|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
And therein lies our affordability problem.
by Rob Roper
Governor Scott gave a good inaugural speech this week echoing the voters’ call for “affordability” in the last election. “Vermonters told us – loudly and clearly,” explained Scott, “they expect us to get back on course; to spend within THEIR means; and above all else, make Vermont more affordable for them.” I think this sums it up pretty nicely.
My favorite anecdote from the speech involved someone named Travis, described as “a Harwood alum and Moretown resident, who rushed from work to a public meeting so he could tell whoever would listen, ‘I don’t live here. I survive here…. It’s too expensive. Straighten it out. Figure it out. And come up with a better system. Because the taxpayers are sick of it.’” Scott added, “And that, I believe, gets to the heart of the issue. Because he didn’t say slash and burn the budget. He said, do it better.”
I wish I knew who Travis was because I’d love a follow up to see if slashing and burning the budget was, in fact, what he had in mind as a path for “doing it better.” Yes, what our government does needs to be done more efficiently (according to WalletHub Vermont ranks 43rd for return on investment of tax dollars, and that’s really bad). But, perhaps more importantly, our government does way too many things inefficiently, and too often destructively. Slash those programs and burn them. Shrink the budget and lower our taxes. Travis, if you’re out there, did I catch your vibe correctly?
Here in Vermont government meddling in free markets is a leading cause of why so many aspects of daily life are more expensive than they are in other places or need to be here. A prime example is housing. The state severely regulates where housing can be built, and how. This drives up costs to build and limits supply by discouraging or outright blocking private investment in housing stock, further driving up costs. Having thus created a housing access and affordability crisis, our politicians step in again to “solve” said crisis by subsidizing “affordable” housing – with taxpayer money.
One such project underway as we speak is taking place in Berlin: the Fox Run Apartments. According to an article in Vermont Business Magazine, “Fox Run Apartments which will provide essential housing for 30 low- and moderate-income households in Berlin… [at a cost of] $15.1 million from a mix of public and private sources….” If things stay on budget, that’s an average of $503,333 per unit. Of “affordable” housing.
The real estate website Zillow calculates the average home value in Vermont to be $385,992. In other words, when government gets involved, it costs society roughly 25 percent more than the value of an average house in the marketplace to build a unit of “low to middle income” housing. That’s not affordable. That’s not sustainable. And since a low-income Vermonter cannot in the real world afford a half-a-million-dollar apartment, taxpayers will have to subsidize residents’ rents after the project is completed as well.
A similar dynamic is playing out with childcare. Back in 2015 the politicians in Montpelier passed regulations on childcare facilities that drove over a quarter of all small, private providers out of business within a couple of years. This decreased supply, which limited accessibility and drove up costs.
The idea was (and still is) to replace those privately funded, taxpaying businesses with taxpayer supported government-run services. So now, in addition to parents having to pay higher tuition rates for childcare, Vermont taxpayers were hit with the $125 million per year payroll tax to subsidize services in order to “solve” the crisis, and this was on top of a $76.1 million appropriation in FY24 to get the program off the ground. A supporter of this scheme was recently boasting on social media that Act 76 (the childcare payroll tax) has helped to create an additional 1000 childcare slots throughout the state.
Okay. Sounds good. Let’s do that math. The $76 million FY24 seed money plus the revenue generated by the payroll tax in FY25 (it went into effect last July, so six months in) should be around $60 million so far… that’s $136 million total spent to create, what did you say, 1000 childcare slots. Yup: $136,000 per childcare slot. Nope, not affordable. Not sustainable. This is why people can’t afford to live in this state, because this is what our elected officials think “affordable” childcare looks like. And a lot of families still can’t find space! Go figure.
This kind of thing is happening with healthcare, insurance, cars, energy policy…. Instead of allowing private investment to fund infrastructure and services based on popular demand and at prices people can afford without taxpayer assistance, our politicians think they know better and meddle on both ends of the equation. They drive up the cost of production at taxpayers’ expense, and then have to subsidize the purchase price – again at taxpayers’ expense. This is not efficient, effective or smart. Or, what’s the word, “affordable.”
If state government is really going to start to spend within OUR means; and above all else, make Vermont more affordable for US,” than this approach to governance needs to end. To quote Travis, “It’s too expensive, and we taxpayers are sick of it.” And the only way to make something that’s too expensive affordable is to make it less expensive. And how do you do that? Slash and burn. Judiciously, of course. Are you with me, Travis?
Rob Roper is a freelance writer who has been involved with Vermont politics and policy for over 20 years. This article reprinted with permission from Behind the Lines: Rob Roper on Vermont Politics, robertroper.substack.com
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary, State Government
Rob, I’m going to stop at the title and ask you to reword it….
NO Government does things affordably or efficient.
It’s not just Vermont…
Our government doesn’t do things affordably !!
Now that’s an understatement, they believe the money they spend or waste is free, if you want to stop the nonsense have a ” balanced budget “, every year and you see the inefficiencies ” waste “.
The taxpayers are the ” Money Tree “, and I assume they live within their means and can balance a checkbook, and there is ” NO ” reason why the government cannot do the same or won’t, if you want affordably in government, hold there feet to fire !!
If they worked for any other entity, they would be fired for ineptness or corruption !!
Wake up people, they don’t care.
Thank you Mr. Roper. Gov. Scott’s agenda throughout his elected service has been addressing the issue of affordability, yet the majority of Vermont voters keep handing him a legislature that ignores the issue. I just heard from a friend of 50 years that he and his wife are planning a post-retirement move to North Carolina, and it’s not to get away from cold weather. The situation could be remedied in ONE ELECTION if a majority of voters would just stop voting for democrats and progressives. What the hell is wrong with people?
My wife and I left Vermont for South Carolina ten years ago. After about three months we found it was costing us $1000/month LESS to live than in Vermont. From what I have observe since, Vermont’s cost of living has increased, while South Carolina’s has held steady, allowing for the recent inflation.
Re: “Here in Vermont government meddling in free markets is a leading cause of why so many aspects of daily life are more expensive than they are in other places or need to be here. A prime example is housing.”
And “Childcare” too. Yes, this is all true, in a matter of speaking.
As Rob continues, “The idea was (and still is) to replace those privately funded, taxpaying businesses with taxpayer supported government-run services.”
Again, yes… of course. That’s what governments tend to do. And that’s why we have a constitution that, ostensibly at least, limits government power in that regard. But today, we have a government consisting of representatives who are socialists for the most part. Literally, they are admitted socialists. And we elected them.
None the less, the real elephant in the room, an exponentially more costly example of anti-free-market governance, weighing in at $2.7 Billion per year, is Vermont’s public education monopoly. If we can manage to create an educational free market, all other issues, including housing and childcare, will begin to fix themselves. But, as usual, and despite constant prodding, there’s not a word on Vermont’s public education governance in this missive or anywhere else for that matter.
I simply don’t understand why School Choice is our political ‘hot potato’. The H.405 School Choice bill has already been proposed. It’s well written. It simply expands Vermont’s already tried-and-true ‘school choice tuitioning’ governance to all Vermont students. And the bill is just sitting on the House Education Committee shelves collecting dust. All that need be done is to pass it.
I suspect that either no one understands the free-market benefits that will be unleashed by the passing of the H.405 School Choice bill, or no one wants to understand – perhaps because they perceive their well-being as relying on them not understanding – a colossal miscalculation.
Would someone… anyone, be kind enough to express their opinion in this regard.
Our government is made up of a lot of legislators that have never done an honest day’s work in their life. We have lawyers, “educators”, lobbyists, advocates, activists, trust fund babies, and others who have never had to balance their own budget on a shoestring. What should we expect ? To them the increases that they crave don’t mean ____ because they have never had to worry about paying bills. Ahh for the good ole days when farmers, tradesmen, and others that weren’t allergic to dirt under their fingernails would go to Montpelier, do their civic duty, and return to their real jobs as quickly as possible because they could not afford to do otherwise ! Now these disingenuous carpet baggers want to turn it into a full time career ! NO ! We can not afford you ! Go back to where you came from, wherever you came from ! You are not doing anybody any favors by expanding an already bloated government !
Government produces NOTHING! It makes nothing, it’s purpose is to limit it’s intrusivness in to our lives. It’s purpose is to not DO things. It’s purpose is to protect our God given rights!!!!!
If all these “socialists” want socialism, fine. Cut all those funds in half (or less) and hand out the cash (state voucher card) earmarked for the programs TO THE PEOPLE, which would have the benefit of being exempt from federal taxation.
I don’t actually support this, but it would force them to show their hand.
Perhaps grasp reality and realize this is not a government, it is a corporation. We are not people, we are chattle and our labor is speculated like a commodity. Perhaps take some time to understand what “incorporating” our country, our State and our cities and towns really means. Woodrow Wilson sold us out and ever since, all we know about government is a lie and the grandest of all deceptions. Carry on!
Corporation:
1. An entity such as a business, municipality, or organization, that involves more than one person but that has met the legal requirements to operate as a single person, so that it may enter into contracts and engage in transactions under its own identity.
2. Such a body created for purposes of government.
3. A group of people combined into or acting as one body.
Please don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. A husband, wife, and their children are a corporation. A church is a corporation. The fire department and road crew are part of a corporation. The local restaurant and hardware store are corporations.
Corporatism vs. Capitalism:
It’s not the corporate structure that’s problematic. It’s the people in it who attempt to monopolize their power. And while we have anti-trust laws in place, if the people don’t abide by the law, we have totalitarianism, be it by individuals or groups of individuals.
As with any corporation, the shareholders hold the power. In some cases, some shareholders have more power than others. You wouldn’t want your children to be able to force you to increase their allowance, for example. On the other hand, we have laws that protect the children as individuals too.
Corporations have bylaws. The United States has its Constitution – the most elegant governance structure ever conceived by human-kind. But membership is voluntary, nonetheless. As Milton Friedman has opined, “if an exchange between two parties is voluntary, it will not take place unless both believe they will benefit from it.”
Yes, Woodrow Wilson was bad news. He was a ‘corporatists’, not a ‘capitalist’. Wilson was one of the first academic elitists to become President. He, and others, like FDR, were globalists too. They advocated for eugenics. They believed only a ‘qualified’ few should direct everyone else as to what they should do. And Wilson and FDR both were mere shadows in the White House at the end of their terms, a deception very similar to the Joe Biden presidency, only in spades.
Unfortunately, most of us never learned the various concepts of organization included in a free enterprise system. There are Sole Proprietorships (individuals), Partnerships of various shapes and sizes, and Corporations. Useful organizational tools all.
It’s ‘Corporatism’ that you are addressing. Not free-market incorporations. ‘Corporatism’ is akin to ‘fascism’. But please don’t throw the concept of incorporating under the bus. When you do, you throw yourself under the bus too.
Does this explain the Fed, the IMF, and Central Bank? What are debt notes? Who owns the Mint? Who owns the California water supply? When did private firms and foreign countries buy and control public utilities, public lands, public buildings, and steer public policies and laws? Why is it our names are written in CAPS on government documents and correspondence? Why do our birth certificates have serial numbers typed in red ink? Are we dead at sea or living, breathing born on the land and exist on the land? These are many questions that are posed and the answers are what the owners don’t want the masses to figure out. Dig and you shall find the Truth and it shall set us free – they don’t want that – they want us tied up and bound in their red tape and signified by their red ink. Symobolism – it is the weapon formed against us.
Re: “Does this explain ………………?”
Yes.
I heard one of the criteria for a small nursury in Vermont is “must be on a public water supply, municipal water “, and we wonder why we don’t have enough day cares in the Vermont, what’s wrong with just passing a simple water test?
Nothing is wrong with passing a simple water test. The problem you raise was created by the group of people you, or your neighbors, elected to regulate that nursery. So, elect people who are more reasonable. But if your neighbors remain unreasonable, you’ll have to figure out a ‘work-around’ to their absurdity or start your nursery elsewhere. Ultimately, when all of the ‘nurseries’ move out of town, your neighbors all go bankrupt… and, hopefully, commonsense will then prevail.
Vermont is a Marxist government-run state. It is not a free market, pro-business, common sense, pro-God state. The people of Vermont who want to have a better life cannot afford to do so because the powers that have created the government-run Marxist state (which has been growing since the early 90’s) are still in control. The taxpayers have been bled dry, this happens in every Marxist state. What will happen to Vermont in the coming months if nothing changes to correct that course?
Re: “What will happen to Vermont in the coming months if nothing changes to correct that course?”
Bankruptcy.