Lynn on Kitzmiller

(editor's note: Those of you who attended our symposium last week will remember Emerson Lynn and his masterful performance as moderator of one of our panels.  Like many others who visit -- and contribute to -- this site, he was dismayed by the remarks of Warren Kitzmiller at the recent Chamber of Commerce gathering.  We reprint an editorial from his paper, The St. Albans Messenger, because they are pithy, lucid, and right on.)

Vermont's Challenge

    A  Vermont legislator stood before a meeting of the Vermont Chamber of Commerce this week and told attendants that if profitability was their sole concern then, well, that was a pretty “myopic” view of life.

    The group was meeting in Montpelier, the purpose being to unify the state’s business community in the effort to correct the state’s image as a less than desirable place to do business. The legislator’s observation [Rep. Warren Kitzmiller, D-Montpelier], is a perfect illustration of the chamber’s challenge. If we have legislators who do not understand the importance of profitability, then we have legislators who need to be educated. Untended, they do us harm. 

As a society, we have yet to find a substitute for profitability. Without it, there is no economy. We can debate at what level profitability is acceptable, or at what level it should be taxed, or where these profits are best invested. But we can’t debate the fact that profitability is at the center of what allows us to survive, or what provides us our quality of life, or what underlies our basic levels of freedom.
    The challenge in Vermont is that we confuse one set of issues with another and, in the process, thwart our ability to make any substantive progress where it is most important, namely to provide solid employment opportunities for today’s Vermonters, and for those a generation from now.
    The assumption is made that where there is growth there is opportunity. That’s true, in the broadest sense of the term. But those who create jobs look for the environment that produces the best return on their investment. In a global economy, that competition is fierce.
    Investors consider the cost of energy, the regulatory atmosphere, the cost of housing, the availability of qualified personnel, the quality [and cost] of education, and a host of other issues. They have the ability to go anywhere, and they do.
Vermont does not fare well when compared to other states, or countries, on many of these checklist items. Additionally, we have a growth rate that is half the nation’s average, we have the nation’s second oldest population, we have the nation’s highest exodus rate of people between the ages of 18-24, we have a tax burden that ranks us among the “leaders”, and we are notorious for a regulatory climate hostile to growth. On top of all that we have legislative leaders questioning the primacy of business profitability?
    That’s inviting?
    There is no question that Vermont has a variety of political voices, all imbued with the singular goal of affecting policy toward their respective ends. The problem is that we talk past one another failing to realize there are common denominators that would benefit us all if understood and properly articulated.
    Here’s an example: When the public hears discussion of the need to attract jobs, they often think of IBM, or other large manufacturers. Vermont’s “reality”, however, is that the IBMs of our future are slim or none if you consider the prospects from the existing stable of large businesses. We will do well to keep what we have. Our future is entrepreneurial and the challenge is to create an environment that is accepting of this need. We need to figure out how to establish ourselves as the region’s bubbling little cauldron of small businesses interested in getting bigger. And then we need to learn how to market ourselves.
    If you think about it, it’s almost a bit odd that the state is not all over this idea. It’s a perfect compliment to the state’s reputation as an environmentally oriented place. Small is beautiful, remember?
The problem is that Vermont’s political process has been either neutralized, or captured by advocates who define environmentally acceptable as undisturbed land, and absolutely pure air and water – in other words, a national park for others to visit, and then leave.
The advocates have their place. That’s the ebb and flow of the process. Without them, we’d have no national parks.
    But in all things moderation, something Vermont lacks.
Two things are missing to restore that balance: a unified business community, and a political champion with the moxie sufficient to bring that political pendulum back to the center.
    Heretofore the business community has been its own worst enemy. It is simpler to herd cats than to get most businesses to agree on a single agenda. They are child’s play to the political sophisticates. Divide them, conquer them. That’s why the state’s business community has practically no consistent effect on the state’s political leadership. It’s been outmaneuvered.
    As a practical matter, it’s essential this unified voice be found within the business community [something that should be defined as including employers and employees].  There is little reason to believe Vermonters will discover the political champion essential to their cause if those affected – most of us – are not organized in a definable, consistent manner. With a two-year election cycle, it’s rare to find a leader willing to buck the rhetoric popular to the day, even if it is something as simple as the need to explain the fact that profitability is essential to all our well-beings.

Emerson Lynn

Comments

[Anonymous]

It is interesting to note that Rep. Kitzmiller is the chair of the House Commerce Committee. As he sets the agenda for the committee it doesn't look promising for Vermont's businesses in the near future.

[Stephen Boyd]

The new Marxism is being led by the current democrats in charge of the party.