Sorry, Governor, I can’t agree.

Governor Shumlin is again calling for budget cuts to forestall proposed tax increases in the latest end-of-session jockeying with the Legislature. Here's what he says on his web page:

I feel that the income tax changes being considered are not geared toward improving our economy or Vermonters’ prosperity. Instead of making these changes and asking working Vermonters to pay more in income taxes, I feel we should do everything we can to reduce spending further and avoid these increases. My message is simple: Let’s find additional spending reductions before we ask Vermonters to pay more income taxes.      

 I think he's dead wrong here. Look at the cuts he's talking about. The big ticket items that advocates are criticizing include: 

$2.87 million in state employee payroll. (On top of the cuts they're already taking.)

$2 million in cuts to weatherization. 

 All to avoid some moderately progressive tax changes.

It's not everything, but by limiting itemized deductions in general, and the mortgage interest deduction in particular, you're holding harmless the generally lower-income segments of the taxpaying public who can't take advantage of these tax benefits.

At this late date, I say save the programs and raise the money from taxes. 

 

3 thoughts on “Sorry, Governor, I can’t agree.

  1. We all know that is code for the weealthy in Vermont, because no one else is any imminent danger of experiencing “prosperity” with or without the proposed tax increases.

    Let’s call a spade a spade, Governor:  Your plea to hold back taxes is not in any way in the interests of working class Vermonters, who have long ago checked any dreams of “prosperity” at the door.  

    They just want a decent paying job, decent infrastructure to make their daily life less stressful, an education for their kids, opportunities to keep their basic expenses under control (for instance weatherization programs),  human services when they are in crisis, and an equitable future for everyone.  You can’t give them the basis things they need and work for without asking the “prosperous” to chip in a little more generously.

    After all, those privileged people whose prosperity you are so anxious to defend are the very people who benefit most when the needs of the poorer classes, who labor for them and support that prosperity as consumers, are adequately met.

  2. “After all, those privileged people whose prosperity you are so anxious to defend are the very people who benefit most when the needs of the poorer classes, who labor for them and support that prosperity as consumers, are adequately met.”

    Maybe this is a subtle pitch for campaign donations, since the class being protected here are the ones who attend the $1,000 a plate dinners.  The rest of us, well….they don’t care.  

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *