The top money man

More politics below, but first an update on a post of three months ago (Non-Union Blues, April 28) about the Douglas Administration’s refusal to accept a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) for construction of the new Lake Champlain bridge.

Under a PLA, construction unions agree not to strike and to accept cost saving concessions such as surrendering premium pay for late shift work. In return, the contractor agrees to accept workers chosen at union hiring halls in the region, guaranteeing local residents some of the good-paying jobs on the project.

Last spring, New York State and the Federal Government agreed to a PLA for the bridge. Under pressure from the state branch of the Associated General Contractors, Vermont did not, so there was no public PLA.

The top money Dem

But according to a news release sent out Friday by the Vermont Building and Construction Trades Council, Vermont and New York unions have reached agreement on a private PLA with the prime contractor, Flatiron Construction of Colorado.

“The PLA will accomplish what Gov. Douglas was sadly unwilling to do – guarantee local residents an opportunity to land a job on this $70 million project,” Vermont Building and Construction Trades Council President Jeff Potvin said in the press release.

It isn’t clear how many workers from the area will get jobs on the bridge project. Potvin acknowledged that Flatiron will “self-perform a large portion of the project,” meaning it will bring its own workers from elsewhere. But it does seem that the more Vermont workers will get bridge jobs with the PLA than would have without it, and that the cost savings will go to Flatiron, not Vermont’s taxpayers.

It will be interesting to see if whoever ends up with the Democratic nomination for governor tries to use this issue in the general election campaign against Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie.

Oh, yes: the governor’s race. Wherein we segue to the significance of the campaign finance reports submitted by the candidates last week.

This significance should not be overstated. The typical voter does not pay attention to which candidate raises more money, being far more interested in which candidate he or she finds appealing.

But neither should the significance be pooh-poohed. First of all, the money itself is important; more is better than less. Second, the reports themselves send signals, however short-lived, that can speed or slow a candidate’s progress. The more money a candidate has, the more seriously he or she is taken by what the eminent journalist Jack Germond called “the political community”—reporters, TV commentators, and, not least, potential contributors, who prefer to bestow their largesse on likely winners.

There is little doubt, then, that last Friday’s headlines provided a boost to Dubie ($943,000 raised, $475,623 cash on hand) and Secretary of State Deb Markowitz, the top collector among Democrats ($523,946 raised, $186,756 on hand).

Also coming out ahead in the perception game were Democrats Matt Dunne ($267,861 and $132,959) and Sen. Peter Shumlin ($418,490 and $207,134.).

The news was not as good for Sen, Doug Racine ($210,158 and $63,097) and it was downright awful for Sen. Susan Bartlett, who reported raising only $70,920 from just 232 contributors, leaving her with only $11,146 in the bank.

As last Wednesday’s post noted, a candidate need not have the most money. She does have to have enough money.

Eleven grand is not enough money.

Bartlett insisted she would not drop out, and there’s no reason why she should. She has nowhere else to go for the next month, and there’s always the possibility of a “miracle,” which in this case would require no supernatural intervention, just a fairly even five-way split in which nobody gets much more than 20 percent of the primary vote on August 24 and anyone could win a squeaker.

But it would take something close to supernatural intervention. That isn’t the way multi-candidate primaries usually shake out.

The situation must be frustrating for Bartlett, who is highly regarded in Montpelier. Even as they pronounce her candidacy hopeless, politicians and legislative onlookers keep noting  that she might be a strong candidate in the general election, and a good governor if elected.

But nobody every claimed that politics was fair, or even rational.

A look behind the raw numbers indicates even better news for Dunne, and perhaps even worse news for Racine, who has only raised $107,742 from 491 contributors in the last year. His total includes the amount he raised before last July’s reporting deadlines. Dunne, who did not announce his candidacy until late last year, raised all his money in the last twelve months from 722 contributors.

That’s not as many as Dubie (an impressive 2,724 contributors in the last 12 months), or  Markowitz (1,070), but substantially better than Shumlin (390) who only kept pace with Dunne by lending his own campaign $150,000.  At the very least, Dunne seems to know how to raise money.

As, obviously, do Dubie and Markowitz. They have also spent the most money. Shumlin actually has a bit more cash on hand now than Markowitz, even after paying for the campaign’s first round of television ads. And while Dubie has far more money in the bank than anyone else, he is also spending it faster than anyone else, much of it on professional fund-raising and other political consulting firms.

All the candidates raised most of their money from, and spent most of it in, Vermont. That may not last. It is not unreasonable to suspect that the big out-of-state fundraising starts now, not reportable until after the election. Some voters, it seems think there is something wrong with raising money beyond Vermont’s borders.

But candidates need money, and have to raise it where they can find it. Asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton famously said, “that’s where the money is.” Campaign money is in Boston, New York, Washington, California, and Texas. Dubie has already raised thousands from Texas, and spent thousands there, on Harris Media an Austin political consulting firm serving conservative Republican candidates.

No doubt researchers from all six campaigns are poring over the filings of the other five, hoping to find either a contribution or an expenditure that could prove politically awkward. Two potential entries: Dubie got a $2,000 contribution from the Ely Lilly Co., the Indianapolis pharmaceutical giant. Drug companies are not universally admired these days.

The lieutenant governor also received $1,000 from Dairy Farmers of America of Kansas City, MO, and another $1,000 from its affiliate, Syracuse-based Dairylea Cooperative, Inc. DFA is the milk marketing cooperative that has been the target of several anti-trust allegations, (and at least one continuing investigation) and some Vermont dairy farmers blame it for keeping their prices low.

First, an announcement, and a plea: Four of the five Democratic candidates for governor (Deb Markowitz being the absentee) will meet for a so-called debate, more accurately a campaign forum, at 7PM Thursday at Sterling College in Craftsbury Common.

All are invited.

The host will be Sterling President Will Wootten.

The moderator will be…well, ahem, uh, as long as you asked, the moderator will be the News Guy his very own self.

Please do not throw tomatoes as the moderator. He will be doing the best he can. But he could use some help. What would you ask the candidates for governor if you had the opportunity?

Some of the issues that should be brought up may seem obvious – taxes, schools, jobs, Vermont Yankee. Except that they all seem to agree on taxes, schools, and Vermont Yankee. And it isn’t clear that governor can do much about jobs.

Remember eight years ago when candidate Jim Douglas’s slogan was “Jim =Jobs.” Sounded good, but even before the Recession, private sector job growth under Douglas was pretty close to zero.

Not necessarily his fault. Campaign rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding, state government policy may be irrelevant to job growth.

Or maybe not. Anyway, if anyone has probing, specific, substantive questions he or she thinks someone should ask one of these folks, here’s your chance to suggest them to someone who is going to do the asking. And who will appreciate the submission whether or not he uses it.

(star break)

MEDIA NOTE—Not censure, this time, but praise. In the continuing discussion about the role of hydro power in the state, Vermont Public Radio did what news organizations are supposed to do – spent some money, sent reporters to cover the news.

VPR reporter John Dillon went 600 miles north of the border who where Hydro-Quebec, from which Vermont utilities just agreed to buy a whole mess of power, has built a huge dam which will divert 70 percent of the waters of the Rupert River to help generate that power.

As Dillon pointed out, the Rupert is just one of three rivers which will be part of a system of four dams, 74 dikes and a new tunnel carved through a mountain, all powering four new generating stations still farther north.

At the same time, VPR’s noon Vermont Edition went to Montreal where host Jane Lindholm presided over a spirited and informed debate between Claude Demers, Hydro-Quebec’s science communicator, and  Daniel Breton, founder of  a Quebec environmental organization.

One angle VPR didn’t deal with, and neither has anybody else. Hydro-Quebec gets criticized from folks on the left side of the political spectrum for those immense dams which have flooded thousands of acres of land, with damaging consequences for both the natural world and the Cree Indians who live in northern Quebec.

Another big corporation abusing the land and indigenous folks in the thirst for profit for the stockholders, no?

No. Hydro-Quebec doesn’t have stockholders. It’s owned by the Province and the people thereof. It is, in short, a socialist institution.

(star break)

More (mostly) good news: Some additional ammunition for the argument made in the post titled Not So Bad (June 4) that life in Vermont is…not so bad.

Maybe even pretty good.

The latest issue of  Kiplinger’s Personal Finance magazine named Burlington one of the “ten best cities for the next decade.” Praised  for its “creativity and entrepreneurship” Burlington was tagged the eighth best city for both living and working over the next several years. Austin, Texas, was first.

In addition, recently released  (or, perhaps more accurately, hitherto ignored) Census figures confirm that Vermont is one of the most affluent states, with a relatively low poverty rate, and one of the lowest rates of child poverty in the country. The statistics are from 2008, the most recent available.

Only eight other states have child (under age 18) poverty rates in the same low category as Vermont: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Utah, and Wyoming.

For the total poverty rate, Vermont was in the second best category, ranked with 13 other states with rates between 10.2 and 13.1 percent (Vermont’s was 10.4). Seven states, including New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Maryland, had lower rates.

As is true almost everywhere, Vermont’s under-18 poverty rate (12.8 percent) is slightly higher than its overall rate.  But not everywhere. Chittenden County’s total poverty rate was 9.6 percent, but the child poverty rate was 9.2 percent.

But that was unusual. In the other 13 counties, the under-18 rate was either slightly or not so slightly higher. Even Addison County, which had the lowest total poverty rate (9.5 percent had a slightly higher rate (10.6 percent, for those under 18.

Both the highest rates and the biggest differences between total and child poverty were in the Northeast Kingdom. Caledonia County had an 11.8 percent total poverty rate, with 17.1 percent of its under-18s in poverty. In Orleans County, the overall rate was 14.3 percent, with a 19.3 percent poverty ate for those under 18.

And in Essex County, the poorest in the state, 14.8 percent of all persons lived below the poverty line, but the under-18 rate was 23.8 percent.

That puts Essex at a level comparable with some of the rural counties of the Southeast and Southwest, the poorest areas of the country.

None of this is a big surprise. But it deserves more attention than it has been getting from either officials or observers. That latter, that’s us. More attention will be paid, starting with maybe a few questions to these candidates at Thursday’s debate.

Early in this year’s Legislative session, some lawmakers, businesspeople, and state officials became alarmed by the remarks an economist made during a Senate committee hearing.

The economist, Tom Kavet, noted that while the Department of Tourism and Marketing’s budget  had gone down over the past few years, — to $3.6 million from $5.1 million in 2002 — more tourists were visiting the state.

Kavet never suggested doing away with the Tourism and Marketing, though he did doubt that its activities had “significant near-term impact,” setting off worries that the Department’s funding was in danger.

“It got some people a little excited,” said Rep. Heidi Scheuermann, a Republican from tourist-dependent Stowe,

So Scheuermann, the Vermont Chamber of Commerce, the ski industry and the Department itself went to work to make sure that its budget wasn’t cut.

They succeeded. For now at least (pending possible further cuts because of the “Challenges for Change” process) Tourism and Marketing gets the same $3.6 million for Fiscal Year 2011 as for 2010.

So the “Crisis” – well, the argument – is over, at least for now. But the question has not been answered.

Make that two questions: Does the advertising done by Tourism and Marketing really bring more tourists to Vermont? And even if it does, should the taxpayers be paying for it? After all, ski resorts, golf courses, restaurants, marinas and the like are private, for-profit businesses. Most private, for-profit businesses pay for their own advertising and promotion. Why shouldn’t tourist businesses?

Without a doubt the answer to that first question is not a definite no. Advertising works; otherwise businesses would not spend billions of dollars a year to convince people to buy their product or their brand.

And that’s what Tourism and Marketing does, said Bruce Hyde, who heads the Department.

“We’re really the brand managers,” he said. “We saturate the media as best as we can with the Vermont message. Nobody else is doing that.”

And there is at least some evidence that it works. Erica Housekeeper, the Department spokesperson said (by email) that Tourism and Marketing’s web site “received an average of 66,600 unique visitors per month…and we see a bump in web traffic when we launch an advertising campaign.”

Probably more visitors to the web site means more visitors to the state. But “probably” does not qualify as data. It’s not as though the “Vermont brand” is unknown around the country. Perhaps many people, bombarded by promotion from every state and many countries, have to be reminded from time to time of Vermont’s existence as well as its charms.

But “perhaps” does not qualify as data, either.

In fact, one seeking data confirming that Tourism and Marketing promotions bring more visitors to the state will seek endlessly, and still probably not find.

Even confirming the effectiveness of the tourist promotion would not conclusively prove that the $3.6 million was well spent. It would depend on which criteria were used to make the judgment: That the extra visitors (the ones who wouldn’t have come anyway, without the Department’s promotions) had spent so much on hotels, restaurants, and gasoline that the tax revenue added up to $3.6 million? Or that their visits created enough additional jobs that the take from those taxes was $3.6 million?

Not that Vermont is going to abolish its Tourism and Marketing Department, which would be an act of unilateral disarmament. All the other states have similar agencies, and almost all of them spend far more than does Vermont.

“We arguably have the smallest state budget for tourism,” Hyde said, even though Vermont is “one of the states most dependant on tourism.”

Even with a lower budget and a staff that has dropped to nine from 20, the Department seems to be doing a good job. Maybe tourism has gone up even as the Department spends less money because it’s grown more efficient and innovative. Tourism and Marketing doesn’t just promote Vermont, Hyde said. Its web site provides a full-service, one-stop vacation planner for would-be visitors.

“It’s a free service for the entire industry,” he said.

Bringing up that second question. Why doesn’t the industry provide that service for itself? A lot of other businesses would like the state to do their promoting for them, too. Just to take one example out of thin air: suppose the state financed the promotion for start-up news web sites, especially those run by a proprietor who is uncommonly inept at the task?

Who knows? The web site might prosper so much that the proprietor could hire a local unemployed person as a part-time researcher. Presto! Job creation. Economic development.

OK, that’s neither a complaint nor a suggestion. Just an example to demonstrate that the state selectively showers its subsidies on favored industries.

Scheuermann calls that kind of thinking “short-sighted,” because “government entities support anything else with regard to people having jobs, to make sure that people are able to pay their bills and able to go to college.”

Except for the “anything else” part, she’s right. To maintain a healthy economy, government does support many private enterprises with direct or indirect subsidies. The difference with the tourism industry is that the subsidy is direct – a state agency picking up the tab for one of its major expenditures – rather than the more common tax breaks (though the state also forks over cash to some other businesses).

We’re not talking about a lot of money here; were the Department shut down entirely, the money saved would chop less than half-a-cent off the statewide school property tax rate.

But hidden in this discussion is an interesting – and indisputable – conclusion. There’s a lot of talk in this state (and country) about whether the government does too much and spends too much. This discussion about subsidizing Vermont’s tourist industry proves who really believes the government is doing and spending too much:

Nobody. Not if it’s doing and spending on them and theirs.