vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

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

4.09.2008

Where would you look?

Beginning tomorrow, I understand, four legislators will join two members of the Douglas administration in a search for money. They may wish it was as easy as looking for colored eggs on a grassy lawn.

The good news, said Senate President Peter Shumlin, D-Windham, is that Gov. Jim Douglas and his aides agreed to work with legislative leaders to draw up a list of proposed cuts in advance of learning Tuesday just how much the state's revenue projections will be downgraded.

No one believes there will be good news on Tuesday and all parties (the Progressives were invited to this meeting, too) agreed that getting ready would be a good idea. Lawmakers don't want to delay their May 2 adjournment -- not in an election year when they could be blamed for adding to the state's financial woes by needlessly extending the session.

The governor wrote a budget. The House wrote and passed a budget and by Friday the Senate Appropriations Committee will have its version ready -- ready, it seems to be slashed.

Where should lawmakers and the administration be looking to find what they think will be spending changes amounting to about $25 million? Don't forget to say why you would make any cut you are suggesting.

-- Nancy Remsen

posted by vt.Buzz | 9:56 AM |

Comments:

I think that the Douglas economy is so strong that we shouldn't need to cut budgets.

Consumer spending will go through the roof any day now - and revenues from the sales tax will go sky high.

Soon the government mucky mucks will be arguing over what to do with all of the extra money.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:55 AM, April 09, 2008

Maybe Douglas can ask his buddy Bush for a reimbursement for Iraq war losses (tax dollars) that Vermont has suffered. If Douglas can support the GOP pumping billions each month into a needless war, he can cartainly support pumping at least a billion or so into Vermont. Maybe at his next sleepover, Douglas can ask Bush about this.

Douglas might want to remind Bush that Vermont has been impacted worse than any other state, per capita, in terms of soldiers killed.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:02 AM, April 09, 2008

Cutting costs is not the answer. As a State, and pre-Douglas, we have neglected building a sustainable revenue base in exchange for 'protecting the VT experience'. That's fine but tourism, B&B's and maple sugar farms can't pay the bills.

Without a strategic and robust program to attract desirable industries to our state we will not consistently grow the state or local tax rolls, achieve our desire to have improved levels of healthcare coverages, reduce personal tax rates or reverse the trend of our youth leaving the state.

The State has a tredmendous financial burden in front of it that we need to generate revenue to cover. The $25 million they are chasing here is nothing compare to what is coming down the pike. If we have to cut costs, I think Douglas and the Legislature need to do it with an agreement to also develop an executable plan to attract new businesses and tax payers to our State.

The traditional cry of the Progs to solve our problems by re-allocating the tax burden to the 'Top 1%' is a smoke screen and ignores the problem. We need to grow our State's tax rolls in real terms.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:20 AM, April 09, 2008

So your answer is tax breaks and environmental deregulation ... which might bring large corporations to Vermont to do business. But if these businesses aren't paying their fair share, we are left with the bill for repair of infrastructure and the environmental consequences -- our lakes get more contaminated, the groundwater is compromised. The soil becomes contaminated ... and we are left holding the bag.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:13 PM, April 09, 2008

So if I understand it, there are 3 budgets which we have spent time and money developing... the Gov's, the Senates and the House. None of which will get approved.

Why don't we begin our cost cutting by stopping the duplicate/triplicate work? Try working collaboratively as a team on a single set of plan assumptions that may have a hope of being passed first time.

Cripes...these partisan wastes of time and money have to stop. In the real world if this happened 2 of the 3 groups would be terminated.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:19 PM, April 09, 2008

I love the analysis that all corporations do is trash the environment! Hello- It is business and their employees that pay ALL the taxes. People who get paid by, or collect from, the state, city, school systems, social security, welfare, unemployment, to name a few, are supported by those who work for business and pay taxes. Most of those public employees are necessary and appreciated but VT has to balance those with good paying private sector jobs.
Whatever this "budget" team decides, it will be a short term solution to a long term problem as previously noted.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:42 PM, April 09, 2008

Say something coherent. Make a real argument. I know you can.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:53 PM, April 09, 2008

If corporations don't trash the environment, they should have no problem with Vermont's environmental standards.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:56 PM, April 09, 2008

It isn't the environmental standards that keep business out- it is the process with indefinite appeals that discourage business.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:24 PM, April 09, 2008

Vermont is trying to attract business- after all, it has 20 employees in the Economic Development Agency trying to bring business to Vermont and over 200 employees in the Agency of Natural Resources trying to keep them out.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:29 PM, April 09, 2008

Start running the state like a business.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:30 PM, April 09, 2008

"So your answer is tax breaks and environmental deregulation ... "

You said that, not me. Isaid we need to attract business to the state. There are many that 'clean' businesses that fit the VT mold and as for tax breaks, I said we will not reduce taxes if we can not grow the tax base. Just imagine if one of those fat cat corporations comes to town and pays a few million in taxes. That's all the less you and I pay.

Think ratther than spew th party line.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:53 PM, April 09, 2008

"and we are left holding the bag."

If you haven;t figured it out, you are holding the bag know. How does it feel?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:54 PM, April 09, 2008

"If corporations don't trash the environment, they should have no problem with Vermont's environmental standards."

Who was it that just got Act 250 approval over the last few weeks in St Albans... one of the big box stores. It took something like 4 years. How can you believe that is not excessive? There are standards and there are obstacles. 4 years is at the 'obstacle' end of the scale by any estimation.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:58 PM, April 09, 2008

I do not know the definition of a "clean" business but it sure sounds like one that every state in the union is trying to attract. What would it take to bring Industry to Vermont that other states don't offer?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:19 PM, April 09, 2008

Legislators don't need the salary they make. If you check, it's not enough to live on and therefore they get enough somewhere else. Let's just make the job a combination of voluntary and voted in. That's has save the state millions. If the legislators NEEDED the money, they wouldn't be in the office. Why give money to people who don’t need it?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:25 PM, April 09, 2008

You will get what you pay for- if they work for $0- that is what you will get in return. I would just have them in session bi-annually.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:30 PM, April 09, 2008

Making it voluntary won't solve the issue of attracting qualified people. It will further relegate it to 'hobby' status.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:31 PM, April 09, 2008

bi-annual is good. All the less time and opportunity to be unproductive

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:32 PM, April 09, 2008

Governor Douglas is a millionaire (so was Gov. Dean & Gov. Snelling.)

They don't NEED the money. Why give money to people who don’t need it?

By your own logic, the VT Governor should be paid nothing.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:39 PM, April 09, 2008

Governor Douglas is a millionaire (so was Gov. Dean & Gov. Snelling.)

They don't NEED the money. Why give money to people who don’t need it?

Even JW makes more sense than this. You use the term "millionaire" very loosely. Neither Douglas or Dean are considered wealthy by political standards. The pay the Governor gets for working 7 12-hour days a week is not overly generous.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:54 PM, April 09, 2008

It took 4 years because the original proposal was unsound and the developer didn’t want to comply with the law. The result of the process is a project that takes the community’s needs into account.

A developer that wants to put in an environmentally unsound project shouldn't be surprised when it gets held up.

There has been a lot of development in St. Albans in the past 30 years. A very small percentage of that has been held up by Act 250.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:56 PM, April 09, 2008

The pay the Governor gets for working 7 12-hour days a week is not overly generous.

$150,000+ FOR WHAT????

12-hour days? When? He's riding around from event to event most days and even those are few and far between. Look at his schedule. Tons of down time. Gimme a break. Get you head out of Douglas's butt!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:08 PM, April 09, 2008

All they have to do is look to the Capital gains loophole and close it. $20 million there.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:28 PM, April 09, 2008

Yeah. Why did the Dems abandon that idea? I think it would have actually garnered $31 million.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:38 PM, April 09, 2008

Dean worked the same schedule as Douglas but I am sure he earned his even though Douglas does not!!- this is not a partisan issue- Governors riding around the state is probably not something you would want to do in your "spare" time.
Get real!!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:48 PM, April 09, 2008

"There has been a lot of development in St. Albans in the past 30 years. A very small percentage of that has been held up by Act 250."

Ask the Lowe's guys in S. Burlington what they think about Act 250 and how much they had to pay in legal fees to clear it. They may have a different opinion.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:48 PM, April 09, 2008

"Why did the Dems abandon that idea? I think it would have actually garnered $31 million."

Because there are too many fat cat carpet baggers in the Dems ranks taking advantage of it.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:50 PM, April 09, 2008

Actually Douglas was the biggest opponent of the closing of the capital gains loophole.

He was going to veto it anyhow so I don't see what point there was of spending a lot of time on it.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:21 PM, April 09, 2008

Yeah. Lord forbid anyone would ask Gaye to rally the troops to override a Doesless veto.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:54 PM, April 09, 2008

There are a lot of very conservative Dems in her caucus. What do you want her to do? Put a gun to their head?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:06 PM, April 09, 2008

"Actually Douglas was the biggest opponent of the closing of the capital gains loophole.

He was going to veto it anyhow so I don't see what point there was of spending a lot of time on it."

Why do you say that? In his State of the State speech in January he said he wanted to close the loophole on capital gains for unearned income to make the trustfunders pay their fair share. Seems to me he is driving it.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:46 AM, April 10, 2008

"There are a lot of very conservative Dems in her caucus. What do you want her to do? Put a gun to their head?"

No. I'd like her to explain to them why she abandoned the idea in the first place, after trumpeting it in every news outlet possible. Even Douglas was willing to do it (with some lame ass tax cut for the wealthiest Vermonters attached, of course).

If the issue is more revenue, then the closing of the cap gains loophole is a viable option, regardless of who gets impacted by it--Dems included.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:02 AM, April 10, 2008

It apparently shows you who the fat cats really are. The Repubs were ready to sign. The Dems must be sitting on too much trustfund income.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:49 AM, April 10, 2008

I hope the Legislature will begin by cutting the Early Education spending they wedged into the budget last year. Last one in should be the first to go.

And they can sell the Methadone wagon while they're at it.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:33 PM, April 10, 2008

Gaye Symington for Governor

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:12 PM, April 10, 2008

Yes please.. Gaye for governor or dog catcher... what ever just get the #&)& out of the legislature

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:26 PM, April 13, 2008

Hey don't sell the methadone wagon where will JW's Mom get her fix ?????????/

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:32 PM, April 14, 2008