The political and cultural differences between Vermont and New Hampshire offer a striking case study in irony, particularly when comparing the outcomes of each state’s policies. Vermont, governed by a progressive supermajority of Democrats, is often seen as a bastion of environmental consciousness and moral leadership. The state frequently aligns itself with international frameworks like the Paris Climate Accord and the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, seeking to lead on climate issues and sustainability. On the other hand, New Hampshire, its neighbor to the east, follows a more conservative, economically liberal approach. Despite Vermont’s ideological stance, its outcomes—particularly in terms of economic growth and environmental impact—are far from ideal, especially when compared to New Hampshire.
The Economic Paradox: Higher Taxes, Lower Growth
One of the most glaring differences between the two states lies in their tax policies. Vermont has one of the highest tax burdens in the nation, with high income, property, and sales taxes. This approach is justified by the state’s leadership as necessary for funding its progressive goals, including education, healthcare, and environmental programs. In contrast, New Hampshire famously has no state income or sales tax, maintaining one of the lowest tax burdens in the country(NH Journal)(Rich States, Poor States).
Despite this stark difference in tax policy, New Hampshire’s economy consistently outperforms Vermont’s. New Hampshire is ranked among the top five economies in the country, while Vermont lags behind. According to a 2021 analysis by 247WallStreet, New Hampshire had the best economy in the Northeast, ranking fifth in the nation, while Vermont came in at 19th(NH Journal). The reasons for this disparity are clear: New Hampshire’s lower taxes and lighter regulatory framework make it a more attractive place for businesses, while Vermont’s higher taxes and strict regulations, including Act 250, have stifled business development and economic growth(NH Journal).
Environmental Irony: More Progressive, More Polluting
One would expect Vermont, with its aggressive climate policies, to lead the way in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The state has passed ambitious legislation aimed at curbing emissions and promoting renewable energy. Vermont is also a vocal supporter of the Paris Climate Accord, seeing itself as a leader in the fight against climate change(World Population Review). Yet, despite all these efforts, Vermont produces more greenhouse gases per capita than New Hampshire, a state that takes a far less progressive approach to environmental regulation.
How can this be? The answer lies in New Hampshire’s energy mix and efficiency. New Hampshire benefits from the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant, which provides a large portion of the state’s electricity with minimal carbon emissions. Vermont, after shutting down the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant in 2014, has become more reliant on fossil fuels to fill the gap left by the closure, increasing its carbon footprint(NH Journal). Before the closure of Vermont Yankee, Vermont had a significantly lower carbon footprint compared to New Hampshire, thanks to its reliance on nuclear energy for over 70% of its electricity needs. Vermont Yankee’s closure is a key reason Vermont’s greenhouse gas emissions have increased(Department of Education).
The irony deepens further when considering that the next generation of nuclear reactors is far safer and more efficient than older models like Vermont Yankee. Modern reactors come with advanced safety features and generate significantly less waste, which could allow Vermont to have a low-carbon energy source without the risks associated with outdated nuclear technology(NH Journal). New Hampshire, by keeping Seabrook online and benefiting from nuclear power, continues to maintain a lower carbon footprint while Vermont struggles to find suitable, low-carbon alternatives.
Education: More Spending, Lower Outcomes
Education is another area where the contrast between the two states is stark. Vermont spends more per pupil on education than almost any other state in the country. In 2024, Vermont’s per-pupil spending was $21,219, compared to New Hampshire’s $17,456(World Population Review)(Department of Education). Despite this higher spending, Vermont’s education outcomes are not significantly better—and in some cases, they are worse—than New Hampshire’s.
New Hampshire consistently outperforms Vermont in key metrics like math and reading scores, according to national assessments like the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress)(World Population Review). This raises an important question: why isn’t Vermont seeing better results despite its significantly higher spending? One possible explanation is that Vermont’s educational system is burdened by administrative inefficiencies, with many small school districts and higher costs per student in rural areas(Agency of Education). New Hampshire, by contrast, has a more streamlined system that delivers better educational outcomes for less money.
Cultural and Political Alignment: An Expensive Moral Leadership
Vermont’s progressive political leadership often positions itself as a moral leader, particularly on environmental and social issues. The state’s alignment with international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord and its focus on sustainability and social justice is a reflection of this ethos. Many legislators in Vermont view the state as a model for the rest of the country to follow, believing that aggressive action on climate change and social issues will lead to long-term benefits(World Population Review).
However, this focus on moral leadership often comes at the expense of practical outcomes. While Vermont’s legislators look to the UN and global frameworks for inspiration, they may be overlooking more effective, locally tailored solutions. New Hampshire’s more pragmatic, less ideologically driven approach has yielded better results in terms of economic growth, environmental impact, and education, without the heavy-handed regulations and high taxes that have become synonymous with Vermont’s progressive governance.
The Irony of Vermont’s Progressive Vision
The greatest irony in the Vermont-New Hampshire comparison is that Vermont, with its progressive policies, has ended up with slower economic growth, higher taxes, and more greenhouse gas emissions per capita than its less progressive neighbor. New Hampshire, by taking a more restrained, fiscally conservative approach, has managed to achieve better outcomes in almost every category while maintaining a strong economy and a lower carbon footprint. This contrast challenges the assumption that progressive policies automatically lead to better outcomes, especially when they are not grounded in practical, local realities.
Vermont’s leadership might benefit from looking next door for inspiration, rather than to global frameworks that don’t always account for the unique challenges and opportunities of a small, rural state. The irony of Vermont’s progressive ideals leading to worse outcomes than New Hampshire’s more pragmatic approach is hard to ignore, and it may be time for Vermont’s policymakers to reconsider their strategy.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #PolicyIrony #EconomicParadox #GreenEnergyReality
Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!
Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!
Leave a Reply