One of the joys of reading Peter “One Man Army” Hirschfeld is the way he subtly reveals a politician’s hypocrisies. There’ll be a quote, there’ll be a countervailing fact nearby. He doesn’t call attention to it, and he certainly doesn’t roar “This guy is a hypocrite!” as some uncouth bloggers are won’t to do.

Here, in today’s Mitchell Family Organ (paywalled, sorry), is a Hirschfeld piece on the House-passed budget plan and how it might fare in the Senate. Penitent Pro Tem John Campbell is quoted extensively on the pros and cons of the House’s taxation ideas, but there’s one passage in particular that jumped out at my cynical old eyes.

It concerns the House’s one-year, half-penny increase in the rooms and meals tax. Campbell doesn’t care for the idea:

“I don’t want to do anything that might impede our tourism businesses from emerging from this last recession,” Campbell said. Campbell and Sen. Tim Ashe, first-year chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, say they’ve taken a brighter view of Shumlin’s proposed tax on break-open tickets than their counterparts in the House.

…”I would rather go to something which some people engage in voluntarily for entertainment purposes,” Campbell said.

Cough. Choke. Gasp. (Drinks water.)

Uh, okay, let me see if I’ve got this right. The break-open tickets are “something which some people engage in voluntarily for entertainment purposes.”

As opposed to, say, going out for dinner or staying in a cute little B&B? Those, I guess, are involuntary activities.

Try again, Senator.

Moving on to the end of the article, we find a discussion of the House plan to increase the gas tax and shift part of it from a per-gallon levy to a price-based tax. Dick Mazza, longtime chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, is dubious.

“I don’t like having automatic tax increases built in now,” Mazza said. “If we need more money in three or four years, then I think we ought to come back in three or four years and deal with it then.”

Ahem. Noble sentiment, sir. I assume you’re calling for a drastic re-do of the sales tax, because it automatically rises with inflation?

Guess not.

Try again, Senator.  

No, really.

Today is Easter, which is a big deal for a large segment of the population. Not as big as Christmas (although liturgically Easter is the more important holiday), but a big deal nonetheless.

Maybe it's because it isn't as consumer driven as Christmas that we haven't heard as much about the “War on Easter” as we have about the “War on Christmas“, but that's apparently all changed.

Today, thanks to those assiduous conspiracy-spotters at Breitbart, we now know who's at the heart of the War on Easter: Google!

March 31 marks the birthday of National Farm Workers Association (later United Farm Workers) co-founder Cesar Chavez. Chavez, who was trained by Saul Alinsky in the tactics of community organizing, has become a cult figure in California due to his organization of agricultural workers. March 31 also happens to be another important date this year: Easter. So, naturally, Google’s current logo features a graphic of Chavez’s face, rather than anything having to do with Easter.

Set aside the fact that apparently Google never observes religious holidays in its doodles, the Breitbartniks know better. In the cultural war, when you really want to know what's happening on the front lines, where else would you go to find out?

Oh, and why did I absolutely have to post this today?

It's pretty simple, really. If I'd waited until tomorrow you would have bet money that it was an April Fool's prank. Fortunately, though, the people at Breitbart are fools every day of the year.

Remember this chart?

I posted it in this space about three weeks ago. It shows, very effectively, the true extent of wealth inequality in America today. A majority of Americans are poor or barely out of poverty, while the top earners hold an absurdly large share of our national wealth. The chart is actually a screengrab from a six-minute-long video presentation which I highly recommend. If you’ve already seen it once, go back and watch it again.

I’m bringing this up again because it ought to be front and center in State House consideration of tax and welfare policy. Because the old assumptions just don’t hold true anymore.

After the jump: Inconvenient facts and figures. Lots of ’em.

First of all, let’s take a closer look at the low end of the curve — the share of wealth held by the bottom 60% of all Americans.

As you can see, the “Poor” have essentially nothing, while the “Middle Class” are barely better off. This is crucial when considering the proposed lifetime cap on Reach Up benefits. Reach Up is designed to help folks survive a rough patch and get back into the workforce. That’s the argument for a five-year cap: it’s not supposed to be permanent.

Which is true. But the unspoken rationale is that our economy is like a ladder: you move up one step at a time, and each step takes you farther away from poverty and closer to prosperity. But given today’s wealth inequality, you can take a bunch of steps and still be barely out of poverty. There’s no margin for error, and no opportunity to build savings against future hard times.

I look at this, and I see a very high likelihood that Reach Up recipents will have to return to the program — perhaps multiple times — not because they’re lazy, but because it’s extremely difficult to climb high enough to achieve and financial security whatsoever.

In America, it’s not a ladder anymore; it’s a mountain. And most of us are living in the flood-prone lowlands.

And how high is that mountain? Well, in the first chart above, you’ll notice that the top 5% have so much wealth that their lines shoot through the roof. Here’s another version of the chart with all the wealth squeezed onto the screen.

See those black columns on the right? That represents the total wealth in the hands of the top 1%. It’s completely out of scale with the rest of us — and even with the top 2-5%, who are merely wealthy, not obscenely so.

This fact ought to be driving our tax policy. The wealthy have done so well, that raising taxes on top earners is the only way to pay for government services. They’ve got all the money!

And they’ve got so much of the money, that reasonable tax increases should be completely painless for them.

We all have a sense that wealth distribution is out of whack, but it’s difficult to grasp the true scale of the problem. Here’s another screengrab from the video; this one shows three wealth distributions. The bottom bar is the wealth distribution that virtually all Americans (92% of us) believe to be ideal — the wealthy are rewarded for their efforts, but there’s a strong middle class and even the poor manage to have something.

The middle bar represents what Americans think our wealth distribution is: they realize that the rich are doing far better than everyone else, but they believe that we all get at least a slice of the pie.

And then there’s the top bar, showing the actual distribution of wealth. The top 10% have about two-thirds of all the wealth, and the top 1% have about one-third. The poor and middle class have nothing.

The difference between the middle bar and the top is what distorts our political dialogue — and policymaking.

It also feeds into middle-class resentment. They’re working hard but they’re not getting anywhere. They’re not doing that much better than welfare recipients. But nobody’s making their lives easier. In fact, they’re often asked to bear more of the burden.

Let’s look at one more chart, this one from our friends at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. This shows the distribution of the state and local tax burden in Vermont.

In previous posts, I’ve referred to the outer ends of this chart. Now I’m focused on the middle. Vermont’s tax system is relatively progressive compared to most other states. Or, to put it more accurately, it’s less regressive. The burden borne by the bottom 40% is eased by our relatively generous Earned Income Tax Credit program. Even so, the rich pay proportionately less than the poor, who get socked by sales and property taxes.

But look where the burden is highest: on the people in the middle. And bear in mind that Vermont’s median income is about $53,000 a year — not chump change, but hardly Scrooge McDuck territory. No wonder there’s so much middle-class resentment of the poor. And no wonder, when you get out from under the Golden Dome, there’s a whole lot of anger about taxes. Many of the tax increases in the pipeline or under active consideration in Vermont will hit the middle. The gas tax. The property tax. (Yes, I know that’s not under state control. But it’s still a tax increase.) The soda tax, or its cousin, the sales tax on junk food. The break-open tax, aimed squarely at one of the popular amusements of the working class.

Take all these charts together, and you see a clear and convincing case for raising taxes on the wealthy. The top earners, making huge money and paying around 8%, are not “taxed out,” as the Governor likes to assert. The middle, paying ten and a half percent, are the ones who are taxed out.

Let’s talk pure politics for a moment, and set aside all that moral and ethical stuff. Instead of nickel-and-diming the working poor and middle class who already pay more than their share, and making it seem like the Democrats want to tax everything, why not a clear, clean tax increase on the wealthy?

I don’t have to answer that one. Governor Shumlin doesn’t like it.

Well, the Governor is wrong.  

How ironic is it that the Strip Mall Kings themselves,  Pomerleau Real Estate, would attempt to don the mantle of environmental stewardship and arbiter of responsible land use?

Perhaps taking a page from the Skip Vallee playbook, Pomerleau is challenging the new ACE Hardware project in St. Albans City on “environmental” grounds.  

They, who can think of no better way to occupy prime property on our city’s Main St. than with the St. Albans Shopping Plaza, should be the last to throw stones.  Said “plaza” consists of a sprawling parking lot, which fronts a sad little strip of single story retail and a uniquely under-serving JC Penney.

ACE Hardware’s new build, which will be accomplished as one of the TIF initiatives undertaken by the City, will replace an existing Midas Muffler shop, an isolated small box store and a whole lot of underused parking lot.  

The intention is to enhance the walkable and inviting environment of St. Alban’s traditional downtown.  The project will clean-up a brownfield and reduce impervious surface area on the property.  

The City currently owns the property.  By agreement, and after cleaning up the brownfield, The City will sell the new building to ACE Hardware franchise owner, Gordon Winters.

The rub for Pomerleau Real Estate? ACE Hardware is a current tenant of Pomerleau’s neighboring strip mall, occupying a narrow space between the post office and Rite-Aid.  Not surprisingly, ACE would like to enjoy the greater visibility and customer access that is possible in a location that is in line with other downtown retailers rather than set back behind an ugly parking lot.

Apparently vexed by the City’s collaboration with their tenant, Pomerleau Real Estate is hell-bent on making it as difficult as possible for them to complete the deal.  To that end, the Strip Mall Kings are trucking out a laundry list of siting issues with little or no substance.

For instance, they are raising run-off issues with the DRB that are really beyond that body’s scope; and besides which seem to be unsubstantiated, as the city itself has seen to it that runoff mitigation will be overbuilt for the size of the property.  That the project reduces impervious surface makes Pomerleau’s arguments appear all the more irrelevant.  But It seems to be Pomerleau’s intention to turn the laws with which they themselves must customarily grapple against this upstart collaboration.

Here’s a novel idea for you, Mr. Pomerleau: how about redirecting all that environmental zeal to your own property?  Reconfigure that inappropriate strip mall of yours so that it actually conforms to the guidelines to which you are so concerned that your new neighbors adhere.

Move the retail space nearer to the front of the property, make it two-stories high, and put the parking lot behind the stores.  Have a chat with your JC Penney tenant and see if, with a second floor, they might be willing to stock household goods like linens and towels so that City residents can shop centrally for those items.

Maybe if you take the same interest in your own property and its suitability for our downtown that you do in the property next door, you will find your tenants more willing to commit to staying. Then you wouldn’t have to waste time, money and community good-will on dog-in-the-manger fights you cannot win.

I disagree with those people. No KXL.

Ah, tax flight… the Boogeyman our governor uses to scare us away from raising taxes on wealthy Vermonters. Take this little bedtime story from Wednesday’s news conference.

There’s a point of no return on progressive taxation. There’s a point where, as you know, income taxes are portable.We know that Vermonters already migrate to Florida, New Hampshire, and other states to avoid paying income taxes. The higher your rates, the more they migrate.

It makes sense as long as you don’t think too hard. Especially with New Hampshire right across the river — so close that, as the Governor is constantly reminding us, he can see it from his house.

But then I wondered: if rich folk are motivated to move by high taxes, why didn’t they all leave long ago? I mean, look at these numbers from our friends at the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy:

Total state and local tax burden for the top 1% in Vermont: 8.0%

Total state and local tax burden for the top 1% in New Hampshire:  2.4%

Geesh. Our richest, and most mobile, Vermonters could save a damn bundle by moving to New Hampshire — a state that shares many of Vermont’s advantages: great scenic beauty, mountains, lakes, a whole lot of luxury housing. Hell, in New Hampshire you can even live near the ocean and eat lobster every night.

The top 1% pay a whopping 5.6% higher taxes in Vermont than in New Hampshire. For a millionaire, that’s $56,000 a year — the list price of a 2014 Corvette.

So I ask again: why does Vermont still have any millionaires to lose?

The answer, of course, is that tax flight is a myth.

After the jump: Exploding the myth.

It’s been disproven by study after study. An excellent summary — with links to the full studies — has been posted by Citizens for Tax Justice.

CTJ cites five separate studies involving states that raised taxes on the wealthy. In all five cases, tax flight was negligible.

Example: In 1996, California cut taxes on high earners; there was no discernible in-migration. In 2005, California raised its top income tax rate by a full percentage point; there was no discernible out-migration. In fact, after the 2005 tax hike, out-migration actually declined among millionaires.

Another: In 2004, New Jersey enacted a rather stunning tax hike on incomes over $500,000 — from 6.37% to the current 8.97%. A subsequent study found no evidence of tax flight.  (There was a small net out-migration; but there was an equal out-migration among those earning between $200,000 and $500,000, whose taxes did not go up at all.)

So, why do rich people (or other people, for that matter) move? A state’s tax burden is extremely low on the list. Factors that make a bigger difference include employment opportunities, housing prices, family reasons, change in marital status, climate, the draw of a particular city or town, and recreational or cultural opportunities. High-tax states are attractive places in many ways; they have enough money to support quality public services, schools, roads, infrastructure, amenities. This issue is thoroughly explored in a study from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Now, there have been bits and pieces of evidence that seem to prove the reality of tax flight. But they’re based on misinterpretations of the data.

Some have cited a big turnover in top earners after a tax hike. But the fact is, there’s always a lot of churn at the top end. The California study reported that “At the most, migration accounts for 1.2% of the annual changes in the millionaire population.” The other 98.8% is due to yearly fluctuations in incomes, that move rich taxpayers above or below the top bracket. The California researchers add:

“Most people who earn $1 million or more are having an unusually good year. Income for these individuals was notably lower in years past, and will decline in future years as well. A representative “millionaire” will only have a handful of years in the $1 million + tax bracket. The somewhat temporary nature of very-high earnings is one reason why the tax changes examined here generate no observable tax flight. It is difficult to migrate away from an unusually good year of income.”

One dramatic example of this fact, which has been cited as evidence for tax flight: In 2007, Maryland raised its top tax rates for individuals earning over $150,000 and families earning over $200,000. The following year, Maryland saw a massive 13.4% decline in its millionaire population. Aha, you might be saying: Tax flight!

Well, no. You might recall that in 2008, our economy imploded. In Maryland,as elsewhere, a whole lot of 2007 millionaires became “hundred thousandaires” in 2008. The number of taxpayers in the second, third and fourth highest tax brackets — between $150,000 and $999,999 — increased dramatically, and more than compensated for the drop in millionaires.

All those folks saw their taxes increase in 2008. The truth is, hardly anyone moved out of Maryland; they just saw their taxable incomes shrink. And Maryland’s public finances were much stronger during the Great Recession thanks to the 2007 tax hike.

In short, there is no credible evidence that modest tax increases cause the wealthy to flee. Governor Shumlin may believe it, and he may loudly and repeatedly assert his belief; but it simply is not true.  

Hi, I’m PeteySweety and you’re not.

In the news today, two really big stories.  What’s that, Emily?  No, we’ll get to your commentary later.  This is Hard News, Emily.  In the news, North Korea’s…I heard that, Emily.  I am NOT a BITCH.  Be quiet.  North Korea’s High Commissar of Political Correctness said his nation now has yet another reason to Nuke us.  Generalissimo Dim Dim Bulb said recent statements by Rush Limbaugh about what real marriage is are counter-revolutionary and an insult and attack upon the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea–gotta pick my nose here a minute, folks…ah…there–and that the DPRK will take the appropriate action.  Bulb said Limbaugh’s recent comment about real marriage having lost its true definition and that Gay Marriage is “inevitable” is inflammatory and war mongering, because, according to Bulb: “Everyone knows that real marriage is between a Comrade and the State, except fat American pig who have sex with running dog.”  Gotta pick my nose again here, folks…excuse me…boy, look at that one…Anyway, Mr. Bulb added some more Marxist-Leninist stuff–which I don’t understand…do you?…and then he said North Korea has set aside a specific nuclear missile for Limbaugh the next time Limbaugh visits San Francisco to speak at an AIDS fundraising event.  “AIDS,” said Dimy, “is something we do not have in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea because sex with the state is in its purest form.  We have sex with the State and the State bites off our head.  This is why we are strong in our commitment to end all life on earth and declare a Communist victory.”   When Mr. Bulby was asked by a Polish correspondent how many comrades it took to screw him in, Dim-Boy left the press conference abruptly saying he had to go check on his missiles to make sure comrades remembered to put in the batteries and light the wood stoves.

Boy…In other news…not yet, Emily…we’re getting there…in other news, COMCAST announced today that, after the Supreme Court repeals the Voting Rights Act, it will offer a  comprehensive Electronic Voting package to every American consumer.  It will include Voting Channels on home TVs, home computers, cell phones, automobiles, jogging meters, and WalMart shopping carts.  Comcast said that it will ask Congress to make COMCAST the number one source of balloting in America, and authorize it to collect fees from each and every COMCAST customer to, and I quote here: “pay for the vote.”  COMCAST said it will also ask Congress for the authority to disconnect each and every voter who does not keep up with his or her monthly contract payments as defined in the fine print or by service reps in Calcutta.  And for low income and minority COMCAST customers, COMCAST will offer a “special discount package” which will enable those low income and minority customers to “watch the rest of America vote.”  COMCAST said Americans should all expect an “information mailing” on this to begin next week and continue daily indefinitely.

Boy, I can hardly wait for that.  How ’bout you?

Okay…Emily…EMILY!…you’re on now.

Thanks, PeepingPetey, and I just…

That’s PETEY-SWEETY, Emily…I told you that before.  More than once.

Okay.  Petey…Sleazy…whatever…Today, I just want to say to everybody, what’s all this stuff I hear about everybody getting their news off of Bogsites?  In the Pine Barrens in New Jersey, where I grew up, we had bogs all over the place, and some of them had cranberries, and some of them all kinds of stuff, and some of that stuff was disgusting stuff like the stuff Peepers here just picked outta his nose.  I mean bogs had mosquitoes and sometimes wild boars, and we had to run when we were little kids for our lives because you don’t want no bog monster to get you and bite off your little pinky fingers and toes, and we yelled “Moma! Daddy!  Save Us!”  and our parents said we should stay away from the bogs and then they hit us with a Pine Barren tree, but now I hear people are going to bogs to get their news and do this stuff called social networking, and I don’t think they should be hanging around the bogs at all because of the mosquitoes and the monsters and the trolls, but now I hear they’re doing this stuff on these bogs, and I’m wondering how disgusting this country is coming to if people go to bogs all the time to…

Emily…EMILY…

Whaat?

Emily.  That’s blogs.  Blogsites.  Not bogs.  Blogs.  Blogsites are on the computers, not in the Pine Barrens.  It’s electronic communication.  Like what we’re doing now.

BLOGS?

That’s right, Emily.

Oh.  Never mind.  But now what’s all this stuff I hear about these crazy Republicans going out and raping and then bringing it up all the time on TV and on…on those…blog sites?…I mean………….

AND THAT’S THE NEWS

Have a Great April 1st!

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.

There were basically two parts to the Governor’s weekly presser Wednesday. I previously reported on the first part: his announcement that health care reform is making good progress, and that its guiding force, Anya Rader Wallack, is stepping down in six months. After that, the discussion turned to taxes, and the Governor’s opposition to raising taxes he doesn’t want to raise.

And as before, he failed to make a coherent case. He made a lot of false or misleading assertions, and spent a fair bit of time punching straw men. He even tried out a couple of new arguments, which were no more effective than the ones he’s back-burnered. And that’s been his problem throughout this legislative session: he has presented unpopular proposals without buy-in from top lawmakers, and he has made misleading (and worse, easily disproven) arguments on behalf of his plans. It doesn’t exactly engender a sense of trust, y’know?

I’m doing a blow-by-blow here, so if you don’t have the time or patience to wade through all this verbiage, I recommend Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz’ take on our gubernatorial tax colloquium.

And now, it’s time for Tax Talk with the Governor!

He began by saying that the House’s tax-and-spending plan “doesn’t do everything I want, but no budget does.” His overall assessment: “I think the House did a good job on the budget, and obviously I’m less pleased with the tax package.”

How displeased? “Exactly very displeased.”  

When pressed for “an analogy” by VPR’s Kirk Carapezza (those public radio guys and their liberal arts degrees), he unloaded a whopper.

If you told me that I had to jump from a window, I would go for the highest building that I could find to jump, to make sure that I wasn’t here to see that tax package become law.

I expected Sue Allen or one of his health officials to add a quick PSA on behalf of suicide prevention, but nope.

And then we got heavy-duty into the realm of embellishment. Starting with his wildly unpopular plan to slash the state’s share of the Earned Income Tax Credit, one of the most effective means of keeping low-income people out of poverty — and one of the most progressive elements of our tax system.

First, he disagreed with the portrayal of the EITC cut as a tax increase:

84 cents of every EITC dollar in Vermont comes from other taxpayers in the state. We are reallocating that money.

If you look at the lower income level, they pay very little income tax. Those at the top pay the most. So when you take the EITC and reallocate it, you’re reallocating 84 cents of every dollar from Vermonters who are paying taxes right now. You cannot call that a new tax, I’m sorry.

It is true that the lowest income levels pay very little income tax. It’s also true that they get hit hard by sales and property taxes. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, our overall tax burden is distributed almost evenly across income levels: the bottom 20% pay 8.7% in state and local taxes. The top earners pay 8%. If you cut the EITC, income inequality will increase in Vermont.

And technically, the Governor is correct when he calls this a “reallocation” rather than a tax increase. But the truth is, it would take money away from the working poor. If you don’t want to call it a “tax increase”, then call it a benefit cut. Is that better?

Next question: “Do [EITC recipients] have the capacity to lose that portion, whereas wealthier Vermonters are tapped out?”

Listen. This we know. There’s a point of no return on progressive taxation. There’s a point where, as you know, income taxes are portable. I’ve argued this before. We know that Vermonters already migrate to Florida, New Hampshire, and other states to avoid paying income taxes. The higher your rates, the more they migrate. Right now we ask them to pay 8.9 cents of every dollar. I believe that that’s high enough, that we’re going to lose more than we gain.

Uh, first of all, the studies I’ve seen do NOT show that tax increases cause rich people to flee. There is, if anything, a very minor effect. People move for a wide variety of reasons; tax burden is low on the list. Things like family, job opportunities, and climate play a much larger role. As does “quality of government” and “availability of services,” for which many wealthy people are willing to pay. That’s why they don’t all move to Mississippi.

And second, we do NOT “ask them to pay 8.9 cents of every dollar.” The top income tax rate is 8.95%, but because Vermont is one of only six states to impose its tax on “taxable income” rather than “adjusted gross income,” the effective top income tax rate (according to ITEP) is 5.2%, not 8.95%.

The Governor continued, and kinda-sorta punted on his whole “tax flight” mantra.

Now, some will argue, they look at these charts and they say, well, you know, for all those 1207 Vermonters that you drive out, you bring more in at the same time. Well, I look at government the same way I looked at business. My job as Governor is to keep the customers we have, who are payin’ a ton of money to Vermont, and bring in more! If our 1207 or 1217 Vermonters went to 1317 or 1417, we wouldn’t have the revenue problems we have right now. Now, you can deny that if you wish. But income taxes are portable. We’re asking the wealthiest to pay the most. That’s what we should do. But you can’t ask them to pay twice. You just can’t. Because they won’t.

In other words, maybe rich Vermonters won’t actually move out, or maybe the vast majority will stay, but we might suffer a loss of in-migration among wealthy people if we raise taxes. Well, that’s a very different and absolutely unprovable argument.

At this point, the Vermont Press Bureau’s Peter Hirschfeld asked the same question I’d brought up last week: Shumlin’s comments to a New Jersey newspaper slamming Governor Chris Christie for refusing to raise taxes on “millionaires and billionaires.”

Let me be clear. I was encouraging Chris Christie to go to the high progressive income tax rates that Vermont has now.

At which point I jumped in and made the point about taxable income and AGI. Because New Jersey bases its income tax on AGI, it actually takes a substantially bigger bite from top earners than does Vermont. Here’s how the Governor responded:

Yeah, but you’re talking about averages.

And then he immediately pivoted back to his canned talking points about Christie.

Listen, here’s the point. I answered this one last week. Chris Christie has launched the biggest property tax increases which hits middle class New Jerseyites right in the teeth. He is one of the few Governors in America who hasn’t seen any job growth. This is a state where a Governor went out and said, ‘You elect me, and I’m going to do the New Jersey comeback.’ It’s been the New Jersey fallback. Higher property taxes, higher tax burdens, and dwindling job growth. That’s not a recipe for re-election.

Let’s leave the obvious point that this has nothing to do with Shumlin’s statement about taxing the rich, and go back to his “answer” to my question.

Yeah, but you’re talking about averages.

What the frak is that supposed to mean? Of course I’m talking averages. The average wealthy New Jerseyite paid an effective state income tax rate of 6.6%. The average rich Vermonter paid 5.2%. Yes, I’m talking averages. Is that supposed to be an answer to my question?

Now, New Jersey’s overall tax system is, in fact, substantially less progressive than Vermont’s. And one of the biggest reasons is that New Jersey has a much less generous EITC system than Vermont. Well, it does unless Governor Shumlin has his way.

Hirschfeld then came back with “You understand the confusion, though? When you say one thing down there and another thing up here?”

That is not true. I mentioned property taxes, I mentioned jobs in my comments to the Ledger. I mentioned all the things I just mentioned now. You’re picking one little piece out of an overall criticism of a four-year record. And I believe I’m right. And the Democratic Governors Association joins me in believing I’m right. We can elect a Governor who will grow jobs, grow opportunities, not see property taxes increase, not see jobs dwindle. That’s the point on Chris Christie.

Well, of course we’re “picking one little piece.” Because it’s the “one little piece” that’s directly at odds with one of the central policy pillars of the Shumlin Administration.  That’s what we do: point out inconsistencies and hypocrisies.

Paul Heintz then chimed in: “But are you contesting that one piece that Mr. Hirschfeld is bringing up?”

Team, sometimes I think I’m on a comedy show. I’ve answered the question. As you know, I firmly believe that Chris Christie isn’t the rights Governor for New Jersey because he’s not growing jobs, he’s not growing economic opportunities, property taxes are rising, and the middle class is getting kicked in the teeth.

Yeah, Governor, and sometimes I think I’m in the Twilight Zone. We keep asking the same questions because you keep dodging them.

And this is when Sue Allen said “Thank you,” signaling the end of the news conference. Channel 5’s Stewart Ledbetter actually got in one more question — a softball about Shumlin’s views of marriage equality. He was happy to answer that one, but he’d clearly had enough of our tax questions.

As we left the room, one of my fellow reporters jokingly asked me if the Governor had “answered my question.” I said yes, in the sense that he followed my question with a series of words that ended in a period.  

In no other sense did he answer the question. But that’s been a consistent pattern on tax issues this year: shifting, and unconvincing, rationales and arguments. If he truly wants to get the Legislature on his side, he’s going to have to do a better job of stating his case.  

Fo example, over in Maine, the more-forward-than Vermont thinkers have introduced a legalization bill:

The 28 Democrats, 3 Republicans, 1 Independent, and 2 tribal representatives who are co-sponsoring the bill represent a major shift from 2012, when similar legislation gained little support.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Diane Russell (D), would allow those over 21 years of age to purchase marijuana from state-licensed stores. Individuals could legally possess up to 2.5 ounces of the drug and grow up to six marijuana plants. The legislation reflects the state’s current medical marijuana laws, with the major exception being that anyone – not just those with a serious illness – would have access to the drug.

If the Maine legislature approves the bill, it would go to a statewide referendum in 2014.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/201…

Instead we get a skittish Legislature that might maybe decrim up to 2 oz (but that’s way too much for the even more timid).

VT could be on the forfront of energy independence and a major increase of tax revenue – but, NOOO!

Well, I showed up at the State House this morning for another day of drama surrounding S.30, the former “wind moratorium” bill that’s been successively stripped of almost all its effective provisions.

But there wasn’t any. Drama, that is. In the space of about two minutes, the Senate took up the latest version of S.30, no one offered any amendments, and it sailed through on a voice vote with a single “No” heard from the floor.

For those just joining us, S.30’s last few remaining teeth were extracted on Tuesday. (A good account of that action was written by VTDigger’s Andrew Stein.) The latest version of S.30 does not include any requirement for the Public Service Board to consider Act 250 criteria in siting decisions for new energy plants, including conformity with town development plans.

The Tuesday action was considered a big win for advocates of renewable energy. And there was talk of a counterattack by opponents of wind energy. But it didn’t materialize. If you believe the hallway chatter, wind opponents had decided S.30 was a lost cause. They may try to attach anti-wind language to other pieces of legislation — and there’s more than enough time for that kind of maneuvering.

The desiccated husk of S.30 is headed to the House, where little or no action is expected.

Not that it really matters; even if S.30 became law, it would have little or no impact.