Budget 101

Take a good look at priorities in the tax bracket structure. (4.00 / 2)

Speculative trading transactions could use some reverse incentive as well. First find more revenue, then cuts should be discussed.

Agitate.Liberate.Create.

---

by: vtmarkvt @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 02:41:30 AM UTC

you said (3.88 / 8)

"The next budget, which we call the 2011 budget, is a fiscal year that begins on July 1, 2010. We need to reduce our General Fund spending by $85 million."

With respect, the implication that there are no more dollars available is not true and is an artifact of Trickle Down.  The wealthy have benefitted disproportionately the last 25 years.  Why is the only option to cut essential programs?  And why in the face of such problems did the Leg. cut the top marginal rate for the personal income tax?

To me (and many others), this makes no sense.  The problems we face are serious and require sacrifice.  But why must the sacrifice always be at the bottom?  

I respect your service and know you're trying.  But the options cannot (must not) be limited to further cuts before considering new revenue.

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 03:16:31 AM UTC

If Snelling could do it . . . (3.75 / 4)

So can the D's who have shown that they have a veto proof majority if they band together along with the Ps.  An income tax surcharge is the way to go to get the extra revenue needed.  Interesting that Bartlett says we have to cut $ and doesn't mention the option of raising revenue.  If that's her tune she won't get my vote!

We must maintain the essence of Vermont or we will lose the goose that lays the golden eggs. Contrary to Republican talk radio, Vermont is gaining in high income people.  Its not because we have low taxes.  It is because we are where they want to live.

We need to maintain high quality in our roads, in our environment, in our schools and services.  

It is counter-productive to lay off critical state workers when the demand for their services is greater than ever.

And, I'm tired of hearing about the cost of education when those costs are about a third of health care costs.  Health care costs have been rising about three times as fast as ed costs.  Lately they are rising even faster with no controls, no public votes on the cost, no budget.  Want to save real money . . . go there.

PJ

---

by: Peter Joes @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 03:48:14 AM UTC

All budgets ... (4.00 / 3)

All budgets deal with two essential items: expense and revenue.

It makes absolutely no sense to view the world through an expense only lens.

It's over at http://ramabahama.net ... only it's still under construction (but so is the rest of my life)

---

by: Rama Schneider @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 11:28:42 AM UTC

Thank you for posting (4.00 / 2)

This is good news - glad to hear it:

I plan to post regularly and look forward to hearing from you. It is easy to contact me through my website, www.bartlettforgovernor.com  

I'd like to hear more about comments such as this one:

The next budget, which we call the 2011 budget, is a fiscal year that begins on July 1, 2010. We need to reduce our General Fund spending by $85 million.

1. $85 million projected general fund deficit.
OK, let's all agree that the $85 million number is correct.

The problem therefore is that:  Vermont needs to close a gap of $85 million.

2. Solution: "We need to reduce our General Fund spending by $85 million."

Why is that the solution?
Why is the solution to cut money from general funds?  

Why can't we find another $85 million in additional funds and make no additional cuts, or $75 million in additional funds and cut $10 million? $10 million in the current climate is probably an unreasonable high number given the how badly the State is responding to the needs to move Vermont's economy forward and protect families from falling farther behind.

What is the rationale for what you are proposing?

I respect the difficulty of these problems.

Perhaps there are a few programs that do more harm than good and which can be cut to save the bulk of the $85 million and perhaps there is additional revenue available in excess of $85 million as well?  Maybe there are significant cuts in general fund spending AND the ability to increase general fund spending as well.  Perhaps additional spending in certain areas/programs/initiatives will help insure fiscal stability for both government and the economic climate of the State?

If only one solution is on the table or if other obvious solutions are off the table, let's talk about why that is BEFORE we assume that there is only one solution, i.e., cutting $85 million.

I realize an introductory post is not the best venue to go into all these details.  But please consider whether cutting $85 million is truly necessary given the significant efficiencies, cuts and the bare bones nature of so many critical programs already affected by poor planning during the past seven years.

Thanks for coming to GMD.

sláinte,
cl

-- Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

---

by: Caoimhin Laochdha @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 11:33:32 AM UTC

Same Same? (4.00 / 3)

Susan,  thanks for being out there with your views... as many (most) have already posted, my view is similar.

Please change your views.

The global perspective on the budget has may options for finding a balance.  You seem to advocate only a CUT SPENDING approach.

If I wanted that perspective, If I were happy with that perspective, IF I BELIEVED that was the only option, I would be looking for Jim Douglas to run again-it is afterall the same position he has held in this situation.

Mr Hoffer is correct.  As much as the R's yell about taxing the rich, it is a lot like BurrRabbbit and the briar patch.  Get us to believe if we tax folks who have a large voice, like Jim said about his CEO friends, they will run to the other side of the border.  Let them go.  It is high time the Republican position of taxing those who can least afford to take the tax and have no voice about it is REVERSED by a Strong Voiced Democrat.  One who will VOTE in a Democratic way... One who Fosters democratic ideas and ideals...

So far I only hear those rumblings from the Racine camp.  I urge you to look carefully at where the income and wealth is in this economy as well as in people's pockets.  And go there.

Where is Robin Hood when we need him (or her)????

---

by: hoopmeister @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 14:10:53 PM UTC

As one who saw the crash coming, I question your ability to forecast. (4.00 / 1)

It makes no sense to guess at the future until we assign responsibility for the past, and insist on an accounting.  

We're 2 or 3 trillion upside down on the war on terror.  Who's responsible?  Those who hold hands with the foreign kings whose incompetence breeds terrorism!  Who should pay for the war on terror?  Those who prop up old holdy hands!  

Our economy has collapsed.  Who is responsible?  Those who gave speculators the tools to bet against the average American, and who also gave away the economic tools, making the speculators' bets into winners.  Who should pay for the collapse?  Those who bet against America, and those who gave it away.  

The right is praying for and justifying the death of our president and his family (Google: Psalm 109 Obama), after causing the problems we are facing. The right has baited their trap with Jesus, and switched us back to an older god, variously known as greed, avarice, money, and Mammon.  Now, they conjure up the old god of human sacrifice, Molech, to give Mammon a helping hand.  

We will get by with less every year forever until we return to the truths upon which this country was founded.

That's why I'm not interested in any candidate who won't shout the truth until it's heard.

Issues of money must come later.  Being faithful to Mammon won't free us from him.

We can govern ourselves better than they govern us!

---

by: govt4all @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 21:42:01 PM UTC

The Vermont Card (4.00 / 1)

Someone recently pointed out that Vermonters pay $250 million a year in credit card interest. Then we turn around and pay taxes as well. I think it was Pollina who proposed that the state issue a Vermont Credit Card and put the net revenue into the general fund.

I suppose that much of that $250 million is gouging interest rates and absurd fees, but even if the Vermont Card had a decent interest rate we could easily make up that $85 million. I'd sign up.

The knock on effect of a card with a reasonable rate would be to free up a lot of disposable income in the state. Instead of flowing directly to Citibank, $100 million or so would be available for buying local products and services.

The Vermont Card could also charge lower fees to retailers - every percentage point counts.

Then consider the State Bank of North Dakota, which pumps about $65 million a year into their state coffers. Why not us, if we could pitch aside stale ideology?

 

Minor Heretic
"Damned for 25% of eternity"

---

by: Minor Heretic @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 01:57:54 AM UTC

The problem when Pollina brought it up... (4.00 / 2)

...is that it was presented so front-and-center, as sort of a panacea for our financial problems. That just looked patently goofy.

What I said at the time - and I'll stand by it - is that it probably is a good example of thinking outside of the box, and would be a great item to include in a package of out-of-the-box ideas. That would look like cleverness and innovation.

Hanging out there all on its own like that, it sent precisely the opposite message; that the candidate had nuthin.


Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 03:09:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I can't (0.00 / 0)

speak to the "message" or how it was perceived by others, but I don't recall anyone else tackling issues like this

you can fixate on how it was presented (not inconsequential) or you can use it as a point of departure for a deeper discussion

this is a new challenge and a new opportunity; I'm not sure why it's helpful to focus on your misgivings about Anthony's campaign; that's old news

lets focus on how the current candidates would address this problem (and others)

BTW - we've now had two diaries on or about important issues commented on by two of the five candidates; is it just me or is it disappointing that neither Deb or Susan chose to respond on GMD? is this a one-way conversation or what?

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 04:21:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"I'm not sure why it's helpful..." (0.00 / 0)

"...to focus on your misgivings about Anthony's campaign; that's old news"

Heretic brought it up. I responded. That's how it works around here, as well as in normal conversation.

One could also throw in that well-worn Santayana quote at this point.

Hopefully Susan will respond... has Deb posted here yet, though? It's entirely possible. I miss a lot here. I'd thought that Susan and Matt Dunne were the olnly candidates that had posted here thusfar.

At any rate, I'm about to send them all the list of questions folks here generated some time back. I'll be sure to post the responses in toto (including big blank spots for any that don't respond).

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 04:54:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

the idea (4.00 / 1)

came from The Leaky Bucket (Phase 6 of the Job Gap Study), which I wrote and was published in 2000 (that's where the $250m figure came from but it was a bit less than that at the time); the intent was to stimulate discussion about the outflow of money and whether some (if not all) of the interst could be retained in VT; as it turns out, the industry is so concentrated that it's extremely unlikely that a tiny place like VT could overcome the barriers to entry in the market

Anthony's response was to suggest that a VT card could be used (like other vanity cards) to siphon a little slice of the transaction fees to be directed to good works here at home

I suppose it has merit but it's just nibbling at the edge of the bigger problem; in consumer credit (like so many other ways), we are at the mercy of huge forces beyond our control; some can be addressed here (energy & ag) but others will require regional solutions

but the politics are so daunting that it's easy (and understandable) for people to just throw up their hands

the good news is that this issue offers an opportunity for citizens and policy makers to call the question: namely, in what ways do globalization and capital mobility limit our ability to control our economic future and how, if at all, can we respond?

a state bank is one possibility; I encourage all GMD readers to challenge the Dem gubernatorial contenders to address this issue; are we stuck with business as usual or does anyone have the courage to speak honestly about our dependency on forces beyond our control? when do we begin the honest discussion about the nature of our problems and the challenges and opportunities ahead?

BTW - the state bank in N. Dakota is not a "retail" operation

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 04:12:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nibbles are good ... (0.00 / 0)

especially when we have so many problems taking bites.

It's over at http://ramabahama.net ... only it's still under construction (but so is the rest of my life)

---

by: Rama Schneider @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:34:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

As you can see, we appreciate your effort to post here, Sen. Bartlett. (4.00 / 4)

But I have to go with the consensus here.  There isn't a lot that can be harmlessly "trimmed" from the budget at this point.  It's time to ask those who have the most to pony-up for the good of the entire population.  That is the whole point of statehood, we associate together because of our shared needs, so that we may share our resources in order to better meet those needs.  It may not always be a pleasant exercise, when those that have significantly more are asked to contribute more; but poverty and disadvantage do not just bring down the indivduals who are poor and disadvantaged, they  are a blight on the entire population rich and poor. Cutting back further on the social safety net or on essential services at a time like this would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

---

by: Sue Prent @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 03:10:23 AM UTC

Excellent Comments here, thank you Senator. (4.00 / 2)

Thank you Senator Bartlett, for your candidacy, your tireless public service on Appropriations, and for bringing your perspective on our serious budget situation to GMD.

I hope you will continue to honestly engage the Dem base/left constituencies in your campaign and beyond.

I appreciated hearing you on VT Edition going a bit deeper then other candidates (thus far) and beyond the rhetoric; into the nitty-gritty of how gov't actually works. This is an excellent forum for that sort of discussion. I hope you'll choose to engage even more with perhaps a comment or two on this diary. It would be very much appreciated.

I also agree with the majority (here) that it's vitally important that we consider revenue in any budgetary discussion. The comments here have been substantively above the par and pointed for this forum in terms of policy analysis.

Please help this discussion move even further with comment. Prompting real discussion, which leads to action is, in my view, the most valuable contribution that electoral candidates give to our democracy.

Thanks again!

---

by: Ivan Jacobs @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:13:54 AM UTC

Voice from the Right (on this blog...I'm really just a normal Democrat) (4.00 / 1)

Amen to all comments.  You never take any option off the table before you start negotiating.  No one is leaving the state because their taxes are up 2, 5 or even 10% -- especially if it's sunset in 5 years as happened in the 90s.  I think everyone will agree that there is some percentage (although I know we won't agree on what that is) where people will hesitate to come, or move across the NH border.  But no reasonable politician is going to suggest any such rates; and to rule out all tax increases is just plain wrong.

I also resent very strongly any notion that the education fund is there for the use of the governor and legislature to do with as they please.  This may not be the way you meant it to come out, but I've heard this too much in the last 10 years.  That fund is there to pay for schooling.  Period.  If we collect more than we need (as we did 8 years in a row) you rebate it to property tax payers.  Period.  Teachers, administrators and school board members are hypersensitive to any suggestions otherwise...and I don't think you can win the Democratic nomination without them.

---

by: Tom C @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 14:11:19 PM UTC

my thoughts (4.00 / 1)

I appreciate that Senator Bartlett made the effort to post here.   I also appreciate that she is not focusing on raising revenue, which has been suggested.

One of the things that struck me when I moved to Vermont two years ago is how peculiar the fees are.

In some states, you only re-register a car when the car changes hands, and driver's licenses last ten years.   In Vermont, auto registration and licenses must be re-renewed every two years.   I asked Senator Bartlett about that, and she told me it was to raise revenue.

In Vermont, there are fees in many situations where the state is not doing anything for the money -- just collecting it.  For example, if you're a victim of a crime and told to install a security system, the state of Vermont collects a $50 fee from you EVERY year, and provides nothing.   Any law enforcement response is handled by the local agency the town contracted with, often the VSP, and already covered in your local taxes.

In Vermont, a crime victim must pay $20 to get a copy of her crime report.  In many states, a crime victim only pays 25 cents, copying costs.  Keep in mind crime victims have usually already suffered economic damages.  The crime report was already prepared in police work, so nothing about the situation costs the state $20.  (I'm not even sure this is legal, since most crime victim assistance money comes from the federal govt, which has many regulations for how to treat crime victims.)  Sen. Bartlett told me she would look into it.

Vermont is commonly called a "progressive" state, but I think these fees are not progressive.   I have a hunch Vermont might have run out of fees that make sense.  

---

by: mtnclimber @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 15:58:35 PM UTC

fees (4.00 / 1)

are most certainly not progressive (and it's a subject worthy of discussion)

however, bigger problems include the municipal property tax and the sales & use tax; together, these two dwarf the fees you're referring to and account for almost $700 million per year in revenues

although we may not have been clear in our comments about the need for new revenue, I suspect none of us would support efforts to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $200,000 to $300,000 per year; that means no increases in fees; the only fair way is to bump the top marginal rate (temporarily or otherwise); that IS progressive, especially since the top rate doesn't kick in until the first dollar over $367,000

unfortunately, the Leg. just reduced the top marginal rate as part of a deal to (almost) eliminate the 40% capital gains exclusion

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 21:40:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I hear you (4.00 / 1)

The dollar amount of taxes dwarfs the amount in fees.

But the fees in Vermont stand out for many reasons:  they are much higher in VT, they are more common in VT it seems, and the fees seem out of place in a state that considers itself progressive.

Fees nearly always disproportionately impact poor people, while income based taxes are more progressive.

As a newcomer, I think Vermont is doing a poor job addressing this.   I am really curious about the legislative history of the statute setting a $20 fee for a crime victim to get a copy of her report.  In next door NY, the law states a crime victim can only be charged copying costs, a quarter.  

---

by: mtnclimber @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 22:24:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

look (4.00 / 1)

to Jim Douglas, who has advocated higher fees for years because he gets to say "I didn't raise taxes" (sadly, the Leg. has often gone along); at the same time, he advocates lowering the tax rates (especially on the wealthy), which results in lower revenues, which in turn forces the Leg. to cut programs

it's Grover Norquist's wet dream
we know why Jim Douglas does it; the question is why the Dem-dominated Leg. has gone along

in any case, these are some of the most important questions we must ask the candidates

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 22:35:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm some of us (0.00 / 0)

I suspect none of us would support efforts to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $200,000 to $300,000 per year;

In my rather humble opinion, I think that statement is quite elitist.

When I see families that live and thrive on the median income in Vermont, people that are living on almost twice the median income (a little over $100K) are doing fine and can certainly afford to spend a bit more in income tax to ensure that the truly needy get the services they need.

I'd be in favor of a 10% or even a 20% income tax surcharge across the board to help accomplish that goal and I make quite a bit less than the $200K talked about above.

PJ

---

by: Peter Joes @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 00:51:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I fail (4.00 / 1)

to see why we should raise taxes on families at $100k
many of these are simply two teachers or a cop and an RN
why should these folks (whose incomes have not increased the way they have for the wealthy) have to bear this burden?

and applying a flat surcharge across the board (as you suggested) is certainly not progressive

$100k sounds like a lot to most of us but the livable wage for a family with two kids is almost $100k (childcare alone is $10k - $12k per year, to say nothing of college expenses if the kids are older)

finally, I would be surprised if there are many families "thriving" on the median income; how do you define "thriving"?

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 12:50:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

explanation (0.00 / 0)

People without work are really struggling.  Important parts of state government are becoming disfunctional and unable to serve the people they are intended to help.  

There is clearly a crisis and I think we all need to chip in and help. In Vermont, people that have good steady jobs and are earning $100K, at least in rural Vermont, are considered more or less wealthy.

They can certainly afford to kick in an extra $500 to make sure the truly needy are taken care of.  Instead the push will be to allow property taxes to increase - - bad idea along with additional cuts to services - - also bad idea.

Just putting a tax surcharge on the wealthiest has no chance of passing through the legislative process.

We clearly have a difference of perspective on this issue.

PJ

---

by: Peter Joes @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 14:56:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

will (4.00 / 1)

Thanks Susan for coming out on here about the mysteries of the budget that baffle us lay folks.  Your family example was great, except that it forgot the stimulus, federal matching funds, and all the rest of it. But, as has been said here, it is time for those that have benefited so well from the tax cuts to the rich that every president since Reagan has either tried to or shoved through in the face of starting wars.  We can start with Douglas and Salmon, cutting all those state jobs,while refusing to cut their own salaries and benefits in the process.  

We can start there -- that is if the legislature has the political will to do it.  

For one, as one earlier post mentioned, if we jettison our free-market health care system, that will save more than enough to make up for this economic disaster that the GOP left us in.  Education expenses are raising property taxes beyond sanity because expenses for health care alone, just to feed those $7.25 million retirement packages for Blue Cross executives, and health care expenses are drowning school budgets.  The taxpayer pays for the school's health care, then pays for the state's health care, and cannot get insurance or pays for their own health care in addition to what they are already paying.  Stop this and look at how much cash you will save. Start saving where it means something, not cutting essential services for economically strapped people while the rich enjoy the taxes we pay them.

Again, we have to have the political will to do this, which I doubt that Vermont has.  


When you wake up each morning look around you.  It might be the last time you get to do it.  

---

by: Watercloset @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:44:12 AM UTC