Gloriosky, Zero 
By Martin Harris

If you agree with the premise that almost all Golden Dome folks are well-above-average in intelligence: --as they often say, they’re smarter than the rest of us (the Progressive doctrine specifically embraces the "Wisconsin idea" of government-by-experts, along with the thesis of the naturally smarter 10% bearing the burden of managing the dumber 90% of the population) you’d place them firmly on the right-hand side of the numerical IQ bell curve. In non-quantitative terms, if you agree with the premise that they are well-above-average in people-skills, you’d naturally expect that, should they make a rare mistake in social manners or public policy, they’d be quick to confess the error of their ways, apologize, and promise (and execute) a change in personal conduct or governance direction. As befits an opinion column, here’s my opinion: with a very few easily identifiable exceptions, Vermont’s Golden Dome folks do indeed score well above the rest of us in both categories; getting elected and staying in office almost always demand just such inherited and learned abilities.

 Then, if you continue your reasoning process with some observable and documented facts about the modern Vermont –the high tax rates and low class sizes, the in-flow of the medically indigent and the out-flow of the 25-44 age cohort, a national reputation for an anti-business climate and a local reputation for declining housing affordability, a pattern of business out-migration and trust-funder/in-migration—your next question should be this: if all these are governance-orchestrated patterns of conscious public-sector policy, how do you evaluate the resulting private-sector responses? For example, are the anti-business reputation, business, middle-class, and  young worker out-migration patterns and the passive-income retiree and trust-funder in-migration patterns to be considered as "good things" caused by deliberate government policy over recent decades? If your answer is "no" and you were directly responsible for them, you’d apologize and change course. If you’re answer is "yes" and you were directly responsible for them, you’d defend these patterns and outcomes as beneficial. Or, you might have a Little Annie Rooney moment.

Cartoonist/author Ed Verdier started the comic strip in 1927, and from his first depiction of Orphan Annie and her dog Zero he used the phrase "Gloriosky, Zero" for his heroine to express her sharp verbal reaction to any surprising and unexpected event. I never saw one while I was an occasional Golden Dome visitor, and I’m not one any more, but I’ve not read in the Vermont media of a single "Gloriosky, Zero"  outburst from any Golden Dome professional when faced, as several of them suddenly were back in 2005 by a traveling road-show of political protest over just such things as taxes and housing, business shrinkage and transfer-payment growth, with private-sector distaste for these results. Not one said "Gloriosky, Zero, we never thought that up-zoning would raise housing costs". Since there wasn’t a single Golden Domer to display a Little Annie Rooney moment, I conclude that there wasn’t a single Golden Domer surprised or displeased by the results of the policies which they consciously voted to put in place.

Similarly, I’ve not read in the Vermont media of a single instance of apology for unintended outcomes stemming from such Progressive policies as raising taxes to fund smaller classes which, over 40 years, haven’t improved student achievement as promised. The quote that I might have read would have gone like this: "Gee whiz, we really thought, based on expert educator advice, that increasing public-education staff, even as enrollments have declined, would have paid off in better test scores. It didn’t, we’re sorry, and we’ll get back to a more cost-effective staffing pattern". Nor, on housing affordability, have I read a quote like this: "Gee whiz, we really thought, based on expert land-use-planner advice, that encouraging local planning boards to up-zone and introduce ever more conditional-use prescriptions would result in a desirable growth of housing and small business investment. It didn’t, we’re sorry, and we’ll get back to more transparent planning and zoning rules". Nor, on out-migration of young families with children (see school enrollment trend-line), the middle-class in general, or the upper-income quintile fleeing anticipated targeted (on them) tax increases, have I read a quote like this "Gee whiz, we didn’t think that our policy decisions would drive away these critical-to-our-future demographic sectors. We realize our mistake, we apologize, and we’ll reverse these policies".

 You can summarize your reasoning process with this: when policies promised as productive produce observable results you consider destructive, and the authors of those policies respond when challenged with neither a "Gloriosky, Zero" nor a "we’re sorry", what’s left is a pleased celebration of above-average-intelligence Golden Domer policy: "we’re getting the results we’ve wanted all along". Those results include a multi-faceted pattern of higher growth in cost-of-Vermont-citizenship, lower growth in private-sector career opportunities or capital investment, and resulting out-migration of some demographic sectors and in-migration of others. Why the Progressive Golden Domers should have specifically sought and then systematically accomplished these outcomes and defend rather than excuse or apologize for them, is a whole ‘nother subject, for which I have no more column-inches in this issue. Stay tuned for further theorization. 

Martin Harris is a former Chairman of Citizens for Property Rights