Audrey Pietrucha

Guns and spoons

 

If I go to the freezer every night and scoop up a large bowl of chocolate marshmallow ice cream, after a while I will start to gain weight. Whose fault is that – mine or the spoon’s?

Clearly the fault is my own since a spoon is an inanimate object with no will of its own. It is merely a tool used by humans in their quest to feed themselves. If I took all the spoons out my drawer but really wanted some ice cream I could contrive to use something else with which to scoop it. A fork might not be as efficient but could still get the job done. To paraphrase a trite but true phrase, spoons don’t fatten people, people fatten people.

Yet after last month’s tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut most of the national discussion has centered on tools. Realistically, we cannot remove all the tools that are used to murder people. A look at the history of mass murder (defined as four or more people killed) shows people who want to kill others will find the way to do so.

Grant Duwe, author of Mass Murder in the United States: A History, says mass murders are neither unique to America nor the modern era. Two terms that mean to go on a killing spree, amok and berserk, have been around for centuries, he said. Throughout this time mass murders have been accomplished with a variety of weapons: guns, of course, but also swords, axes, knives, arson and explosives.

The first school shooting in America occurred in the summer of 1764 when four Lenape American Indians shot a teacher and 10 students dead in Greencastle, Pennsylvania. More than a century passed until another school shooting occurred. Since then, the United States has experienced two waves of mass shootings. The first occurred in the 1920s and 30s with 1929 having the highest recorded mass murder rate in history. This wave was characterized by family killings and felony-related massacres (think Al Capone, gangsters and prohibition).

The 40s and 50s were a tranquil period with regards to mass public shootings in America. Ironically, this was also a period when rifle clubs and guns themselves were in almost every high school. It was common for students to hunt in the morning and leave their guns hanging in cars and trucks parked in school lots all day long. Competitive shooters brought rifles into school and left them in their lockers or with a homeroom teacher. My research did not uncover one mass shooting at the hands of a rifle club member.

The second wave of mass shootings stretched from the mid-sixties to the early 1990s and began with the infamous University of Texas incident in which a student climbed a 27-story tower and shot and killed 14 people and wounded 31. It wasn’t until the 1990s, though, that mass public shootings really started to tick upward. There were more than 40 mass public shootings in that that decade but the years 2000 to 2009 saw a drop as the number fell below 30. This past year, however, we witnessed seven mass public shootings. Suddenly it is starting to seem like these awful events are far too common.

Yet what gun laws have changed over those years that have made weapons more accessible? If anything, gun laws have become stricter over the past few decades yet those with murder on their minds and in their hearts find access to weapons, either by legal or illegal means.

This brings us to the one constant in these horrific crimes – people. Mentally unstable and disturbed individuals have always existed and their illness sometimes (though actually very seldom) reveals itself in murderous behavior. The tools they use vary from crime to crime and all the laws in the world seem unable to prevent someone who really wants to kill from doing so. Think about it – is someone intent on  breaking God’s or nature’s law against taking life really going to be concerned about breaking man-made laws about which tools he cannot use?

It is especially frustrating to watch lawmakers in Vermont, many of whom don’t seem to know a magazine from a clip or an automatic from a semi-automatic weapon, jump on the anti-gun bandwagon. Vermont does not have a gun problem and many would say this is precisely because our gun laws are so liberal; there is respect for firearms here. According to FBI statistics Vermont has one of the lowest rates of criminal firearms usage in the nation and our murder rate involving guns is an extremely low 0.75, making us 44^th out of 50 states. Robberies and assaults involving guns also rank very low here. So why do lawmakers and city councils feel it necessary to fix what obviously isn’t broken?

Worse, emotionally-driven laws punish responsible citizens and gun owners but do little to inhibit those who disregard laws. They also make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. Incidents of lives being saved by gun are many but receive little attention from the media or the politicians. Just like spoons, guns can be used for good or evil.

As with any situation involving human beings, circumstances surrounding shooting incidents are complex. We can never predict and prevent the many factors that lead to someone taking murderous actions. We might feel better as a society when we put a bandage on the collective emotional wound these incidents open but we rarely put in place measures that actually prevent more. People have been finding ways to kill each other for centuries. Unfortunately, laws won’t change that.

 

Audrey Pietrucha is a member of the executive board of Vermonters for Liberty. She can be reached at vermontliberty@gmail.com.

 

 

Closed mouths, closed minds

Audrey Pietrucha

 

What happens to a society when the free expression of ideas is curtailed and debate is strongly discouraged? Surprisingly, experiments in exactly this are conducted daily on American colleges and university campuses. The results are important because their impact is felt far beyond the halls of academia. In Vermont, especially, the lack of respect for different viewpoints and diverse ideas is increasingly apparent.

Greg Lukianoff’s new book, Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the end of American Debate is an important study of the chilling effect speech codes and other anti-free expression constructs are having on students, faculty and American society. As president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, FIRE, Lukianoff spends his days delving into complaints, dissecting speech codes and initiating legal action to halt violations of students’ first amendment rights.

At a recent book forum Lukianoff, who specializes in first amendment law and describes himself as a moderate Democrat, said he was unprepared for the extent of abuses he has encountered in his eleven years with FIRE. And while attempts to suppress speech have always come from both ends of the political spectrum, the left-ward tilt on most campuses means libertarian and conservative religious and political thought are increasingly disallowed in the academic arena of ideas.

Lukianoff began his remarks by reciting the disturbing findings of a 2010 survey conducted by the American Association of Colleges and Universities. Twenty-four hundred students and nine thousand campus employees were asked the questions “Is it safe to hold unpopular opinions on this campus?” Only thirty-five percent of the students answered the question affirmatively, with more optimistic (or naïve) first-year students saying “yes” forty-percent of the time and more experienced (or jaded) fourth-year students registering at only thirty percent. Most troubling of all, only seventeen percent faculty members, who should know the school at which they work best, felt it was safe to hold an unpopular opinions.

In Lukianoff’s experience, students have cause to worry. He detailed cases of students who were kicked out of schools and/or dorms because of mild protests against pet administration projects or jokes regarded as hurtful or offensive. Campus speech codes, one of which the FIRE website hires each month, rely on ambiguous and subjective language which can be twisted to make just about any remark fit. The lack of debate and discussion professors now note in their classrooms is due to a lack of courage rather than a lack of knowledge or opinion. Those whose ideas conflict with the powers-that-be have learned to keep it to themselves and it is hard to blame them when the costs of disagreement run so high. Just a few students need to feel the force of administrative muscle to keep the rest in line.

The first amendment is not needed to protect popular speech; rather, it was explicitly written to defend minority ideas and dissent. The law, Lukianoff said, is strong in protection of offensive and challenging speech but that does not prevent colleges from leveling frivolous charges and dispensing with due process in cases against students. That universities almost always lose these cases does not, unfortunately, encourage a more circumspect approach to speech suppression. Neither does it often embolden administrative staff, faculty or even other students to speak out against an action that they know is unconstitutional. Apathy, Lukianoff said, is the order of the day.

 

Worse than that, censorship is beginning to be accepted as normal, even virtuous. Today’s college students, Lukianoff said, are far too trusting of authority and seem ready to assume similar authoritarian postures when it comes to differences of opinion. College newspaper runs are destroyed regularly when they contain articles some find offensive, insulting or damaging. Some of the free speech walls

that have been erected on campuses where Lukianoff said students share many humorous, wise and interesting thoughts, are sometimes torn down by other students. The designated free-speech zones on some campuses are thought to be acceptable as long as the rules governing them are enforced impartially. Even students who claim to be aware of civil liberties issue seem unaware that having to obtain permission from a governing authority to engage in free speech is itself a violation of the spirit of the first amendment. It is also antithetical to the academic ideal of respectful and honest debate and discussion.

 The effects of these policies are already felt in society at large. At a time when more Americans that ever hold college degrees our conversations are remarkably void of intellectual and interesting content. Critical thinking skills have declined and society is polarized. People who hold views contrary to those more widely-accepted, or at least more loudly proclaimed, confine their discussions to groups of like-minded individuals rather than risk the insults and attacks that often come in conversation with those who hold differing views. The ethic of seeking out the intelligent person with whom you disagree has been replaced by the intellectually-lazy tactic of assigning motives to people we don’t even know and calling them names.

This is a real concern in Vermont, where politics lean so heavily left that people with more centrist views have learned to self-censor. Our little state is quickly becoming what Lukianoff described as a John Stuart Mill nightmare, a place where people believe they are right about everything without having actually considered alternative ideas. A society where ideas cease be explored and challenged stagnates. When mouths are closed, minds are closed also.

Audrey Pietrucha is a member of the executive board of Vermonters for Liberty. She can be reached at vermontliberty@gmail.com.

 

 

 

Let’s focus on fair spending

 

 

Audrey Pietrucha

“No taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant.” George Washington

The question of tax fairness comes up a lot anytime but especially during an election year as candidates trip over themselves and each other trying to convince voters their tax policy is the fairest of them all. Perhaps it is time to move the focus away from tax fairness to spending fairness.

Fairness itself is not an economic concept and therefore impossible to establish by economic means. Neither is it a universal concept and thus impossible to establish through policy as well. One person’s idea of fairness may well be, and often is, another’s idea of unfairness.

This is easily illustrated through the most common forms of taxation. Take the progressive income tax (please!). Those who believe taxation should do more than supply funding for government obligations and programs appreciate the redistribution of wealth that occurs through a progressive tax. But is it really fair to make some people pay a higher percentage of their income merely because they have earned more money in a given year? Usually higher earnings are the result of intense training, hard work, and long hours. Is it wise for a society to discourage people from acquiring skills and education, taking calculated risks and being more productive?

When the United States was founded the government relied on import and export taxes to perform its limited duties. Today’s global economy makes such taxes either more appealing or more problematic, depending on where you stand on the importance of free trade. Those who believe American jobs and goods should stay in America think tariffs are fair. Those who believe the entire world, America included, benefits from open markets think tariffs unfairly inhibit trade and hurt worker and consumers.

Many agree the flat tax, by which all taxpayers are assessed the same percentage on their income, is the fairest way to bring in revenue. But some of the numbers being tossed around seem patently unfair, especially for lower-income families whose necessary purchases represent a far greater percentage of their salaries. A flat tax percentage rate in the high teens or low twenties could be a real hardship to low-earners and there is also the question raised, only half-jokingly, of why ten-percent is good enough for God but not the U.S. government.

A national sales tax, which is actually being called “The Fair Tax,” appeals to people who have established homes and made most of the big purchases they need in order to live day to day. Is it fair to young people, though, who are just beginning careers and establishing households and families? And if such a tax were adopted would it replace the income tax or merely add to it? Though such a combined tax burden would be almost insurmountable for any nation’s economy, it is not beyond comprehension that politicians would try to have their cake and eat it, too.

Since taxes are always unfair to someone it is reasonable to conclude that low taxes are the least unfair to the greatest number of people. This means reevaluating what government is providing and whether it is really the best means of allocating these services and resources. We need to look at which government services are essential and which are better left to the private sector to provide.

We might want to start by identifying where and why government is necessary. According to Thomas Jefferson, the sum of good government was in the protection of persons and property:

“A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”

The Constitution provides a list of what the founders believed were legitimate functions of a national government in Article 1, section 8. These enumerated powers relate mostly to protecting national and individual sovereignty and include some practical functions such as coining money and establishing a national postal service. What is not included is most of what the government does today.

The redundant and intrusive federal agencies and department that absorb huge portions of the federal budget are easy targets as are the funds given to special interest groups and pork barrel projects at the expense of all Americans. But by far the largest federal expenditures – three-quarters of the budget - are on national defense, Social Security, and Medicare.

It could be argued defense is sanctioned by the Constitution but the size and scope of our military apparatus certainly begs discussion. As for our national retirement and health insurance programs, let’s just say a private financial services firm would be up to its eyeballs in lawsuits and criminal charges had it conducted itself so irresponsibly with regards to the accounts of its clients. The Medicare program holds trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities and Social Security is even worse. The 2009 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the combined unfunded liability of these two programs has reached nearly $107 trillion, about seven times the size of the U.S. economy and 10 times the size of the outstanding national debt.

Raising taxes is not going to fix this problem. We could confiscate all the wealth in the nation and still be unable to pay such crushing bills. It’s time to take a more serious look at the spending side of the equation and change some of our ideas about what are truly essential government services and what should be left to the private sector. For when it comes to our current spending any three-year-old could tell you “That’s not fair!”

 

Audrey Pietrucha is on the executive board of Vermonters for Liberty. She may be reached at vermontliberty@gmail.com.

The illustrative school lunch debacle

Audrey Pietrucha

Advocates of smaller and less centralized government have got to love Michelle Obama right now. The new federal nutrition guidelines being implemented nationwide as part of the first lady’s “Let’s Move” initiative are a wonderful real-life illustration of what happens when government involves itself where it should not. Mrs. Obama has graciously provided a perfect example of how seriously destructive the unintended consequences of well-intentioned but misguided actions can be.

Certainly the objectives of the new guidelines are lofty and benevolent. Who can argue against such common sense ideas as encouraging children to consume more fruits and vegetables, eat more whole grains and reduce their sodium and trans-fats intake? But somehow, it just isn’t all going according to plan. Portion sizes are smaller and children are complaining that they’re hungry; parents are calling schools to demand explanations for the higher meal costs; student athletes are dealing with fatigue during sports practice; students whose school are near stores are supplementing with junk food, and school districts are already worried about how these changes will effect participation and thus the meals programs’ fiscal viability.

That Americans young and old have gained weight is indisputable. Our nation’s obesity rate has been growing for years and with it the attendant problems of illness, disease and physical mobility issues. The causes are up for debate – sedentary lifestyles, diets high in fats and sugar, junk food, fast food – but the results are there for all to see.

So any initiative to get Americans to take initiative with their health seems like a good idea. The problem is in the implementation of those good ideas, which seldom translate well from theory into practice. Worse, dictates from the federal level often hamper or supplant much more effective solutions already being tried at state and local levels.

Brigid S. Scheffert, superintendent of Washington West Supervisory Union in the middle of northern Vermont, understands this reality because her district is currently living it. In a recent letter to media she outlined the harm this new policy is doing to WWSU and its students.

According to Sheffert, WWSU had what they considered an exemplary lunch program in place. The district employed talented food service directors and on-site chefs and offered students whole grain and largely organic food choices as well as all-you-can-eat fruits and vegetables. School salad bars, Sheffert said, could have competed with those of high-end restaurants.

But that has changed dramatically under the new guidelines. Sheffert reports salad bar participation is down fifty-percent in the first month of school. Schools cannot enforce government requirements if students are self-serving so many choices have been eliminated. Proteins are tightly controlled under the new regulations so hard-cooked eggs, lean meats and various cheese are no longer available to salad bar customers. Likewise some vegetables, beans, nuts, seeds, pasta salads and breads are no longer offered because the amounts students take may exceed government limits.

The unintended consequences go on. Condiments can no longer be served in bulk or consumed at the discretion of the diners because calorie restrictions may be exceeded. Canning and freezing of local foods and sauces is no longer feasible due to time constraints and lack of scientific expertise in easily calculating nutrient contents. Using scratch recipes and locally produced food in general has become less of an option for the same reason. Schools are actually forced to use more prepackaged and processed foods since the nutrient information is already stated on the side of boxes.

Sheffert is also concerned with the impact these new guidelines will have on the district’s food services budget, which ran large deficits before the program was reinvented to include more local farmers and suppliers. She worries the $7,000 surplus the program ran in FY 2011 will soon turn into a deficit again.

Unintended consequences brought about by broad federal mandates that attempt to make squeeze everyone into the same mold encumber American businesses and individuals all the time.  Since the victims of most of these invasive programs are both smaller in number and more isolated their plights they are more easily ignored. What happens in our schools, however, cannot be discounted because nearly every citizen is somehow impacted when problems arise. Whether you are a student, teacher, parent or taxpayer, you have a dog in this fight.

Fortunately, the fight is underway. Students have taken their lessons on civil disobedience to heart and started protests of their own, such as a YouTube video  song parody, “We are Hungry,” which has gone viral. Others are writing on blogs and Facebook pages and across the nation “Brown bag-ins” are being held as students organize to boycott the lunch programs at their school and bring their own lunches.

That, in my opinion, is the wisest option. Students and their parents need to take back control over the highly personal and individual act of eating, among many other actions. This kind of push-back, where individuals embrace their responsibilities and once again assert their right to live their lives as they see fit - as long as they harm no one else – is exactly what is needed. Government involvement far too often leads to long and depressing lists of harmful unintended consequences. If you don’t like what the federal government is doing to the school lunch program, just wait till it is running health care.

 

Audrey Pietrucha is a member of the executive board of Vermonters for Liberty. She can be reached at vermontliberty@gmail.com.

The Great and Powerful Oz

“Who's the mage whose major itinerary is making all Oz merrier? Who's the sage who’s sagely sailed in to save our posteriors?” – from Wicked

 When I saw the musical Wicked, a reimagining of the story of the Wizard of Oz, Barack Obama was about a year into his presidency and the parallels between American and Ozian-style hero worship stunned me. Since then our attitude toward the president, and what he can and cannot do, has modified somewhat, but only slightly. As this presidential campaign season has shown, Americans still want a savior president. The only thing we differ about is whether an R or D comes after his name on the ballot.

 
It seems to be human nature to look outside ourselves for rescue when danger or difficulties appear. Perhaps this is a vestige of childhood and calling upon our parents to make everything from scraped knees to bruised feelings better. But when society relegates itself to the position of child and makes government its parent and protector it sacrifices precious liberty as well as opportunities to grow and mature as a people. Examples of this loss, unfortunately, abound over the last two centuries and have increased and intensified over the past decade as our last two presidents have expanded the powers of the office and rendered congress almost superfluous.

Not that our representatives have fought their dismissal very hard. Content to rule over their own little fiefdoms, our representatives and senators have settled for prestige over power because with power comes responsibility and accountability, neither of which is all that appealing. It is easier to niggle from the sidelines while enjoying the perks of lesser office than make unpopular decisions and risk losing a cushy job.

 

Over decades chief executives have discovered a couple of reliable paths to expanded executive power, the most obvious and effortless being some sort of national emergency. James Madison once said “It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad” and it is true that a state of war has been a most effective route to increased presidential power. Madison looks especially prescient in light of the changes in American life as a result of the 9-11 attacks. The broad and multi-focused “war on terror” we find ourselves fighting has been the perfect way for presidents who would be kings to justify the steady encroachment of government on American’s freedoms. From humiliating sojourns through airport security lines to warrantless wiretaps to a national defense act which allows American citizens to be executed by drone without the benefit of a trial, national security has become the chief executive’s way of saying “I can do anything I want.”

Regulation is the other preferred route of presidential usurpation. Our current president has shown himself especially skilled at exploiting the post-New Deal administrative state and taking the legislature’s lawmaking power unto himself and the executive branch. From sodium in our diets and credit card fees to what services are considered “essential health benefits,” the Obama administration has had its hands in just about every conceivable area of American life.

Concentration of the power to make and execute laws has encouraged Americans to look unquestioningly to the president to do anything and everything. Especially problematic is our tendency to support regulations we like despite the fact that they have been implemented in unconstitutional fashion by unelected bureaucrats. In our shortsightedness we forget that presidential power is seldom rolled back and the next person to hold office might have priorities that directly conflict with our own. We also overlook the overtly political nature of such a system, through which those in control may grant exemptions or privileges to political and financial allies. When we the people support the regulatory state we give up even more of what little influence we have over our government.

In both the book and the musical the Wizard of Oz is eventually exposed as a fraud. Dorothy and Elphaba, the victim of the wizard’s unchecked power in Wicked, discover their salvation lies within themselves and not with some wonderful wizard. It would be truly wonderful if we would all internalize this lesson and choose our leaders based not on what they can do for us but on what their proposed policies allow us to do for ourselves.

 

Audrey Pietrucha is a member of the executive board of Vermonters for Liberty. She may be reached at vermontliberty@gmail.com.

On Liberty

Audrey Pietrucha

 Rediscovering the founding virtues

Despite almost fifty years of Great Society programs designed to alleviate poverty, America’s lower class is growing. Why some Americans are poor and increasingly dependent on government for basic needs is one of the most important public discussions we refuse to have. Though much is made of the welfare apparatus that treats the symptoms of the disease, the actual causes of economic despair are ignored.

One reason for this may be a fear that explanations of poverty are, at their core, racially unique and no one wants to walk that road. This is why social scientist Charles Murray’s latest book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010, is an important beginning to the public conversation we need to have. By concentrating on whites Murray shows that contemporary American society divides most sharply by class, not race, and the lines are becoming more distinct. Most importantly, he goes beyond simplistic explanations of why economic disparity is growing and explores the cultural underpinnings of our growing divide. This is especially applicable to a state like Vermont, where racial diversity is virtually absent but class differences can be stark.

Central to this discussion is the recognition that there is a widening gap between the working class and the upper middle class, both of which are growing. These differences are not just economic – they encompass everything from television viewing, eating habits and hobbies to educational choices and civic involvement. Murray examines two mostly-white neighborhoods that encapsulate these economic sub-cultures –Fishtown, an urban neighboraahood, and Belmont, a wealthy suburb. The trends he observes in both areas demonstrate the growing cultural disparity which may also explain, at least in part, their economic divergence.

To summarize Murray’s 400-page book here is impossible but his discussion of America’s founding virtues provides a window into his theories on the changing American culture. Through the writings of our founding leaders and later discourses on the American project by such keen observers as Alexis de Tocqueville and Francis Grund, Murray identifies four traits and institutions that were core to our success as a society and a nation: industriousness, honesty, marriage and religion.

Murray traces the disintegration of these values to the 1960s; he actually establishes the assassination of President John F. Kennedy as a pivotal point in the creation of modern American society. Though both Fishtown and Belmont experienced cultural upheaval related to the four virtues during the 1960s, marriage and religion in particular, Belmont pulled up and righted itself. After a period of decreased marriage and increased divorce and cohabitation, Belmont has now returned to nearly that same levels of marriage stability and religious practice that it had fifty years ago. Belmont’s population also demonstrates high rates of industriousness, especially among males in their peak earning years, and a high degree of trust and security.

Unfortunately, this is not the case for Fishtown. The decline in values, which had been practiced fairly uniformly across all classes in the early 1960s, continued in Fishtown. For instance, today only 48 percent of prime-age whites in Fishtown are married, compared to 84 percent in Belmont, and more than a third of Fishtown men have never been married. Since birthrates have not significantly declined, this can only indicate a similar increase in children born to unmarried women. In fact, Murray estimates 43-48 percent of Fishtown births are to unmarried women. As uncomfortable as it makes the politically correct among us, socials scientists have demonstrated repeatedly that children raised in single-parent homes are negatively affected by the situation. While this is true regardless of socio-economic status, it is also true that single mothers and their children comprise the poorest families.

The difference between Belmont and Fishtown in their observance and practice of the founding virtues is stark in all four categories. Industriousness in Fishtown has taken a nose dive, with 53 percent of households in 2010 having someone who worked at least 40 hours a week compared to 81 percent in 1960. Both property and violent crimes are committed today at far higher levels than they were in 1960. Regular church attendance and the benefits it brings of purpose, connection and community is almost non-existent in Fishtown. Meanwhile, Belmont continues to successfully practice the habits which have produced strong individuals, families and communities for centuries.

Here is where Murray sees a way out of the desperate situation in which Fishtown finds itself. Tolerance of all and any lifestyles is hurting those who should be able to look to the successful and find guidance. It is time, Murray says, for the Belmonts among us to start preaching what they practice.

How can this be accomplished? What would such an effort look like? That is for each community to decide but mentoring, outreach, and both practical and moral instruction would seem important components of any endeavor. Churches and civic organizations should be involved and policy makers need to start crafting programs and legislation that incentivize responsible behavior. Whatever we do, we need to get started – we’re already running fifty years behind.

Vermont should learn from other states

The Moocher index - look familiar?

Audrey Pietrucha         

  

Vermonters are understandably proud when the state appears at the top of a list ranking states according to their success in improving access to education or health care or decreasing violent crime. Positive high rankings are seized upon by government agencies, politicians and newspapers to prove to them and us that, yes, everything is working great.

 But there are a number of ranking polls where Vermont does not fare well. These usually have to do with economic issues and general prosperity. A look at these studies and their conclusions about the general fiscal picture is worth noting.

 For instance, the “Ten worst states to retire to” list recently compiled by TopRetirements.com placed Vermont near the top with a ranking of four.  States were judged on five criteria: fiscal health, property taxes, income taxes, cost of living, and climate. Climate, of course, is a personal preference and helps explain why the top ten was dominated by northern states (the only New England state outside the top ten was New Hampshire) but there is no disputing the high taxation numbers that pushed Vermont near the top.

 Vermont’s top marginal income tax rate is 8.95 percent and state sales tax is 6 percent. Property taxes are high in comparison to other states’, there is an estate tax and Vermont is one of the few states that taxes social security benefits, as well as most pensions. Overall the tax burden in Vermont came in at 8^th highest in the nation at 10.3 percent.  Add that to a relatively high cost of living (partially caused by taxation as well as burdensome land use regulations that push real estate prices upward) and it is understandable why retirees might look elsewhere to enjoy amenities similar to those of Vermont without the higher price tag.

Number four is significant but how about a list where we’re number one? That would be the Moocher index, a list compiled in 2010 by Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute. Mitchell wondered if the residents of some states are more willing than those of others to sign up for government entitlement programs. Using an earlier study of welfare dependency rates, Mitchell subtracted each states poverty rate and came up with the number of non-poor residents receiving government assistance. Vermont blew the competition away, coming in first by a wide margin over second-place Mississippi, which barely beat Maine.

With a ranking of 31 New Hampshire was once again the only New England state ranked outside the top ten. This measurement of government dependence was dominated by northeastern states with large tax burdens. It would be interesting to see if residents of the moocher states felt less justified in using government programs if they were allowed to keep more of what they earn in the first place. It’s not unfathomable that many see these programs as a rebate on their own hefty tax payments.

Finally, Vermont did rank near the bottom of another recent study but not in a good way. This was the American Legislative Exchange Council’s fifth annual Rich States, Poor States report, which ranks states according to a variety of tax, spending, and regulatory policies. Vermont was not at the actual bottom – our neighbor to the west, New York, earned that distinction – but at 49 it was as close as it could get. Once again Vermont was joined in the bottom ten by all of her New England sisters except New Hampshire. An interesting conclusion of the study is that high-ranking states are attracting people while low-ranking states are losing population.

States are much more than outlines on a map – they consist of living, breathing, working individuals who are looking to make the best lives for themselves and their families. Though Vermonters often seem to regard the state as above the money fray, or is at least worth paying extra for, the truth is the same laws of economics are at work here as elsewhere. Money represents the time, effort, skill and education poured into a job or profession. Those who make that kind of investment are looking for a good return.

When opportunities arise elsewhere people take advantage of them. More and more opportunities appear to be in places outside Vermont. Our standard policy of raising taxes and growing government will backfire as more people vote with their feet and move to more friendly economic climates. As this happens state revenues will fall and the tax burden will land more heavily on remaining Vermonters. At some point, they, too, will leave - or rebel.

The lesson Montpelier should learn from the many comparative economic studies available is that low taxes and less government interference produce living environments where people thrive. This is especially important if we hope to keep our young people, who increasingly seek opportunities outside our state and can easily find them just a few miles to the east. Vermont can reverse that trend by improving its own economic climate and giving them a reason to stay home.

Audrey Pietrucha is a member of the executive board of Vermonters for Liberty. She can be reached at vermontliberty@gmail.com.