However, his proposal for a tax revolt seems to me an emotional response to today's and tomorrow's pain. The only realistic answer to reduce taxes is to control and reduce spending.
He's right that leadership and lawmakers must 1.) understand the nature of the problem, and 2.) exert the fiscal discipline needed by making very hard choices to constrain costs, rather than raising revenue.
His citing of job data is particularly telling and I had uncovered similar data in some of my research.
His data is here:
Some of the most troubling data I've uncovered show Vermont lost 11,000 private sector jobs between 2000 and 2006: 10,000 of those from Manufacturing and about 1000 in the Information field. In its place, 20,000 jobs were added for a net job gain of 9,000.
Of the 20,000 jobs added - and it's this number that is disturbing - over half or 13,000, were either from Government employment (4,000) or from the Education & Health Services field (9,000). Of this 9,000, over half are in the employment of "social assistance".
In essence, we've replaced high paying private sector jobs with relatively low paying public assistance and government jobs. Private sector job growth has almost been non-existent; all this according to "The State of Working Vermont 2007", prepared by the Public Assets Institute.
Mine is shown below:
From 2001-2005, Vermont, at 4.5%, had by far the highest growth in government (state and local) jobs among the six New England states. In fact, three states substantially reduced the number of government jobs while we had double the growth rate in Maine and triple that in New Hampshire! These jobs are funded by our taxes and we wonder why Vermonters complain about the high cost of government!
The only realistic approach to exerting some control over our government spending is for elected officials to become very serious about no new spending. If they won't, then a new crop of quality people must be convinced to run for office who have a realistic outlook on the future financial crisis facing Vermont.
To be candid, I'm not optimistic that we can bend the trend without a crisis. Americans seem predisposed to status quo unless a problem is right in their face. On the other hand, a tax revolt could be a contrived crisis, I suppose.
2 comments:
Hi! I spoke with Marilyn in Ludlow and explained that in the early 1980's I briefly lived in Hawaii when Japanese and other foreigners were coming into Hawaii and buying up groups of properties and tearing them down and then building Tourist Resorts. The adjacent property owners then had their property re-assessed and were forced to move out because their taxes were raised above their means to pay. Many native Hawaiians lost their homes in this way. Now there is a program for Native Hawaiians to get a 99 year lease on a home property because they have no other way, competing with the fancy Tourist Resorts. On my own blog, which is on an entirely different subject, there is ONE common denominator, and that is the digital photo I took of the Hawaiian program which allows Native Hawaiians to lease a homestead for 99 years. DO YOU WANT THIS TO HAPPEN IN VERMONT?
Scroll to about the middle of my blog and see the digital photo of the Hawaiian program.
http://crisericson2010.blogspot.com
scroll down to Hawaii too late for a tax revolt for them!
Also, remember, that although Vermont has a lot of Tourist industry jobs, they are very low paying for the most part, seasonal, and some of them pay LESS than minimum wage + tips, which is slave labor in my opinion.
Hi! I clicked to submit a comment and got knocked off the internet, so I don't know if you received it, so I will try again.
I called Marilyn in Ludlow about the tax revolt in Mt. Holly and explained that I briefly lived in Hawaii in the early 1980's when Japanese and others were coming into Hawaii and buying up groups of homes and tearing them down, and building Tourist Resorts where homes once were.
Then the family homes next to the TOURIST resorts would be re-assessed, and their property taxes would go so high that the Native Hawaiians could not afford them, and would be forced to sell their homes.
I was on Mauii, and one side of the Island turned into an endless stretch of Tourist Resorts.
I lived on the other side of the island, 17 miles from where I worked in one of those fancy resorts, low paid and surviving by eating too much macadamia nut ice cream that the tourists leave in half finished quart containers in their refrigerators in their resort suites when they check out.
The Native Hawaiians were angry about how their homestead property taxes were skyrocketing.
I switched jobs to one on the same side of Mauii that I lived on, me and the poor worker bees, and got a clerk job working for the supervisor of the County of Mauii water department.
One day he spent 3 hours explaining to me how the different people who lived on Hawaii did not get along well with each other, and basically, they were all fighting over water rights.
He believed that the Chinese did not like the Japanese and they didn't like the Filipinos and they didn't like the Native Hawaiians.
I soon figured out that I had been hired as the token "howlie" or however you spell it; they needed a "white" person.
As well as the mosquitoes that you never see in the picture post cards, I felt quite uncomfortable, and high tailed it back to the mainland.
The problem with the water rights
on Mauii in the early 1980's was basically that the wealthy pineapple farmers got control of the natural ground water running down pure mountain streams. The Native Hawaiians who were suffering from ever increasing property taxes which were constantly being jacked up by the Japanese construction of Tourist Resorts, the natives ended up having to resort to rain water which they collected in water tower tanks, and birds got in them, and then the birds couldn't get out, then they would die and the water would become polluted, then the Native Hawaiians would call us over at the County of Mauii water department and complain.
Now there is a program where Native Hawaiians can apply to the state government of Hawaii and get a 99 year lease on a homestead.
Is that what you want for Vermont?
I have a blog on an entirely different subject, and on that blog, if you scroll down and eye it carefully, you will see a digital photo of the Hawaiian government website where a Native Hawaiian can apply for a 99 year homestead lease.
Remember, the Native Hawaiians used to OWN Hawaii.
This is very sad.
Is this what you want for Vermont?
Remember, that most tourist industry jobs in Vermont are seasonal. When I first arrived back here, after having been gone for years, I worked for Cold Hollow Cider Mill (seasonal), Harrington's Hams (seasonal), Bolton Ski Resort (seasonal), and these were low paying jobs with no health insurance, no benefits.
Some tourist industry jobs in Vermont PAY LESS THAN MINIMUM WAGE and expect people to survive on TIPS. This encourages a mentality something like - and don't go deleting this comment - something like an attitude like prostitutes have - that you don't get tips unless you cater to the person you are serving, and although it is subtle, one thing can lead to another.
I am deeply opposed to any job that pays less than minimum wage and expects the worker to survive on tips. Any questions? Go visit Hollywood Blvd., in Hollywood, CA. Over 100,000 kids from all over the United States every year go there; and then do a careful study of how many go from waitressing to prostitution. When you tell a young teenage boy or a young teenage girl that you are going to pay them less than minimum wage and they have to take tips to survive, you are encouraging them to demean themselves!
BOTTOM LINE: RAISING PROPERTY TAXES WILL DESTROY VERMONT!
See the digital photo of the Hawaiian gov't program on my blog:
http://crisericson2010.blogspot.com
Cris Ericson Blog
Post a Comment