( – promoted by odum)

In his op-ed piece in Sunday’s Times-Argus Jim Douglas 1) lies about the good faith offers state employees have made to ease the state’s financial woes, and 2) lies about the salaries Vermonters are asked to pay their state employees for the quality services upon which they rely.

Jim Douglas writes (emphasis mine):

With the average state employee making over $71,000 a year with benefits and in light of two consecutive pay raises over the course of the recession…it is not unreasonable to ask state employees to make some sacrifices to preserve the workforce and help struggling Vermonters afford their government…

How convenient that Douglas fails to mention VSEA’s February 2009 cost savings proposal.  In that proposal, VSEA offered to give up two years worth of cost-of-living pay raises as well as delay contractual “step” pay raises.  The offer was rejected by the governor, who is more interested in pursuing his job cutting ideology than in actually saving the state money.  Now he has the gall to accuse the VSEA of receiving the very pay raises they sought to refuse!

He continues:

In effect, the average Vermonter working in the private sector who earns under $50,000 a year and likely has not seen a raise during this recession, is being asked to pay state workers who make $20,000 a year more and had two raises in the last two years.

Although it’s difficult to tell for sure from his manipulatively vague language, it appears that Douglas is comparing an average state employee salary INCLUDING benefits to an average private sector employee NOT INCLUDING benefits – as if these two statistics are comparable.

The Burlington Free Press lists salaries for all state employees by name and job title (http://miva.burlingtonfreepress.com/miva/cgi bin/miva?SOVWageform.mv).  According to the Free Press numbers, there were 8689 state employees (including Governor Douglas) as of October 2008.  5216, well over half, earned less than $50,000 (not including benefits, which are not available from the Free Press site).  

One thing that is quite clear from perusing the Free Press site is that many of the 890 state employees earning top salaries (greater than $70,000 plus benefits) are non-union, “exempt” employees – i.e. employees not eligible for membership in VSEA;  the Commissioners, Agency Secretaries, and PR hacks whose numbers have increased disproportionately under Douglas’ governance.  Douglas doesn’t indicate where his “average state employee making over $71,000 a year with benefits” figure comes from.  But the relevant statistic would actually be the average VSEA-eligible state employees making over (fill in the blank) a year with benefits, which Douglas does not cite.  It’s the VSEA-eligible employees whose jobs are on the line and whose bargaining representatives have offered generous but fair concessions to ease the state’s budget deficit.

To claim that Vermonters earning $50,000 are being asked to pay exorbitant salaries to state employees who “make $20,000 more” is a gross misrepresentation based on deceptive math.  Vermont’s rank and file state employees are not overpaid.  In fact, Vermont’s public payroll per capita ranks 27th in the country – about average (see http://www.greenmountaindaily….

Douglas is correct that Vermonters are suffering.  Indeed, I agree that “it is not unreasonable to ask state employees to make some sacrifices to preserve the workforce and help struggling Vermonters afford their government.”  VSEA has repeatedly and sincerely offered to make just such sacrifices during the past few months.  Douglas has rejected them all – in pursuit of his mission to gut vital state services.  Please don’t fall for it.

( – promoted by odum)

According to today’s Bennington Banner, Arlington Democrat Cynthia Browning’s “no” vote on the same-sex marriage bill

had nothing to do with religion, but rather the fundamental purpose of marriage. “It’s not based on religion. It’s actually based on a view of how our society works … on an anthropological basis,” she said.

Browning needs to do her Anthropology homework.  Anthropologists have thoroughly debunked the notion that “traditional marriage between one man and one woman” is, or necessarily should be, the norm for human societies.  

Here’s the February 26, 2004 statement by the executive board of the American Anthropological Association (the world’s largest Anthropological organization) in response to Bush’s proposal of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage:

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

http://www.aaanet.org/issues/p…

There is no evidence that legalizing gay marriage will destabilize or dehumanize society.  However, there is plenty of evidence and ample historical precedent that shows that prejudice and discrimination DO destabilize and dehumanize society.  We’ll all be better off when civil marriage is universally available.

Since Cynthia Browning’s “no” vote was apparently based on a faulty premise, she has every reason to reverse her decision and vote in favor of the override.

With all the talk of bloated Douglas appointee salaries and impending state employee job cuts, I wondered, how does Vermont’s government employee payroll compare with that of other states?

The U.S. Census bureau collects state and local government employment and payroll data annually (http://www.census.gov/govs/www/apesstl.html).  The most recent data available are for the March 2007 payroll.

According to my analysis, Vermont ranked 27th among the 50 states for total public employee payroll (adjusted for state population; includes all salaries, wages, fees, commissions, bonuses, and awards paid to non-education related public employees).  Vermont ranked fourth among New England States, behind Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island.

Thus, the overall burden Vermont’s public employee payroll places on its citizens is about average.  

Of course, I don’t in any way mean to imply that certain top officials in Vermont’s state government aren’t paid excessively – especially when you consider that the number of Douglas-appointed “exempt” employees has grown almost twice as fast as the number of “classified” union employees (http://www.vsea.org/sites/vsea.org/files/funfacts_0.pdf).  The hypocrisy of hand-wringing about the cost of state government while at the same time creating numerous new highly-compensated appointed positions, speaks for itself.

However, the overall public employee payroll is not the source of Vermont’s budget problems; nor should shrinking it be the solution.

(I echo Doug’s comment: nicely done.  It’s good to start the news cycle of 2009 with something of substance. – promoted by JulieWaters)

“…a lie which is half a truth is ever the blackest of lies”

Alfred, Lord Tennyson

In a recent editorial (December 29) the Rutland Herald asserts that “Given that we have far more state employees per capita than other New England states, it’s hard to imagine there’s no fat to be trimmed from the state budget.”

It’s hardly surprising – given the paucity of honest analysis regarding the current economic crisis – that no evidence is provided by the Rutland Herald to support this claim.  

No matter:  true or not, I’m sure that this assertion will be trotted out more than once over the next few weeks to justify the proposed cuts in state government.

Well, is it true that Vermont has far more state employees per capita than other New England states?

It’s only a half truth and therefore, the blackest of lies:  Don’t believe it!

It is true that Vermont has a relatively high number of state employees per capita.  I emphasize “state”, because based on my analysis of the US Census bureau data released in November (http://www.census.gov/govs/www/apes.html), when education is excluded, Vermont is 35th among states in the number of government employees per capita (combined state and local).  That places Vermont fourth among New England states, after Rhode Island, Maine, and Massachusetts.  The drop in standing from 6th place to 35th place among U.S. states is simple:  Vermont is 50th – dead last –  among states in local government employees per capita (excluding education related employees).  (Note:  Vermont’s spending on education is a valid issue for discussion, but one that is entirely separate from the current debate about cutting state workers).

Comparing state government employees per capita among the 50 states is thorny because the different states vary greatly in their apportionment of services among state and local (county and municipal) jurisdictions. Unlike many other states, Vermont lacks a significant county-level government structure and, as already noted, has few municipal employees per capita.  The burden falls at the state level:  many Vermont towns rely on significant state government services (e.g. state police rather than municipal police force).

So, the Rutland Herald’s assertion is misleading and irresponsible.

To quote Doug Hoffer:  “Wouldn’t it be nice if important public policy debates were based on facts?”