vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

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

11.07.2007

A new leaf?

As Secretary of Administration Michael Smith outlined a "concept" that the Douglas administration floated Tuesday -- to lease the state lottery -- he said his willingness to share this idea with legislators early represented a change in practice. "This is the new and open Mike Smith," he joked, and I laughed heartily. He said Sen. Susan Bartlett, D-Lamoille had the same reaction when he gave her the same line.

Has there been a change of tone and strategy from the fifth floor this past week?

Friday, the Douglas administration set out to tighten the state personnel spending belt a notch by directing managers across state government to reduce staff as vacancies develop. The target is 150 fewer jobs by June and another 250 cuts by July 2008. The new and open Michael Smith made sure Democratic legislative leaders knew the score shortly after state employees found out.

Monday, when Douglas spokesman Jason Gibbs was asked for comment about the decision of the House Ways and Means Committee to continue to explore an income tax for education, he noted that legislators and the governor share a goal of reducing the property tax burden on Vermonters. Where was the usual attack on the stupidity of lawmakers to even talk about such a tax switch? Absent.

Tuesday, Smith floats the lottery leasing scheme, calling lottery officials (obviously necessary) and legislative leaders. He noted in a telephone interview that he could have waited, investigated the idea for a few more weeks and had Gov. Jim Douglas spring the idea in his state of the state or budget addresses. That's when he said, "This is the new and open Mike Smith."

Smith explained that failing to include lawmakers in the discussion early had backfired in Illinois. Officials there have shared this lesson with Smith, he said.

So does a "new openness" signal a greater willingness to look for compromises during the upcoming session? It will be an election year and all sides have to worry about image. We'll see.

-- Nancy Remsen

posted by vt.Buzz | 10:04 AM |

Comments:

Give me a break - it's still about re-electing Jim Douglas.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:28 AM, November 07, 2007

Thi sjust in - the lottery commission employees found out by watching the news last nite - Mike Smith's new openness is only yo suit his needsd.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:30 AM, November 07, 2007

Maybe Smith will luck out, and his new happy-go-lucky style will cause him to grow a foot. Just like it helped the Grinch's heart grow. The analogy works in this case.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:58 AM, November 07, 2007

Rather than leasing the lottery, the state should shut it down.

Lotteries are one of the most regressive forms of taxation out there. Lower-income people are the most frequent buyers of lottery tickets. A few unfortunate people become addicted to buying lottery tickets, taking money away from their families.

If Vermonters want to gamble of their own free will, they can go to the casinos in Montreal or Connecticut, or the race tracks in New York. The state should not be making money off gambling.

I would be willing to pay $100 to $200 more per year in state taxes to get rid of the lottery.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:01 AM, November 07, 2007

Let's privatize Interstate 89 while we're at it. The "Dunkin Donuts Highway" has a nice ring to it!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:09 AM, November 07, 2007

The Governor's 5th floor office sponsored by the Corrections Corporation of America.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:18 AM, November 07, 2007

So if the state privatizes the lottery, what happens to the revenue that goes to fund education? Does that all now go to some private company? That'll sure help people's property taxes--not!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:53 AM, November 07, 2007

The lottery lease contract would require the vendor to pay the state at least as much as the lottery now brings in for the education fund, perhaps more. The problem would be if lottery sales decline and the vendor can't meet the revenue targets. The vendor might then try adding new games or advertising the lottery more in order to increase revenues. Vermont's lottery advertising is very low key compared with some nearby states such as Massachusetts but may not stay that way if the lottery is privatized.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:03 PM, November 07, 2007

In Illinois, they gave the lottery away for a one-time profit, allowing the private company--and only the priavte company--to collect revenues for the next 75 years. You seem to have some knowledge of the vermont deal. what's the yearly payout to our state?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:13 PM, November 07, 2007

There's got to be something very definite in it for the private firm -and perhaps for those proposing it as well?

What's next? the Guard replaced by Blackwater?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:42 PM, November 07, 2007

Mike Smith told WCAX yesterday that the deal would involve a one-time payment of $50 million to the state from the vendor and annual revenues of $23 million after that.

With FY09 and FY10 shaping up to be tough budget years for the state, a lot of Democratic legislators would like to have $50 million, even if they aren't great fans of the lottery.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:00 PM, November 07, 2007

"What's next? the Guard replaced by Blackwater?"

Nuts, you figured it out

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:07 PM, November 07, 2007

Our local schools replaced by Blackwater.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:26 PM, November 07, 2007

I guess it's hit the fan. Douglas finally realizes he's replaceable. Douglas is keeping his options open for the income tax switcharoo.

I suppose we'll start nailing up billboards soon.

Since we're going to follow Illinois, should St Albans, Milton or Williston be the new Detroit?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:06 PM, November 07, 2007

A carton of cigs, a case of beer, and 20 bucks in scratch-offs every Friday.

Yeah, we do need to raise the minimum wage.

Get your deer yet?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:09 PM, November 07, 2007

They never let Mike Smith buy a lottery ticket because you have to be as tall as the counter to buy one. Maybe he'll cut a deal with the private vendor to finally let him buy some tickets.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:21 PM, November 07, 2007

We should spend the lottery revenues on MATH education.

That way people would realize what a waste of money the lottery is and we'd all force the government to shut it down.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:21 PM, November 07, 2007

I don't like the idea of committing to having a state lottery for the long term. For all the noise the total amount generated equals the budget of one good sized school district.

Powerball is the Douglas plan to export Vermont capital. We pay stores 5% to run it. The prizes are won by out of staters so far. And if by chance some Vermonter hits it big, half of that money goes to the IRS. Can anybody think of a better way to ship our money out of state?

Remember when country stores had newspapers on the counter - right where the lottery machines are now?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:31 PM, November 07, 2007

I don't like the idea of the state giving up a steady stream of revenue. Doesn't sit well. And while other states are getting billions for their lottery programs, Vermont is settling for $50 million? That's chump change.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:35 PM, November 07, 2007

Why must we privatize everything? If state run we have far greater control over the lottery. That's the point.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:39 PM, November 07, 2007

"Why must we privatize everything?"

Answer: because goverment employees are incompetent.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:00 PM, November 07, 2007

Not any less so than employees of private companies. Look and the graft and incompetence in private contractors for the federal government.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:17 PM, November 07, 2007

Don't forget the fact that the lottery is a stong arm tactic.

Our local store wanted to get scratch tickets and discovered that in order to get scratch tickets, they also had to get a powerball machine. It's all or nothing.

Seems like a private company could do the same with different lotteries.

BTW, these private companies are no class acts. Google GTECH.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:20 PM, November 07, 2007

If the state wants to privatize an asset, they should look at alcoholic beverage sales rather than the lottery. More than 70 years after the repeal of Prohibition, there is no reason why the state needs to hold a monopoly over the distribution and sale of alcoholic beverages. The state could sell the beverage business for several hundred million dollars. There is no evidence from other states that state control of alcoholic beverage distribution results in lower rates of alcohol consumption, less drunk driving, etc. There is no reason for the state of Vermont to be in the wholesale liquor business.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:21 PM, November 07, 2007

"because goverment employees are incompetent"

That is so uninformed and demeaning. Is the world really that black & white to you? Do you even know any public employees? If so, have you told them what you think of them?

Maybe next time you or a neighbor has a fire or gets robbed or is in an accident, you can tell them to leave because you're afraid they'll screw it up.

How do you think the people of Burlington get electricity & water? If they were incompetent how come the power and water keep running?

And how do you get to work in the morning after a big snowfall? Do you plow the streets yourself?

And I suppose you've never left a retail store wondering how that (private sector) salesperson keeps his or her job. Or those maddening phone calls with (private sector) tech people when you have a problem with your computer.

Shouldn't we judge people as individuals rather than with such sweeping labels?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:33 PM, November 07, 2007

If VT's so hard up for cash why not tax and regulate marijuana? Now that would generate some revenue!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:52 PM, November 07, 2007

We should have a lottery to determine Vermont's next governor. Our current robotron govenor is so idea depleted that he is now stealing bad ideas from other states, like privatizing the lottery. You also have to chuckle at Douglas's idea to save money by corraling "unsustainable" employee growth. Uh, excuse me, but all that growth happened during Gov. Robotron's term. Why aren't we all blaming him?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:52 PM, November 07, 2007

I actually like the booze idea. If regular stores can sell wine and beer, why not liquor? It's just a different level of alchohol content.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:05 PM, November 07, 2007

The same people buying those lottery tickets also vote for Jimmy.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:06 PM, November 07, 2007

They don't call him Box Cars Douglas for nothing.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:25 PM, November 07, 2007

Ruth Dwyer '08 !!

Lets bring back inteligence !!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:36 PM, November 07, 2007

I like the taxing the pot idea - that would generate revenue.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:43 PM, November 07, 2007

I will not be voting for Jim Douglas.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:43 PM, November 07, 2007

I will not be voting for Doug Hoffer

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:20 PM, November 07, 2007

I will NOT be voting for Anthony Pollina (and I am one of those independents)

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:17 PM, November 07, 2007

Doug Hoffer said...
"because goverment employees are incompetent"

That is so uninformed and demeaning

SAINT DOUG TO THE RESCUE OF THE DOWNTRODDEN AGAIN.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:39 PM, November 07, 2007

Ruth Dwyer '08 !!

Lets bring back inteligence !!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:32 AM, November 08, 2007

I can still remember (vaguely) intelligence. Wasn't that prior to Bernie and his druggie pals invading Vermont back in the 70's?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:19 AM, November 08, 2007

Hey Bubba! Note that the Ruth Dwyer fan who said "Bring back inteligence(sic)" couldn't spell it. That's the kind of person who would vote for Ruth. It's the same kind of person who would say that state employees are incompetent. That's the kind of neo-con stooge who forgot that Jim Douglas is a state employee, too, and has been for his whole career. That's who your real druggie pal is, Bubba.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:02 AM, November 08, 2007

Obviously someone "educated" in government schools since the 70's.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:54 AM, November 08, 2007

Percent of High School graduates in VT
1980 = 71%
2006 = 91%

Percent of Vermonters with a BA or higher
1980 = 19%
2006 = 34%

And if Vermonters today are so poorly educated, how is it that they leave and take jobs elsewhere for more money (when they're out there competing with all those well educated people from other states)?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:25 PM, November 08, 2007

Have you ever seen some recent high school graduates attempt to count change at McDonalds? BA's are today what high school diplomas were 40 years ago (in many cases) because of some of the ridiculous degrees offered by these left-wing universities.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:10 PM, November 08, 2007

"And if Vermonters today are so poorly educated, how is it that they leave and take jobs elsewhere for more money (when they're out there competing with all those well educated people from other states)?"

If you believe the thread on the other blog, VT has been overrun by people that have moved into the state...maybe its them that are driving the education stats up.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:18 PM, November 08, 2007

I suspect there is some truth to that. But I was referring to the young people that everyone seems so concerned with. They are being educated in VT and (according to the data) a large % are leaving to take jobs elsewhere. So if education in VT is so bad, how can they compete in other states?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:47 PM, November 08, 2007

You don't have to "compete" in other states because the market is incredibly vast. Mere adequacy can easily be absorbed.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:23 PM, November 08, 2007

"You don't have to "compete" in other states because the market is incredibly vast. Mere adequacy can easily be absorbed."

Although that might be (sort of) true if there was a real shortage of workers, it doesn't make sense if that's not the case. The current unemployment rate in VT is 4.2%. Presumably, lots of VT college grads go to NYC and Boston. Here are their rates:

Boston 4.1%
NYC 4.4%

The size of the market is only part of the equation. The other is how many are seeking jobs.

And are you really suggesting that VT college grads are merely adequate while those from other states are more than adequate? If so, I'd like to know the basis for your position.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:05 PM, November 08, 2007

My clicker says that was your 2,765th posting.

This week.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:11 PM, November 08, 2007

What a great way to spend your time.

Too bad you can't count other people's posts. Like yours, they're all anonmymous.

If you don't like it, log off. No one is forcing you to read this stuff.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:43 PM, November 08, 2007

"What a great way to spend your time."

Look who's talking. Blogaholic.

Do you get paid by the word? Or do you just like to read your own stuff?

I don't have to log off. I like to read OTHER PEOPLE's postings. Not just your incessant, smarty-pants lectures.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:39 AM, November 09, 2007

"Do you get paid by the word? Or do you just like to read your own stuff?"

Doug is a paid political consultant although he positions himself as an independent policy analyst. Accept him for what he is. Understand that when his posts aren't being done on behalf of a special interest group, it is a means for him to shamelessly market himself. Nice approach to not having to pay the BFP for ad space.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:49 AM, November 09, 2007

If you're looking for confirmation of that last analysis of Mr. Hoffer's credentials and motivations, look no further than the Green Mountain Daily blog, where none other than John Odum, former Democratic Party state treasurer, Democratic Party activist, and the blog's founder, has these words of praise for Mr. Hoffer:

"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 | 12:10 AM, November 10, 2007

He's the "star" of the blogosphere because he hogs all the space on every bog. Maybe he wants name recognition so he can run for office.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:29 AM, November 10, 2007

Ever since the dims/progs over at the "independent" JFO snuck out their fraudulent report on how great things are in Vermont, not figuring that Vermonters were smart enough to check out their sources, Hoffer has been busy doing damage control. Wonder how much he gets paid for aiding and abetting this charade?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:33 AM, November 10, 2007

"Maybe he wants name recognition so he can run for office."

I suspect Doug is smarter than that. There is no wealth to be gained by working in the VT government. The real money is earned by staying behind the scene providing the Pols their talking points.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:22 AM, November 10, 2007

It's become quite obvious that Hoffer is tying to saturate this and other blogs with his name, as a form of free advertising for his services.

That's why his repeated crowing that he uses his real name is so laughable. It's not about moral superiority, it's about free advertising.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:19 AM, November 10, 2007

"it's about free advertising"

Shameless and exactly right.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:28 AM, November 10, 2007

The "free" market at work.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:04 PM, November 10, 2007

So - go for it!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:39 PM, November 11, 2007

Slow news day for Odum I guess.

I wonder if he verified that the posts he attributed to Doug were actually posted by Doug.