Racine on Challenges for Change

[Chris Santee]

submitted to the Fairfax News, by Doug Racine

Proposed Changes Are a Good Idea Gone Bad
Challenges for Change is a bait and switch tactic

"Challenges for Change" is a good idea gone bad. The bait and switch is now evident.  It was advertised as a way for state government to achieve better outcomes with less money, but the reality is proving much different from the spin. The result of many of the proposed changes will be cost-shifting to local communities, less enforcement of laws that protect our quality of life, and less access to services our families need. In other words, worse, rather than better, outcomes.

Releasing non-violent offenders is a good goal that will save state money, but we must think through the consequences and understand that our local communities will face higher costs to support these folks as they come back into the community. We cannot just release them and count that as a savings.

It's possible that we could be more efficient in our economic development strategies, but simply eliminating regional development corporations and regional planning commissions to consolidate them into state-sponsored agencies takes focus away from our local communities, where economic development needs to happen. It also takes away local control.

Certainly, the permit process could be more streamlined; however, shifting the responsibility for permit review to private business and reducing enforcement efforts is not the answer. The proposals in "Challenges" may actually result in a slower permit process and more pollution, just as the water quality of Lake Champlain is getting worse.

In addition, "Challenges" does not even achieve the targeted savings. Even if all of the proposed changes were acceptable, we would not achieve the $38 million in savings that we need.

Despite this shortfall and despite the consequences of the changes, "Challenges" is being pushed through the legislative process at breakneck speed. I reject this crisis mentality. We have other options. We should use those options and make a thorough examination of the proposals before us in "Challenges."

The architects of "Challenges for Change" have created an apparent emergency to rush the proposals through, claiming that the only other choice is severe cuts to essential services. We have money paid by taxpayers sitting in the state's piggy bank - the rainy day fund - that could be used for some of the budget gap that is to be filled with "Challenges" changes. We are also expecting to receive more federal Medicaid money that can be used to fill other holes in the budget.

As a committee chair, my responsibility is to thoroughly consider any proposals put before me through the committee process. Many of my colleagues in both the House and Senate share my concerns and are beginning to ask serious questions about the reasons for and the consequences of these proposals. Any wholesale changes to our service delivery system must be examined carefully - both to determine whether savings will actually be achieved and also to ensure that Vermonters retain access to services they need.

I will not allow these changes to be made unless the process is thorough, transparent, and truthful. Some of the ideas in "Challenges for Change" are good ones, and they must be examined, considered thoughtfully, and implemented. However, we must not make these changes in haste and without deliberation, despite the challenge. Vermonters deserve better from us.

##30##

Doug Racine is a candidate for Governor and a Vermont state senator, chairing the Health and Welfare Committee and serving on the Economic Development Committee. He is serving his 7th term in the Senate, including 4 years as President Pro Tem, and he also served 6 years as Lieutenant Governor. He is a lifelong Vermonter and a small business owner. More information at www.dougracine.com.

[cedarman]

I see a fear of change approach taken to tearing apart this proposal, but NO solutions offered.  Typical politician and critic.  It's easy to tear apart ideas and put on the brakes, but a lot harder to actually develop some productive solutions.

Keep Cutting.  Continue to cut budgets of state Agencies and force them to figure out how to do more with less - that's what we are being forced to do in the business world, state agencies should do the same.  YES, it will mean some more government job losses, BUT government cannot get smaller and more efficient WITHOUT some hard cuts.   

As citizens supporting this monstrous government, we should be demanding more efficient use of our money. We shouldn't give our kids more and more money just because they say the "need" it.  We shouldn't allow our government to keep demanding more and more and more and more and more . . .

Elect politicians who are willing to make some difficult cuts. Don't elect those who have a history of voting in favor of "entitlement" programs.

[Loctavious]

a wiseman once said complaining about something without offering a solution is whining.  Offering possible solutions is legitmately seeking collaborative change.