After a week away from the Statehouse, lawmakers return today, many with fresh insight about Vermonters’ views on pending budget decisions and other bills thanks to conversations with constituents.

Lawmakers will be greeted with unpleasant news today. State revenues have continued to decline – especially personal income receipts.

The weight of this bad financial news falls especially on the House Appropriations Committee, which must wrap up work on its budget bill in the next two weeks.

Recall that revenues for next year already were projected to fall short of expenditures by $150 million. While the Legislature and Douglas administration agreed on a way to find $38 million in savings, the House budget-writing committee now must put on the table its plan to address the remaining shortfall – and more if the new revenue shrinkage turns into a long-term trend.

Secretary of Administration Neale Lunderville said there is no way lawmakers can avoid spending cuts. In a statement accompanying the February revenue report, he warned, "Now is not the time to rely on one-time patches or tax increases, both of which will slow our recovery and speed an exodus of businesses and taxpayers from Vermont."

There won’t even be standing room in the House Appropriations Committee as representatives of interest groups crowd in to witness the decision-making this week and next. The gasps coming from the room will either be reaction to cuts or to lack of breathable air.

-- Nancy Remsen

Labels: Neale Lunderville, politics Vermont Legislature, state budget, vermont politics

When this legislative session started in January, we knew the fact that the Senate contained four people running for governor and one for lieutenant governor would make for some interesting political theater. Last Wednesday might just have been the command performance.

The Senate’s vote on the future of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant was oozing with political undertones.

Scene 1:

Sen. Phil Scott, R-Washington, (candidate for lieutenant governor), started things off by questioning the Senate Rules Committee vote to allow the Yankee bill to reach the floor without ever meeting in person. Standing almost directly behind Scott in the audience was Mark Snelling (fellow Republican candidate for lieutenant governor).

Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, D-Windham,(candidate for governor) polled the committee members and declared the approval unanimous. He claimed it was a common practice.

Under questioning from Scott, Sen. Kevin Mullin, R-Rutland, said he didn’t believe he gave his approval.

A recess was called so the senators could sort this out, at which Republican Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie, (candidate for governor) said, “We’ve got a problem.”

To which Shumlin responded, “You’re creating a problem.”

Back on the floor, Scott called it a “flawed process.”

Shumlin accused Scott waiting to raise the issue in public when news cameras were rolling.

Then Mullin backed down, suggesting he and Shumlin had misunderstood each other and that he would never vote by informal polling again.

“I don’t want anyone to think my colleague from Windham was trying to pull a fast one,” Mullin said, referring to Shumlin. That pretty much left Scott hanging out alone.

Scott would continue challenging the Yankee bill. In the end, he was one of four senators to vote in support of the plant, calling the vote “a blatant political maneuver.”

Afterward, Scott said, referring to his own moves, “It may be political suicide.”

His support of Vermont Yankee might help him in the Republican primary, but then there’s the general election.

Scene II:

Shumlin, meanwhile, had a more subtle clash with Sen. Susan Bartlett, D-Lamoille, (fellow candidate for governor).

A few days before the vote, Bartlett issued a statement saying that though she was against Vermont Yankee operation after 2012, Shumlin’s timing on the vote was “more political theater than making good public policy.”

Shumlin slapped back, telling Vermont Public Radio the next day, “I understand that politicians don't always want to go on record taking courageous positions but it's time to move ahead."

A couple days later on the Senate floor, Bartlett had her response, "This vote is not an act of courage. Education reform was an act of courage. Civil unions was an act of courage. Equal marriage was an act of courage. This is a no-brainer."

Scene III:

Dubie, who presides over the Senate but doesn’t vote except to break a tie and doesn’t engage in the debate, had plenty to say when we asked him afterward, most of it directed at Shumlin:
- The Senate had not considered all the implications of the vote, should not have voted now, and if he had had a vote it would have been in support of the plant, he said.
- He noted that the Senate Finance Committee, which sent the bill to the Senate, is all Democrats, by virtue of appointments Shumlin made. “There’s not a contrarion view on the Finance Committee,” he said.

- Terri Hallenbeck

Labels: politics Vermont Legislature, Vermont Yankee

The University of Vermont faculty union, United Academics, is hosting a forum on single-payer health care, 7-8:45 p.m. Wednesday, Memorial Lounge, Waterman Building,UVM. Their goal, they say, is to goose proposed legislation on the issue in Montpelier.

- Terri Hallenbeck

Labels: health care reform, politics Vermont Legislature

House Speaker Shap Smith announced new committee assignments for six veteran legislators and two newly sworn-in lawmakers.

Here's the rundown:
Greshin of Warren and Johnson of Canaan to Ways and Means;
Koch of Barre to Judiciary;
Morley of Barton and Spengler of Colchester to Health Care;
Winters of Williamstown to Appropriations;
Howard of Cambridge, newly appointed, to Transportation;
Shaw of Pittsford, newly appointed, corrections and Institutions

Two more vacancies exist on committees, one on Fish and Wildlife and another on House General, Housing and Military Affairs, for lawmakers yet to be appointed by the governor.

--Nancy Remsen

Labels: politics Vermont Legislature

Members of the Joint Legislative Committee on Health Access Oversight wondered Wednesday how their colleagues on the Joint Fiscal Committee could decide to void the Legislature's decision about expanding eligibility to Catamount Health.

Tuesday, as part of the package of $28 million in budget changes to address problem of shrinking state revenues, the Joint Fiscal Committee agreed to cut the funding necessary to cover two changes in who qualifies for the state's Catamount Health program for the uninsured. The administration also recommended repealing the changes and the committee apparently went along with that suggestion -- for now. The immediate savings would be $81,000, but the future cost is estimated at more than $600,000 a year.

When the Legislature passed the Catamount changes, it directed the Douglas administration to apply by Sept. 1 to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for approval of an amendment to the state's Medicaid waiver that would allow federal dollars to help cover the expenses for this expansion.

Susan Besio, director of the Office of Vermont Health Access, said she is now caught between conflicting directives from legislators. Statute demands she file a letter with CMS, while the Joint Fiscal's vote suggests the application would be pointless.

The health oversight committee felt it had been left out of the loop and some members -- particularly Sen. Doug Racine, D-Chittenden, questioned what authority allowed the Joint Fiscal Committee to reverse a legislative policy decision.

This isn't the first time legislators who aren't on the Joint Fiscal Committee have chafed at the power that panel has -- most notably when budgets cuts are required after the Legislature adjourns.

Rep. Paul Poirier, I-Barre, proposed last winter that the Joint Fiscal Committee be stripped of its power to approve budget cuts. If changes are needed, Poirier said the governor should have to call the full Legislature back into session.

Lawmakers chose instead to rewrite some of the rules for off-season budget decisions, including a new requirement for a public hearing.

For now, however, the Joint Fiscal Committee still has "the power," but legislators on the health access oversight panel have asked for some legal advice about the limits of that power.

Interesting tussle.

-- Nancy Remsen

Labels: Catamount Health, Doug Racine, Joint Fiscal Committee, politics Vermont Legislature