Mark Steyn headshot 2016

He’s brash, brilliant, and drawn to controversy like a moth to a flame. For decades, Mark Steyn has dazzled readers around the world with his raucous wit and brutal honesty. Internationally known, best-selling author, television commentator, and frequent guest host on the Rush Limbaugh Show. Mark Steyn will be the keynote speaker at the Ethan Allen Institute 25th Anniversary Celebration.

“Mark Steyn is the funniest writer now living.” – John O’Sullivan, editor-at-large of National Review


Thursday, April 26TH
At the DoubleTree by Hilton Conference Center
(Formerly the Sheraton South Burlington)

6:00 pm social hour. Dinner & Program 7:00 pm.

Attire: Business Casual

Make Your Reservations by Sun, Apr. 22

Click Here to Order Online


  • Individual Tickets: $100 with RSVP, deadline is April 16, 2018 ($125 at the door if space available)
  • Early Bird Tables: $700 for table of 8.
  • Entree choices include beef, salmon, or a vegetarian pasta

Refunds are available up to 2 weeks after the online purchase date, or 2 weeks after the check was written. All refunds must asked for by Fri., Apr 20th because the hotel wants the meal list several days ahead of time.

Become a Sponsor:

Silver – $1000. Includes two tickets to dinner and two tickets to private pre-dinner reception with Mark Steyn.

Gold: $1200. Includes eight tickets to the dinner and two tickets to private pre-dinner reception with Mark Steyn.

Platinum: $3000, includes eight tickets to the dinner and eight tickets to private pre-dinner reception with Mark Steyn.

(Sponsor’s Reception will take place from 6:00 – 7:00 pm)

Call 802-999-8145

Nearby Hotels & Hostels

DoubleTree by Hilton (Event Location)
Address: 870 Williston Rd, South Burlington, VT 05403
On location
Phone: (802) 865-6600
$ Rate on April 26: ~$113

La Quinta Inn & Suites
Address: 1285 Williston Rd, South Burlington, VT 05403
0.9 miles away from Doubletree (~3 minute drive)
Phone: (802) 865-3400
$ Rate on April 26: ~$89

Ethan Allen Motel
Address: 1611 Williston Rd, South Burlington, VT 05403
1.5 miles away from Doubletree (~5 minute drive)
Phone: (802) 863-4573
$ Rate on April 26: ~$94

Burlington Hostel
Address: 53 Main St, Burlington, VT 05401
1.6 miles away from Doubletree (~7 minute drive)
Phone: (802) 540-3043
$ Rate on April 26: ~$63


April 20, 2018

by John McClaughry

The news site Axios recently published an article about a report from the think tank Third Way. It looked at the effect of planned and potential nuclear plant closures on carbon emissions in the U.S. power sector.

Its conclusion was that even if just some early nuclear plant retirements come to pass, it will knock the country further from a target set under President Obama to cut greenhouse emissions by 80% below 2005 levels by 2050. That conclusion was bolstered by a chart showing how much zero-carbon power — from renewables and nuclear plants — is needed to support the economy-wide 2050 goal .If you’re worried about carbon dioxide emissions – and I’m not – the chart will be depressing. We’re not going to come close.

Axios observes that much of this generation will likely be replaced by gas, which means more emissions, and even if it’s all replaced by renewables, that’s still a setback. The only way we win is if we grow the amount of zero-carbon energy we’re producing. As nuclear plants get shut down, new renewables will have to pay-off that zero-carbon debt,” writes Ryan Fitzpatrick of Third Way.  A loss of 20% of nuclear generation by 2030 is a setback of 4.5 years’ worth of clean energy growth.

The climate change worriers ought to be strongly in favor of nuclear power, like their guru Dr. James Hanson. But they aren’t, and you might want to ask them why.

– John McClaughry is vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute.


April 19, 2018

by John Klar

At times, government rightly employs the power of eminent domain to “take” property – for railroads, roadways, prisons, power plants, etc. But the “Takings Clause” of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution restrains government from “taking” the property of citizens without just compensation.

In Vermont in the 1970’s, Route 91 cut through swaths of dairyland as it connected northern Vermont with Flatland, and farmers who refused to sell were awarded monetary sums determined by courts after due opportunity to be heard. This was the “taking” of private property for public need, with court oversight and approval of the fairness of compensation. (However, in many cases the government only paid for the strip of land on which the highway was constructed, not the fertile back pastures that were severed from grazing use, some of which remain unreachable today except by passing over others’ lands.)

Recent legislation requires that all transfers of firearms between private Vermont citizens be subjected to a “background check” under criminal penalty. The constitutionality of requiring a background check for prior government approval of the exercise of an express constitutional freedom will be challenged. But even if it is ruled that the government is no longer restrained by the Second Amendment (and Vermont Constitution Article 16) from such a screening of citizens, the imposition of a fee raises additional constitutional concerns: especially when the fee (which some have suggested may reach $100) may often exceed the value of the transferred property.

About twenty years ago, I bought my first handgun (a Ruger .22 semi-automatic) in the parking lot of the Barre Auditorium at the annual Barre Gun Show (from my cousin, for $110). I paid no fee. I still own that gun today. Ironically, that same cousin is now shopping for a .22, but he’s looking for a revolver. But if I want to resell my Ruger .22 back to him I can’t even do it in my back yard, and if I charge him $100 that will be absorbed by the transfer fee. If I ever sell this handgun legally, it’s economic value is now unlikely to equal the fee to be charged for its transfer. My property has been taken. No Due Process; no measure of value, or of just compensation; no opportunity to appeal. For a $50 shotgun (I have at least two of those), it would be cheaper to throw it away than to incur the government’s “fee.” More than taken: the government has transformed my assets into liabilities.

I have another cousin who is pleased with this new legislation: he contends that he only requires his 20-gauge shotgun for protection, and sees no reason why anyone else should “need” anything more. But the irony returns: he is a registered medical marijuana patient, and he will never again be able to legally purchase a firearm anywhere in the U.S.A. (Until last week, he could have bought one from a private citizen in Vermont, but no longer. He had better keep that 20-gauge well-oiled….). The Legislature has taken his right without even imposing a fee. No compensation, no hearing, no appeal. And this denial for marijuana users has already been unsuccessfully challenged in several federal courts and it is settled law: he uses pot and can’t buy a gun ever again.

More rights will be lost as veterans with PTSD, patients treating for depression or anxiety, or other categories of citizens are silently marked for refusal from background check clearance, being treated worse than convicted felons — felons are granted the constitutional guarantees of criminal procedure, including a trial before their peers, prior to the stripping of their rights as citizens.

Vermont took title to land for highways and railroads with court review and fair payment; it took more than the market value of thousands of Vermonters’ guns with zero court review while imposing fees and paying nothing in compensation; it took sickly Vermont pot smokers’ right to ever purchase a gun again, without paying a cent or even enduring the discomfort of providing an explanation.

Imagine if the right to vote were taken from medical marijuana patients (silently, by bureaucratic fiat), and they were informed on election day that they could not enter the polling booth, they had no right to challenge this determination, they could not vote in future elections, and that if they ever tried to vote they would be charged with a felony and arrested. (Now some would say this would be a good law, but the Constitution is supposed to protect marijuana smokers too!). But is the Second Amendment not necessary to shield the voting booth from government intrusion? It appears that in Vermont the voting booth has been used to instead remove the shield, not only of the Second Amendment but of Due Process and protections against unlawful takings – of our property, of our liberties, of our heritage. Vermont’s Legislature is playing a very dangerous game, and it has “taken” things much too far…

– Attorney John Klar farms, and writes, from his family land in Brookfield.


April 18, 2018

by Rob Roper

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments about if and how we should tax sales made over the internet. As of now, retailers are not required to collect a sales tax unless they have a “physical presence” in the state/municipality where the buyer resides.

With the explosive growth of online shopping, said states and municipalities complain that they are losing out on billions of dollars in sales tax revenues, and the laws hindering the sales tax collection, which were made for mail catalogue companies, are outdated and ill-suited to today’s economic realities. They have a point.

Local “brick and mortar” stores complain that the fact that they do have to collect sales taxes for the state(s) in which they operate puts them at an unfair disadvantage to their online competition. They have a point, too.

However, if the Court rules to overturn the ban on requiring on-line shoppers to pay sales tax, on-line sellers will have to collect and remit taxes to not one or a few local municipal entities, as brick an mortar stores do, but rather to, potentially, over 9000. This is not fair, and fraught with issues.

Consider cost and complexity. Imagine if a small brick and mortar souvenir store in Vermont had to determine the residency of each and every customer who bought anything, and then pay sales tax not just to Vermont, but to the states and cities where the customers reside. Nuts, huh. We’ll that’s what lawmakers want online retailers to do.

They say that software is available to make this simpler than it sounds. But, A) that software isn’t free. And B) it doesn’t account for unintended (or intentional) errors. What happens, when a Vermont based on-line seller receives a bill from, I don’t know, Salt Lake City, Utah, saying that the company owes that municipality, say, $138 in unpaid sales tax – erroneously. And another similar bill from Anchorage, Alaska? And so on and so on. How much will it cost in time and treasure to fight such errors? How much would it cost to just pay them? This would be a nightmare.

So, the fair solution to this issue is to treat on-line retailers the way we treat brick and mortar stores – pay the sales tax to the state/municipality where the seller is located.

If I decide I want a pair of L.L. Bean boots, and I get in my car and drive to their outlet store in Maine, I pay Maine sales tax on the purchase. So, if I get on line to buy those same boots from that same store, it makes sense that I should pay the Maine sales tax, not the Vermont sales tax. Similarly, if someone from Maine orders an Orvis fishing vest, they should pay the Vermont sales tax, and not Maine’s.

This would genuinely put on-line and brick and mortar stores on an equal playing field, and it would allow states to raise revenue from the sales tax in an increasingly digital age, and it would benefit taxpayers in that states would  compete to be the home to online businesses by offering lower sales tax environments.

Rob Roper is president of the Ethan Allen Institute.


A couple of weeks back, Communism’s own Bernie Sanders took time out of his failed presidential bid to sit down with Jake Tapper on CNN, because a lack of more pressing political dumpster fires meant CNN had a slot to fill that day.

As part of that interview, Bernie took the opportunity to note that Amazon is getting “too big”, which means, as usual, that Bernie is still obsessed over size:

Sen. Bernie Sanders thinks Amazon has gotten so large that it requires closer scrutiny of its “power and influence.”

On CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, the anchor Jake Tapper asked Sanders whether Amazon had gotten too big.

“Yeah, I do, I do,” said Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont who ran as a Democratic presidential candidate in 2016.

“This is an issue that has got to be looked at,” he added. “What we are seeing all over this country is the decline in retail. We’re seeing this incredibly large company getting involved in almost every area of commerce. And I think it is important to take a look at the power and influence that Amazon has.”

Funny, Bernie seems to have no problems at all hawking his dog-eared revolutionary garbage on Amazon, so he can make a buck on it.  One can only assume Bernie takes his evil, capitalistic profits from his Amazon sales and spends them at the local retail shops near any one of his three houses.  Or donates his earnings to charity.  “Charity” being the secret code name of the lake house he and his wife bought.

As a rule of thumb, when politicians start talking about things getting “too big”, they are never, ever, talking about government spending.  To that, they are helplessly unaccountable.  Then, it’s only a question of how much more additional spending, and what it’s being spent on, that drives their support.

For example, in 2008, Bernie had harsh words for those who opposed stimulus spending, or as others might call it, vote buying with taxpayer dollars and borrowed money:

It is extremely disappointing that President Bush and most of the Senate Republicans are playing political games with our economy and the needs of the American people. This economic stimulus package provides a tax rebate not only to working families and their kids, but to millions of seniors on Social Security and disabled veterans. It also increases funding for home heating assistance and other important programs.

So, even though Sanders has recently voted against Trump’s budget, historically, Bernie has been quite happy to determine what industries are OK to be too big to fail, and which ones aren’t.  In other words, he believes it’s his job to pick the winners and losers in the economy, as long as it benefits him politically.  Which is why he supported bailing out the auto industry, instead of calling it too big to fail, because there are automobile unions, you see, and where there’s a union, there’s Bernie, hawking his vote so he can stay in office and tell us all what’s too big to fail, or not.  In Bernie’s words:

The problem is if you don’t act in the midst of a growing recession what does it mean to create a situation where millions of more people become unemployed and that could spread and I have serious concerns about that I think it would be a terrible idea to add millions more to the unemployment rolls.

By this thinking, we should borrow trillions to pay people to dig holes and fill them back in, so the unemployment rolls would remain low.

But let’s get back to Amazon, and Bernie’s consistent misunderstanding of economics.  In his words:

“When you have companies like Amazon that have extraordinary power, when you have companies like Facebook that to a significant degree control discourse, am I concerned about monopoly power? Absolutely,” he told the news outlet. “We need to have the kind of discussion that Congress has not had yet.”

Yet Bernie is quite fine with socialized medicine, which does, in fact, monopolize power over one of the most important services people consume in their lifetimes.  Bernie’s quite happy with a monopoly in that situation. Why does he have a problem with a company that sells everything from toothbrushes to tacos, but not one that will decide whether or not you get a heart bypass?

Because Bernie is fine with the aggregation of power, as long as it’s in a centralized government, that he himself is a participant in.  That kind of size, Bernie is in love with.  It means more houses for him, more control over Americans’ lives, and more self-justification for what Bernie indulges himself in, daily, in terms of aggrandizing power – his innate selfishness, and desire to control what he himself never could have earned out in the real world.

Chris Campion.

{ 1 comment }

April 13, 2018

by Rob Roper

The latest test scores for Vermont students are here, and they continue an unsettling trend of decline for our student outcomes. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) released its 4th and 8th grade reading and math results from 2017, which indicates declines in all categories from 2015. Three of the four categories were noted as “significantly different.”

This downward trend is also present in the latest Smarter Balanced test results, which showed a decline in scores between 2015 and 2016. This test is given to all kids in grades 3-8 plus 11, and, again, in all categories except one scores dropped.

As Bill Mathis of the State Board of Education said, “When you have two different tests showing much the same thing, you have to pay attention to them.”

So, what is causing this decline in public school student outcomes? There are several policies that are suspect.

  • Act 46 (2015) has been hugely disruptive and time intensive for school boards and administrators, taking focus away from students.
  • Increased use of paraeducators for special needs students. (See 2015 study)
  • The growth of publicly funded/administered Pre-K. Implemented in 2007, the number of Vermont students matriculating through the 4th grade from these “high quality” programs began in 2012-13, has been increasing every year, and test scores have been dropping since.
  • Adoption of “Proficiency Based” graduations standards, which began implementation in 2014.

As one concerned parent testified regarding proficiency based learning, “It entails significant changes in how a school operates and how it teaches students, affecting everything from the school educational philosophy and culture to its methods of instruction, testing, grading, honors, reporting, promotion, and graduation.”

Maybe it’s one of these things, or maybe it’s a combination of some, or maybe it’s all of them. Maybe this is just too much for school systems to digest at all at once. We don’t know for sure. But what we do know for sure is that the policies coming out of Montpelier are not helping our kids or out teachers.

So, at this point, perhaps lawmakers should take a break from heaping even more disruptive mandates and system changes on our schools and devote their time to figuring out how to clean up the messes they’ve made.

Rob Roper is president of the Ethan Allen Institute


April 12, 2018

by John McClaughry

During the week of April 2 one or more newspapers in the state published a third of a page ad titled “An Open Letter to Governor Phil Scott”. The five signers urged the governor to support spending  $120,000 for another “decarbonization” study. The ad says “paid for by Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc.”

The “decarbonization” study that the signers want us to pay for is needed to build support for a carbon tax, on our heating oil, gasoline, diesel, natural gas, and propane. The signers hide behind “decarbonization” because they don’t want you to acquire the knowledge that they are urging a $240 million carbon tax, called the ESSEX Plan.

Three of the five signers of ad are co-authors of the ESSEX Plan. One, the CEO of Ben & Jerry’s, is the employer of another Essex Plan co-author. The fifth ad signer is the CEO of Seventh Generation, the corporation that sponsored and paid for the ESSEX Plan, which employs yet another of the ESSEX plan co-authors.

These corporate carbon tax boosters, so far unable to push their plan through the legislature, are desperately trying to keep their issue alive by getting the legislature to throw $120,000 into another study that will assuredly tout all the wonderful benefits Vermont can enjoy by enduring their pet carbon tax proposal.    The House put this in its appropriations bill, which the Senate is now working on. It richly deserves to be deleted.

John McClaughry is vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute.


By Milton Eaton
A recent Rutland Herald editorial certainly celebrated the success of the Vermont activist group to sell a lot of our fellow Vermonters on the various benefits and demands to achieve the mirage of former Governor Peter Shumlin’s goal of 90-percent renewable energy.
No one I know denies that there is climate change. We just do not have the conceit to believe a few Vermonters, or the growing population of the world, can realize this mirage, even if endorsed by politicians. Many facts make stopping climate change as impossible as stopping the tides.
Let me just give you a few numbers to think about when you talk about a sustainable environment. Just-released figures, with all the subsidies, credits, mandates, and extended tariff guarantees, are replacing the equivalent of 0.5 MBPD (million barrels per day) of oil with renewable energy. That is with a daily fossil fuel consumption of more than 100 MBPD. A 0.005-percent substitution is just a rounding error in the world picture.
Fossil fuels continue to supply a massive portion of total energy needs. Significant substitution to date has been caused by economics, local environment pollution and mandate politics. In 2017, use of electric/hybrid light vehicles (EV) grew 45 percent, crossing the 1 million mark. Total new light vehicles (LV) sales grew a mere 1 percent. But the global EV fleet still stands at only 2.8 million, as opposed to 1,300 million oil-powered LVs. So EV growth is not even gaining on the total LV population.
Population today is roughly 7,500 million people, with 1,400 million of them living without electricity. Add to that number the 2,500 million expected population increase, and you have a total increase in the users of energy of — again — roughly 60 percent. Then add the world moving toward a higher standard of living, which will require even more energy.
There are things we can all do to retain and improve our environment.
1. Efficiently conserve and research to minimize supply costs and pollution for energy needs.
2. Prioritize to get the greatest benefits by using net present value analysis of short 10-year with high discount rates to compare different investment opportunities to encourage the greatest effect for our money. This method also avoids blue-sky assumptions of long horizons.
3. Encourage investment in basic and industrial research to find more-effective, less-polluting, and inexpensive solutions using all energy resources for the world’s energy needs.
4. Conserve funds by stopping subsidies, tariff guarantees, and mandates.
With sufficient energy available at reasonable costs, we can adapt to any changing environment, whether warming or cooling. So, please: stop wasting money chasing the mirage of Vermont changing climate.
Milt Eaton is a former senior official for the U.S. Department of Energy, former Vermont secretary of Economic Development and Community Affairs, and a member of the Ethan Allen Institute board of directors.


by John McClaughryJohn 2

In the wake of a Florida school shooting and a thwarted attack targeted on Fair Haven High School, the legislature and governor have enacted into law a bill touted by its advocates as “gun violence prevention”. Its main features are required background checks for firearms transfers among all but immediate family members, a ban on high capacity magazines, and barring the sale of a firearm to a person under age 21, unless that person has completed hunter safety training.

The bill is founded on the view that guns are the problem, and if the government can keep guns out of the hands of “the people (that the government determines) shouldn’t have them”, there will be less “gun violence”.

Well, yes, probably so, but it’s not likely there will be a significant reduction in gun violence no matter how intense, expensive and intrusive the government’s enforcement of these provisions may become. In a nation with three hundred million privately owned firearms, determined people will acquire firearms to commit illegal acts, like murder. The Florida school shooter bought his guns after passing a background check. The Sandy Hook shooter acquired his by killing his mother and taking hers.

Diminishing sudden violence by demented individuals is in some ways a more intractable problem than thwarting and apprehending criminals and terrorists.  The too-simple solution of confiscating firearms from persons suspected (by whom?) of tending toward violence raises very serious policy questions.

Vermonters have a constitutional right to “keep and bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state”. That right can be taken away for commission of a felony, or for involuntary commitment to psychiatric care. But it can’t be taken away just because somebody reported that a person exhibited threatening and potentially dangerous behavior, any more than freedom of speech can be restrained because the speaker might say unpopular things.

The conservative Heritage Foundation has just published a thoughtful Backgrounder (No. 3295) on “Focusing on School Safety After Parkland”. First, it explains that despite highly publicized school shootings, “statistically, schools are the safest place for America’s children to be at any given time”, and dismisses most purported “gun violence prevention” measures as unlikely to accomplish their ends. The report then advocates fast, armed responses to active shooters, ending “gun free school zones” that can become an invitation to gun violence, and reversing Obama-era policies that threatened schools with the loss of Federal funds if they disciplined too many non-white students.

Then the report goes to the heart of the problem. That is the identification and reorientation of potentially dangerous individuals, usually young males who are come from broken homes, lack any moral compass, and have become variously undisciplined, unstable, alienated, angry, unbefriended, overdrugged, hopeless, and delusional.

In some schools, the report says, Behavioral Intervention Teams have shown promise in addressing disruptive and potentially dangerous student behavior – but such programs can be expensive. The authors support judicial gun violence restraining orders to remove firearms from individuals who law enforcement convinces a judge that it has clear and convincing evidence of impending dangerous behavior. (Such “red flag” orders, with safeguards that hopefully will prevent over-zealous enforcement, will soon be authorized here by S.221, a bill that passed the Senate 30-0 and the House 136-0.)

Beyond steps taken by governments, there are numerous encouraging examples of non-governmental efforts to divert potential shooters from their path to murder. The philanthropists Foster and Lynn Friess matched the first $2.5 million contributed to the Return to Civility Fund to support local initiatives to salvage the lives of disturbed young persons inclined to violence.

Among the local efforts they laud are Elevate Phoenix, working to deliver “life changing relationships with urban youth” by mentoring young people to develop character, life skills and leadership; Rachel’s Challenge, founded in the wake of the 1999 Columbine school shooting to help children dealing with broken families and school bullies; and Sandy Hook Promise, training school staffs to recognize mental health problems and build positive relationships with at-risk individuals.

The bottom line here is this: passing more laws aimed at further restricting firearms ownership offers little prospect of preventing more gun violence, and it threatens the constitutionally protected right of self-defense by law-abiding citizens. Schools need to make it difficult for an armed assault to succeed, stamp out bullying, and by well-conceived interventions provide the support that potentially dangerous youths badly need.

And finally, the institutions of civil society need to multiply their efforts, such as the three cited above, to help disturbed, alienated, and hopeless young people overcome their demons, while their lives can still be turned around.

John McClaughry is vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute (


{ 1 comment }

By David Flemming

There is a great deal of uncertainty about raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour because collecting data that could provide insights into the potential impact of raising the cost of labor presents a challenge – at least if we want to maintain people’s privacy.

At the House Committee on General, Housing and Military Affairs on Tuesday, Joyce Manchester of Vermont’s Joint Fiscal Office gave her testimony: “It was a little bit hard to collect the data (for the wages of VNA employees)… in the end we did not have usable data (to determine the full impact on hours and wages if the minimum increased to $15/hour). We need very detailed information about what each individual is earning in their annual wages over time. These folks (the VNA) are not used to that kind of data collection. I could see their spreadsheet, I could see what needed to be done, but I wasn’t allowed to because of confidentiality concerns.”

The Joint Fiscal Office (JFO) has previously offered some precise estimates about what it would cost Vermont to raise the minimum wage for government employees. However, when we get to the private and non-profit sectors, which employ the vast majority of Vermonters, the data is far more difficult to locate.

There is no centralized database containing the private wages of thousands of Vermonters. The closest thing we have is industry aggregate data from the Vermont Department of Labor and aggregate income tax data, none of which comes close to revealing per hours wage rates for individual employees. The private wage information necessary for vigorous analysis is contained in millions of spreadsheets across thousands of Vermont employers who are located amongst dozens of Vermont towns. Like the VNA’s data, most of this is legally protected from our government’s roving eyes.

In last week’s minimum wage testimony, the Vermont Department of Labor related how they only have the resources to audit employer wage records when an employee complaint has been filed. And since most employer-employee relationships are amiable, this does not occur with near enough frequency to paint a comprehensive picture of the wages for the half-million jobs in our state.

We do have estimates from legislative chief economist Tom Kavet regarding how many jobs he thinks will be lost. But without access to comprehensive and detailed wage data, there is no getting around the fact that these estimates contain a large margin of error, especially when we have few historical examples for minimum wage increases of such a great magnitude.

This is perhaps why there is such disparity between the JFO estimate of 2500 jobs lost annually in Vermont with the $15 minimum wage, and the Heritage Foundation’s estimate of 11,000 jobs lost. That’s a significant range, and a big gamble the legislature would be taking with Vermonters’ lives and livelihoods.


Yada Yada Yada Carbon Tax!

April 6, 2018

April 6, 2018 by Rob Roper There is a great Seinfeld episode in which George dates a woman who habitually covers up elements of her stories by saying “yada yada yada,” a practice which George adopts himself to avoid mentioning the embarrassing details of his departed fiancé’s death. “Well, we were engaged to be married, […]

Read the full article →

About Us

The Ethan Allen Institute is Vermont’s free-market public policy research and education organization. Founded in 1993, we are one of fifty-plus similar but independent state-level, public policy organizations around the country which exchange ideas and information through the State Policy Network.

Latest News

Nuclear phase out threatens greenhouse gas goals

April 20, 2018 by John McClaughry The news site Axios recently published an article about a report from the think tank Third Way. It looked at the effect of...

Vermont’s “Taking Game” and Universal Background Checks

April 19, 2018 by John Klar At times, government rightly employs the power of eminent domain to “take” property – for railroads, roadways, prisons, power plants, etc. But...

A Fair Way to Tax Internet Sales

April 18, 2018 by Rob Roper The Supreme Court is hearing arguments about if and how we should tax sales made over the internet. As of now, retailers...

Bernie Sanders: Too Big And Failed

April 16, 2018  by Chris Campion A couple of weeks back, Communism’s own Bernie Sanders took time out of his failed presidential bid to sit down with Jake...

State Education Policy Is Hurting Students

April 13, 2018 by Rob Roper The latest test scores for Vermont students are here, and they continue an unsettling trend of decline for our student outcomes. The...