Lawmakers have plenty to worry about these days. Foremost is whether they will get done in a timely manner. Then there's all the tough spending decisions they are making as the big money bills come up for action. In transportation, for example, many lawmakers believe there's a need for $150 million more than will get spent in the coming year.

John McClaughry offered the Legislature the chance to shoulder some long-term worries, too, by sponsoring a noon-time roundtable discussion ominously titled, "Where will the state get the money to pay for its programs in 2030?" McClaughry, president of the Ethan Allen Institute, has run these kinds of discussions at the Statehouse for five years. Today was the first of this legislative session.

The roundtable discussion keyed off a study, sponsored by the Ethan Allen Institute, that examined demographic and governmental spending trends for the next 25 years. Check out the study here. The study predicts calamity unless there's a change in the state's appetite for spending or a whole lot of young folks move in because of the state develops a hot job market.

The seminar drew a tiny audience. House members had a group photo scheduled on the steps of the Statehouse. The Senate was on the floor debating the transportation budget bill.

Dick Heaps laid out the reason for the gloomy predictions in the study. Boomers will be retiring and the generation behind them is much smaller. Despite declining school enrollment, spending continues to increase. Human service spending also continues to rise. Heaps argued that the state couldn't increase economic growth enough to overcome the demographic and spending trends.

Tom Kavet, an economist who advises the Legislature, praised the long look taken by the study, but wasn't convinced of its conclusions. "There are many variables that can change."

He suggested, too, that just because boomers would retire, didn't mean they would become a fiscal drain. "The elderly is one of the wealthiest population cohorts we have in this state." He also said increased productivity might turn out to be another factor that could change the trend.

Two administration representatives -- Tax Commissioner Tom Pelham and Finance Commissioner Jim Reardon -- noted the steps that the Douglas administration and --yes, they said, lawmakers, too, -- were taking to curb spending. "There is a healthy debate going on right now on school spending," Pelham said. "We should be able to bend that curve."

Paul Cillo, former Democratic legislator who now heads his own public policy organization -- Public Assets Institute, questioned whether the trend of increased school spending over the past 20 years indicated the future direction. He said two reforms had taken place during that period that required financial investments. Beginning in the 1980s, he said the state moved from ranking 47th in teacher pay to middle of the pack. In the late 1990s, Act 60 helped close the gap between low-and high-spending school districts. He said that even without the cost containment measures under consideration this session, the increase in school spending has shrunk in recent years.

McClaughry's message to the handful of lawmakers who dropped by: "You don't have to do anything about this issue between now and the end of the session, but it will bedevil Legislatures to come."

Rep. Bill Botzow, D-Pownal, didn't minimize the challenges. In fact he added to the list. Still he suggested marching forward with more optimism, based on past experience. He noted that towns like his and the state have faced significant challenges before. "We should look back and see how we have responded in the past."

So what do you think? Is state government headed for a "train wreck" or will things work out in a way we can't yet imagine?

-- Nancy Remsen