I took my own advice and sent an e-mail off to Susan Bartlett expressing my concern that this increase was being hurried through the legislature. Here’s what she wrote:
actually they have supplied a great deal of information and these incentives are performance based, in other words, until they have actually created the jobs, filled the jobs and kept folks working, they don’t get the incentive. So it doesn’t cost the state anything unless and until the company performs as they say they will perform. Part of figuring out the performance is the net gain in state revenues these companies produce to the state think of it as they produce an additional $10 million in payroll and business revenues, they get a piece of the pie back, the state still makes a profit
I then asked if she supports the increase and she replied that she does.
I’m going to exercise my prerogative and send this topic right back to the top of the queue, because it needs a fast reader response. Doug just posted the following as an update on his “Emergency” diary and I thought it should have maximum eye-coverage in the hope that some folks will feel passionate enough to shoot off a letter or two to their reps:
the Governor’s rush to raise the VEPC / VEGI cap is getting heated; the head of GBIC sent a note to legislators telling them in effect that there are 750 jobs on the line. The Governor knows this ploy is putting the E Board members in a corner; if they no, they’re “anti-business.”
The chairs of House Commerce (Kitzmiller) & Senate Economic Development (Illuzzi) have both sent messages asking that the process slow down so their committees can work through it. The Governor wants this decision made based on nothing but faith; the members don’t know the names of the companies, if they’ve been growing through the recession (or are just rehiring folks laid off earlier), etc.
It’s an outrage; basically extortion. Please encourage folks to write to the E Board members and their reps and ask that they slow down this train
Despite his words barely more than a week ago, it appears that the Governor isn’t quite through making political mischief with the legislature.
I guess my question is if this Hoffer guy can see all that’s wrong with this deal, why can’t the legislators who are on these money committees see it too? Thanks Hoffer. Glad somebody is looking out for Vermont.
Let’s see…I’m a business looking for a government handout…I’m threatening to lay people off, so obviously I’m losing money…which means I’m not paying any taxes anyway. I don’t see the problem. If I am making money and I’m still threatening to lay people off without a handout, I’m an extortionist.
Why would I, as a taxpayer, chose to subsidize a business that’s either losing money or is run by an extortionist? If I were hell-bent on spending the money, why not give the it as incentives to well-run, growing companies in socially useful niches?
Are there non-Vermont companies just dying to move to Vermont but won’t because they have to pay taxes? Seems dubious to me. Where’s the proof?
I think the governor, following the Bush doctrine, is simply trying to funnel as much government money to the friends in the yacht club as possible before he goes. We can just say “No government handouts to loser companies” and still not be “anti-business”.
(Notwithstanding all of the above, if there’s a company soon laying off 750 people (or even 50), they should have already made those plans public and announced the obligatory 60 day warning period, no? Where is/are the public statement(s)? I don’t believe the whole backstory and wouldn’t support it if I did.)