vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen

9.17.2007

Blurry lines

One of the things you gotta love about politics is that it doesn't fit into nice, neat lines.

To wit:

You can read in tomorrow's Free Press (I can't give you a link to the future, so just find it on your own) about the Snelling Center's plans to study the state's transportation outlook. The political lines get very blurry.

Republican Charlie Smith, who used to work for Republican Gov. Jim Douglas, proposes a study of what the state's roads and bridges to need and how we might pay for it. Smith, now head of the Snelling Center (created in memory of former Republican Gov. Richard Snelling), finds a willing ear in Democratic House Speaker Gaye Symington and Republican House Transportation Committee Chairman Rich Westman. State Treasurer Jeb Spaulding, a Democrat, also thinks it's a prudent thing to do.

Republican Douglas, however, thinks it's a waste of money. So does Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Dick Mazza, a Democrat.

It was enough to make Douglas spokesman Jason Gibbs say, "I'd be a Democrat if more of them were like Dick Mazza."

- Terri Hallenbeck

posted by vt.Buzz | 7:16 PM |

Comments:

Fine, do a study. Just ask Vermont state engineers what needs to be done. That's what they're paid for and maybe they could keep politics out of it. Then put pressure on our two Senators to stop raiding transportation bills and using funds meant for roads and bridges for their social engineering projects for connected politicians. How about if it ALL goes for those roads and bridges! My bill for this study:zero.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:48 PM, September 17, 2007

I want to know what we really spend on roads and where the money comes from. In my town, state aid, i.e. the gas tax, pays 25% of the bill. The property tax pays the rest.

I've read about 25% of the Fed gas tax is re-directed through earmarks to special transportation projects, something that grew tremendously under Delay and Hastert (and is not something driven by Leahy and Sanders, although Jeffords dipped a little, right?). What kinds of projects in Vermont have been funded by these earmarks?

Certainly the Alaskan "bridge to nowhere" is a Republican project. Is that the social engineering of which bubba speaks. Or maybe it is the highway Hastert pushed towards the land he owns in Illinois.

I asked recently about "raids" on the Vermont transportation fund and learned funds were formerly taken for transportation expenses broadly; for the transportation buildings, traffic courts, the traffic portion of the state police, etc... but not for projects unrelated to transportation. Now that budgeting philosophy has been curtailed and a much smaller portion is taken for state police and other direct expenses. Is all this true?

I want to know .... if all the gas taxes were directed to roads, would they cover a good budget? To do that, the gas tax funding to my town would need to increase 4X.

Currently, on a percentage basis, in my town, the property tax subsidizes road costs to a greater percentage than Amtrak is subsidized.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:14 PM, September 17, 2007

Dick Mazza IS a Republican. I hope the Dems or Progs or Bolsheviks,or whoever, run someon against Mazza. This guy's fifteen minutes were up about ten years ago. Go sell fruit and veggies with your brother already!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:21 PM, September 17, 2007

A Commission on Transportation Funding in Massachusetts submitted its report today - here's a link to an AP story about this from the Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/09/17/highlights_from_transportation_financing_report/

The Massachusetts commission is recommending that the Bay State's gas tax be increased from 23.5 cents to 35 cents a gallon in order to come up with the money needed to fix and maintain roads and bridges.

There is a chart in the Massachusetts report showing the gas taxes in all the New England states:

Vermont - 20.0 cents
New Hampshire - 20.6 cents
Massachusetts - 23.5 cents
Maine - 28.3 cents
Rhode Island - 31.0 cents
Connecticut - 37.0 cents

Considering Vermont's relatively low gas tax compared with other states, the Snelling Center will almost certainly recommend that the gas tax in Vermont be raised - this will be music to Gaye Symington's ears, which is why Douglas and Mazza oppose it.

Although Vermont has the lowest gas taxes in New England, Vermonters also drive more miles to and from work than people in the other 5 New England states. Raising the gas tax is a tough sell for a rural state with lots of lower-income motorists who can't afford to buy hybrids and other fuel-efficient cars.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:37 PM, September 17, 2007

The problem is that local property tax bases have been eroded thanks to Act 60.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:16 PM, September 17, 2007

Some Sanders-Leahy earmarks using transportation funds: money for VNA to spend on Burlington parent-child center; affordable housing-Townshend;low-income housing-Enosburg;Preservation Trust of Vt; senior housing-S. Burlington; Bellows Falls multimodel facility; Rt. 15 "streetscape";affordable rental units-Bradford. Had enough?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:19 PM, September 17, 2007

Where do I find the list of the earmarks listed above.

RE: Vermont having lower gas taxes. It is not true that lower income Vermonters can't afford cars with better mileage. The cheapest cars on the market have MPG much higher than the fleet average. Enough with the big trucks and SUV's for commuting. Absurd.

And Vermont's gas tax is paid to some extent by out of staters.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:08 AM, September 18, 2007

What about Shumlin? Where does he stand on this important policy issue?

Oh... that's right. Its a policy issue. He only does politics.

Wait till this heats up, then you'll see Shumlin get interested.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:04 AM, September 18, 2007

If Bush and Cheney have their way, the US will have bombed Iran by this time next year, and gas will cost $5.00 a gallon or more, so whether or not to raise the gas tax by 5 or 10 cents a gallon will be irrelevant.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:55 AM, September 18, 2007

$15,000 for a transportation study is a waste of money but $75,000 to hire a Republican influence peddler is not. Go figure.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:01 AM, September 18, 2007

Well said!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:47 AM, September 18, 2007

"I'd be a Democrat if more of them were like Dick Mazza."

So is Gibbs saying he isn't on board with his boss's policies and wishes Douglas would start trying to compromise a little instead of running around the state with his Chicken Little warnings and no ideas strategy? About time one of Douglas's hacks started seeing the light.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:00 AM, September 18, 2007

Until the Legislature demonstrates that the currrent gas and other transportation taxes are only used for transportation (i.e., are not raided to pay for General Fund programs) and the current revenues are not adequate to cover needed transportation expenses, there is no need to consider a regressive, economy-hurting gas tax increase. Maybe, just maybe, if the above can be shown, and there is no way for the Leguislautre to raid gas transportation funds in the future, might we consider some increases to take care fo our state infrastructure. Otherwise, we're just shoveling more cash into Montpelier's maw.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:46 AM, September 18, 2007

Here's another example of a transportation boondoggle:

The federal government provides an $850,000 annual subsidy to the airline that provides commuter service from the Rutland State Airport to Boston. This comes to more than $200 per passenger - hardly anyone flies out of Rutland because much lower fares are available from Albany and Burlington. Wouldn't that $850,000 be better spent on repairing roads and bridges in Rutland County? Of course, Leahy, Sanders, and Welch (and Jeffords before them) are all in favor of the Rutland Airport subsidy.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:29 AM, September 18, 2007

THREE BILLION A WEEK spent on the boondoggle in Iraq, and you're worried about an $850,000 spent to help industry in Rutland?

Oy.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:11 AM, September 18, 2007

You said, "Until the Legislature demonstrates that the current gas and other transportation taxes are only used for transportation (i.e., are not raided to pay for General Fund programs)"

Of the approx $40 million that leaves the T-fund, most of it (about $39 M) pays for the State Police. And frankly, don't blame just the Legislature - the Governor has his hands on this one too!

He submits a budget to the Legislature and then after the Legislature settles on a budget - THE GOVERNOR SIGNS IT - i.e. He approves it!

And last year the Gen Fund actually provided significant $$$ to the T-fund.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:44 AM, September 18, 2007

"THREE BILLION A WEEK spent on the boondoggle in Iraq, and you're worried about an $850,000 spent to help industry in Rutland?

Oy."

I live in Rutland, but fly out of Albany. The schedule is crappy and the service unreliable. Its just not worth the hassle. I much rather see that $800K invested in our roads and bridges.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:38 PM, September 18, 2007

Raise the gas tax, I don't care.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:42 PM, September 18, 2007

What does the war against terrorism have to do with $850,000 of pork wasted on an air service in Rutland? How about if I said "Billions spent on aids research and we quibble about a highway to nowhere in Alaska?" Makes about as much sense.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:48 PM, September 18, 2007

"I live in Rutland, but fly out of Albany. The schedule is crappy and the service unreliable. Its just not worth the hassle. I much rather see that $800K invested in our roads and bridges."

I'd much rather see the $3 billion a week spent on roads, bridges, education, healthcare, police protection, border security ...

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:02 PM, September 18, 2007

Bubba,
What's the war on Iraq have to do with the war against terrorism?

We should go after Osama and the Taliban. Instead we piss away our money and the lives of our soldiers in someone else's civil war.

-BBL

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:03 PM, September 18, 2007

Governor Douglas is such a hypocrite!

He is willing to spend $70K on a no-bid 6-month contract for a partisan GOP Fund Raiser to "lobby" on behalf of VT - without even asking our Congressional Delegation for help.

And then he has the audacity to say its a waste of money to spend $15K on a review and recommendation of how to deal with the hundreds of millions of transportation infrastructure needs.

What a joke Gov Douglas has become - he fits right in with his Washington DC GOP colleagues.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:05 PM, September 18, 2007

You've got to be a complete idiot not to see right through him.

He's stumbled enough over the last year that I think 2008 will be the end of Douglas.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:03 PM, September 18, 2007

Even many liberals will vote for Douglas - they are afraid of what their own are capable of. In their infinite wisdom they will vote for some fool (i.e., Shumlin, Condos, etc.)that their union has told them to vote for, them in a moment of lucidity figure they better be safe and ALSO vote Douglas!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:06 PM, September 18, 2007

Hey Bubba,
Which Union do I belong to??
Which Union has paid me off??
Why didn't you answer the questions in my previous post??
Love ya!
-BBL

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:18 PM, September 18, 2007

2008 will certainly not be the end for Douglas. He will leave office when he decides he's been governor long enough and doesn't run for re-election, not because he gets defeated. Douglas is 57 or 58 years old, too young to retire (besides, he wants to accumulate a few more years of credits in the state employees pension fund before he hangs it up), and after 1992, he's smart enough not to run for the U.S. Senate or House again.

Vermonters like to split their tickets, so even if the Dems and their allies keep both houses of the Legislature and the 3 Congressional seats, there are enough voters who will vote for Douglas to keep him in the governor's office.

So Douglas is governor until at least 2010. He could even end up serving as governor longer than Howard Dean - that would mean 6 terms, until 2014.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:21 PM, September 18, 2007

Anybody else hearing that the ANR Commissioner is a tyrannical bag of wind? He's going to be bad news for Douglas in the future, mark this anonymous poster's comment.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:51 PM, September 18, 2007

The problem is not with the Secretary of ANR, but a few levels down - the commissioner and deputy commissioner levels - and not just in ANR.

These are the people who think they are the "permanent government" of Vermont and don't really care what either the Legislature or the Governor think.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:08 PM, September 18, 2007

So Douglas is governor until at least 2010.

Then we can pretty much expect that there will not be any tax reform until at least after 2010. Well for that matter, there won't be anything done on any front as all Douglas does is political posturing.

I really don't discount a Douglas loss. Racine was close, Clavelle far away, and Parker in between. The fact Parker did better than Clavelle, shows a potential Douglas defeat.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:13 PM, September 19, 2007

Douglas is completely defeatable by the right candidate. Jeb Spaulding could whip his hiked-up pants by 15 points.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:23 PM, September 19, 2007

That is a great idea. I hope Jeb Spaulding will run in '08 against
Douglas and beat him.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:43 PM, September 19, 2007

Obama for President
Spaulding for Gov
Pollina for Lt Gov
Dunne for Treasurer

That's a winning combination, that would bring a huge Democratic turnout to the polls.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:24 PM, September 19, 2007

Moderate Democrat here for Douglas.

The alternative -- Symington and Shumlin -- is far, far worse.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:18 PM, September 19, 2007

Shumlin's days are numbered. He stands for nothing and waffles on everything.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:17 AM, September 20, 2007

Pillsbury for Senate!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:20 AM, September 20, 2007

Get rid of Gaye Symington and run someone electable for Governor - come on Democrats get your act together!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:48 PM, September 20, 2007

The Democrats in Vermont are led by people like Peter Shumlin and Gaye Symington. So if they are the leaders then they need to run for Governor.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:16 AM, September 21, 2007

that makes no sense.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:53 AM, September 21, 2007

Shumlin makes no sense.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:53 PM, September 21, 2007

Pillsbury for senate - oh, yeah!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:50 PM, September 26, 2007

Symington for Governor.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:34 PM, September 29, 2007

Oh, yeah, cuz she really can identify with working class Vermonters.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:40 PM, September 30, 2007

vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen

Blurry lines

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Sponsored by:

vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen

Blurry lines

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives