Vermont Tiger

VPR Commentary

by Art Woolf

Vermont Public Radio aired my commentary on UVM's ban on the sale of plastic water bottles.  Here.

Uh Oh

by Art Woolf

One of the biggest proposals Governor Shumlin made in his inaugural address is to reduce Vermont's earned income tax credit and redirect $17 million into child care subsidies.  The EITC goes directly to low income workers and provides a big incentive for them to participate in the labor market.

Presumably, Governor Shumlin wants to reduce the rewards to work because "the research" shows that the state can get a better return on that $17 million by spending it on child care subsidies than by putting it directly into the hands of low income Vermonters. 

"The research" is not so clear cut.  As Tim Taylor notes in a post titled "Head Start is Failing its Test":

Basically, the report shows that Head Start provides short-term gains to preschool children, but those gains have faded to essentially nothing by third grade.

And that from someone who is (or was) a big supporter of early childhood education.

The report was not published by some right wing or free market think tank, unless you think that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services qualifies under one of those categories. 

Maybe the $17 million would be better spent on the earned income tax credit, which lets low income workers decide for themselves the best way to spend that money, rather than some government officials in Montpelier.

Equal Time?

by Art Woolf

The Vermont legislature is going to hear a lecture, presumably about global warming, from Vermont's most well-known environmental advocate, Bill McKibben.  I'm pretty sure that the Speaker of the House's invitation for someone to address the Legislature while it is in session is a very rare event.  And Vermont Public Radio is interrupting its regular schedule to broadcast the lecture.  Also a rare event.

One might wonder why the legislature is going to hear a lecture, and not a debate.  Isn't the House floor precisely a place for debates, and not just a lecture?  Why isn't the Speaker also inviting someone with a different take on the issue?  Such as  Bjorn Lomborg, for example.  Or Ross McKitrick. 

That's probably not going to happen.  So I hope legislators ask Mr. McKibben questions like:

1.  If Vermont adopted all of his recommendations for policy changes, what would be the impact on whatever he thinks the rise in global temperatures will be over the next 25, 50, or 100 years.  (My answer is zero, and I hope Mr. McKibben's is not something like, "as goes Vermont, so goes the nation.")

2.  If the U.S. adopted all of his recommentdations for policy changes, what would be the impact on whatever he thinks the rise in global temperatures will be over the next 25, 50, or 100 years.  (My answer is not much, since most of the increase in projected atmospheric carbon comes from the developing world, not the developed world (here, p 139).

3.  Back to Vermont.  What would it cost Vermonters if Vermont adopted all of his recommendations for reducting climate change (an unacceptable answer is that there is no economic cost, only economic benefits)?

4.  Given those costs, and the answer to my question 1 (my answer, at least), why do you recommend spending that amount of money on something that will have no impact on worldwide environmental quality?  Wouldn't that money be better spent, if you want to spend it on environmental improvements, on cleaning up Lake Champlain, an effort that is projected to cost $156 million annually, but will lead to measurable improvements in water quality?

5.  What do I recommend?  Try reading Tim Taylor's brief take on the issue.

Questions no one is asking

by Art Woolf

1.   Anne Galloway at VTDigger reports

Vermont’s transportation system faces an annual shortfall of $240 million over the next five years. A new report predicts the average gap between the state’s annual funding sources, roughly $457 million, and the cost of paying for basic infrastructure needs, estimated at $700 million per year.

This year alone Vermont will see a roughly $30 million gap in state transportation revenues, according to Rep. Patrick Brennan, the chair of the House Transportation Committee.

In the stories that have reported on this, no one seems to have mentioned that each year about $30 million in purchase and use tax revenues -- one-third of the tax you pay when you buy a new or used vehicle -- goes to the education fund, not the transportation fund.  A good example of how Vermont's high level of spending on K-12 education starves other functions of government.

2.  A consultant's report found that

Burlington International Airport needs to professionalize and streamline its management structure in order to remain a thriving regional airport....It says the airport has failed to reach its “full potential” because its governing structure is inefficient and it lacks “qual­ified management resources.”...It says the airport has been poorly managed in several respects. It “does not maintain adequate programs and man­agement expertise in the areas of proper­ty management, marketing, air service development, economic development, strategic planning and financial manage­ment.”

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the status quo.

Here's a thought:  The City of Burlington, which owns the airport (despite it being located in South Burlington) should consider selling it.  Other countries have privatized airports, as well as other types of infrastructure.  The airport would be better managed, improve the local economy, and the City could use the revenues to pay down its Burlington Telecom debt.

The chances of this happening?  A cold day in hell comes to mind.  

Profit Opportunity

by Art Woolf

"You have three distributors up here that control over half of the gas stations in northwestern Vermont and they are keeping prices artificially high in my view simply because they can do that. And what we have seen is that nationally, these gas stations rank at the very highest level of profit margin," Sanders said.

Vermont Public Radio

Why doesn't Senator Sanders start a business distributing gas to gas stations in the state?  Better yet, he can build a few gas stations so he can keep not only those high profits he will receive from distributing gas, but also the profits he'll earn from retailing gasoline. 

Human Rights Watch

by Art Woolf

Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian attorney who was investigating corruption in Russia.  He died in police custody and allegations are that he was tortured and killed by government officials.  His death in 2009 led to an international outcry and the U.S. Senate last week passed a resolution to impose sanctions on all Russian officials who were  involved in his torture. 

The Senate vote was 92-4 in favor.  Vermont's own Senator Bernard Sanders was one of the four. This is the same Senator Sanders who is quoted  on his own website as saying

I want to make sure that torture is never again part of America's interrogation practices and that all detainees are treated under the rules of the Geneva Conventions.

Evidently when government officials in other nations torture and kill their own prisoners, it's not such a big problem.

I'd like to know (a) what the Senator's reasons were for opposing the bill and (2) whether Vermont's media will report on this vote and ask him that question.

 

 

Accomplishments in Health Access

by Art Woolf

I was looking over some data on health insurance at the Kaiser Family Foundaiton website.  Over the last two decades, Governors Dean and Douglas worked hard to control health care costs and to increase access to health insurance for Vermont's uninsured.   Governor Shumlin upped the ante and is moving Vermont to a single payer system.  What's been the impact of that two-decade long effort?

In 1991 Vermont's health care costs per capita were the 9th lowest in the nation, 12% below the national average.  By 2009 Vermont's health care costs per capita had risen to 13th highest in the nation, 12% above the national average of $6,815. 

And the percent of Vermonters without health insurance?  According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 1999 (the first year data are available) it was 11.2%.  In 2011, twelve years later, the percent uninsured had fallen by one percentage point to 10.1%. 

Higher costs with almost no impact.  Not a very good track record.

 

Timely?

by Art Woolf

Remember the argument that the $787 billion in stimulus money was "temporary, targeted, and timely" and necessary to give a boost to a plummeting economy? This VPR story tells us that federal and staterail transportation officials

are making plans to restore passenger rail service along the Connecticut River valley, on a line that runs from northern Vermont to Washington D.C.

Those plans (note they are plans, not actually spending any money yet) are to replace 20,000 railroad ties in Massachusetts.  And where does the funding come from? 

The project is funded through a $73 million dollar federal grant under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

That's the stimulus bill, passed in 2009, which was sold to the public as putting money into "shovel-ready" projects.

It's almost enough to make a person cynical about what politicians say compared to what they do.

 

War on drugs continues

by Art Woolf

Governor Shumlin says

What I can tell you is that we're losing good, decent Vermonters to an epidemic where these poisons and chemicals are sold in fancy packages in stores in Vermont by greedy people who don't care about the deaths, the tragedies that ensue, when this junk is consumed

I assume he's not talking about alcohol, although  half of all traffic deaths in Vermont are caused by impaired drivers. And those greedy people can't be the state of Vermont itself, which benefits to the tune of millions of dollars from the sale of alcohol.

No, he's talking about bath salts, which were involved in a tragic accident and fatalities earlier this year.  Demonizing one type of drug and trying to make it illegal has been shown to be unsuccessful for years.  You can go back to Prohibition.  Or to Richard Nixon's 1971 declaration of a war on drugs.  So far drugs are winning despite the billions of dollars we've spent to try to defeat that enemy and the millions of people who are incarcerated as a result of that war.

The Power of No

by Cynthia Browning

I think that we should all opt out of the wireless Smart Meters to protest the fact that the $21 million CVPS bailout was not returned to ratepayers. GMP ignored the 12,000 Vermonters that signed petitions for AARP’s request for the direct refund of the bailout to ratepayers, and the many other Vermonters who also supported this payback. Okay, then we will not cooperate with GMP’s grandiose schemes. If the opt out percentage gets high enough it undermines the viability of the Smart Meter project, and that will get their attention.

I know that there may be benefits from the Smart Meter technology, but most of those benefits will go to large commercial users, not regular residential customers. And they should have chosen the wired version, to avoid the possible problems with privacy, security, and health.

In addition, GMP will be counting their investment in the meters as part of their infrastructure base, so they will get their rate of return on that larger value, and this increase in our rate payments could even offset the cost savings that they assert will materialize. So that our rates never go down at all. GMP is likely counting on being able to manipulate the complex rate setting process to be sure that they always do better than we do.

As I read the PSB decision approving the GMP/CVPS merger, one of the things that they mentioned was that any change in the proposal, for instance related to the return of the $21 million, might have scuttled the merger and we would have lost the efficiency gains of combining the companies. I see this as the first of many future instances of blackmail by GMP to get what they want from regulators.

And as soon as this idea of opting out of the Smart Meters to protest the refusal to pay ratepayers back was reported on the VPR, the first thing the spokesperson does is threaten us with higher costs if we do not go with Smart Meters. But these are costs that we are already paying for in our service charge.

If they cannot pay us back when they paid off the CVPS shareholders and executives, there is no reason why we should support their unproven scheme with uncertain benefits for us.

The only certainty here is that GMP will use the regulatory process to try to earn higher rate payments on their investments --- whether in smart meters or in efficiency with our bailout money.

Just say no to Smart Meters and say no to GMP. This is one power that you have.

And, ssshhhh, listen carefully ... Do you hear that? It is the sound of all of the GMP lobbyists and the administration spokespeople scurrying to beat down this latest threat to their control.

So, if you want to protest the fact that the $21 million was not returned, or if you are concerned about GMP's Lowell Wind towers, or if you have concerns about the wireless Smart Meter technology — JUST SAY NO to Smart Meters. There is no fee for opting out.

Opt out of smart meters to say no to a company that puts power over people, and to say no to the regulators that let them get away with it. If enough people opt out they might well have to re-think their plan, switching to wired Smart Meters instead. Or they might offer to guarantee us certain reductions in the rates. How about, say, $21 million worth of reductions?

Works for me.  

 

Cynthia Browing is Vermont State Representative from Arlington.