I previously posted about the #VolinskyAgenda here, in response to this tweet from Volinsky:
Volinsky is out with an op-ed about how he would grow the New Hampshire economy.
But just as the #VoliskyAgenda described in Volinsky’s tweet really involves empowering government at the expense of parents, healthcare consumers, and private business, so too Volinsky’s economic agenda is all about increasing the size and scope of government.
Once Volinsky gets past the usual “progressive” bromides about investing and innovating, he reveals that the problem New Hampshire has in attracting and retaining businesses is that we are not treating businesses like third-year law students. Really, I am not making this up:
The process of attracting job-creating businesses is similar to the recruitment process that my firm uses to attract talented young lawyers. We decide on what parameters we can distinguish ourselves and then we network our way to quality candidates. We compete on quality of life and the early opportunity for leadership. We don’t compete on money. ...
That means instead of a low-tax, small-government State, we raise the taxes needed to “invest” in full-day kindergarten:
Working parents require full-day kindergarten and affordable daycare. By offering generous incentives to qualified early childhood educators, we will attract and keep young parents who depend on quality preschools and good daycare for their infants and toddlers.
subsidize choo-choo trains to Boston:
Modern public transport must be available within and between our cities to attract a generation that eschews car ownership. Rail to Boston must be a part of this equation, and so must highly livable, walkable, and cultural towns and cities.
follow the Obamacare model of government-knows-best healthcare:
All businesses worry about healthcare costs. Imagine the advantages of a state that brings these costs under control. This must be our number one priority. We can start with our state, municipal and university healthcare systems that, together, insure over 80,000 people. If the current research is correct, about 4,500 members in these plans are responsible for 50 percent of the costs incurred. Surely, we can develop ways to assist 4,500 people to improve their health outcomes and drive down our costs.
and, of course, “invest” in “renewables,” (i.e., subsidize economically unviable solar and wind):
If we truly want to compete for business, we should distinguish ourselves based on how hard we work to protect the environment, not on how much regulation we abandon. Remaining a leader in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and with Renewable Portfolio Standards is a must.
If all this sounds familiar, that’s because it should. It’s the same half-baked backwards-looking pablum that Colin Van Ostern ran on in 2016, which the voters decisively rejected.
Hence, the economic component of the #VolinskyAgenda can be called Yogurtnomics in honor of Van Ostern’s vast private sector business experience: