TOWNSHEND — Economic development is already front and center in Vermont's gubernatorial campaign. Much of what has been proposed won't happen or won't make a difference.
Like it or not, our state is subject to the same macroeconomic forces as the rest of the country. And the discretionary resources of our state government are simply too small to make a difference to our economy.
But where Vermont's next governor can make a difference - indeed, a big difference - is in the fight for economic justice.
To be blunt, I am disappointed in what my party - the Democratic Party - has and has not done over the last six years.
Let me offer a few examples:
• Last month, the Emergency Board approved a $1.2 million grant to GlobalFoundries in support of a $72 million investment the company had already made. If anyone thinks that $1.2 million has any effect on an already committed $72 million investment decision by a company owned by the ruler of Abu Dhabi, they don't understand business very well.
In the same month, the Shumlin administration proposed to cut about the same amount - $1.3 million - in benefits to 825 Vermont families with disabilities.
• Since 2007, Vermont taxpayers have provided $10 million in subsidies to Green Mountain Coffee Roasters/Keurig. The company expressed its appreciation by moving its coffee-buying business to Switzerland at the cost of 200 Vermont jobs.
• In 2012, Vermont forgave a $21 million loan to Central Vermont Public Service Corp. from ratepayers to facilitate the utility's merger with Green Mountain Power.
The funds, which had been loaned to rescue CVPS from bankruptcy, were then used to pay golden parachutes to a dozen CVPS board members and executives. To add insult to injury, the ratepayers were billed for an additional $21 million.
• Last year, the Legislature voted a $4 million a year exemption from the sales tax for products sold on the cloud. The argument, skillfully advanced by cloud computing lobbyists, is that the exemption will make Vermont a technology hub. Only this is the same argument the lobbyists have made in every other state legislature. Not everyone can be a technology hub.
* * *
A living wage is the most important anti-poverty program Vermont could enact. But it is also good for the economy. Low-wage workers spend a higher proportion of their income, and they spend it locally.
As a senator, I voted against every special-interest tax break and subsidy, but I was in the minority in the Senate and in my own party.
Here are five things the next governor and Legislature can do to promote economic justice:
• Pay Vermonters more. As a senator, I introduced the first bill in 2014 to raise the minimum wage, and I proposed to raise it to $12 immediately. This should be the next governor's first proposal, with later increases up to $15 an hour.
And here is a secret: a higher minimum wage is also good for wealthy Vermonters.
Taxpayers subsidize low-wage employers, including some of the biggest corporations in the U.S., by providing their workers with food stamps, Medicaid, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and a range of other programs.
Without public support, workers could not survive on the wages these employers pay. A higher minimum wage means fewer subsidies, saving all taxpayers money.
• A fair tax system. Our tax code is riddled with deductions and other special-interest tax breaks that should be repealed.
To take one example, Vermont permits taxpayers to deduct mortgage interest on second homes that are out of state or out of the country. What is the public interest in subsidizing a million-dollar mortgage on a Caribbean hideaway?
• Maintain public services. Why do businesses come to Vermont? Because it is a great place to live with fine schools, low crime, environmental protections, and a strong sense of community.
We can't compete with New Hampshire for no taxes (and poor services) or with Mississippi for low wages. Rather than give public money to wealthy corporations, Vermont in its economic development strategy should focus on maintaining our quality public services. This is our comparative advantage.
• Health care. I am the only elected official in the state of Vermont actually to have written and introduced a bill to pay for the universal, publicly financed health care promised in Act 48. As a first step toward a single-payer system, we should establish a subsidized public option on the Vermont Health Connect exchange. (I also introduced legislation to do so.)
• Ban corporate campaign contributions. In four years in the Senate, I saw time and time again how the private interest - of a business association, a corporation, or even a single wealthy person able to afford a lobbyist - triumphed over the broader public interest.
It is no coincidence that Vermont also allows corporations to make direct contributions to candidates and makes it easy for wealthy donors to evade contribution limits. Federal law has prohibited corporate contributions to candidates since 1907, and even a state like Texas prohibits the practice.
It is a disgrace that we allow corporate contributions in a state that prides itself on honest politics and good governance.
Most of all, we need a governor who will stand for the public interest - not the special interest.