Being a Nice Guy Isn't a Qualification for Governor

By all accounts, Phil Scott the Republican candidate for Governor of the State of Vermont, is a fairly moderate Republican.  Scott seems to be pro-choice, pro-LGBT, not adamantly against social programs, and acknowledges the existence of global warming.  There are however, a number of economic issues where Scott more or less tows the line ideologically for national Republicans.  I've read Scott's economic plan several times and a number of things strike me:

• Firstly, despite being 40 pages long the plan contains very little detail.  Scott outlines a number of vague policy proposals, some free-market buzz words, and a number of pictures of Scott and his family, but there is very little in the way of concrete proposals likely to create growth.  There are also a number of proposals that would presumably cost money, but there are no dollar figures attached to these policies nor any mention of how they will be paid for.
• Scott frequently mentions the increased spending that has occurred under outgoing Governor Peter Shumlin, but this spending is mostly the result of increased healthcare costs and increased pension payouts.  Scott hasn't said what he would cut but he has said he won't raise taxes.  This position necessarily demands that cuts take place so he would either have to gut pensions or cut spending in state government.  Cuts to state government would likely have the consequences of shrinking growth further, increasing unemployment, increasing downward pressure on wages, and cause further dysfunction within state government.
• Nowhere in his plan does Scott demand anything of employers.  He opposes increases to the minimum wage under the disproven notion that a higher minimum wage will drive up unemployment (it should also be noted that Vermont has an unemployment rate well below the national average).  He also says paid sick leave should be "voluntary" which it is now and would have no effect on exactly the jobs where there needs to be paid sick leave.
• Oddly, when it comes to the legalization of marijuana, a policy which would at the very least bring in some new revenue, Scott opposes it, saying it's not about money.  The "this isn't about money" standard is something Scott applies to none of his other policies.   The longer we wait on the legalization of marijuana, a policy with relatively few drawbacks and is inevitable at this point, the less economic benefit it will provide the state.

The biggest economic issue Vermont faces is the aging of the workforce and the shrinking of the tax base.  Things like providing a couple years of free community or technical college as Sue Minter is proposing would help bring and keep young people here.  An increased minimum wage would increase economic activity among the part of the workforce where it has the most room to grow and also decrease the pressure on college graduates to immediately find a job that can pay well (most likely out of state).  Scott also initially opposed taking in refugees and then reversed course.  Apart from the morality of this, it makes no sense economically.  These refugees have skills, the desire to work, and where immigration like this has happened like in Lewiston, Maine, it has been a boon to the local economy.

Scott seems like a good guy, but the policies that he is proposing work against the ends he purportedly wants.  I don't care if my governor is a nice guy, I want good policy.