Editor’s note: The author of this oped is John McClaughry, vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute (www.ethanallen.org).
At a public forum on May 26 the five candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for Governor took turns waxing eloquent on the merits of spurring job-creating economic growth. There will be a lot more of this kind of talk over the next five months, but what there will not be, at least from these five, is any concrete proposal for economic development that would conflict with the liberal anti-growth theme that has dominated Vermont public policy since Act 250 passed in 1970.
One needs only to look at the vaunted Commission on the Future of Economic Development. After three years of work the Council presented its report in 2009. Stacked with appointees of the legislative leadership, the Commission decided that what Vermont needs for its economic future is a “comprehensive [government] economic development plan” and a “statewide economic development board”. With the controlling Plan and supervisory Board in place, we can then proceed to build the desirable “collaborative partnership” among the fellow who’s risking his money in pursuit of profit, and the countless government regulators and assorted “stakeholders” who exist to defeat any pursuit of profit that might offend the refined sensibilities of the Vermont Natural Resources Council, VPIRG, the Conservation Law Foundation, and various local “Citizens Against Most Everything” groups.
In the same spirit was the Vermont Council on Rural Development’s 2009 report “Imagining Vermont”. It dwelled on a future Vermont with a working landscape, vigorous small industry, renewable energy, public transportation, creative arts, human scale, shared cultural values, affordable housing, excellent education and health care, more secure jobs and higher incomes, a renewed sense of community and, once again, intensified government planning and regulation to bring about the desired results.
The ever-present theme of these declarations is that there must be collective control, through government, of anything and everything significant enough to cause even locally disruptive changes in the environment, land use, transportation patterns, “community values”, vested economic interests, and a host of lesser desiderata. Approved “green” ventures and perhaps some popular existing businesses will qualify for lenient regulation and various subsidies, but promoters of new ventures will have to run the regulatory gantlet into an economically shaky future. We dare not encourage new ventures that might bring about noticeable changes in our agreed-upon Grand Plan for the Perfect Little State.
In short, the candidates and commissions proclaiming their commitment to jobs and economic growth will simply not venture beyond the gentry-liberal anti-growth consensus. Just reviewing the measures that the three Democratic Senators in the gubernatorial race have supported and opposed the past few years makes their urgent pro-growth rhetoric sound pretty hollow.
Consider a counterfactual example. Suppose Vermont proclaimed and implemented a strong pro-growth policy. Its leaders would say something like “Listen up, entrepreneurs. Our people benefit when innovative risk takers put capital to work to produce wealth. You can do that here. We won’t let you unload your waste products into the public’s air and water, but our regulations are swift, fair, and certain. We’ll hold down the tax rates so you’ll have a fair chance to make a profit and reinvest it.”
“We’ll have an efficient judicial system to settle disputes, we won’t force you to shell out your cash flow to pay for politically imposed benefits, we’ll support new low cost base load electricity generation, we’ll keep our transportation infrastructure in good repair, we’ll steer clear of goofy schemes like single payer health care, no-work welfare entitlements, forced unionism, and CO2 taxation, and we’ll give you your chance to go for the brass ring in our free society.”
That kind of talk would win applause in Hong Kong or New Hampshire or even Estonia. It might even win majority agreement in an opinion poll in Vermont. But mere poll findings will never defeat the political power of well-organized contrary interests. Until our prevailing attitudes toward economic growth change, Vermont is not likely to become the enclave of prosperity that its people have the talent to make it – if only blessed with a lot of freedom for competitive enterprise.
