Category Archives: Economy

“Vermont Officials” Concerned About Trump Tariffs… But Where’s the Guy in Charge? (UPDATED With Due Credit to the Guy) (UPDATED AGAIN with another correction, I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue)

11 Replies

Update! Apparently the governor’s office did issue a statement slamming the tariffs. How Digger ignored it, I have no idea.

Update to the update! I got the timing wrong on the Digger story’s publication and Scott issuing a statement. Details below.

Following Donald Trump’s precipitous announcement of 50% tariffs on a variety of Canadian goods, VTDigger reporter Theo Wells-Spackman was tasked with chronicling the potential economic harm to our state, which is heavily dependent on cross-border trade and tourism. In the process, he gathered reactions from various Vermont officials. He did a decent job of it, but there was one notable and unexplained absence from the piece.

I’ll give you three guesses, and the first two don’t count.

The officials who made appearances in the story included, in this order, state economist Tom Kavet (who called Trump’s move “pure stupidity”), Treasurer Mike Pieciak, Amy Magnus of Vermont-based customs broker A.N. Deringer (the tariffs are “downright shocking”), and U.S. Sen. Peter Welch (Trump’s policy has “caused undeniable harm” and “economic chaos”).

A nice list. But who’s not there? Who’s conspicuous by their absence?

Why, our fearless, resolute Governor Phil Scott, that’s who. He was not quoted, nor was anyone from his administration. Wells-Spackman did not reveal whether he sought reaction from Scott or his minions. If he didn’t, well, that’s reportorial and editorial malpractice. The state’s top official should be heard from. If Wells-Spackman sought reaction and didn’t get any, that should have been reported in his article.

Either way, Phil Scott is conspicuous by his absence. And Digger might have let him off the hook for it.

Update. Apologies to the governor, and brickbats to VTDigger. Scott issued a full-throated statement yesterday afternoon at 1:00 slamming the Trump tariffs as “a bad idea” in bold font. This is all on Wells-Spackman, his editors, and Digger entire. His story was published at 6:21 p.m., more than five hours after the governor’s statement came out. Did they fail to notice? Did they somehow decide that the governor’s views weren’t relevant an article about “Vermont officials” reacting to the tariff announcement? It’s literally incredible.

The governor’s statement in full:

“My feelings on punitive tariffs imposed on Canada have not changed over the last two years and are simply a bad idea that will lead to increased costs on Vermonters. As I’ve said before, this added burden would create real challenges for our residents and businesses who are already facing economic headwinds. Canadians are our friendly neighbors and long‑time allies, and we should be working together to find solutions that strengthen the region, not further divide us. As I prepare to host the Premiers of Eastern Canadian Provinces in Vermont next month, my message is clear: we are good friends and partners, and I’m committed to strengthening our economic and cultural ties to benefit both sides of the border.”

Update to the update, and the updates are now longer than the original story. I got it wrong. The governor’s statement was issued the day after Digger published Wells-Spackman’s piece, not the same day. Careless error on my part, and I apologize. The story was published on 7/21, and Scott’s statrement came out midday on 7/22.

Which leaves me wondering about two things. First, did Wells-Spackman reach out to Scott’s office for comment? If not, why not? If so, why not include it in the story? And second, did Scott’s comms team cobble together a statement after Digger published? That’s a bit embarrassing.

And I hope this is the last time I have to revisit this cluster.

Elite Hobnobbing Opportunity!!! For Those With Ten Grand Burning a Hole in Their Pocket

1 Reply

Next month, Gov. Phil Scott is hosting the annual meeting of New England governors and Eastern Canadian premiers… and YOU can get in on the action.

If, that is, you can pony up at least $2,500 for the privilege.

A reader (who shall remain nameless) forwarded me a two-page offer of “partnership opportunities” for the shindig, clearly aimed at well-heeled business types who can claim their big spends as deductible business expenses. The “opportunities” are offered at three levels: $2,500, $5,000, and $10,000. Not disclosed anywhere: Who gets the money? Does it help defray the costs of the meeting? I guess so. I hope none of it goes to, say, Scott’s re-election campaign, because as Dick Nixon reportedly said of paying off the Watergate burglars, “That would be wrong.”

Continue reading →

Greetings From Elysium. How’s the Weather Down There?

2 Replies

Recently I had the opportunity to sit in on an update and short-term forecast of the economy and the markets. It was an exercise in what they call “wealth management” — stewardship on behalf of the well-to-do. I did so as an investor with retirement funds in the markets, who’s been feeling a fair bit queasy about the chances that Donald Trump’s doggedly anarchic policies might cause everything financial to drop straight into the toilet.

Well, I have some very good news wrapped in a bad-news burrito.

The good news, from this analyst’s perch: The economy is doing pretty well, actually. It has weathered Trump’s reign of error because of some very strong fundamentals. Also because deregulation and tax cuts are business-friendly. By every measure, the outlook is positive.

In the aggregate, that is.

But within the aggregate, there are distinct winners and losers. I bet you can guess who falls into which category.

Continue reading →

Here’s One Way to Identify the Most Conservative Members of the State Senate

Leave a reply

You may have heard that many sectors of the Vermont economy have been thrown into turmoil by Donald Trump’s ridiculous tariff war with Canada. From tourism to energy to craft beer and spirits to maple products to construction materials (when we’re already in a housing crisis due in large part to high building costs), we have begun feeling the pain from Trump’s Quixotic crusade. (Meaning no disrespect to the Man of La Mancha.)

One small response to the situation has come in the form of a state Senate resolution, S.R.11, “supporting warm and cooperative relations on the part of both the United States and the State of Vermont with Canada and urging President Trump to remove all tariffs that he has imposed against Canadian imports and to refrain from subsequently imposing any new tariffs against Canadian imports.”

Seems like something we can all agree with, no? Even Republican senators can see the harm that threatens their constituents from a trade war with Canada. And indeed, the vast majority of Republicans signed on as co-sponsors, joining all the Democrats and Progressive/Democrat Tanya Vyhovsky. A total of 27 names are attached to S.R.11.

Checking my math real quick, that leaves a mere three senators who haven’t signed on.

The envelope, please…

Continue reading →

Phil Scott Loses His Binky

Leave a reply

For months and months, Gov. Phil Scott has been setting the stage for a Big Austerity Year where he could issue a rousing call to Live Within Our Means Like a Family Around the Kitchen Table, and slam the Democratic Legislature as mouth-foamin’ tax-and-spenders. After all, the federal Covid relief money has been spent, so the state will have to rely more heavily on its own coffers. And as the federal tide recedes, the knock-on effect will be a slowdown in Vermont’s economy. Of course. It all made perfect sense.

And then state economists Jeffrey Carr and Tom Kavet came along yesterday and pissed in the punchbowl. Take it away, VTDigger:

Despite last year’s hand-wringing over an anticipated downturn of Vermont’s economy, one year later, state economists on Thursday were notably optimistic about where the state’s finances stand.

Vermont’s favorite stats ‘n charts duo delivered the surprising good news to the Emergency Board, which consists of the governor and the four legislative “money committee” chairs. The Carr and Kavet economic forecast (downloadable here) will provide the basis for budget deliberations for the fiscal year beginning July 1.

And Scott just lost a fair bit of leverage in those deliberations. I’m sure that as a person, he’s glad to see Vermont doing so well. But c’mon, despite his protestations to the contrary, Phil Scott is a politician. He’s been in politics for more than 20 years. This, speaking purely in political terms, is a setback for his planned austerity offensive.

Continue reading →

When the Sun Expires and the Earth Is a Cold, Dead Place, Only Cockroaches and Vermont’s Remote Worker Incentive Program Will Survive

3 Replies

Now comes VTDigger to ask a question with only one reasonable answer: “Amid a housing crisis, will Vermont keep paying people to move here?”

Sadly, the reasonable answer — “No” — is not the real life answer — “Of course we will.”

Yep, our Wise Political Heads may be prepared to kick our homeless where the sun don’t shine, but they seem bound and determined to continue the remote worker incentive program. You know, the one that reimburses people to move to Vermont? Meaning it helps people with enough resources to pay their moving expenses up front and wait for the incentive payment to arrive? The program with absolutely no objective evidence to support its premise?

This thing got started in 2018, before the pandemic and before the related in-migration of the affluent helped create a desperation-level housing shortage. It was the brainchild of our incentive-lovin’ Governor Phil Scott, but legislative Democrats glommed onto it like a lamprey that’s found a nice fat fish. And they’re still firmly attached; the current FY24 budget, going before the full Senate today, would provide $1 million in incentives for people who can afford to buy homes in our overpriced, undersupplied housing market.

These are the same lawmakers who routinely delay and defer and defeat good ideas over a supposed lack of evidence. A lack repeatedly and thoroughly documented by Our Inconvenient Auditor Doug Hoffer, who has looked and looked and found no evidence that the program has any tangible impact.

Continue reading →

Housing the Homeless as Economic Development Strategy

4 Replies

We could view homelessness as a moral failure… or a failure of capitalism… or a failure of individuals to live productive lives… or a problem in need of resources we can’t afford to commit…

Or… just spitballin’ here… a waste of potential and precious human capital.

For this discussion, we’re leaving out the moral and ethical dimensions of the issue. We’re not declaring an obligation to protect our most vulnerable. We’re putting on our green eyeshades and considering homelessness from a purely bottom-line point of view.

To hear the Scott administration tell it, extending the emergency motel voucher program is kind of like taking a pile of money and setting it on fire. It produces a bit of transient warmth, but it’s otherwise a waste of resources. Legislative Democrats and even some housing advocates often fall for this: They tacitly accept the premise instead of making the economic case for (a) giving everyone a roof to sleep under in the short term and (b) ending homelessness in the longer term.

When you look at it that way, you find that we can’t afford not to end homelessness. There is abundant evidence that addressing homelessness is an economic winner — not just in the long term, but almost immediately. So let’s stop talking about whether we can afford $72 million for another year of motel vouchers or $31 million for a stripped-down version of the program or a few hundred million to provide enough housing for all. Instead, let’s talk about the economic positives of a humane policy choice.

(I don’t pretend that any of this is my idea, but it ought to be more of a factor in our policy debates.)

Continue reading →

Fox Offers Rewrite of Henhouse Bill

Leave a reply

There seems to be substantial momentum toward reform of the Vermont Economic Growth Incentive (VEGI) program. Two committee chairs, Democrat Emilie Kornheiser and Republican Michael Marcotte, worked together to craft H.10, which would require much greater transparency in the program among many other things.

That in itself is pretty unusual — leaders of the two major parties cooperating on a big piece of legislation. But what clinches the deal for me is that the Scott administration actually wrote its own version of H.10. It doesn’t usually bother to do that. I take it as a sign that Team Scott thinks some type of reform is inevitable, and they want to influence the process as much as they can. (Both versions of the bill can be accessed via the House Commerce and Economic Development Committee webpage. Archived hearings are on the committee’s YouTube channel.

VEGI is administered by the Vermont Economic Progress Council, a nine-member body including seven gubernatorial appointees. The administration’s version of H.10 was presented by VEPC Executive Director Abbie Sherman, whose interest was clearly in maintaining the current process as much as possible while making pleasant noises about reform. .

Let’s start with the fact that the administration bill would drop the VEGI name and replace it with the decidedly uncatchy Think Vermont Investment Program, or TVIP for short. (Tee-vip? Tuh-vip? Tveep?) When you propose changing the name of an established program, you’re acknowledging that the current name has a bit of stink about it.

Auditor Doug Hoffer, who’s a consistent critic of VEGI because of its lack of transparency and the lack of evidence that it works, is scheduled to testify before House Commerce at 1:00 Wednesday. I’m sure his view will be more comprehensive than mine, but let’s go ahead and take a closer look at VEPC’s version of H.10.

Continue reading →

Hoffer Debunks Another Bag of Magic Beans

Leave a reply

The city of Burlington is in a spot of bother over “numerous errors’ in its Waterfront Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district. According to Auditor Doug Hoffer, the city owes the TIF district $1.2 million and owes the state Education Fund nearly $200,000, because it couldn’t keep proper accounts for its Waterfront TIF. He also found that the city spent $173,000 on bike path improvements that were, uhh, outside the TIF district. Since the total scope of waterfront improvements was $16 million, those mistakes add up to almost 10% of the whole ball of wax. Not inspiring, that.

But Hoffer doesn’t blame Burlington so much as the complex structure of the program itself. In a way, this shouldn’t be surprising; after all, it’s comically difficult to even explain the TIF concept in lay terms, let alone successfully manage one of the damn things.

But heck, let’s give it a shot. A tax increment financing district allows a municipality to incur debt for infrastructure improvements needed for development in the district and pay the debt out of future higher tax revenue. If it works, everybody wins. But the devil’s in the details, and there are hordes of pesky details in Vermont’s TIF program.

Whew. I think that’s in the ballpark at least, but don’t cite me as gospel. The point is, TIFs are complicated as all getout, and Hoffer’s audit indicates that it’s too much for our cities and towns to handle. In his words, ““Managing the complexities of this TIF district proved challenging for even the largest municipality in Vermont.” Says here if we can’t build a program amenable to proper management, maybe we should ashcan the whole thing.

Continue reading →

Here’s One VEGI That’s Bad For You

1 Reply

State Auditor Doug Hoffer has issued a damning indictment of the Vermont Employment Growth Incentive, or VEGI for short. He has, in the past, pointed out the fundamental flaws in the program: the “but for” test at its foundation is impossible to prove and routinely ignored, employers who get these “job creation” grants often fail to actually create jobs, grantees sometimes cut operations or even leave the area despite getting the grants. And while the incentives are big money for the state, they’re peanuts for big employers and they really don’t incentivize anything.

We know that. What we didn’t know — or shall I say, I didn’t know — is that the program is run completely independently by an appointed board. There is no provision in state law for any oversight or review of granting decisions. You can’t take it to court, either. And that board often flouts its own standards. It’s the Wild West.

Funny, this is exactly why Gov. Phil Scott vetoes bill after bill — he decries decision-making by state entities without any legislative or executive review. One would think he’d be leading the charge for VEGI reform. But he’s not, because he’s just fine with giving bags of money to businesses with no strings attached.

Just imagine if a welfare program worked that way: a recipient claims a need but doesn’t have to provide evidence or seek employment. They just get the money.

That wouldn’t fly, would it now?

Continue reading →