Douglas Proposes Economic Stimulus Package

Below is from the Burlington Free press on April 20. 2008. The hopeful sign is that our government in Montpelier is finally, if belatedly, recognizing that they should be focusing on important economic and fiscal issues, rather than dithering about minutiae and global issues over which they have little or no control.

DOUGLAS' ECONOMIC PROPOSAL

Highlights of Gov. Jim Douglas' proposed economic stimulus package, which he released Saturday: $80 million in new bonding over five years for road and bridge repairs; $17.4 million in bonds purchased by the state retirement funds to help fund purchases of manufactured homes, downpayments, closing costs and repairs for first-time home buyers; a weekendlong sales-tax holiday at a cost of $1.9 million to the state; a weeklong sales-tax holiday on energy-efficient appliances at a cost of $100,000 to the state ; opportunity zones where employers could lease vacant industrial facilities tax-free; up to $10 million in economic tax credits for businesses that use environmentally friendly processes or create environmentally friendly technology; $18 million in low-interest loans for business expansion and creation; payroll tax credits for manufacturers in areas of the state with the highest unemployment; increased sales of timber from state land to help Vermont's wood-products industry; toll-free advice at 888-568-4547 for Vermonters who face foreclosure and help in negotiating a 60-day grace period with lenders.

AT&T: Internet to hit full capacity by 2010 - CNET News.com

I can't believe this statement by Cicconi at AT&T can be true. There must be a misprint. It's certainly true that bandwidth demands are increasing rapidly, but not this rapidly! Further follow up in a story in USA Today has the quote referring to the "...the entire Internet in 1995." This is more realistic because the Internet was far less pervasive 13 years ago.

"The surge in online content is at the center of the most dramatic changes affecting the Internet today," he said. "In three years' time, 20 typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet today."

AT&T: Internet to hit full capacity by 2010 - CNET News.com

The Low Country of South Carolina - Edisto Island

We were guests at The Old Brick House location beside Russell Creek, a tidal arm on Edisto Island outside Charleston, SC, on Saturday and Sunday, April 13-14, 2008. What a wonderfully, peaceful place where the tides and the sun determine the pace of life under the live oaks.

Thanks Bill, Marguerite and others for your hospitality and welcoming!!

More on the Old Brick House Plantation here.

Nomads at last | Economist.com

This piece aptly point out how the world is changing based on its embrace of internet access and all that implies on small mobile devices. Broadband access via Verizon's EVDO Rev. A service while traveling in our RV has been really good and getting better since 20o6.

However, I use a laptop for access. What I really want is a handheld device that will allow me to access Gmail and a host of other Google apps while traveling at Interstate speeds, if need be.

I know this will come, but right now I have not found the solution I want. Perhaps a new generation of devices and Verizon's deployment of 4G LTE using its newly acquired 700 MHz spectrum is what I must wait for. Four years seems an eternity!

Nomads at last | Economist.com

Tech.view | Going, going, gone | Economist.com

The Economist has a dim view of the recent FCC spectrum auction because, in their opinion, it results in the airwaves being not open enough compared to conditions elsewhere in the world.

It remains to be seen if they're right.

Tech.view | Going, going, gone | Economist.com

2008 VT 39

2008 VT 39 Vermont Supreme Court Rules on Aerial Surveillance as an Intrusion on Privacy

Justice Dooley argues that the Supreme Court's decision is flawed by its overly broad interpretation of law in a marijuana conviction (overturned). The case involved a low level helicopter flight (no warrant for the flight) that identified plots of marijuana grown by the defendant close to his home on private property adjacent to a national forest.

Dooley is right that this broad decision is not serving the interests of law enforcement nor anyone else. I was particularly struck by the quote from 'Professor LaFave' that Dooley uses:

"My disagreement with the majority lies in its assertion that it has written “narrowly” by refraining from ruling based on the altitude of the helicopter and by  relying instead upon the totality of the circumstances.  By relying on a multitude of factors, most of which are irrelevant to whether a search occurred here, and by refusing to assign any particular weight to any factor, the majority has painted with the broadest brush imaginable, far broader than any other court in the land.  Every factor the majority introduces into the analysis makes the grounds for its decision broader.  This is not narrow decision making.  Increasingly, we are using rationales in Article 11 cases that require the intervention of this Court before it can be determined whether law enforcement conduct was lawful, because no law-enforcement officer, citizen, or trial court judge could ever predict what we will ultimately decide.  Professor LaFave has explained the problem with an approach like the majority’s as follows:

  The basic premise is that Fourth Amendment doctrine, given force and effect by the exclusionary rule, is primarily intended to regulate the police in their day-to-day activities and thus ought to be expressed in terms which are readily applicable by the police in the context of the law enforcement activities in which they are necessarily engaged. A highly sophisticated set of rules, qualified by all sorts of ifs, ands and buts and requiring the drawing of subtle nuances and hairline distinctions,  may be the sort of heady stuff upon which the facile minds of lawyers and judges eagerly feed, but they may be literally impossible of application by the officer in the field.

   If the rules are impossible of application by the police, the result may be the sustaining of motions to suppress on Fourth Amendment grounds with some regularity, but this can hardly be taken as proof that the people are secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Rather, that security can only be realized if the police are acting under a set of rules which, in most instances, make it possible to reach a correct determination beforehand as to whether an invasion of privacy is justified in the interest of law enforcement.  In short, we must resist the understandable temptation to be responsive to every relevant shading of every relevant variation of every relevant complexity lest we end up with a [F]fourth [A]mendment with all of the character and consistency of a Rorschach blot.

2 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 5.2(c), at 448-49 (2d ed. 1987) (footnotes and internal quotations omitted).  The rule announced by the majority today falls into precisely the trap Professor LaFave outlines.  No one, be it the trial courts, law-enforcement officers, or the citizens of this State will consistently be able “to reach a correct determination beforehand as to whether an invasion of privacy is justified” under similar circumstances.  Id.   I do not think we administer justice with such an approach, and we hardly guarantee to “the people” that they will be secure in “their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.”  Id. (quotations omitted).

¶  64. I would reverse and remand, but on a much narrower rationale, fully consistent with the precedents from this Court and courts in other jurisdictions, thus giving better guidance to trial courts, ordinary citizens, and law enforcement.  Thus, although I concur that the helicopter observation violated defendant’s rights,  I cannot approve of the majority’s mode of constitutional analysis or of the remedy it imposes.

(Emphasis added by dju)

2008 VT 39

Bravo Freep!

Today's editorial in the Burlington Free Press exposes the flaws in the affordable housing bill under discussion in the Legislature.

"...Housing within the reach of a broad range of incomes is key to ensuring prosperity in Vermont. Too often, we hear the cost of housing as among the reasons why an employer is unable to attract employees to fill an available job.

The only way housing prices will come down is if the supply increases or the demand falls. The latter would signal trouble because an economic slowdown is the usual reason behind falling demand. That leaves building more homes as the preferred solution.

Vermont has done a pretty good job of balancing the need for growth and protecting open lands that help define the state's character and image. That must continue. But in order to deal with the state's housing problem, those Vermonters who see growth as somehow diminishing the quality of life here need to get over the notion that development is a dirty word. "

Kudos to the Free Press editorial board for getting it right!

Comcast, Time Warner Cable in Wireless Talks - WSJ.com

If this WiMax consortium/deal can be pulled together, it may provide a substantial increase in the broadband options and coverage for unserved rural areas. Meanwhile, Verizon and AT&T will continue to push their 3G/4G wireless broadband technologies where they are likely to find profitable revenue.

Comcast, Time Warner Cable in Wireless Talks - WSJ.com

Hopes for Wireless Cities Fade as Internet Providers Pull Out - New York Times

I have always been a skeptic of the models for municipal Wi-Fi that were all the rage a few years ago. They always seemed to me more hype than substance. Those muni partners who, like Earthlink, believed that they could wrest enough broadband customers from telcos and cablecos to subsidize 'free' service to certain demographic/social groups deceived themselves. Those social advocates who sponsor 'free lunches' for people now must seek a different approach for broadband access.

As a matter of principle, I do not generally favor municipalities building and owning telecommunications facilities that compete directly with the private sector when private sector providers are available and willing to provide essentially the same services. However, Vermont law allows it, as does that of other states.

If governments decide to sponsor 'free' services, they should directly subsidize those users who they believe may find market prices unaffordable. Then, if services are available, users can choose their own provider. Where broadband services are not available, then munical ownership may be the only feasible alternative.

This broadband subsidy issue will surface in Vermont and elsewhere soon, I think. I sense pressure is building to include broadband access in Vermont's 'Lifeline' service definition as broadband access to the Internet becomes increasingly important for folks to participate effectively in today's and tomorrow's society. Certainly broadband is becoming an essential service, but the method of subsidizing access to that surface won't fit the paradigm used for today's Lifeline program.

Today, that subsidy for low income folks is obtained by surcharges on the monopoly services provided by the telcos. Broadband and wireless are presently 'information services' under the FCC rules that support the Telecom Act of 1996. However, the federal Universal Service Fund does support both wireless and wireline carriers who build out voice services in rural and high cost areas, but (to the best of my knowledge) does not cover Lifeline support to end users/customers.

The rules of the game need to change at the federal level if broadband access is to become part of the FCC lifeline subsidy program.

Hopes for Wireless Cities Fade as Internet Providers Pull Out - New York Times

Small Business Mentoring

The following was published in the Colchester Sun on March 20, 2008.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Mentoring Small Businesses

We all know Vermont is a small business state. Yes, we are fortunate to have a few large companies and employers, mostly concentrated in Chittenden County, who provide good jobs with generally excellent wages and benefits to 12% of Vermonters.

But 90% of businesses employ less than 50 and 58% have four or fewer employees. In my career, I have worked for both very large and small companies and I have learned much from both. The one truism that transcends all others is this: skilled, motivated and inspired people who are well led create success for a company.

As I entered the last third of my life, I became involved with the Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Collaborative at the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund because it provides an opportunity to give back some of what Vermont has given to me.P2P matches a team of two or three CEOs, COOs and CFOs as advisers with the owner and management team of small businesses.

After an extensive interview with each client company, these entrepreneurial firms 'hire' us as business consultants at a fixed cost, approximately half to a third of usual consultant fees, for 8-10 work sessions. During 12-18 months the adviser team meets with their peers in the business to tackle problems of growth, operations, financing, marketing and customer service. We advisers willingly share what we've learned in business...and in life... with clients as they grapple with issues to make their businesses successful.

In working with these entrepreneurs and their teams, I have come to respect their intense commitment and passion for their ideas. They want to succeed, not only for the possible, although not guaranteed, financial payoff, but to be able to pay their employees well with benefits they can afford. Those that I've worked with sincerely want to be in Vermont and 'do their thing' in this state, rather than elsewhere.

P2P advisers work directly with businesses generally with annual revenues in the $1-15 million range who desire to grow and become more efficient in their operations, or to position the company to be sold. Teams of 2-3 advisers are matched to the needs identified in an extensive intake interview by a successful CEO. That interview produces a work plan and a set of goals for the engagement.

So far, I have worked with three companies. Two design and manufacture innovative products and the third is a service company. The one factor I find in common is their need for and difficulty in finding skilled, reliable employees. As I contemplate Vermont's present business environment, we are extraordinarily blessed because so many creative and thoughtful people want to do business in a state they love. Policymakers should take great care to enable an environment where they can do that without unnecessary barriers to success.

Speaking for myself and not for the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund, the Legislature should not unduly tax these business owners or the fruits of their labors and risk-taking when the time comes for them to realize capital gains. I also caution against excessive regulation and higher than necessary workers compensation costs caused by laws and rules that are out of step with those elsewhere.

Finally, the personal income and property tax burdens should be constrained. Vermont should carefully control its costs and taxes thus enable all of the private sector to thrive and grow. Otherwise, we run the risk of even more young people leaving Vermont, the very people our small businesses need for their growth and success.

David Usher lives in Colchester. He and his wife, Carol, run a small business.