger population. He is a disgrace and those who align with him should question their own judgement in people.

Grow up. Act your age. Treat people with respect and maybe they will be sympathic to your point of view.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:41 PM, November 01, 2007

I would argue that refusing to engage in civil conversation, ignoring the heartfelt views of a large group of constituents, and hauling said constituents off to jail is perhaps the most egregious display of lack of civility, common courtesy, and respectful treatment of others that you could ask for.

The half-serious comments of Snarky Boy pale in comparison. If Mr. Welch can't take some name-calling from a blogger, then he should get out of the business.

In the meantime, he should show some concern and respect for those who reach out to him, even if he disagrees with their point of view. That too, is part of the job.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:59 PM, November 01, 2007

Heartfelt comments...? Name calling by a blogger...? He should show some concern for those reaching out...?

Did you read any of the trash Colby printed? I can't believe anyone would even try to rationalize Snarky Boy. How can an adult, civilized, educated individual suggest name calling in its most vile form is okay?

No one is in the business of being open prey for such disgusting attacks. It is not OKAY!

Be ashamed of yourself. Where is your sense of decency and respect for your fellow man?

This is the most pitiful thing I have seen posted on any of these boards.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:15 PM, November 01, 2007

Snarky and his friend "Boots" disrupted a high school graduation in St. Johnsbury. They are vile scum beneath contempt, not unlike something you might scrape off the soles of your shoes. Why ANYONE would pay ANY attention to these egomaniacs is beyond me, but hey, it is Vermont, 2007!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:29 PM, November 01, 2007

Mississipi paid over $100,000 for each job assuming Nissan reaches their proposed size - something which is now doubtfull given the free fall in sales of the Nissan trucks and SUV's slated to be built there. If the plant does not reach its full proposed size the price per job is much higher. If you think that is a good deal, I have a plywood plant to sell you.

IMHO, the state would be much better off funding technical and state college education to help fill existing jobs and to prepare fertile ground for growing entrepreneurial businesses.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:17 PM, November 01, 2007

Debunked again...

Once again you guys never cease to amaze me with the wealth of knowledge you have at your finger tips and always knowledge swept under the rug by the MAN...

Now it's CNN that gets it wrong. It really was a bad deal for the states. I am pretty sure I wouldn't want BMW spending $2 billion in my neighborhood or Honda spending $6 billion or Mercedes adding 42,000 jobs to our economy and imagine the nerve of Toyota building a high school..

Just for yucks, VT unemployment is 5% approx. on a population of 600,000..that's 30,000 people...Mercedes added 42,000 new jobs. Hmmm

Just so you get it, spending $100K per $40K job means more disposable income being spent by employees (ie more sales tax for the state), more profits made at local businesses (ie more money for them to reinvest into their business and the creation of new jobs, more state income taxes paid). It goes on into perpetuity. The ROI as I calculate it with some simple assumptions is pretty good.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:54 PM, November 01, 2007

The only thing you are debunking is the idea that perhaps you have a brain.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:23 PM, November 01, 2007

"It has nothing to do with whether or not Snarky Boy's comments about Welch were over the line."

Wrong. Unbelievably wrong.

Don't call somebody "Peter the Dick" and trespass in their office and then go boo hoo when they don't meet with you.

I hope Colby goes to jail, not for being a jerk, but for tresspassing. Then he can have "Bread and Water."

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:42 PM, November 01, 2007

To Annonymous - "debunked again"?!

First, VT unemployment is 4.2%, not 5%.

Second, spending $100,000 per job is not nearly as helpful as you think it is. Actually, I suspect you didn't do ANY calculations to estimate the ROI. If you had, this is what you would learn.

1. A $40,000 job for a single person would yield about $830 per year in VT income tax. [Note: If the worker was maried with kids, the "return" would be even less.]
2. That same job would yield about $700 in state sales tax.
3. Together, that's about $1,530 per year.
4. Even if you assume a reasonable multiplier effect, the annual ROI would be no more than $4,000 per year.
5. At that rate, it would take about 25 years just to break even.

Do you really think those jobs will still be there in 25 years?

Next time you make these kinds of statements, you might want to actually do some research and run the numbers.

The "incentive" game is a complete waste of money.

BTW - You are mistaken about the number of people unemployed. It has nothing to do with population, only the number of people considered part of the labor force. At present, that figure is 357,900 (although the official methodology undercounts those who actually want jobs). In any case, the official number of unemployed in VT was 14,900 last month.

There is a great deal of misinformation out there about the economy and economic development. Your comments - although no doubt sincere - make that very clear.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:41 PM, November 01, 2007

Anonymous, see how much smarter Hoffer is than you are?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:54 AM, November 02, 2007

Doug does know everything except how to read.

I said " VT unemployment is 5% approx. on a population of 600,000..that's 30,000 people...Mercedes added 42,000 new jobs"

Doug was quick to tell me its 4.2%. In my book 4.2% is approx 5%.

Second the point was Mercedes added 42,000 jobs. The obvious inference is that more than our entire state's unemployed, even more so with Doug's math.

In my math, its more than the state tax effect. It's the people we no longer fund in unemployment. It's the savings realized in no longer needing to have state funded insurance since a Company like Mercedes, BMW or Toyota offers it as a benefit. It's the ability to reduce Gov't overhead in some of these welfare programs as a result. Its the tax effect of $2 billion being spent with some reasonable portion of that in the state economy.

I am sure your intentions are good but, if you want to do the math Doug, do all the math. The multiplier is huge. I learned two things a long time ago. 1. Figures lie and liars figure. You can find any set of facts you want to support almost any bias you may have and 2.) doing the same old thing, the same old way gets the same old result every time.

Maybe its time to take the blinders off, admit there may be another way and take the chance.

It is beyond any level of common sense that any one of these examples BMW, Toyota or Mercedes has not been good for the local economy.

Get off the internet and do some first hand research. Go talk to the people of Maryville like CNN did before you choose to debunk them.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:57 AM, November 02, 2007

I think Gaye Symington should run against Douglas - then they go at it - head to head.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:06 AM, November 02, 2007

Remember, Hoffer has never let facts cloud any of his diatribes. He is a paid left-wing gun for the "progressives" and his job is simply to convince Vermonters that sow's ears are really silk purses. He states that none of these jobs will be around for long; he is reminded of BMW's long stay in S. Carolina and continuing growth, and after a few weeks he once again says the jobs won't be around for long!!!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:13 AM, November 02, 2007

Your "common sense" still ignores the $100,000 cost per job. Do you actually know anything about multipliers or are you just making it up? Multipliers take account of all direct, indirect, and induced economic activity. That's why I mentioned a $4,000 ROI in addition to the $1,530 in state taxes per job). And I'm sorry but "huge" is not a number.

Talking to people who are happy to have a job in poor rural areas of the South is qualitative research. Useful, but hardly rigorous. The data doesn't lie.

And your tiresome line about "find[ing] any set of facts you want to support almost any bias you may have" is laughable when you don't even bother with facts.

Manufacturing jobs since the last recession
Alabama - down 50,000 (14%)
Kentucky - down 56,000 (18%)
Mississippi - down 49,000 (22%)
S. Carolina - down 94,000 (28%)
Tennessee - down 103,000 (21%)
Vermont - down 11,000 (23%)

Median hourly & annual wage in Production industries
Alabama - $11.43 ($23,774)
Kentucky - $13.35 ($27,768)
Mississippi - $11.60 ($24,128)
S. Carolina - $12.93 ($26,894)
Tennessee - $12.62 ($26,250)
Vermont - $13.40 ($27,872)

You just don't get it. The blinders are yours.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:36 AM, November 02, 2007

Car companies are not going to come to a state this liberal and unwilling to help business.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:11 AM, November 02, 2007

Why must we have car companies?
Are there not other viable companies?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:54 AM, November 02, 2007

Bubba can't argue with actual facts Doug. He begins throwing out GOP labels and lies whenever he's confronted with facts. Best not to engage him/her or it.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:09 AM, November 02, 2007

Yeah, go ahead and run Sorrell or how about Symington - now that would be fun!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:21 AM, November 02, 2007

Wow! I would never want a credible employer to come to the state, bring 10,000 jobs and spend $2 billion. Nope. Can't even imagine how it would be a good thing.

Why they might bring company provide health insurance benefits and retirement plans so the state doesn't have to fund it or administer it.

No sir, let's forge our future with subsidized diary farming, maple syrup stands and bed and breakfasts, and more government managed programs.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:51 AM, November 02, 2007

That is right on!!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:09 AM, November 02, 2007

Manufacturing is a lost cause. We shouldn't pay into corporate welfare with incentives for these plants to move. The existence of manufacturing in any given state is fleeting. It was rumored that South Carolina was considering a $1 billion tax package as a counter to the latest plant to settle in Mississippi.

Imagine what $1 billion would do as seed money to help new business's grow in Vermont. Vermont should concentrate on software, technology, and green companies.

Of what value is it to invest in auto manufacturing when the auto industry has been performing so poorly.

Furthermore, in terms of jobs, software and technology pay double that of manufacturing jobs. These types of jobs are expected to have some of the best growth over the next ten years. Software engineering ranks as one of the ten best jobs for the next 10 years.

It's almost impossible to beat the growth of green industry/companies. Take a look at the stock market. Compare growth of green (or even software/tech) to that of auto manufacturing. Green buinesses are double digit growth.

Vermont already has a base of green, software, and tech companies. Why should the state enter the auction and put forth the highest bid (that will surely be at least $500 million ) to attract an auto manufacturer instead of building upon the existing knowledge base which operates in the fastest growing fields?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:24 AM, November 02, 2007

"Talking to people who are happy to have a job in poor rural areas of the South is qualitative research. "

Doug, a couple things come to mind, as uninformed as I apparently am.
(1) please research the atlas. I suggested you speak to the citizens of Maryville. It's in Ohio, not "the South".

(2) I am surprised that you discount so quickly the fact that there aren't people in poor rural VT that might be "happy to have a job" with one of these guys. Having lived in the South for 20 years, I didn't find Southerners any less discerning about employment than we seem to be up here.

So you do know, I understand the concept of multipliers having spent the last 30 years in Fortune 500 senior financial roles. I do sort of get the numbers side of it.

Finally, you asked: "Do you really think those jobs will still be there in 25 years?"

The answer is yes and certainly more likely with the Companies discussed in the article than if it was one of the struggling Big 3 who has lost touch with the marketplace. Please provide me with facts on why you imply they will be gone. I believe all mentioned in the piece are fairly honorable corporate citizens.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:51 AM, November 02, 2007

"Of what value is it to invest in auto manufacturing when the auto industry has been performing so poorly."

No one said it had to be Auto manufacturers. The point is robust economies don't happen without investment. Investment takes risk and the payback happens over time. Apparently that is a foreign concept here.

I agree with you there are other industries better suited. When I suggested there are other more attractive industries in an earlier thread...some which you reference, that too was shot down as a waste of money.

Go figure.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:58 AM, November 02, 2007

Bubba,

It's good to see you back.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:59 AM, November 02, 2007

"The point is robust economies don't happen without investment."

Where will that investment come from? Government?

How about investing in our workforce? Better educational opportunities for our children and for adults who need retraining?

Investing in our people is our best bet.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:15 PM, November 02, 2007

"How about investing in our workforce? Better educational opportunities for our children and for adults who need retraining?"

I think we should but training doesn't help if there are no employers. VT is already leading the way with graduates leaving the state to work elsewhere. That's a problem approaching us quickly.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:51 PM, November 02, 2007

"Please provide me with facts on why you imply they will be gone."

Because that's what happened in the mid-west and the continual search for the lowest possible wage will drive manufacturing to other places like Mexico, Brazil, or China.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:01 PM, November 02, 2007

Investing more in education will create homegrown employers here in Vermont.

There is no need to entice out of state employers (who care little for the state) with corporate welfare packages when we can create our own employers here in Vermont.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:04 PM, November 02, 2007

When is the next poll?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:13 PM, November 02, 2007

Current Vermont employers find it hard to find well educated and qualified workers. We need to invest in technical and state college education. Would I rather reduce the college education costs for four Vermonters by 50% or pay $100k to bring a manufacturing job to Vermont? I'd support education to prepare Vermonters for existing jobs first.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:03 PM, November 02, 2007

amen.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:11 PM, November 02, 2007

Aw. You people are being so unfair to Colby. Calling him mean things like being narcissistic. It's not like he's doing anything more than, oh, comparing his Snarky Boy schtick to Rosa Parks famous civil disobedience on the bus or anything. Really, you all are just so mean. You'll hurt his feelings.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:18 PM, November 02, 2007

Automakers build in the South because they don't have as many politicians shilling for the union bosses (i.e., Sanders, Leahy, Welch)and the workers are happy with $40-50,000 a year AND LITTLE OR NO UNION DUES. As for educating workers, the on-the-job training at Nissan, Honda, Toyota probably better prepares workers than any the lefties in Vermont could come up with. Does anyone remember ANY meaningful training St. Johnsbury Trucking Co. workers received when their company went bankrupt?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:20 PM, November 02, 2007

Disgruntled because you got laid off Bubba?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:52 PM, November 02, 2007

God forbid we empower people instead of corporations.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:48 PM, November 02, 2007

Since when aren't we empowered? You sound like a victim.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:46 PM, November 02, 2007

"And so since he joined with other AG's from other states, Sorrell was not responsible for obtaining money for VT?"

Not that I'm against going after the tobacco companies, but was joining up with the other AGs and tagging along a particulary difficult thing to do?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:02 PM, November 02, 2007

"I would argue that refusing to engage in civil conversation, ignoring the heartfelt views of a large group of constituents, and hauling said constituents off to jail is perhaps the most egregious display of lack of civility, common courtesy, and respectful treatment of others that you could ask for."

1. Welch did not refuse to engage in "civil conversation." Colby did.

2. Welch did not "haul" anyone off to jail. The police did, when Colby and his pals wouldn't leave.

Get your facts straight.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:04 PM, November 02, 2007

"Current Vermont employers find it hard to find well educated and qualified workers. We need to invest in technical and state college education. Would I rather reduce the college education costs for four Vermonters by 50% or pay $100k to bring a manufacturing job to Vermont? I'd support education to prepare Vermonters for existing jobs first."

Nice, but those educated people will then move to where there's a job. We'll have paid for their education and get no benefit. There has to be at least a critical mass of employment base in the state. We need to attract businesses AND educate our workforce. Advocating only for the education part, while dissing business development, won't work.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:11 PM, November 02, 2007

Colby comparing himself to Rosa Parks! How embarrassing!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:15 PM, November 02, 2007

Vermont employers are saying they can't find the qualified people they need. The issue is kids leaving the state to go to school and not coming back. Eucated people in state for jobs that do exist, particularly if they are experienced people who are adding skills, is a good economic investment.

Spending $100,000 for unskilled jobs that ultimately pit our people against workers in Georgia, Mexico, China and Vietnam, is a long term losing strategy. How many people did Chrysler lay off today in favor of outsourcing?

We have a great entrepreneurial environment here. We win with imagination, brains and better people. We will not win bidding against Mississippi and Georgia for large manufacturing plants and unskilled jobs. They are ultimately lost to places with lower wages.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:47 PM, November 02, 2007

And what $100,000 jobs does Vermont offer? Organic "farming"? Social Engineering? Bread and breakfast management?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:52 AM, November 03, 2007

And what $100,000 jobs does Vermont offer? Organic "farming"? Social Engineering? Bread and breakfast management?

You forgot beekeeping, maple syrup production and tree trimming...

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:15 AM, November 03, 2007

"We have a great entrepreneurial environment here. We win with imagination, brains and better people. We will not win bidding against Mississippi and Georgia for large manufacturing plants and unskilled jobs. They are ultimately lost to places with lower wages."

Three thoughts:
1. What a pompous perspective. I suspect those "dolts" in MS, GA and SC scratch their heads when they are standing in line at the bank cashing their paychecks from Mercedes and BMW(net of deductions for company paid health insurance, 401K, etc)think of us and wonder what the heck we are thinking living in log homes and making maple syrup and cheese.

2. Why do you think a mfg job in an auto plant is unskilled? Clearly you have no idea what it takes to run an auto plant education or skills wise. Why I think earlier Doug H. told us how skilled the UAW workers were.

3. "We will not win bidding against MS and GA for jobs that will go to lower paying countries." Add China, Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan and India to your list. We compete in a global economy and the belief that you can be selective about whom you compete with is wrong. Narrow minded isolationist points of view got us to where we are and will keep us where we are...a small, struggling state with an aging demographic, a rising tax burden and a huge financial challenges in front of us.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:33 AM, November 03, 2007

There is an interesting piece on the impending issue facing us on Vermont Tiger. Art Woolf is on target in his analysis...IMO

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:11 AM, November 03, 2007

"a small, struggling state with an aging demographic, a rising tax burden..."

I guess you didn't read the figures I provided on manufacturing job losses in the states that have "lured" big foreign auto plants. You guys still don't get it. As much as you want to bash VT, it's not just us.

The "aging demographic" is a reality in many states, not just VT.

A "rising tax burden"? I guess you didn't read the JFO tax study. And please don't tell me about how it doesn't include property taxes. Find me another state where the education property tax is based on income.

"Narrow minded isolationist points of view" did not got us to where we are today. Huge job losses all over America are the result of many factors having nothing to do with what happens in VT. In fact, the architects of NAFTA and other "free" trade agreements have helped create the situation - and that includes lots of Republicans and Democrats. Are they all isolationists?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:40 AM, November 03, 2007

We compete with China etc... with imagination and knowledge based jobs. Vermont currently has higher wages than Mississippi and Georgia and it isn't because we all make maple syrup.

Most of the best jobs in Vermont are not in companies we recruited here. They are home grown companies built with imagination and specialized skills. These companies have jobs they can't fill - today. We are in danger of losing these companies unless we have better trained and educated people to fill these jobs - today.

Well trained and educated people entering Vermont's economy and starting and growing Vermont's entrepreneurial base will, in the long run, contribute more and earn more than an entry level worker in an auto plant in Georgia.

Ever try to run a business in a town after a major plant shutdown. It's impossible. The workforce is full of people used to counting days to retirement. They lack imagination and resiliance. They want to be dependants. I ran a business in the Endicott, NY area after IBM went through multiple downsizes. I'll take Vermonters any day and they are the reason for the success of my current business.

Yes, we compete in the global economy, which is exactly why we shouldn't be trying to compete head on by bidding on jobs that will ultimately migrate to the lowest bidder.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:58 AM, November 03, 2007

Hoffer's figures on manufacturing state that they are from the "last" recession. Is that the one Bush inherited from the Clintons or some other? In any case, NAM web site does list Manufacturing employment gains/losses from 2001-2006. A few: Alabama +42.4%; Vt: +13.8%; Tennessee: +29.9%; MS: +8.9%. You can find all the others at their web site. Just a note to show how far off Hoffer can be!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:30 AM, November 03, 2007

Touché...Bubba does some research!

Very nice... you just proved the point in an earlier post "You can find any set of facts you want to support almost any bias ".

Next time however please use something pre-approved to support the party line :)

Be a free thinker.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:58 PM, November 03, 2007

Bubba - I'm glad that you did some research. Good start. But you didn't do it right. Information from the NAM is not official; it's a lobby group after all.

The ONLY source for jobs data is the U.S. Dept. of Labor - Bureau of Labor Statstics (BLS - every state uses exactly the same methodology). You will not find a reputable economist who uses anything else (unless they're paid lobbyists and then they're not reputable).

The figures I provided are correct. Please check these sites if you don't believe me. And if you prefer 2001, that's fine with me. They STILL show manufacturing job losses in every state I listed. I used Sept. to Sept. because that is the most recent data, but the annual data tells the same story.

Alabama
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost
Kentucky
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost
Mississippi
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost
S. Carolina
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost
Tennessee
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost
Vermont
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost

Furthermore, it is clear that you misread the NAM data. The figure you provided is NOT for jobs. Read it again. It says "manufacturing share" - not job growth. The figure you / they presented does NOT mean manufacturing jobs grew 42.4% in Alabama from 2001 - 2006.

Look at the tables. On the left it shows 299,800 jobs in manufacturing in July. That is correct - it's from the BLS (see the site noted above). But if you look at the site, it shows that manufacturing jobs in July 2001 were 322,000. That's a loss of 22,200 jobs (7.4%). You thought that NAM said it was a gain of 42.4%. that's absurd. Do you see it?

In fact, the NAM site only says "manufacturing growth" - so we don't know wxactly what it means. I suspect they are refering to the growth of manufacturing GDP as a % of total state GDP (unadjusted for inflation to make it look bigger - that's a trick used by lobby groups like the NAM).

Bottom line: As I stated, manufacturing jobs in Alabama (and all the other states discussed) is down. That's a fact.

I appreciate that you tried to nail me, but you got it wrong. You really need to let go of your belief that I misstate the data. I never do that.

BTW - The remarks in the previous post about the need for and value of investing in people is right on. That is a much better way to use public funds then wasteful tax credit giveaways to large corporations.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:16 PM, November 03, 2007

"Giveaways" to companies such as Nissan, Toyota, Honda, etc. have proven so far (BMW i think is now in S. Carolina over 20 years) to boost the economy of the states a great deal. Auto makers are only one example of what can be done if a state is business-friendly. You cannot imagine what a Nissan plant does for Mississippi, or a Hyundi parts plant for Georgia. The WRONG way to go about it is to be so anti-business like Dean and pals, then panic, and end up giving a special deal to less-than-legitimate outfits like Husky, who I imagine got away with exaggerating claims of employment. In any case, no matter what the shortcomings of the free enterprise system,if left alone, it benefits workers far more than a bunch of Montpelier environmentalists, social engineers, and paid book-cookers spending taxpayer dollars trying to figure out how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. As a final comment (only here) I saw where some writer stated that the JFO was an "independent" group! Sure, like CNN is "Fair and Balanced"!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:30 PM, November 03, 2007

Nice

When you are proven wrong, you revert to Rush-speak.

Is it so hard to just admit that you were wrong?

Go ahead, admit that the "Leftist" hired gun was right. If not - in the face of inescapable facts - you have nowhere to turn but the same old tired Right Wing baloney.

Are you willing to learn something or are you so stuck in the ideology that you can't see the truth?

You said that "Giveaways to companies such as Nissan, Toyota, Honda, etc. have proven so far (BMW i think is now in S. Carolina over 20 years) to boost the economy of the states a great deal."

B____hit. Refute the facts or just shut up.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:06 PM, November 03, 2007

There is only one truth and you are in sole possession of it? No, you shut up and get over yourself.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:20 PM, November 03, 2007

BMW impact on South Carolina, 1992-2007: $3.3 billion invested; Suppliers inventory $2.1 billion; compensation $3.7 billion; procurement (purchasing) $11.5 billion; exports 771,967 vehicles. This data from the state of South Carolina and is not some fictional study. Is this the proof you wanted?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:39 AM, November 04, 2007

"There is only one truth and you are in sole possession of it? No, you shut up and get over yourself."

Right on!

It's interesting that D.H. presents himself as an independent policy analyst but clearly he has a very distinct and predictable point of view.

If virtually every survey that is presented by someone other than Doug is debunked as paid research and therefore without merit, I wonder why Doug's view should have anymore credibility.

Clearly he presents more than facts... Anybody wonder who "pays" for Doug's research?

And Doug, you seem to be the only one on the board that seems to need to use expletives when challenged. It isn't terribly professional...but then I am sure you know that too

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:52 AM, November 04, 2007

We're not talking about "truth"; just facts. Big difference.

If you can't accept facts without lashing out like a child, perhaps you should find some less threatening habit than this blog.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:04 AM, November 04, 2007

"If you can't accept facts without lashing out like a child, perhaps you should find some less threatening habit than this blog."

Please make a note to yourself for future reference.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:16 AM, November 04, 2007

Face it, Bubba was wrong on the facts. He said manufacturing jobs had increased and that's just not true (regardless of the companies' investments). Bubba misread the NAM web site and got it wrong.

But rather than admit it and move on, he found some other data to try and overcome the mistake. While I appreciate the effort, it doesn't change the facts about job losses.

"If virtually every survey that is presented by someone other than Doug is debunked as paid research and therefore without merit, I wonder why Doug's view should have anymore credibility."

You are mistaken. I welcome good data. It's just that very few of you ever present it. When you do, I accept it (as with Bubba's figures on investments & payroll). But conclusions drawn from the facts are up to us.

And as for using expletives, who are you kidding? I've been villified on this site since I first posted - often in very very rude ways. Perhaps I should avoid such language, but it gets pretty tiresome and sometimes I respond in kind.

And as for who pays me, that's generally public record because I have nothing to hide. Unfortunately, almost none of you can say the same as you hide behind your anonymous posts. You can't have it both ways. You're a hypocrite.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:20 AM, November 04, 2007

"You're a hypocrite."

...Saint Doug

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:24 AM, November 04, 2007

I found this a little earlier and found it interesting...Forbes Magazine does an annual review on the Best States to do business in. Look who is debunking this. Apparently CNN doesn't get it...The Tax Foundation doesn't get it and now Forbes doesn't get it ...the story continues.

----------------------------

"By David Gram, Associated Press Writer | July 13, 2007

MONTPELIER, Vt. --Vermont's ranking on Forbes Magazine's annual list of states as places to do business fell to 32nd this year, from 30th last year, according to the newly released list."

..."Doug Hoffer, a Burlington analyst who has studied the state's economy in depth and frequently criticizes the administration's statements on the state's economic conditions, said he had asked Forbes for details on the methodology behind its rankings and had yet to receive a response.

"Electric costs and taxes for most businesses together represent somewhere between 2 and 5 percent of their overhead. Unless you're an aluminium smelter or a ski area running lifts all the time, your energy costs are just not that big a factor," Hoffer said.

He labeled "meaningless" the fact that Forbes had rated Vermont's quality of life as 10th in the country, behind states including Connecticut and New Jersey."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2007/07/13/forbes_vt_falls_from_30_to_32_among_places_to_do_business/

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:03 AM, November 04, 2007

It is meaningless. Quality of life is
a subjective thing. Some people don't think spending yourself into oblivion to keep up with the Jones's is a quality life.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:06 PM, November 04, 2007

Nobody gets it . . . except Doug.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:46 PM, November 04, 2007

Everyone's data is wrong.

Everyone else is biased.

Of course, Mr. Hofer is not an economist by training . . .

And certainly no one could accuse the Peace and Justice Center of having a bias . . .

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:47 PM, November 04, 2007

Exactly the point.

I am not a lawyer but maybe I will begin to represent myself as an independent legal analyst.

Having called others on the board hypocrites, it's time to admit that portraying your independence when there is a very real agenda is a bit hypocritical.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:57 PM, November 04, 2007

Of course none of you independent thinkers seem to care that Forbes never provided ANY information on the methodology used in its rankings. Wouldn't you think that a "reputable" publication would be happy to share their methodology? That's what economists do after all. And if not, what does that say about them and their "independence"?

Besides, I will take the word of the many business owners represented by VT Businesses for Social Responsibility that they love doing business in VT over the biased perspective of Forbes, which doesn't do business in VT.

None of you have been able to challenge the facts I've presented so you try to rely on a stupid ranking that can't even be verified. Now that's open minded.

And it's funny how you challenge my "independence" but your reliance on materials from the likes of the NAM and Forbes is supposed to be objective? Who are you kidding? You guys are as biased as they come.

And your silly obsession with my "independence" is truly laughable. I made the remark in the context of someone asking who pays me but the writer (and most of you) doesn't even have the balls to identify himself (or herself). You have two standards - one for me and a different one for you. That IS hypocricy.

And as for my training, I informed you that neither of the state's economists have PhD's in economics. Does that make them unqualified? If so, you might want to inform the governor, who pays one of them.

You should all get lives and grow up.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:54 PM, November 04, 2007

I hope John Campbell runs for
Governor.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:44 PM, November 04, 2007

I really hate it when bloggers loose sight of the topic and just end up talking about themselves.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:31 PM, November 04, 2007

Wow. A little defensive, aren't we?

"Besides, I will take the word of the many business owners represented by VT Businesses for Social Responsibility that they love doing business in VT over the biased perspective of Forbes, which doesn't do business in VT."

For every gourmet coffee-shop owner who is a member of Businesses for Social Responsibility, there are several other VT business owners who will agree that the business climate in this state is hostile.

Oh, and don't you work for the Businesses for Social Responsibility?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:28 PM, November 04, 2007

"over the biased perspective of Forbes"

Dang...on more Fat Cat conspiring against poor little Vermont.

Come on. At some point you have to accept the volumes of reports that define VT as place that is expensive and not so friendly to business.

I suspect that this and the other blogs you frequent are merely free marketing venues for you to promote your services.

"Independent"...unlikely.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:59 AM, November 05, 2007

I am a commercial property owner in Vermont and I can tell you the
State of Vermont is not helpful at all.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:56 AM, November 05, 2007

I am the head of a high tech manufacturing business and the State has not been supportive in any of our growth initiatives. We need to expand and its a tough argument to do it here.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:14 AM, November 05, 2007

Gee... The last 2 responses say the State has not been helpful - maybe you should ask Gov Jim Douglas, after all his administration is in power and they have the ability to help - oh wait, it doesn't mesh with Gov DoesLess' message that Vermont is a horribleplace - don't come here!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:20 AM, November 05, 2007

My company is expanding outside of VT this year and next.

Reasons: 1.) it is difficult to find skilled professionals, 2.) it is difficult for our customers to travel to Vermont with limited flight availability, 3.) poor telecom infrastructure. 4.) it's expensive (labor, taxes, property costs)

It's too bad. We have been here for a long time.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:26 AM, November 05, 2007

And what you get for the huge taxes (especially in Southern Vermont) isn't much.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:35 AM, November 05, 2007

Lets address #1, #2, and #3 on the list. Each of them help to deal with #4. I would rather deal with #1, #2 and #3, which help all businesses, than give handouts to a few big manufacturers as has been proposed here.

High labor costs are not a bad thing, it means Vermonters are making decent wages. Not sure I want to see low property costs. In my experience, business taxes in Vermont versus other states are not a major expense driver (this is not a data driven opinion, however, just my own experience running businesses in a few northeastern states).

The main thing is, I want good well trained people.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:46 AM, November 05, 2007

"I want good well trained people."

I don't know what business you're in or the level or training you need, but have tried working with local schools and colleges to help make this happen? It would benefit everyone if this type of cooperation could be achieved.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:36 AM, November 05, 2007

Above should read: have you tried....

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:37 AM, November 05, 2007

I usually end up with a blend of people from Vermont and people from out of state. The biggest problem recruiting people from out of state is the trailing spouse issue. Finding a job for the spouse is hard if they have specialized interests.

Have I worked with the schools? I offer tuition assistance for for staff wanting to continue their training and/or education, which has worked well.

My point here is: I would rather see us improve college and technical opportunities, cost and convenience of air travel (a good one listed above), and generally increasing the fertility of the business climate for entrepreneurs than bidding against lower wage states for large scale manufactruing pants (like Husky). Even worse, I would not put money into failing manufacturing enterprises, like the plywood factory.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:35 PM, November 05, 2007

Nice to hear from some business people.

When asked to name the most important factors for their businesses in surveys, CEO's have been saying the same things for years: quality workforce, infrastructure, and quality of life.

In VT, about a quarter of all the state money we spend is for tax "incentives". Sounds like these employers have other priorities.

And for the other business folks who responded earlier that the state hasn't been helpful, what is that you would have liked from the state?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:49 PM, November 05, 2007

Hey Doug, Thanks for simplifying the issue!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:30 PM, November 05, 2007

Me again: I was involved in building a large manufacturing plant in Vermont a decade ago. The state was very helpful in identifying land where our requirements were consistent with state and local plans. Act 250 and all other permits were a snap and we sailed through. The vast majority of Act 250 applications are quickly approved. You just need to go where they want you to go.

More recently I've been aware of several projects where ANR was exceedingly slow and held up the process by 6-12 months or more. There was no dispute, they just couldn't say what they wanted for stormwater and other requirements. The owners were eager to do the right thing but ANR couldn't/wouldn't say what that was. Governor Douglas could really help the business climate by adequately staffing these functions and giving them clear direction to move more quickly.

The airfare problem is pretty significant. Many Vermont businesses have customers in NYC, Boston, Philly, etc... and compete with businesses located in those locales. To do business there you have to go there enough to prove you can match the service of a local vendor. The walk up fare from Burlington to Philly is around $1,200. Washington is $700. We used to go to Chicago for the day, no more. NYC is more reasonable with Jet Blue pushing USAir down. The lack of late flights from NYC and Boston makes dinner meetings hard.

I have good high speed internet but I'd be cooked without it.

Vermont has some areas of excellence: mail order, food, publishing, environmental controls, tourism services, health care software, etc... In these areas of excellence it is much easier to find staff, investment capital, vendors, etc... because there are similar businesses around. As a small economy needing to compete in a knowledge based marketplace we would be well advised to concentrate our efforts in a few areas and develop the capacity to support entrepreneurs in these areas. I don't think government should pick winners but it should recognize winners as they emerge and then align education, regulation reviews, etc... to offer support. For example: we are emerging as a center of excellence for specialty cheeses. We need to rally around that. Why are we struggling to esatablish ourselves as a leader in furniture?

As a state we need to be good at buying from emerging in-state companies. That gives people the R&D experience and scale to begin selling out of state. IDX caught a break with Fletcher Allen. We need to support new food companies, specialized travel agencies, publishers, etc...

Vermont has a two tier regulatory culture for business and I think it needs a three tier system. Vermont is very easy on rules for very small companies. But it applies its expectations of big companies too far down the ladder. Start-ups can fly under the radar but get a little bigger and they treat you like IBM. We could be a little friendlier to the family owned business with a dozen employees that is not quite ready to support the office and reporting requirements of a well staffed larger business.

Finally, we should be bold. We all know world markets will be demanding energy efficiency and renewable sources: we need to push the window, drop our timid posture, and take some risks while we elbow our way to the front. Why don't we be our own best customer for energy efficiency services?

If we had some firm leadership on energy many of our other problems would be easier to solve. When we show leadership on major issues we are a more exciting place, and more people will want to apply their talents here.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:32 PM, November 05, 2007

Doug, you say they want "infrastructure." So that would mean you're in favor of more cell towers and highways, right?

Hypocrite.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:13 PM, November 05, 2007

Thanks. All good points.

I too have heard about problems at ANR. I don't think they've been given the necessary resources to do the job for many years (quite apart from the internal & external politics).

Re. telecom: I'm afraid the Governor's trust in the willingness of private sector providers to take care of our unmet needs is misplaced. This is too important to nibble at the edges with tiny carrots. I think the state should get directly involved (as in Burlington; open access).

I agree strongly that the state should use its purchasing power to help nurture in-state sectors. There could be legal issues (thanks to NAFTA & WTO) but I'm aware of a few other states that have preferential purchasing policies.

I also agree that we need bold leadership on energy & efficiency. Unfortunately, we're not getting it from Gov. Douglas.

And your point about the excitement factor is right on.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:32 PM, November 05, 2007

Oh good! Vermont should ignore pursuing good companies that pay good salaries and benefits. Instead, the state should "nurture" existing "businesses" that I suppose produce organic crap and maybe "genuine" Abenaki artifacts for the tourists. Of course the state couldn't leave the training up to new and proven job providers, because then they couldn't CONTROL these dreaded private-sector enterprises! Better to train new workers ourselves, using those that couldn't make it in private enterprises themselves as teachers!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:07 AM, November 06, 2007

Vermont could help itself by getting new leadership in the legislature and senate.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:57 AM, November 06, 2007

Thats a good idea - new leaders in the house and senate.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:14 PM, November 06, 2007

Jeb Spaulding for Governor.

John Campbell - NO WAY!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:16 PM, November 06, 2007

I'd rather have Dubie for Governor.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:09 PM, November 06, 2007

How about Matt Dunne?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:01 AM, November 07, 2007

But can Matt take on Douglas?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:44 PM, November 07, 2007

Ask Matt.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:05 AM, November 09, 2007

"And it's funny how you challenge my "independence" but your reliance on materials from the likes of the NAM and Forbes is supposed to be objective? Who are you kidding? You guys are as biased as they come.

And your silly obsession with my "independence" is truly laughable."

I guess we can finally stop arguing about Mr. Hoffer's "independence" now. The Democratic blog Green Mountain Daily and its founder, former Democratic Party State Treasurer, VNRC employee, and current Democratic Party activist John Odum have laid the question to rest:

"The newest star of the Vermont blogosphere doesn't have a blog (although he has been known to post a bit on less traveled sites). He's Doug Hoffer, go-to guy when you need a hard core, progressive policy wonk in Vermont.

And by hard core, I mean hard core. As in, the guy other hard core wonky types such as former Representative and Act 60 architect Paul Cillo look to when they need someone to do some heavy lifting."

http://www.greenmountaindaily.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=9793E36455A03323A3A27A550CCAE07E?diaryId=1833

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:19 AM, November 10, 2007